1985-01-31

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications) moved: , seconded by Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth), 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. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis, on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may point out that the motion requires two Ministers, not one Minister and one Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. Speaker:: It is normal, when there are two Ministers in the House, that a Minister moves and a Minister seconds. There is no other requirement that I know of in the Standing Orders. When a Bill is being moved, a Minister must move it, that is true; but there is no limitation I know of on who can be the seconder. I can seek another seconder. If the Hon. Member is worried about the Parliamentary Secretary being the seconder, then some other Hon. Member may second it, if that is the issue.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I have only been here for 12 years but I have seen an occasion when it takes at least two Ministers to propose and second a Bill which entails expenditures. I believe they can do it with unanimous consent and we would not withhold consent as long as there was unanimous consent to do it. In other words, I would not want to create a precedent.


Mr. Speaker:: My problem is that I know of no rule which prevents it, so I do not see a need to do it by unanimous consent. However, if it suits the House to do it that way, we will do it that way.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, by providing a veritable framework for this country's economic, intellectual and cultural pursuits, our national telecommunications and broadcasting system is undoubtedly one of the strongest ties that bind Canadians together.
This system, which is unequalled in the whole world, is one of our most brilliant achievements and embodies the prophetic vision of men like Sir John A. Macdonald and R. B. Bennett. It is also the result of active co-operation between the private and public sectors, which together have taken advantage of new technologies and have harmonized their efforts with those of our regulatory agencies.
The Bill to amend the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission Act, Bill C-20, marks an important phase in the development of telecommunications in Canada. The purpose of this Bill is, basically, to clarify and regulate the sharing of powers and to seek a proper balance between the Government's objectives and those of the regulatory agency and our telecommunications system.
Before going into the details of this Bill, I would like to touch briefly on the history and present situation of telecommunications, legislation and regulatory measures in this country.
Canada's broadcasting policy has been evolving ever since the first radio broadcast in 1919. In the twenties, radio broadcasting was developing so fast that there was utter confusion on the airwaves, and it became clear that a set of regulations would be needed. In 1928, the first Canadian Royal Commission on Radio Broadcasting was formed.
The Royal Commission, chaired by Sir John Aird, recommended setting up a national broadcasting system. A report was submitted in 1929 under the Liberal Prime Minister Mackenzie King, who was unable to act on the recommendations before the end of his term. It was therefore up to the Progressive Conservative Government under Prime Minister Bennett to act, which it did by tabling the first Canadian legislation on radio broadcasting in the House of Commons.
Here is what the Prime Minister said when he tabled the broadcasting Bill:

CRTC Act
This country must have absolute control over Canadian broadcasting, without interference or influence from foreigners. Without such control, broadcasting cannot be the vehicle to convey national aspirations and unity. Only state ownership of the system will guarantee the people of this country, without reference to class or locality, equal benefits from broadacsting.
He went on to say:
It may be that in the future, when science is even further adanced, it will be desirable to make other arrangements.
It was therefore the Progressive Conservative Government of R.B. Bennett which established the predecessor of the CBC, then the Canadian Broadcasting Commission.
When the Conservatives took office in 1957, they came to the conclusion that the Broadcasting Act, dating back to the former Bennett Conservative administration, was already 22 years old and no longer met current needs. The private sector had expanded considerably and was anxious to play a larger role in the growing broadcasting system. The public sector, acting as both regulatory agency and broadcaster, was in a position to regulate its own competitors. Such blatant conflicts of interests could not be perpetuated.
The Diefenbaker Government therefore took steps to steer a new course in the broadcasting field. It introduced a piece a legislation which, for the first time, made a clear-cut distinction between regulatory and broadcasting operations. It established the Board of Broadcast Governors, which was eventually replaced by today's Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC.
As to the CRTC, it was set up in two stages: First, the Canadian Radio-television Commission was created by Parliament in 1968 under the Broadcasting Act, replacing the Board of Broadcast Governors. Second, the responsibility for regulating telecommunications was transferred from the Canadian Transport Commission to the Canadian Radio-television Commission in 1976, under the Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act.
The Commission's major responsibility is to regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system for the purpose of implementing the broadcasting policy stated in Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 states, among other things, and I quote:
-the objectives of the broadcasting policy for Canada ... can best be achieved by providing for the regulation and supervision of the Canadian broadcasting system by a single independent public authority.
Following the Second World War, the technology of telecommunication has undergone constant and important changes in all aspects. By reason more especially of recent achievements in computer technology, digitalization and interconnection have brought far-reaching changes in our telephone networks, at a time when the telephone, telegraph and computer industries were opening up to competition. Technological progress has been such that the traditional differences between
those services have been virtually overshadowed. In the meantime, Canadians, foreseeing the new prospects of novel technologies have been requesting increased services, at affordable prices, of course.
If the array of new computer technologies can on the one hand help us reach our goals with respect to telecommunications, whether for the assertion of our Canadian identity and cultural traits, for this country's unification, for a greater opening to the world, or for achieving closer links with our remote communities, it does on the other hand present legislators and regulating agencies, among others, with a major challenge, because this is actually the responsibility of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
Our legislative and regulatory mechanism, the essential part of which was implemented more than 17 years ago, could not foresee the current technological upheavals. Clearly it is outdated as to the cultural, economic and social potential of high technologies. If it is not to become a barrier against economic growth, technological innovation, and cultural development, we must at all costs bring it in line with today's realities, whether it is deregulation in the United States and its impact on Canada, or the spectacular developments in satellite services. In the area of telecommunications and broadcasting, the time for a change has come.
As my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), stated in his economic statement last November 8, and I quote:
There is a clear need for a national telecommunications policy to take advantage of the opportunities presented by rapidly advancing technology and the growing demand by Canadians for new telecommunications services.
Why is this? Because, as the Minister of Finance explained, the telecommunications sector, perhaps more than any other in Canada at the present time, offers opportunities for important market-driven innovation, if governments' regulatory interventions are kept to an essential minimum. Through regulatory reform, government can spur innovation and provide a major stimulus to the Canadian economy.
Indeed, for us deregulation will not mean unfair competition, because we firmly intend to proceed gradually and responsibly. Is telephony not in fact a field where competition is now proving its usefulness? Since the 50's, Canadians have enjoyed the benefits of competitive development by CN-CP Telecommunications and telephone companies of ultrahigh frequency facilities.
As far as terminals are concerned, consumers and businesses have had the option since 1980 to choose to purchase their equipment from a great number of suppliers or to rent it from their local telephone company. For subscribers, this competition means a much greater choice of sets, lower prices and a multitude of new ideas in phone design. As for switched services, CNCP Telecommunications obtained the right in
January 31, 1985

1979 to set up an interconnection with Bell telephone system, thus allowing them to provide this type of service as well for data transmission for instance. In 1981, this interconnection right was extended to British Columbia Telephone. The CRTC has just concluded a series of public hearings and is considering a request of CNCP for an interconnection with Bell and BC Telephone to provide long distance telephone services to the public. Faced with these increasing pressures and to allow more competition in a sector which has traditionally been very strictly regulated, the government has undertaken to review its telecommunications policy in 1985 and is now looking at the state of competition in this field.
Another example of a regulated sector is that of satellite signals. Since 1983, individuals no longer require a radio permit to use a dish antenna to receive programs which are not retransmitted. Provided they do not redistribute the signals, taverns and hotel bars can also use a dish antenna without applying for a radio or television broadcasting permit.
On December 20, 1984, I announced a revamping of the regulatory policy for satellite signals to benefit small television broadcasting systems and help badly served communities to gain access to a greater variety of programs. In addition to helping the television broadcasting industry and interested consumers, this initiative will make the Canadian television broadcasting system more flexible and stronger.
As for our commitment to continue to regulate where necessary, a good example of this can be found in the measures I will introduce to provide the CRTC with the necessary power to control abusive programming. I shall speak further on this question in a few moments.
There will be two underlying guidelines to our telecommunications policy:
First, everyone involved will automatically be consulted. In doing so, we shall certainly be breaking ground with regard to the development of our country's telecommunications policy. These consultations are necessary because, to paraphrase Montesquieu, "the intent of laws depends on whether you live before or beyond the mountains".
[DOT] (U20)
Secondly, in all cases where deregulation will not be prejudicial to the interests of Canadian consumers, we will deregulate.
The bill which we have submitted for your consideration is therefore the first stage of a basic review of the legislative and regulatory framework of our telecommunications system. Its passage is of the highest importance if the government is to have the powers it needs to make our regulations more flexible or even repeal them in the case of services that can be left open to free competition although some form of regulated competition could also be considered. The bill is in effect a general framework which will allow us to implement the necessary
CRTC Act
reforms and carry out the reshaping of our telecommunication policy.
Let us consider now the main provisions of the bill.
Part I of the bill amends the CRTC Act to enable the Governor in Council to give binding policy directions. Those directions would be laid before Parliament and it would have the opportunity to take them under advisement before they are formally put into effect.
Although the 1968 legislation setting up the CRTC did not generally grant that power to the government, I think it is necessary today to specify that the government and not the CRTC should develop the broadcasting and telecommunication policies. That position is supported by the provinces, the industry and the Commission itself. Moreover, it was ratified by the Lambert Commission and one of its specific recommendations was as follows:
The constituent acts of Independent Deciding and Advisory Bodies contain provisions allowing for policy directives from the Governor in Council.
This principle was also supported in 1980 by a special parliamentary committee of the House of Commons on Regulatory Reform as follows:
-that Cabinet can issue binding policy directives ... to the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission.
The relation between the government and the Commission has been under review for many years. If there is an aspect that the review and public debate have brought out, it is that the government should be responsible for the drawing up of policy and that the CRTC should be in charge of its implementation within the legislative framework set up by Parliament. The division of powers between the government and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission reflects the democratic principle that the government alone is entitled to develop the main policies of the country because of its accountability to the electorate through Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Masse: The government having the power to give formal directions to the CRTC, will implement its policy in the telecommunication and broadcasting areas. If it did not have that power, it could have no influence on the development of policy and consequently could not be called to account. As in the present legislation, it could only react after the fact and ask for reconsideration of specific decisions made by the CRTC.
But, as Cardinal de Richelieu so aptly said, and I quote:
Thus, Ministers of State must often remind themselves that it is more important to consider the future than the present, and that it is easier to anticipate problems than after one is faced with them.
I strongly believe that by making the government accountable for the policy to Parliament, we will eliminate a number of ambiguities such as the parabolic antennas, ambiguities

January 31, 1985
CRTC Act
which create major obstacles to the dynamic development of this industry.
In my opinion, the government must implement measures designed to encourage and help Canadians to take risks and compete in making telecommunications equipment, producing television programs and developing the many products that will be required by the new communication environment. The responsibility of the government to provide such a favourable framework goes hand in hand with its accountability to Parliament.
Part I of this bill also adds to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act Subsection 14.6, which enables the Governor in Council to direct the Commission to deregulate the telecommunication services which can be provided on a competitive basis. Invested with this authority, the government will be able to decide whether it is in the public interest not to regulate a number of telecommunications services within a monopolistic structure because of the competitive character of the market. I have in mind for instance the cellular mobile radio telephones. The nature of this technology is such that these services could be provided by competitive organizations. It would be therefore illogical to regulate, under monopolistic principles, services such as these which allow for a more competitive system.
Part I provides also that the Governor in Council may order a deregulation if he is of the opinion that a service is subject to a degree of competition sufficient to ensure just and reasonable tolls, rates or charges.
Mr. Speaker, I could not overemphasize the fact that, in our mind, the deregulation powers should always be used with a good measure of judgment. The government would have first to convince itself that such a measure is justified before ordering the CRTC to implement it.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate to all Hon. Members that while introducing a power to give instructions and a power to order deregulation, the government remains aware of the need to prevent any abuse. I should like to remind them that this bill contains four safeguards in this end: First, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Government will not be able to issue directions limiting freedom of speech; second, the Bill specifically prohibits the Government from issuing directions in respect of the issuance of a broadcasting licence to a particular person or the amendment or renewal of a licence; third, the Minister of Communications shall consult with the CRTC before directions are issued by the Government to the Commission; fourth, to allow for parliamentary and public consideration of the directions, it is provided that such directions must be laid before Parliament and referred to the appropriate committee, and that they will not become effective until thirty days after Parliament was notified thereof. This measure will enable Parliament and the Canadian
public to consider carefully all directions before they are implemented.
Parliament has a major role to play in ensuring that the Government accounts for its policies and facilitates the public's participating in the debate. I think parliamentary committees are the key to the Government's accountability. Committees can summon witnesses, including Ministers of the Crown, and ask for any clarification, explanations and guarantees deemed necessary. They provide an excellent forum for Canadians who wish to make their views on official policy known to their representatives. I am convinced that the guarantees provided by the Bill and applying to the power to issue directions and the power to order deregulation ensure the Government will remain accountable and promote healthy and active involvement by all Canadians.
Part II of the Bill provides for a new policy objective that will become part of Section 3 of the Broadcasting Act. This objective concerns programming of an abusive nature, and its purpose is to define the CRTC's responsibility in this respect. It will be an incentive to broadcasters to be increasingly aware of the problem, and here is the wording:
"(c. 1) the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should respect and promote the equality and dignity of all individuals, groups or classes of individuals regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability;"
I should think it is imperative to pass legislation to make absolutely sure that there is no room for abusive programs within the Canadian broadcasting system. The Speech from the Throne reaffirmed the Government's commitment to ensure that social justice in Canada would progress at the same pace as the needs of Canadians. It did contain an announcement concerning this measure which is aimed at eliminating those abusive programs.
In its June 1984 report, the parliamentary sub-committee on sexually abusive broadcasting recommended that we add to Broadcasting Act Section 3 a provision stating that programs must advocate the right of women to equality. I might point out that, besides guaranteeing the equality and dignity of women, this legislation is aimed at preventing all forms of vexations with respect to racial, national or ethnic origin, or else colour, religion, age or mental or physical disability.
Parts II and III of the Bill contain other amendments to the Broadcasting Act and the Radio Act whose purpose is to clarify and simplify the regulatory process. Since in some cases the legislative provisions of those two Acts are definitely outdated, they must be amended to take recent progress into account.
For instance, in the Lount case involving Winnipeg's Holiday Inn, the Federal Court ruled that the current wording of the Broadcasting Act and the Radio Act was deficient and must be amended so as to define the status of those systems
January 31, 1985

which redistribute satellite signals, particularly in the case of hotels and high-rise buildings. Clauses 2 and 7 of this Bill are intended to alleviate that anomaly. They are very technical precisely because they will eliminate that kind of discrepancy in the legislation.
Clause 2, for instance, which amends the Broadcasting Act, provides that any person who transmits or distributes by means of telecommunication, otherwise than solely as a telecommunication common carrier or whether or not for any consideration, any programming received by radiocommunication is deemed to be carrying on a broadcasting undertaking. This means that individuals who redistribute satellite signals will be subjected to the Broadcasting Act. Similarly, Clause 7 brings consequential changes to the Radio Act in compliance with this amendment to the Broadcasting Act. Under such provisions, the Government and the CRTC would be empowered to implement the satellite signals policy which I announced on December 20, 1984.
Part II of this Bill also provides amendments to the Broadcasting Act to eliminate factors preventing the regulatory system from being more effective and cost-efficient. To that end, it is proposed in Clause 5, and I quote:
First, to extend from five to seven years the maximum term of a broadcasting licence. This will give broadcasters an incentive to improve on their performance, in return for longer licence terms, and this will help reduce the regulatory burden.
Second, to increase the CRTC's power to exempt people from the requirement that they hold broadcasting licences. This will reduce the regulatory burden imposed by the Commission in cases where it is neither useful nor necessary to issue licences.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall the major challenge put forth by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his economic statement. He more or less invited us to redefine the Goverment's role which should be first and foremost to bring about a climate favourable to our growth which alone will enable us to create jobs, promote innovation and get ready to face the changes to come.
The legislation now being considered moves us in that direction by giving the Government the power to instruct the CRTC to order the deregulation of certain services if necessary. This Bill will stimulate and energize the telecommunications and broadcasting sector for the benefit of Canadians everywhere. No doubt also that broadcasters and telecommunicators will take this opportunity to use imagination and innovation in the provision of services that would benefit from deregulation. Clearly, the new directions we are proposing will help us reach our main goals for tomorrow in the areas of telecommunications and broadcasting.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be taking part in a debate that will undoubtedly be the first of many on telecommunications, an area for which the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) is responsible. I know he has quite a number of plans, and it will be
CRTC Act
very interesting to hear about these new developments concerning deregulation and the Government's new powers to issue directions.
I was listening carefully to the Minister, and I would like to start my comments by wishing him the very best in his new capacity as Minister over a vital sector of this country's economy. I think Canadians are not sufficiently aware of the importance of culture in Canada and of what we refer to as our cultural industries. The Minister himself is a man of considerable distinction and culture, and today again, he impressed the House with his wide-ranging historical knowledge, his quotes from Montesquieu and Cardinal Richelieu, and quite frankly, I think I would rather not try to follow him over the same terrain, because of the obvious political risk involved.
I must say the Minister was both reassuring and a little unsettling. What we see here... I am not going to provide a history of the CRTC, I think the Minister of Communications has already done so quite admirably. I am trying to be as politically objective as possible, so since I agree with what the Minister said, I do not see why I should repeat it. It was a more or less straightforward history of radio and television broadcasting in Canada and the power of the governors. It is only normal that the Minister should give his Party a front seat, since he told us in committee that he was a worthy son of the Progressive Conservative Party. I am indeed aware of his affiliation with this great Party which has done a great deal for Canada, but I also know that the Minister is a product of another political party we have known, and that is the Union Nationale. I will therefore try to steer a middle course between the two and maintain a federalist and prudent stance in my comments to the Minister of Communications.
Mr. Speaker, what struck me is that no mention was made of one of his predecessors, the Hon. Francis Fox to whom I can now refer by name because if we examine carefully the present text of Bill C-20 and compare it to the Bill tabled by Mr. Fox on February 8, 1984, we see that the work done by Mr. Fox is being continued by this Government today. In fact, the original Bill, tabled on February 8, 1984, was far broader in scope.
Again I say that I have no particular objection to the fact that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) has asked that this very complex Bill be split. Indeed, Mr. Francis Fox had in fact introduced an omnibus Bill since it had to do with telecommunications, TV broadcasting, the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act and the Radio Act. I expect the Minister will eventually introduce other Bills concerning those Acts. In the same measure, Communications Minister Fox had also introduced on February 8, 1984-as it happened, it was also Bill C-20-another part concerning the reorganization of Bell Canada. I think the Minister is quite justified in including

January 31, 1985
CRTC Act
that subject matter under a separate piece of legislation, Bill C-19.
We will not argue about that except to say that, as I am expected, and it is not always easy, I have made a comparative study of both measures, what I would call the Masse project and the Fox project, to find out where they differ. I will therefore make a few remarks on the differences I found after scrutinizing both Bills.
As I said, Part I of this Bill is roughly the same as Part II of Bill C-20 introduced by Mr. Francis Fox and which relates to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act. In his press release dated February 8, 1984, he explained that this part of Bill C-20-let us call it the Fox project-would amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act. For Hon. Members who might be interested, I have here this piece of legislation which was given Royal Assent on June 19, 1975. Since the Minister saw fit to refer to the good deeds of the Conservative Government, I might say that it was given Royal Assent on June 19, 1975, under a Liberal Government. I simply had to point that out to the Minister.
That Act amends, and I quote: "So as to enable the Governor in Council to issue general directions to the Commission, subject to certain limitations and considerations by Parliament. It also enables the Governor in Council to give executory directions to the CRTC concerning any question within its jurisdiction, except the issuance of a broadcasting licence to a particular person, or the amendment or renewal of a particular broadcasting licence".
I was going to say that the more things change, the more they remain the same. The bill would also require that the guidelines be tabled in Parliament and referred to a parliamentary committee for consideration. These guidelines would come into effect only 30 days after being tabled.
In this regard, I must tell the Minister that when the bill goes to the committee, and I have always said that I prefer the in-depth work done by parliamentary commissions, I shall have very specific questions to ask to find out what this means, because, as those who know parliamentary commissions in Ottawa will be aware-I prefer the term "parliamentary commission" used in Quebec to "parliamentary committee"- this bill will be examined thoroughly, and I shall insist on knowing exactly what the authors of the bill mean when they say that these guidelines will not come into effect until 30 days after they have been laid before Parliament.
What will happen if, when this bill is passed, as it will certainly be, the Minister takes advantage of an emergency, acting in good faith of course, to table guidelines in Parliament at a time when Parliament is not sitting, which can very often be the case? We have to know how this period of 30 days will apply. Will it be 30 days after the tabling of the guidelines or
30 days after parliamentarians have begun their examination? We shall look at this in detail in committee.
On the other hand, Bill C-20 as introduced by the Hon. Minister of Communications creates a new authority, which is described as follows in the press release of the Department of Communications dated December 20, 1984: " ... authorizing the Governor in Council to order the CRTC to deregulate competitively provided telecommunication services, and even to direct the Commission to refrain from exercizing its powers and performing its duties and functions."
All this will be accomplished under Section 14.6 to which the Minister has referred and which was not included in the legislation introduced by the Hon. Mr. Fox. Until we obtain some explanation in committee, we can only wonder whether the new Minister of Communications and his government want greater power than their predecessors had planned, because those who remember Mr. Fox, and I shall say something positive about him, which does not necessarily mean that I want to be critical of the new Minister, will know that Mr. Fox had the reputation of consulting and of taking action only after a genuine consensus had been reached.
I listened to the debate today. The Minister said that he would have extensive consultations which would be taken into account. I certainly hope so because many people have written to my leader, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and to the Hon. Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) with copies to myself, and I have to reply to all of them. It is not easy. I have to write to Mr. Bureau, to Mr. Juneau and to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, without mentioning all the letters which came to me directly in my capacity as critic for my party. These people wonder why there were cutbacks without prior consultation. I have to take the word of the Minister. Politically, it is dangerous to pay compliments because you have to live with them later. I can see my whip over there, but I shall pay the Minister a compliment anyway. I trust that the Minister believes in consultations. I am confident of this. Until I am proven wrong, I always give people the benefit of the doubt.
However, we have to look at what happened since November 8. I was in Halifax last Sunday, and I must say that, addressing more than a 1,000 people there, was not an easy task for the Hon. Member for Halifax. I congratulate him. I think that he might appreciate it. The Hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Mclnnes) did very well under very difficult circumstances. He was obviously embarrassed-because his audience was not really warm nor very sympathetic to the cause he had to defend-to tell them. Yes, we have to make cutbacks and we shall have to make more.
But all those people from the Nova Scotia Coalition on Federal Policy also told me . . . I will spare you the list of names. I have them all, and the program is in English because when things get somewhat involved, sometimes everything is in English. There are authors, writers, performers, visual arts
January 31, 1985

crafts, art educators, Museum Galleries Heritage Societies, film makers, musicians, National Film Board, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and that extraordinary, that remarkable man, that author from D'Escousse, Cape Breton, Silver Donald Cameron, and Mr. Curtis Barlow, the President of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, who, by the way, is most anxious to have an elaborate meeting with the Minister. He told me how difficult it was, but he is an important man in Canada. He represents a whole group of Canadians who are interested in our great cultural industry. And I must tell you, Mr. Minister, that he is still waiting for an interview and that he would very much appreciate being consulted. I hope such consultation promised by the Minister will actually take place.
As I said earlier, the Hon. Francis Fox was very successful in getting closer to those "milieus" which are not easy ones. The Minister knows it now, because the creativity milieu is a very sensitive one. It is a milieu that creates so many things but often it is under the impression that it is getting little in return, because it is ignored in many Canadian environments. I would like to be their spokesman, their advocate, and I know the Minister will do it. I know it is also the case with my hon. friends, my hon. friend who was also in Halifax. The NDP critic, he was in Halifax also. Those people feel they are giving much to Canadian society, and they also feel, rightly I assume, that they receive much less in return.
Therefore, considering this ever-increasing control exercised by this Government over the CRTC by way of its new powers to regulate, we have a right to be somewhat doubtful. So I will stick to that for the moment.
No doubt this is why I noticed the Hon. Mr. Crombie, who had given very good support, along with the Speaker and Mr. Geoff Scott, and I mention their names because I remember what they said and then their names were used. Yes, this came from the Progressive Conservative Party, with respect to the independance of federal-cultural agencies, as stated in the Canadian Arts Conference Bulletin, September-October 1984 edition. This is not from me, it is from the Hon. Crombie, the Hon. Bosley, our distinguished Speaker, and Mr. Geoff Scott. They said, and I quote:
We are convinced that the agencies and councils must be protected from changes in political outlooks, bureaucratic theories and expenditure priorities. We are now ready to translate into facts the efforts we made while we were in the Opposition-
-at the time. That is a statement which was made by my hon. friend opposite or at least signed by him.
-by implementing five year plans and formal mechanisms of consultation-
I repeat that we have indeed been promised this consultation process. I am going to tell in a non partisan way to all those hundreds of people who have written to me that I have received their testimony and that I now speak on their behalf in the House.
CRTC Act
Well, we are told on page 6 that there will be consultations.
I will follow up on this. The Minister has made this commitment today and, knowing me, he knows that I am not the type to cause useless trouble, but I submit most respectfully that we have every right to remind the House that we have been promised consultations, as we intend to do in all civility, and I will be here to do so.
I should like to say that Part II of Bill C-20 corresponds to Part III of Bill C-20 which had been introduced by Hon. Mr. Fox and which dealt with the Broadcasting Act. I always return to Hon. Mr. Fox who, in his press release dated February 8, 1984, explained his proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Act. Because I know that some Hon. Members are interested, having asked me for it, I have brought to the House the Broadcasting Act which was adopted in 1967. For the information of the Minister who stated that three good things came out under a Conservative administration, I think that was under that great Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Lester Person, who I had the honour to know, having been elected twice to the House of Commons during his term, and to whom I am most grateful for having given to us this extraordinary Canadian flag which will be twenty years old on February 15, I hope that we will then unanimously pay tribute to our flag, for believe me, we were hardly unanimous in supporting this initiative in 1965!
The explanation given by Mr. Fox was as follows:
(A)	Redefine broadcasting and take into account recent technological developments to allow the CRTC to regulate the distribution of satellite signals;
(B)	Allow the CRTC to issue licenses for the operation of broadcasting companies; and
(C)	Redefine the role of society ... etc.-
I note that section 3 of the Broadcasting Act has been considerably altered. We need to know why, but that question will be asked on some later occasion.
The question dealt with in section 17 of Bill C-20 introduced by the Hon. Mr. Fox is similar to sections 3 and 4 in the bill tabled by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse). Moreover, section of Bill C-20 reflects the comments made by the Hon. Mr. Fox on May 24, 1984 when he gave this very important explanation:
The responsibility, as far as the contents of programming is concerned, rests with the broadcaster in accordance with the regulations of the CRTC ... This amendment will indeed make explicit the Government's commitment to the principle that all Canadians have the right to programming which respects the dignity and equality of individuals and groups.
This is how 1 understand programming which, in a given context, does not discriminate against the individual on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, religion, sex, age, physical or mental disability
So, there is nothing new under the sun. I was under the impression a while ago ... a colleague who just arrived told me: "But it is a new dynamic legislation." I had to reply: "Well, no, the minister has divided the bill. It is almost the same provisions and the same wording". We are not offended but it should be acknowledged that our bill was excellent since

January 31, 1985
CRTC Act
the new government which was democratically elected with a large majority-and I accept this decision-has decided to reintroduce it. But the minister has announced nothing new.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that those are exactly the same words used in paragraph Cl.l of the text now introduced by the Minister of Communications. Moreover, that amendment had been supported by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, the Hon. Judy Erola. And, still according to Mr. Fox, the amendment, and I quote: "would provide a more clearly defined basis for the regulatory measures to be taken by the CRTC, to ensure that the broadcasting system contributes toward providing women and other groups with positive representation ..." I realize my New Democratic Party colleague will want to elaborate on this issue and I will let her do so, because I know how boring it is for Hon. Members to listen to the debate and then have to repeat what was said. To continue my quote: "without however impinging on the freedom of speech provided under the Broadcasting Act or the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms introduced by the previous Liberal Government."
The Hon. Francis Fox ... I feel he is still with us here in the House, and when I see his distinguished successor here today, I still have the impression that Mr. Fox is there because I am hearing more or less what he said when I read at the end of the Minister's press release: The Government hereby intends to respond to the concerns formulated by Canadians with respect to the impact of pornography and content with abusive tendencies, by giving the regulatory agency the power to act if necessary. I see that I wrote "careful" in my text at this point. Which means: do not exaggerate, but the fact is, there are people in Canada who tend to exaggerate. I would not want anyone to conclude that the Merchant of Venice is pornography. There is always the matter of balance, and I am sure that when the Minister issues his directions-when the Act will allow him to do certain things it does not allow him to do right now-he will keep that in mind.
Mr. Fox's comments, of course, preceded the press release by the Minister of Communications, who explains his legislation as follows:
In the recent Throne Speech, the Government of Canada reiterated that dealing with the problem of sexually abusive broadcasting remained one of its priorities. The purpose of the proposed amendment to the Broadcasting Act which concerns this kind of programming is to allay public concern and follow up the recommendations in the report of the Parliamentary Sub-committee on Sexually Abusive Broadcasting, published in June 1984.
I have the distinct impression that the Minister and I... have been consulting each other. He said as much, so we agree.
We shall therefore be able to discuss in committee the extent of our agreement on the proposal in Clause 5 which is aimed at easing some of the regulatory burden and the provisions imposed by Clause 6. The Minister will therefore know my position when we get to the committee stage.
I think that at this point I will forego some of the further comments I was going to make, but I would like to add that Mr. Fox's plan also included changes in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. However, I suppose the Minister will get back to us on that in another Bill, and we will be ready to tackle that aspect when he does. The House will also recall that the Minister said there would be consultations and new regulations. So for the benefit of us senior Parliamentarians and for the benefit of the Minister of Communications who is listening attentively and-I want to thank him for staying in the House-I would advise him to be careful, because in the press release it says that the Department of Communications, under the co-ordination-that is what it says-of three consultants will probably, that is what I say, be working in close co-operation with the task force chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Eric Nielsen, to determine any other regulatory changes that are to be submitted.
Well, you can imagine that we senior Parliamentarians are going to be very careful, now we know that the Deputy Prime Minister as well can start issuing directions on the matter of regulations and have them adopted by his Minister of Communications. I want to point out that this was said at the meeting of the Committee chaired by Mr. Gabriel Fontaine on December 4, 1984. We shall therefore be very cautious in examining these new regulations, especially if the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister has anything to say about them.
Part III of Bill C-20 corresponds to Part V of the Bill introduced by the Hon. Mr. Fox and concerns the Radio Act. This is therefore a repetition of the legislation introduced by the predecessor of the Minister, the Hon. Mr. Fox. For those who want to take notes, I have the Radio Act before me. This new legislation could, and I say this to the Parliamentary Secretary as the Minister is temporarily absent-but I can see that he is trying to tell me something.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, many of us have introduced Private Members' Bills. I would like to mention a few of them in the hope that the Minister might want to examine these bills introduced by individual Members who then sat on the side of the opposition and who are now Government Members, and some introduced by the then critic for cultural affairs. The Minister might decide eventually to examine these bills introduced by his own colleagues to determine what should be done with them. Here are a few of them: Bill C-301, in the name of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), Bill C-461, in the name of the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), the new chairman of the International Parliamentary Union who, on this very day, is receiving the visit of the General Secretary of the Parliamentary Union to sign the contract which will allow us to host the world convention next September. This has happened before under a liberal administration and I was the chairman of that conference. I was the one to send the invitation, but it is my

friend the new chairman, the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta, who will open the world conference of parliamentarians in September 1985. I will attend as an observer rather than a participant, with some regret. But such is life in politics.
I also want to point out to the Minister that these bills reflect the need to protect young people against overly agres-sive publicity during childrens' programming. Since 1980, Members of Parliament have also made representations provincially to the CRTC. I refer to Bill C-595 introduced by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). If Hon. Members want to look at these bills, I have found all of those introduced from 1980 to 1984.
There is also Bill C-413, introduced by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (M. Orlikow), who is the NDP critic for communications, I believe, which deals with equal broadcasting time for opposition political parties. Believe it or not, there is also legislation on the educational use of programming, which was introduced by your distinguished colleague from Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), namely Bills C-236 and C-224. Of course, there is also Bill C-675 introduced by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), to forbid any discriminatory comment based on sex, which the Hon. Mr. Fox had already approved in a second statement made on May 24, 1984, amending his statement of February 8, 1984. If anyone wants to examine all these bills, I have them and I have also found the debates held about them.
I could go on. I do not want to waste the time of the House, but I believe I have a few minutes left. Bill C-20 will therefore be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture which the Minister said was his intention when he appeared before the Committee on December 4, 1984. Mr. Speaker, at that time, the Standing Committee will have the opportunity to examine this issue. As a matter of fact, I believe that the Chairman of the Committee is here now.
So I am giving advance notice. I do not see why I should not give him a week's notice. I am not anxious to take my witness by surprise, something lawyers like to do. So the kind of witnesses we might... of course the Government will have its own witnesses, and the New Democratic Party, but I would like to mention their names, and I think the Minister may be surprised. These are not surprise witnesses, but they are very well known, and probably the best known of the ones on my first list is Prof. John Meisel of Queen's University, who might be invited to appear before the committee. I have a lengthy biography here, but I will spare the House the details. We may be able to get the committee to agree to invite Mr. Alan Borovoy of the General Council of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association of Toronto, whose reputation is certainly well-established, as the Toronto Star of November 8, 1983 said in a full-page article on Mr. Borovoy, the wellknown champion and defender of civil rights. So if anyone wants to know who the witness is . . . Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could
CRTC Act
also invite Mr. Fox, since today's Bill is so similar to the one he tabled in the House. There is a possibility. I am not saying we must, but he will certainly be on my list. Of course, there will be CRTC representatives. And I think it would be very unfortunate if we were deprived of the presence of the Minister himself. I am not going to put him on my list since it is obvious he will be the principal witness. We could also agree to invite representatives of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the Communications Workers of Canada, the FTQ, the Canadian Cable Television Association and experts in various fields, and listen to their representations. I have received submissions from people who would like to appear, but that will have to keep for some other time, because the submissions do not directly relate to this Bill. However, perhaps we will have the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, the Association of Canadian Film Craftspeople, the Association of Canadian Film and Television Producers-I will spare you the rest of the list.
The Minister tells us there will be new directions. We will have to ensure that these directions do not stifle the powers of the CRTC. I know the Minister of Justice has decided to listen to those people who advised him not to prosecute in cases that had been taken up by the CRTC. The House may remember a statement published in The Globe and Mail on November 24, 1984, in which the Minister of Justice actually boasted he was prosecuting some of the people who were finally being prosecuted by the CRTC. However, I understand that since then, the Minister has been conducting exhaustive inquiries across the country, and considering this fact, I admit that the arguments I intended to put forward today will therefore have to be toned down somewhat. I also want to congratulate the Minister for having a staff that is able to provide objective information. Thanks to the Minister's staff, I do not have to be as fierce as I intended on this particular issue. In fact, I think the Minister ought to know I found out about these consultations through his staff. However, the fact remains that these cases are not being prosecuted and that they should be. My colleague, the Justice critic and Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) referred to this matter, and for those who are interested, I may refer them to page 681 of Hansard, November 28, 1984, when there was a fairly lively exchange of views.
I have been informed that at the last federal-provincial conference, the provincial ministers wanted the Government of Canada to have more authority over the CRTC, and that is probably why Bill C-20 and its predecessor deal with this problem. The Minister is aware that it is a problem, because we want the CRTC to operate without undue political interference, the provincial authorities want to express their views at the political level and we must also respect the rights guaranteed under our Constitution.
I realize that the Minister has to perform a balancing act, probably because his Department is among those that are

January 31, 1985
CRTC Act
directly involved in this issue. He is expected to remain at arm's length, yet he is being asked to intervene. We will see in the next few years just how the Minister will manage to keep his balance. In any event, I can tell him as kindly as I can that we will be there to help him.
As you may understand, Mr. Speaker, people are deeply concerned. There were so many cut backs without prior consultation, but here they are today telling us that consultations there will be. As official critic responsible for doing that job honourably and honestly, I am in a dilemma which I might make even worse if I were to insist by pouring salt on wounds which the Minister finds very difficult to dress these days. He is under attack from every quarter because of those cut backs about which he probably did not have much to say.
I have no idea whether the Minister made the necessary representations to the Minister of Finance and told him: No, you can cut... but you cannot cut people who give so much and receive so little. Those people give much to our country, they make us proud and they give us our Canadian identity. That is what we must understand. There are two major survival movements in Canada. God knows that francophones are aware of the word "survival" and of the French fact. Yet the Minister must also realize that English Canada has a morbid fear of americanization. That is why the Minister should not and will not be surprised to find such a reaction in English Canada.
I know, and we are going to do our best to make people understand why it is that English-speaking Canadians are deeply concerned about americanization. That is why deregulation is a good thing, but it must not be carried to extremes either. We do need some protection. If we want our own Canadian culture-English or French-we must have safeguards, Mr. Speaker, for our neighbours can be intrusive indeed.
I want to assure the Minister that he can count on my cooperation in committee where this Bill will soon be under consideration. I cannot tell him for sure how many speakers we will have today, but when the distinguished chairman of the parliamentary committee-I know his name, Mr. Fontaine, but perhaps the whip might tell me his riding-


An Hon. Member:: Levis.


M. PrudTiomme:: -the Hon. Member for Levis. I know that we will all get along in the parliamentary committee, first concerning the number of witnesses we will want to hear, then the number of sittings we will need to make an in-depth study of the Bill and make sure that we get what we want, namely safeguards for Canadians. We want to be sure that the CRTC has a watchdog so that people who might not be overly concerned about Canada's culture will be called to order-in an altogether civilized manner, of course.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I have said enough this morning and I will let my colleagues have their say. Again I say to the Minister that he can count on our cooperation during committee consideration of this Bill and other pieces of legislation he might want to introduce in the House.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to address the Bill before us, Bill C-20. It is a very modest Bill in its size but that is not to say the matters it deals with are not important. There are principles at stake in this Bill, a small number of them, which for the most part are not going to be partisan or controversial. Most of the measures before us today we have seen before in the legislation which appeared last year but was not passed.
While they have their importance, given the recent cutbacks of and interference in the operations of the CBC, 1 must express some concern and frustration that we are not dealing with the more important matters facing us in the area of broadcasting. It is perhaps not fiddling while Rome burns, but I am a bit concerned that we are fiddling while Rome is closing down its stations and firing creative staff.
Those of us who are committed to a strong and vital broadcasting system in Canada know that it can be achieved only with a very strong public component in the CBC. Of course, that public component has to be adequately funded so it can do its job in both languages in television, and AM and FM radio. These are matters which we will have to address, so I look forward to the next discussion the Minister will bring forward perhaps even more so than discussing the matters before us in this Bill. We have to get into broadcasting policy and adequate funding if the system we are now amending is going to function in the way we want it to.
As to the specific provisions of Bill C-20, Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin with Clause 14.1. We certainly support these proposals. This will allow the Minister to issue policy directives to the CRTC. It is important that the Minister not have the power to intervene regarding particular applications before the CRTC, and there are safeguards in the Bill to ensure that.
I have had some concerns raised with me that these safeguards are not strong enough and perhaps the wording will have to be looked at in committee, but as to the principle, it is a sound one. The Minister is responsible to Parliament for broadcasting policy and he then responds to Parliament, comes before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture and answers for those policy directives. That is all part of our parliamentary system.
I now want to get on to the deregulation provisions proposed in Clause 14(6). These are provisions which we do not approve of in the Bill. We oppose those measures. Incidentally, they were not part of the old Bill which was before the House last year. This provision would give very broad powers to the Minister, expand them in an unacceptable way, to say that there would be no regulation in a certain area. This supposedly
January 31, 1985

on the grounds that competition is adequate to look after the matter.
I just do not have enough confidence that the public interest will be well served with this very broad power of deregulation, which has been the trend in the United States. We have certainly already seen some very bad repercussions from that. We have a rather difficult situation here and it is quite different from the U.S. We have to be very careful of the public interest. Certainly the economics go against the Canadian broadcasting system, but we are already overwhelmingly foreign influenced in this area where monopolies operate and competition is severely limited. That means all the more power must be retained by the CRTC to ensure that the public interest is kept at the forefront.
To get on to some of the other measures, Clause 2 in Part II and Clause 7 in Part III are measures which would clarify the definition of a broadcasting undertaking in television and radio respectively. Clearly these will assert regulatory control for master antenna satellite dishes in areas such as hotels, condominiums and large apartments. We are concerned that individual households and small apartments be able to operate without regulation, but we certainly approve of the changes in order to bring regulatory control to this area and close a loophole in the law. This would simply serve to clarify a situation which should have been dealt with earlier, so we support these measures.
Another part of Part II refers to a matter being dealt with by a CRTC task force, which will be reporting early in February on the difficulties experienced by small and isolated communities in receiving broadcasting signals. This is a matter dealt with in the legislation. If the recommendations from this task force are adequate and suitable, perhaps they could be introduced at committee stage and incorporated in the legislation. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) will be addressing this matter in more detail later.
I have some reservations about another measure contained in Part II, Clause 5(1). This is a new measure to increase the period of licence from five years to seven years. This is somewhat in the spirit of deregulation. It makes regulation less effective by giving stations and networks licences for a longer period. They are, in effect, less accountable to the regulatory authority. This is not just an idle or academic matter. I think of the time when the CRTC licensed pornographic programming in pay television. It said that it did it by mistake. It had certainly been warned about the problem, but in effect it did give licences and discovered later what was involved in that. When it was criticized for this and the problem was brought to its attention, its response was that there was nothing it could do about it for five years because that was the period of licence and the time to address the problem was when the licence expired. Five years is a very long period of time for a licence. I would have reservations about increasing that period of time to seven years.
CRTC Act
Let us be clear on the process of intervention at the CRTC. Intervention at the CRTC is one of the more popular sports in Canada. There is a very enjoyable atmosphere and an opportunity for individuals and groups to appear. In short, the democratic process is alive. The CRTC, in its ivory tower and all its distance, majesty and wealth, actually comes before the public and asks what it has to say about policy and what it wants to see in broadcasting. The public-individuals, specialists and groups-come with their concerns. This is a very healthy part of our regulatory process. Women's groups have used this process to protest sex stereotyping in the media and the pornography issue. The hearings have been very important in regard to religious broadcasting, children's broadcasting, and other areas in which the public has a vital interest and a great deal of knowledge. This very healthy process would be weakened by extending the length of time of licences. Rather than treating the public cynically and avoiding talking and listening to it for seven years, this intervention should be welcomed. The Canadian public, for which the broadcasting system exists, does have a positive contribution to make. It does this very effectively through interventions to the CRTC.
I would like to move on to the issue of the amedments in clause 3 of the Bill. These amendments were brought in as result of my Private Member's Bill C-675. That Bill was debated last year and referred to committee. There was unanimous agreement from the sub-committee which studied the Bill to making an amendment, which unfortunately could not be legislated before the House finished its work in June of last year. It is before us today in wording which is not exactly to my liking, but which is acceptable and will accomplish what is necessary. This is to add to Section 3, the purpose section of the Broadcasting Act, a new Section 3. (c.l). It reads:
The programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should respect and promote the equality and dignity of all individuals, groups or classes of individuals regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability;
This is a very general proviso. It is stated in very general terms. It says "should" not "must". It gives a purpose which is consistent with the purpose section of the Broadcasting Act. It refers only to programming in general. It does not stipulate every program. It is not a very specific measure, but it does set out a purpose of some importance to us.
For this purpose to have effect there must be more detailed regulation on the matter. The CRTC has in fact introduced a regulation to that effect. The CRTC was very slow in responding to the problem of violent and severely degrading pornography. However, it did finally act and bring in a regulation. Once the CRTC was convinced we discovered that it was the Department of Justice that was holding back and causing problems. The CRTC was prepared to move faster. Therefore, it can be convinced. This regulation is in place which obviously must be if the purpose section of the Act is to have any effect.
I would like to bring the attention of the House to the omission of something which I think should be included. In my Private Member's Bill there was a clause which said that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3, being the freedom

January 31, 1985
CRTC Act
of expression provisions, this more specific prohibition of abusive broadcasting would hold. The existence of a similar "notwithstanding" clause in the legislation would make it clear that we as legislators are perfectly well aware of the freedom of expression objective, and that we are qualifying it to ensure that another fundamental principle, that is, the dignity and equality of all people, is also respected. It would be clear that this is a qualification. It is not that we are disregarding freedom of expression, but that we admit that another principle is of considerable importance.
This section will undoubtedly be a matter of appeal to the courts. There will be people who will go to the courts and use the freedom of expression provisions of the Charter of Rights as their defence. I think it is important to give the courts guidance on this. I have a very specific reason for recommending that. Canadian courts have been notoriously bad on equality issues. They have been even worse when the equality was claimed by women rather than by any other group. There has been a long history from the Persons case to Laval and Bedard and Murdoch. These cases have shown that the courts have been insensitive to equality rights for women. It would be prudent to give very clear guidance to the courts that the equality and dignity of all people must be respected. There is a good reason for including this in the Bill.
[Translation)
The Reseau d'action et d'information sur les femmes had this to say before the sub-committee on sexually abusive broadcasting, which studied the subject matter of my bill, and I quote:
Since our organization now has a charter that not only clearly asserts equality between the sexes but also provides for means to correct the harm done to women, it follows logically that broadcasting must conform to that new justice and that all abuse against sexual equality must be eliminated.
Therefore, this amendment to the Act contained in the legislation now before the House is a logical consequence of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I would like to thank all the Canadian men and women who supported me in requesting such an amendment to the Act. A very large number of Canadian men and women from all parts of Canada and from all parties in Canada have fought for better protection against violent and degrading pornography. They have fought as individuals and as groups, as feminists and as mothers and fathers. I would like especially to mention the participation of the Quebec Federation of Women, Media Watch, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Reseau d'action et d'information sur la femme, the Front commun contre la pornographic, the Churches, the Catholic Women's League, specialists from the universities and the professions of Canada who helped us during the sub-committee meetings.
We have realized that the attacks against women and children by means of violent and degrading pornography are attacks against the equality and dignity of all human beings. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees
equality for all Canadian men and women. Any kind of programming that infringes upon the dignity and equality of any part of humanity is an aggression against the value and dignity of all of humanity.
I am pleased to support this Bill in principle. Although we do want to see some changes in committee, we agree with the majority of its contents. The changes we would like can be made in committee. We will offer our support for this Bill as well as our co-operation during its study in committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to bring to the attention of the House that the length of speeches will now be 20 minutes with a ten-minute question and answer period, according to Standing Order 35(2).


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, there is one particular aspect of this Bill to which I want to refer. It is the amendments to the Radio Act and the Broadcasting Act relating to regulating broadcasting in this country. The change to extend licences from five to seven years is quite interesting. The Minister explained that change in his opening statement.
The Bill gives the Government and thereby the people of Canada additional power to regulate or control the CRTC and the operations of radio broadcasting in this country. I wonder what powers the Minister or the CRTC have under the present legislation to prevent the closure of radio stations.
In the decisions which were made solely by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, it closed one radio station in all of its cuts across the country. My concern is that there appears to be no recourse unless the Minister were to include in his recommendations to the House for regulatory control that the CBC or any radio network must appear before the CRTC for a public hearing. I have two reasons for that opinion. When licences are granted by the CRTC to establish radio stations in small communities, that licence is granted upon the intent of the operator to provide full service. Occasionally, for obvious economic reasons, the operator finds it more reasonable to reduce that station to just a transmitter. Throughout the country we have seen the CBC do this and consolidate in certain areas and simply carry a signal on what is called low-power relay transmitters.
In other words, if the CBC or other private broadcasters are permitted, there will eventually be a network of stations operating from one central area while claiming that they are providing the same service as if there were local news and communications people in the community. In other words, what you would hear on the CBC is: "You are listening to a network of CBC stations".
That certainly is not acceptable today and will not be acceptable in the future.
In order to illustrate exactly what I am talking about in reference to the Radio Act and the Broadcasting Act, let me
January 31, 1985

point out that there is a delegation in Ottawa who came all the way from Gander, Newfoundland. They are here to meet with the CBC. As well, I believe the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) was good enough to meet with them as well. They are protesting the closure of the CBC radio station in their community. Since its personnel are being moved to another location, the saving to the corporation in real dollars is a measly $75,000 a year in operational costs for that particular building.
When one ask the CBC why it made that decision, it has some interesting explanations. I had a three-hour meeting with the President of the CBC and the director of radio for the country. They gave me this second option which I referred to earlier. That option is consolidation, which appears to be acceptable to private broadcasters and the CBC. They tried to prove to me that there would be a better service in a community if the radio station was 100 miles away.
During that briefing they produced the ratings. Those ratings show that the particular station the CBC was closing had the best ratings from 6 a.m. until 9 a.m. of the three regional stations. It had the best listening audience from noon until 2 p.m. and the best listening audience from 4 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. In other words, the CBC, which does not sell commercials on radio, was beating the two private networks in that area.
I suggested to the CBC representatives during the meetings that they should look at those ratings to determine if location was not the reason why the ratings are so high, and to suggest that if it followed the same course of action that it has taken in Vancouver and other parts of the country, perhaps the ratings would drop. The fact is that this CBC station which is to be closed has higher ratings than other networks. Where else in Canada does such a rating structure exist? I repeat that the CBC is doing this to save a mingy $75,000, with the excuse that the federal Government has cut back its budget. It says that it has a cut-back of $75 million and that it must close a station to save $75,000. What kind of logic is that?
The point of the matter is that this particular station covers an enormous geographic area; not only Gander but all of the northeast coast of Newfoundland and the central portion. If that station and its personnel is moved to another location, say 60 miles or 100 miles away, there will not be that community identification or the identification that the corporation had with the arts community, music community or with local events. Right now that station is able to report the last town council meeting at Badger's Quay or Joe Batt's Arm. Obviously if they were located in a centralized area, they could not do it. That is why the ratings are so high.
There is another consideration which I brought up in the House. I am sure each Member remembers CBG Gander. I brought up on one occasion that the terms of union with Canada were being violated by the decision to close down CBG. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation took over the radio stations that were in existence at the time of union in Newfoundland. It just so happens that CBG was in existence
CRTCAct
at Confederation. After looking at all of that, we still have no recourse. The people in that community have no recourse right now for a hearing before the CRTC. They have no recourse because the Minister says that he really does not want to interfere. I respect the Minister for that statement, Mr. Speaker. The Corporation obviously has to settle its own problems. I have difficulty-and you can go back over the records, Mr. Speaker-when I read what the Minister himself said in the House. As reported on page 1007 of Hansard for December 7, 1984, he said:
Since there was a risk that this administrative obligation would affect the CBC's general strategy and its long-term operations, I decided, in agreement with the President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that a consultation process was necessary.
Then he quoted a letter from Mr. Juneau which said that he agreed with this consultation process and that it was necessary. Then the Minister appointed three very able people and said that the senior officials worked together with "my special consultants". That is found on page 1007. Certainly that consultative committee had to examine the options for the cuts obviously. They had to in order to get the agreement with the corporation and the agreement of the Minister.
Then I must tell you what else bothers me, Mr. Speaker. I do not object to this in normal circumstances, but the Minister of Communications has announced unilaterally that he is going to expand French radio broadcasting in the Province of Quebec. The CBC did not announce it, nor the President of the CBC. I heard the Minister of Communications, I read his statements saying that is what he was going to do, using the same logic I am talking about now as it relates to CBC Gander. He says this is necessary. Why is it necessary, asks the Minister? The Minister said it is because not enough people are listening to the French CBC. He says: "We need more coverage in the Province of Quebec; therefore there will be some expansion in Quebec".
Getting back to the original question, what power do they have, what power do the people have whom I represent? What power does the Gander Town Council have in Ottawa today? What are they seeking? What can they do? They came all the way from Gander, Newfoundland, to Ottawa at the taxpayers' expense to do something about the closure of CBG which will save the CBC, I repeat, $75,000 a year. What recourse do they have? It is very fitting today that the Minister would say in the introduction of this Bill that the Bill gives the Government and himself the power to give instructions-to use his exact words, "power over broadcasting by the people through their elected representatives, power to govern, to give instructions to the CRTC".
I believe there should be power somewhere for the Minister of Communications to order the CRTC, in cases of station closures, in cases where it is private networks, or if it is the CBC where it closes down the station but still maintains a transmitter over the location, to hold an open hearing. It should be mandatory that there be an open hearing by the CRTC to allow interest groups in this country to communicate their case. If that were done in the case of CBG Gander and in
1858

January 31, 1985
CRTC Act
several other cases across this country with the private broadcasters as well, the decision would be made by the CRTC that you cannot just stick up a transmitter under the licence that you have. In the case of CBG Gander we would be open the next day. It would not take a morning and an afternoon at all. It would take a morning, and the CRTC would order the CBC to maintain the service for which it is responsible in that particular community.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that I have not criticized the Minister of Communications today. I have in the past in the House but I have not today.


Marcel Prud'homme: Why?


George Baker: My hon. friend asks me why. I am hoping that the Minister of Communications and his Parliamentary Secretary will intervene with Mr. Juneau with a request from the Gander Town Council, who brought petitions from all over the north east coast of Newfoundland, and tell the CBC not to close CBG Gander. Seventy-five thousand dollars saving is not an excuse to cancel an operation that serves the people of Newfoundland and serves them in a better manner, as the ratings show, than even the private broadcasters do. I am hoping from this intervention and my relatively mild tones today that the Minister of Communications and his Parliamentary Secretary are listening. If they take action to intervene, I will be the first one in this Chamber to stand up the next day and congratulate them.


Mr. Hopkins:: That is the Liberal way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? As there are no questions or comments, I shall recognize the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards).


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, after having spent 29 years in the broadcasting industry, both in the private and the public sector, it is a privilege for me to speak to Bill C-20. I share with the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Baker) his concern about the lack of logic and the attendant confusion which seems to attend every move or lack thereof of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Having visited New World Island and various other parts of that wonderful riding of Gander-Twillingate, I am well aware of the service that CBG has provided. I can assure the Hon. Member that his plea did not fall on deaf ears.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: The broadcasting industry is one of words, thoughts, aspirations and of Canadian definition. I think it is passing strange that the very delegation which travelled to Ottawa on Monday to plead about the public sector cultural cuts happens to do very handsomely indeed in the private sector. I think it fitting to remark that Mr. Berton, one of the leaders of that delegation, will be launching on February 1, tomorrow, a magnificent new private radio series called The Canadian Achievers. As an Albertan, I hesitate to say that the series is sponsored by Petro-Canada. It will focus on Canadian
heroes and achievers from all walks of life. This is private radio, Mr. Speaker, and it is an industry in which Mr. Berton and many of his allies do very well indeed. In a sense I think they are setting up un faux spectre, a straw man, a bogeyman, in trying to cry wolf in advance that there will be more cuts in the cultural and public communications sector.
It is time for a review of the entire Canadian broadcasting system. There have been many such reviews. I think it most fitting that the current review be taking place where it belongs and that is in the Parliament of Canada. I say that because we are the proper conduit of the will of the Canadian people toward the Canadian broadcasting system. The review is overdue because of the developments of technology and the rampant growth of the regulatory system in a legislative vacuum.
I should like to trace briefly the history of broadcast regulation in the country. Initially, regulation was deemed necessary in order to control frequency allocation in communication with ships and fishing boats at sea. Therefore, initially the regulation came under the ambit of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Later it passed to the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, the precursor of the CBC, which took the regulation of private broadcasting under its wing. The same principle obtained when the CBC came forward as a creation of the Bennett Government of the 1930s.
In 1958, in response to the demands of equitable treatment on the part of the private broadcasting industry which up to that point had been regulated by its commercial competitor, the CBC, the government of the day, under the leadership of the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, formed the Board of Broadcast Governors. It was the first independent regulatory authority to govern both the CBC and private industry. In turn, it was succeeded in 1968 by the current regulatory body which was then called the Canadian Radio-Television Commission and now embraces telecommunications as well.
A few moments ago I mentioned the vacuum which has existed for a number of years in the whole area of giving direction to the growth of the Canadian broadcasting system. This vacuum in which the CRTC has ben operating has resulted in some grotesque rulings and some questionable decisions. I cite just one or two of them. The decision to license various pay television enterprises, which was taken less than two years ago, is well known to Hon. Members of the House and to the Canadian public. It was a decision which had no basis in economics or in actual reality. We have seen the shepherded shrinking of that system to the point where we now have in essence in the English language just one system across the country.
In addition, there has been a rather disturbing trend toward the wholesale licensing of frequencies in various communities across Canada. I say that is unfortunate. I may be challenged by my NDP friends opposite in that I may be accused of not speaking for free enterprise and looking for a cushy environment. That is not the case at all. The fact of the matter is that in the United States, which is a terribly over-licensed country,
January 31, 1985

many stations do not have the resources to offer the kind and quality of public service for which the Canadian broadcasting system, both public and private, is justly famous.
As well, we have had a proliferation of questionable regulations in this legislative vacuum. That proliferation of regulations has led to quixotic and rather disturbing regulations being imposed and statements of policy being made by regulatory fiat, to the extent that third level interpreters of those regulations are dictating to Canadians what they will hear or see. In fact, they are determining in some cases what individual pieces of music are properly played by individual stations. That verges on an impingement on freedom of speech.
I should like to spend a moment outlining the provisions of Clause 1 of this Bill. The directive power which is proposed here would be used to ensure that the Government rather than the CRTC is responsible for setting telecommunications and broadcasting policy in the country. It could be used to establish general criteria by which the Commission could decide individual matters coming before it. In other cases it could be used to ensure that broad national policies on matters such as the economy are applied in broadcasting and telecommunications. Perhaps the pay television situation to which I referred earlier could be embraced within that.
One might ask what safeguards exist to prevent the Government from abusing the power of direction and from interfering with the rights of broadcasters to freedom of speech. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms would prohibit directions from impinging upon freedom of speech. As well, the Bill contains a clear limitation in that no policy directions may be issued in respect of the issue, amendment or renewal of a particular broadcasting licence. Further, the Bill provides for parliamentary scrutiny of directions before they take effect.
Mindful of the clock, I should like to make one or two further comments about Clause 5(1) and Clause 5(2) which deal with the extension of maximum licence terms. We have heard an Hon. Member opposite question the extension of the maximum term of licence from five years to seven years. The hon. lady suggested that perhaps Five years was too long a term of licence. We are talking about a pretty sizeable industry. Just as our nation is looking forward to having some consistency and predictability of policy, which the Government is now providing, so are the broadcasting industry and the cable industry looking for some kind of predictability whereby they can plan their affairs over a longer period of time.
We are talking about an industry which in the radio and television sector generates something over $1 billion of revenue per year, with $492 million in radio and $833 million in television. Of course, much of that is advertising revenue, virtually all of it. We are talking about a large number of employees-in the private radio sector of the industry alone, 9,666 and in the television sector, 6,905. We are talking about salaries well up into the hundreds of millions of dollars. We are talking about Fixed assets in the broadcasting sector alone of $637 million. In the cable sector, gross revenues in the most recent year of reporting were $535 million. The net proFit after tax was $34.2 million, which represented a 5.9 per cent return
on fixed assets of $579 million. The payroll of the cable industry is about $149 million, which represents 6,484 fulltime employees.
Predictability is absolutely essential. To add two years to the maximum licence term of five years is a measure which I am sure the industry and indeed the public will welcome. With predictability comes the potential of profitability. It is only from profitability in the private broadcasting industry that creative programming can come about, that jobs can be created, that the Canadian identity can be reinforced and that indeed public service can be enhanced.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member should be aware that he still has seven minutes after three o'clock remaining as far as his speech is concerned. He may also have the 10-minute question and comment period, if he wishes.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on Monday in New Delhi, the leaders of six middle powers from five continents called once again for the United States and the Soviet Union to prevent an arms race in space and to halt the testing, production, and deployment of all nuclear weapons.
This initiative of the Parliamentarians for World Order was led by the Prime Ministers and Presidents of India, Sweden, Greece, Mexico, Argentina, and Tanzania. It is a follow-up on a declaration they made May 22 last calling on the world's five nuclear powers to freeze production and deployment of nuclear weapons, and to use the money saved to help ailing Third World countries.
This action by six prominent middle powers is evidence that mankind is not willing to stand by silently while the United States and the Soviet Union, locked in a power struggle, alone decide the fate of this planet. I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to reconsider their recent decision to support the United States star wars escalation, and to join this important initiative by their middle power friends and allies. In Canada
[Stage Direction]
January 31, 1985
this initiative is supported by the Canadian Council for International Co-Operation, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the National Union of Provincial Government Employees, the World Federalists of Canada, Operation Dismantle, Project Plowshares, and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



PAN-AMERICAN GAMES LONDON, ONT., ADVOCATED AS HOST CITY

Mr. Tom Hockin (London West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a statement about an historic decision made last week, a decision which I believe has the potential to bring great economic and social benefit to Canada. The Canadian Olympic Association has chosen London, Ontario, to be the Canadian city to host the Pan-American Games six years from now. It only remains for Canada to be chosen instead of the one other Pan-American country applying.
The economic benefit to London, to southwestern Ontario, and in a broader sense to Canada, of hosting these games has been conservatively estimated at $500 million. The Games will provide at least 150,000 days of work for construction workers, and an estimated 400 jobs for the period before, during, and after the games. I ask, therefore, that this House and the Government of Canada work to ensure that Canada is chosen to host these games so that this great tourist opportunity and all the other prodigious economic and social benefits will in fact flow to our country.



NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, we should have sensed something was wrong when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates) flew to Washington right after taking office. One result of this trip was that a team of Pentagon officials came to explain the benefits of dealing in death, while the Minister of National Defence looked on and joked about throwing peaceloving Canadians in jail.
Next the Government showed it lacked the guts to take a moral stand on Cruise missile testing. Members opposite could not afford to offend Mr. Reagan when his Government was offering Canadian business all those defence contracts. Neither could the Government afford to speak for its people and vote for the nuclear feeeze at the United Nations, like the NATO Governments of Greece and Denmark. Then we found out the U.S. had not bothered to tell us they would be sending us a few nuclear death bombs or depth bombs during a crisis. The Tory Government's only reply was that we should trust
our good friends to tell us when we needed to know their plans for our country.
Canada could not even oppose arms in space because our allies might lose their heads at Geneva and sell the farm to the Soviets. However, the real reason leaked out from-guess where-Washington, a few days later. Pentagon officials tell us they want NORAD to handle both star wars and the anti-satellite program. The Minister of National Defence reads us his reply from cue cards he borrowed from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). He insists that we are only discussing radar systems with the Americans. I am sure the Americans will tell us about the rest of their plans when they are sure we need to know.

* *
*



FORESTRY


Mr. Barry Moore (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement of great importance for my constituency of Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle and more especially for the Upper-Gatineau region.
Recently, a spokesman for Maniwaki said to the medias that the road construction project between Maniwaki and Temis-camingue had been dropped by the governments involved. He also said that research centre project would never be implemented in the Upper-Gatineau.
On September 4, 1984, Mr. Speaker, my constituents elected a representative who would protect their interests better than they were in the past. On Monday, January 28 last, I therefore met with the Minister of State (Forestry), the Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew and with his officials to to tell him about the demands of my fellow citizens. The meeting was positive and while there are no funds available under the forestry agreement now being negotiated, there are other possibilities which I will explore with some of my colleagues.
I am also hopeful as to the possibility of setting up a forestry centre in the Upper-Gatineau. The Hon. Mr. Merrithew has promised to include such a project in the negotiations under way with the Quebec government. For my part, I will announce any new development.



UNITED STATES TARIFF ON CANADIAN SALTFISH

George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and I have one thing in common. Both of our constituencies export saltfish to the United States. The United States Department of Commerce
January 31, 1985

has imposed a tariff of 26.6 per cent on saltfish exported to the United States by the Canadian Saltfish Corporation in the riding of the Prime Minister and in my riding. The other tariffs range from 13 to 34 per cent for private companies exporting into the United States.
Our Government has an open door policy. We are presently debating the Bill whereby we will receive United States business people with open arms. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) is now making an agreement to export Canadian oil to the United States cheaper than it is being sold to Canadian refiners. I am sure that the Prime Minister is as outraged as I am at this action of the United States Government. It takes two to tango, and this Government is clearly out of step.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, it is particularly gratifying to see the initial reaction to the Consultation Paper on Child and Elderly Benefits released this week by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp).
In sharp contrast to the ill-informed and negative comments of the opposition Parties, representatives of labour, business, and social policy organizations have all applauded the options contained in the paper. They are responding in the spirit of co-operation and constructive dialogue that the Government hoped would result from the consultation process.
Members opposite should be aware that the Social Policy Reform Group is very concerned that the scare tactics being used by the Opposition will destroy much needed social reform. As Chaviva Hosek, President of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, said yesterday:
We don't agree that the proposed changes are just tinkering, and we don't agree that the reforms proposed are an attack on the middle class. On the contrary, with minor changes the first option presented by the Government would achieve a very important reform that we and many other social policy groups have been advocating for a long time. The opposition is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
The two opposition Parties are so intent on upstaging each other in their fight to the death that they cannot recognize thoughtful social policy options and honest consultation.


Mr. Speaker:: 

CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION YOUTH NETWORK LICENCE

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the House the high levels of public
concern about the state of Canadian broadcasting. Increasingly the public wants to know if there will be effective Canadian programming in the face of ever increasing amounts of U.S. television into Canada.
Today we should be especially concerned about the likelihood that U.S. programming will dominate, or take over exclusively, a children's channel that will be licensed by the CRTC. The only alternative that has guaranteed 70 per cent Canadian content is the National Film Board application that the CRTC disqualified. They now have the opportunity to reconsider the Film Board application, with the delay which they have ordered in the hearings. The Minister has the power to direct the CRTC to consider this issue again, under the provisions of Bill C-20. We say that he should be prepared to act now. Many concerned Canadians want the CRTC to live up to its responsibilities under the Broadcast Act, to ensure a Canadian presence in this vital area of broadcasting.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, agriculture can and does play a vital role in the rebuilding of our economy, but the Government wants to do it through consultation. Today, 160 farmers from Ontario are meeting with their MPs as part of this consultation process. This Government welcomes their advice, but it has already shown that it cares about agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has already taken several initiatives to help alleviate the financial problems facing many farmers.
Thousands of FCC loans have been, or will be, re-written down to 12.75 per cent. Niagara grape growers have been made a part of a buy-up scheme. The 4.8 cent tax on gasoline and diesel fuel has been removed. The offshore labour program is in effect for 1985. Capital gain rollovers are now eligible for contributions to RRSPs.
While these programs indicate that agriculture has received top priority from the Government in only a few months, it does not intend to stop or sit still. The Government is working with the provinces to establish a tripartite stabilization program for red meat. Section 31 of the Income Tax Act is being examined, and agri-bonds will receive further study. The Government is prepared to move on these items.
No longer can the Government pay lip-service to agriculture, or let it take a back seat to other sectors of our economy. This Government is not prepared to sit by and let farmers suffer for another decade or two of neglect and despair. Agriculture is the backbone of our economy, and it is this Government's intention to stengthen that backbone even further, within its financial resources.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
January 31, 1985

Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks I have received scores of telephone calls from Armed Forces personnel who are concerned about the effect that the UI changes to earnings will have on them when they retire. Members of the Armed Forces are required to retire by the age of 55, or after 25 years of service.
One of the recognized and very much deserved benefits of serving with the Armed Forces is the accumulation of severance benefits. The Conservative Government has announced that, as of March 31, 1985, those payments will be considered as income for unemployment insurance purposes. I understand from the Minister's office that the rollover provisions that allow severance benefits to be placed into an RRSP, so that they will not be considered as income for income tax purposes, will not apply for UI purposes. This essentially wipes out the value of those severance payments that were formerly considered a working benefit.
Many of those who retire from the Armed Forces continue to work until the usual retirement age of 65, and continue to make UI contributions during those working years. The Government has announced that pension income will be considered income for UI purposes, essentially making those retirees ineligible for UI benefits. Due to the early retirement age of Armed Forces personnel, they have been placed in the very unique situation of being required to pay into an insurance program, the Unemployment Insurance Program, without being eligible to collect benefits from that program. I suggest to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) that these discriminatory aspects of UI changes should be reconsidered.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, for many years the farming community suffered under the heavy-handed regime of the former Liberal administration, supported by its'NDP allies.
The issue of capital gains has hung over the farming community and has created economic chaos and disunity among regions of Canada.
I commend our Government for a reduction in interest rates, which have declined 19 times in the past 19 weeks; a fuel tax rebate; a moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation foreclosures, and more recently a reduction to 12.75 per cent interest rates on over 5,600 FCC loans. As well, the Government has returned choice in the use of the metric system. I urge my Government to go one step further and remove the capital
gains tax from farm land sales in order to remove this dark cloud of uncertainty from the farm community.
Since this is a tax on the savings of a retiring farmer, a tax on the production of food, and adds greatly to the cost of land for a beginning farmer, I urge all Members of the House to support its immediate removal.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, it is a basic and fundamental principle of our criminal justice system that all persons be treated equally before the law and that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Tuesday's acquittal of Premier Richard Hatfield on a charge of possession of marijuana leads me to conclude that these basic principles have been breached.
The investigation leading to the charge and the subsequent prosecution raises a number of very disturbing questions. Why did the RCMP wait a month before charging Premier Hatfield? Was there political interference? When were the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) consulted? What instruction, if any, did they give to the RCMP? Is there any substance to the allegations that there was a cover-up attempt by the RCMP? Was it fair for the presiding judge unjustly and improperly to accuse a reporte of illegally planting the marijuana? Was Premier Hatfield given preferential treatment? Is there one law for the rich and powerful and another for the average citizen? More important, would a similar case involving a teenager from the other side of the tracks be dealt with in a similar fashion? I suspect not.
I call on the Solicitor General to conduct a complete and independent investigation into the investigation and prosecution of the matter, to clear the air, to ensure that the public continues to have confidence in the fairness of our criminal justice system, and to ensure that innocent persons are not harmed by a judge's irresponsible statements.
In my view, the case of the Queen versus Richard Hatfield was a grave miscarriage of justice.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I was told that the Minister of National Defence
January 31, 1985

would be in his place today. However, in his absence I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
On January 25 the Minister said in the House:
Mr. Speaker, there is no current or projected Canadian plan regarding replacement of the DEW Line or any other matter involving Canada in any aspect of United States strategic defence initiatives.
The Minister has just arrived, Mr. Speaker. May I repeat the first part of my question?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


John Napier Turner: On January 25 the Minister of National Defence said in the House:
Mr. Speaker, there is no current or projected Canadian plan regarding replacement of the DEW Line or any other matter involving Canada in any aspect of United States strategic defence initiatives.
Later on, he added:
It has nothing to do with weapons.
Yesterday the Washington Post reported on its front page that the U.S. army will be testing a land-based missile defence system in Alaska. Last night, Craig Oliver on CTC, out of Washington, said:
To most defence analysts here in Washington, it's taken for granted that Canada and star wars are inseparable, and they say if Canadian officials are unaware of that they are not asking the right questions to the right people.
Will the Minister comment on these unnerving reports from Washington? Will he tell us whether or not he is negotiating a defence treaty, or an amendment to it, with the United States, which the Prime Minister will be prepared to sign with the President of the United States in Quebec City?


Hon. Robert C. Coates (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. First, he is talking about press speculation. I have indicated to the House that what we are negotiating is a warning system and not a weapons system. That continues to be the fact.
What is in the Washington Post, or any other U.S. publication, is not something for which this Government can take responsibility. What we can take responsibility for is to say to the Hon. Member that it is not part of SDL It is a warning system. It is not a weapons system, and that will continue to be the case.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I say to the House that it is an insult that Canadians have to go to Washington to find out what is happening with respect to North American defence negotiations. Either there are discussions about anti-missile systems in Canda going on between the United States and Canada, and Canadians are being kept in the dark, or the Minister is not on top of his dossier and what the United States is doing. I ask the Minister-which is it? Does he know what is going on but is not telling us, or does he not know what is going on? Are the
Oral Questions
Americans developing a North American defence system, anticipating our co-operation and involvement?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I get a little offended by the Leader of the Opposition. After all, he was Prime Minister for a very short period of time, and he should know what we are talking about when we are negotiating with the United States. I have told him what we are negotiating. He should accept that, because that is the fact. Instead of that, he is trying to mix up and frighten Canadian people. Well, I say to the Hon. Member that we are negotiating a warning system, not a weapons system, and I stand by that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUBJECT OF NEGOTIATIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the Canadian people are going to say, but I am not frightened by that answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I spoke of this yesterday. We had a fishing treaty signed between the United States and Canada on Monday, before any member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry ever saw the treaty. We are concerned that we are going to have an amendment to the NORAD treaty without ever having an opportunity to examine it in this House. That is the reason for the question. Is the Minister really telling us that if we are ever going to find out what is going on in these negotiations, we have to go to Washington to do so?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, what I would like to say to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is that he was wrong the first time, he was wrong the second time, and the last time he just struck out.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PINE TREE LINE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.


An Hon. Member:: Here is a heavy hitter.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Because the Minister gets very upset when asked any questions about defence systems, I will just go a little easier on him. I don't want him to get upset. Would the Minister answer one simple question about the Cadin-Pine Tree Radar Line? If, as reported, the Government is ready to make an announcement on the North Warning System negotiations, would the Minister of National Defence indicate

January 31, 1985
Oral Questions
whether the future of the Cadin-Pine Tree Line will be part of that announcement? And if not, why not?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member realizes that the Cadin-Pine Tree Line is one of the radar systems in Canada which is outdated and outmoded because the Party he happens to be associated with, which was the Government of Canada for a long time, paid no attention to the sovereignty of Canada and the fact that we should have been upgrading our radar systems. Naturally, if we are negotiating the North Warning System, the Cadin-Pine Tree Line has to be worked into that system, and we will deal with that situation as we deal with the negotiations associated with the North Warning System.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: That is another doughy answer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Doughy?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: No clear cut reply on the Cadin-Pine Tree Line.


CANADIAN CONTENT IN WARNING SYSTEM
Leonard Donald Hopkins: What effort has the Minister made-and we don't want to hear about American tours across Canada-to ensure a maximum Canadian content in the North Warning System line of surveillance? Can he absolutely and unequivocally assure this House, and Canadians, that he is not hastening an announcement simply to accommodate President Reagan's timetable and, hence, excluding, or even neglecting, better Canadian industrial benefits for Canadian industry?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the Hon. Member really is pushing his luck when he starts talking-on behalf of that Party- about anything "doughy" associated with national defence. What we are trying to do as a Government is catch up with the 16 years of neglect of the Hon. Member's Party with respect to national defence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: It is not very easy, Mr. Speaker, when we know of the economic mess divulged by the Minister of Finance to the Canadian people last November. What we will do is our utmost to get the very best for Canadians in Canada's participation in anything new that happens in this country associated with defence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF NORAD AGREEMENT
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Defence. Since we are reliably informed that northern Canada and Alaska are included in the plans for the
Pentagon's star wars, and for the components of star wars, such as our becoming the first line of an ABM defence-


Charles Joseph Clark: Reliable information by Craig Oliver.


Pauline Jewett: -and since the Minister will not agree that this has taken place, will he not only confirm that we are included in these plans and preparations, but will he pledge right now that he will send to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence a reference on the NORAD agreement-since it was in 1981 that the Trudeau Government secretly took out the ABM reference-and allow the Standing Committee of the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Pauline Jewett: -to review the NORAD agreement now? Will the Minister not wait until May when he will be obliged to send it to the committee?


Robert Carman Coates: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member that it pleases me very much to see where she and her Party are going. It is nice to know at this late date that that Party now believes that maybe Canada should be a partner in NATO.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: I believe what the Hon. Member should understand is that if Canada should be a partner in NATO, the United States will be one of our partners in NATO and, therefore, when we do our negotiating with our partners, we have to do it together, treating them all the same. From the point of view of the NORAD agreement, let me say to the Hon. Member that early in March we will be presenting a green paper to a committee of Parliament.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Can we depend on that?


Robert Carman Coates: As a result of that there will be a white paper discussion, and all of the concerns which the Hon. Member and her Party have in relation to defence matters can be placed before that committee on the white paper.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Minister once again is entirely avoiding the question I asked him explicitly. Since the Trudeau Government in 1981 secretly took out the ABM reference from the NORAD agreement, will the Minister commit himself now to give a reference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on NORAD, and not wait until May when he will be obliged to give that reference to the committee?


Robert Carman Coates: What I have said, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Member, if she can hear, is that we are going to submit a green paper to either
January 31, 1985

the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Fait accompli by any colour.


Robert Carman Coates: -or a special committee of Parliament where that subject, and all other subjects associated with defence, could be discussed.


Pauline Jewett: No, we are talking about the NORAD agreement.


HOUSING
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour responsible for housing. The Minister has issued his consultation paper on housing in which he acknowledges that half a million tenant households cannot afford physically adequate and uncrowded housing, but he declares that the Government has no more money for housing and must redirect funds allocated to existing expenditure. Why does the Minister's report choose explicitly to ignore the billions of dollars paid out in tax expenditures to the large builders of rental accommodation when he calls for money to help those still in need?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the contribution I hope will be made by the Hon. Member to the consultation process which will go forward within the next two months. His specific question as to expenditures through rental accommodation for housing-providers is addressed by us. This Government, the previous administration, and Governments represented by the Hon. Member's Party-and I speak in particular of the Province of Manitoba-have the same process, the same assistance applied to provide rental accommodation for Canadian citizens. I know the Hon. Member is aware that in some of those accommodations there is a mixing of income groups, and a rent subsidy is offered to those who are in need.


SHELTER ALLOWANCE STUDIES
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister did not answer my question about tax expenditures at all, I would like to ask him whether he has done studies on the shelter allowance proposals such as were put forward by the Canadian Homebuilders' Association? If so, will he make those studies available to Members of Parliament and the public?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I have not made studies of the shelter allowance concept. I am aware that studies have been done and are available through CMHC. I have studied parts of the shelter allowance concept. 1 have addressed the question in other areas, as has the Hon.
Oral Questions
Member, in looking at social benefits available to Canadians. I agree that shelter allowance should be considered one of those social benefits. Hopefully we will be discussing the issue further in the next two months during the consultation process.


RENT CONTROLS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister consulted with his counterparts in the provincial Governments on the proposal by the Canadian Homebuilders' Association that rent controls should be removed in three years?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, it is the autonomous provincial Governments which impose rent controls. I draw to his attention that rent controls have been removed in some provinces, but they continue in some eight jurisdictions. I suggest to the Hon. Member that such controls would be the prerogative of the provincial Governments, and that any impact they may have on the provision of housing to Canadians would have to be taken into consideration when the federal Government consults with its provincial colleagues.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given that major long term commitments are currently being discussed in Washington which could infringe upon our territorial sovereignty and, moreover, which could eventually demonstrate that Canada can no longer set its own policy in the area of foreign affairs, is it true that External Affairs officials are altogether excluded from the current negotiations being held in Washington, and that only National Defence officials are involved in these negotiations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations referred to by members of the Official Opposition have not been participated in by officials of the Departments of External Affairs or National Defence because those negotiations do not exist. They are entirely a figment of the imagination of Craig Oliver and the members of the Opposition.


Mr. Deans:: You mean of the other members of the Opposition.

January 31, 1985
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Excuse me, I do not want to associate the New Democratic Party with trouble they have not got into themselves.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In so far as the negotiations to renew the radar warning systems in the North are concerned, as the Hon. Member should know, those have been in progress since the mid-1970s, and representatives of both Departments have been involved in those negotiations, including the time when the Hon. Member was Minister.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR DECISION CONCERNING NORAD
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he can assure the House that no change will be made either to NORAD or NATO with the U.S. government, for there are apparently discussions being held at the present time to amend NORAD, as the previous questions have indicated, whereby the U.S. government could take a new initiative and present us, within a very short time, with a fait accompli which would deprive the Canadian people of their sovereignty in the North?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are no such negotiations. Those which are now being held had started under the previous government. The difference is that there is now a possibility to bring the negotiations to a conclusion with a view to protect the Canadian sovereignty.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION
Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the proceedings to advise Members of the presence in our gallery today of Mr. Pio-Carlo Terenzio, Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to address my questions to the Minister of National Defence and follow up on the somewhat curious logic of his argument when he says we are only negotiating a warning system, as confirmed by the Secretary of State for
External Affairs. The logic there is that once the warning system is in place and we see an incoming Cruise missile or bomber, we will wave at it as it goes by, because they are not talking about the other component, which is how to respond.
Obviously the Americans are planning a new North Ameri-an defence system and we want to know what the Government is doing to respond to that major change in U.S. strategy relating to North America? According to their official spokesman, they are planning a new defence program in the northern part of North America, including Canada. What in God's name are you doing about it? Are you thinking about it? Are you discussing it with them, or are you going to do something about it so that Canadians will know what the implications are?


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, what my hon. friend is suggesting is that his Party, and the Government with which he was associated, allowed Canada to be placed in a situation where we did not even have a warning system to tell us if weapons were going to be coming into Canada from the U.S.S.R. At least we are going to put North America in a position where we will have a warning system to know that those weapons are coming in, if that should happen. The guarantee for Canadians is that if we have the warning system there is less likelihood that any weapons will be sent into our air space.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Defence said it all. He just does not know what is going on.


WARNING SYSTEM AGREEMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we get a commitment from the Government that the Prime Minister will not be signing any agreement with the President on a new warning system until the implications are clearly spelled out for our country in terms of major new expenditures on some form of defence program in North America. As well, we would need to know what the commitment would be regarding the placement of interceptor aircraft, or ground to air missiles, or any form of surveillance. We would also like a commitment that the Minister of Defence try to find out what is going on in North America so that we can properly defend ourselves.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, certainly when they were in the Government there was no way we could properly defend ourselves. The one thing they did do was to enter into an agreement to buy CF-18 aircraft. But what is the value of having CF-18 aircraft if we do not have a warning system which tells us when things are moving into our air space?


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs who, I know, is aware of the dangerous and growing conflict on Meares Island in British Columbia. Would the Minister take this opportunity to assure the Clayoquot and Ahousaht bands that they, in fact, hold title on Meares Island and he will immediately initiate negotiations with the Government of B.C. to resolve this conflict?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is,
I am sure, aware, the federal Government has accepted the land claim for negotiation. That is a fact. The Government of British Columbia and the two Indian bands concerned are aware of that, and I do not have to assert that. Let me also say that I am very aware of the difficulty on Meares Island and the possible explosiveness of the situation. I want to assure him that I will take whatever steps I can to be of assistance.


APPOINTMENT OF NEGOTIATOR
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, Louis Riel was hanged 100 years ago for standing up for the rights of Indian people, particularly in relation to land title. Will the Minister take this opportunity to assure the Nuu-chah-nulth tribal Council that he will immediately appoint a negotiator so that there is at least a process in place to resolve this conflict which may bring about bloodshed and the return of a Duck Lake tragedy?


David Edward Crombie: As I indicated to the Hon. Member on a previous occasion, Mr. Speaker, since the matter has been accepted for negotiation the bands know where the federal Government stands on the matter. We will be proceeding to negotiation through a negotiator, at the appropriate time, in the normal way.
With respect to the problem on Meares Island, that is a matter which has to be dealt with, not only by the courts but, as I indicated to the Hon. Member, I am going to try to be of assistance in an informal way over the weekend.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Oral Questions
As a result of the framework agreement concluded last December with the Quebec government in the area of regional economic development, the Minister signed with that government subsidiary agreements in the area of tourism on January 16 and industrial development on January 23.
My riding of Temiscamingue being an area where mining plays a major role in our economy, could the Minister indicate when he expects to sign a subsidiary agreement with Quebec in the area of mining?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue that I understand that my colleague, the Minister of State for Mines, has been having discussions with the appropriate people in Quebec with a view to signing such a mining agreement. We have already signed an industrial development agreement and a tourism sub-agreement with the Province of Quebec. This Friday we will be signing a communications agreement. I trust that in due course we will be signing the mining agreement to which the Member has referred.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Government has launched another attack on the family through its proposals on family allowance and the child tax exemption. The Minister is now suggesting that maternity benefits be removed from the unemployment insurance program. Does the Minister think it is fair to women, who have paid in for these benefits, for him even to think of tampering with this earned benefit?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear again to the Hon. Member that there is no intention of removing that benefit. We are talking about how that benefit should be financed. As she knows, the benefit is now financed through the unemployment insurance scheme. We are suggesting that we should consider whether that financing should be done through the general tax system in order to allow for a lower payroll tax on small businesses to allow them to create more jobs.


MATERNITY LEAVE
Sheila Finestone: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Again, financial security is of paramount importance for Canadians who want to raise a family. How can the minister justify modifying the unemployment insurance program by abolishing maternity benefits without any consultation? Why

January 31, 1985
Oral Questions
has he not tabled a White Paper on the issue instead of spreading fear among women? Is that equality, Mr. Minister?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it perfectly clear that what I have suggested is something which was put forward in the agenda paper last November. There has been lots of opportunity for people to discuss this. There will be opportunity in the future as we proceed with the consultations.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Last year the former Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, was justifiably criticized for not releasing his position on aboriginal rights in the Constitution until one day prior to the actual commencement of that conference. Can the Minister of Justice tell us when the new Conservative Government will make public its position on aboriginal rights in the Constitution?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman could not have been noticing that before Christmas we had a conference of Ministers of Justice. My colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, was at the conference with the provinces and representatives of the aboriginal peoples. I think we made our position on the issues pretty clear to them. They were satisfied with the progress that was made.
When the constitutional conference takes place on April 2 and 3 the Prime Minister will have a well articulated well thought out position which we think will please the aboriginal peoples, Members of the House, and the people of Canada. There is much work being done. Just because we are not out in public every day discussing it or yelling about it, does not mean it is not being done. In addition-I don't want to be long. Mr. Speaker. In addition-


Mr. Speaker:: Good. The Hon. Member for Churchill on a supplementary question.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am not worried about the length of the answer. I am worried about the fact that he will not give us that information before the conference.


REQUEST FOR EARLY ANNOUNCEMENT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Can the Minister assure us that we are not going to have a repeat of last year's conference when the provincial Governments could quite rightfully say that they did not have the information early enough? Is the information going to be made public well in advance of the commencement of the conference?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to reassure the hon. gentleman on that point. Last year the then Government tried a game of one-upmanship and was not telling anyone what it was doing. Neither the provinces nor the aboriginal peoples knew what it would place on the table at any moment. We have committed ourselves to keep the provinces and the aboriginal peoples well informed ahead of time of what our proposals will be. They have promised to do the same with us. They are well satisfied with the way they are now being treated. There is no complaint that I am aware of, except in the enfeebled mind of the hon. gentleman.


MARINE TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Pat Binns (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Prince Edward Island is dependent on ferry service in order to move people, goods, and services. The Island and Nova Scotia are served well by Northumberland Ferries Ltd., although growing concern exists due to long waits, current hours of service, and high rates. Will the Minister assure the House that his Department will negotiate with the provincial Government and Northumberland Ferries in order to provide adequate numbers of crossings, reasonable rates, and a replacement program for existing vessels?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of adequate ferry service is described by the Hon. Member. The acquisition of new vessels is the subject of a study that has been commissioned by Transport Canada. The study will undertake to look at the various options and the vessel and service requirements that would be necessary to meet needs until the year 2000. I am expecting the report of those recommendations sometime in February. I certainly invite the Hon. Member to provide me with his advice and suggestions on how we might better improve the service.


APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Secretary of State for Canada, who is responsible for the Status of Women. Since July last, the Advisory Council on the Status of Women has been without a President. It is run by a Vice-President who sits in Ottawa only part-time and whose term expires March 1st, 1985. Can the Minister tell the House when his Government intends to appoint a President to that agency, which has now been leaderless for the past six months?


ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
[Stage Direction]
January 31, 1985
Hon. Walter McLean (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure my colleague, the former chairman, that the matter is within a matter of weeks of being resolved. Before too long the Government will make public the appointment of a chairman, as well as additional appointments for the vacancies which have occurred. As I indicated in the House previously, we have been reviewing the operation and seeking provincial and other input and observations on how the Advisory Council on the Status of Women can be the most effective instrument representing the concerns of women across the country.


PRESENT PRESIDING HEAD OF COUNCIL
Lucie Pépin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Since the vice-president is living in Vancouver, since the director of research is on maternity leave, and since the executive director has left the Council last December, could the Hon. Minister tell us who is making routine decisions involving the staff? Who runs the Council? Is it the Hon. Minister?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the honourable former chair-person of the Council that, as she knows, the acting president, the former vice-president, has had full authority during this interim period. I have been in regular consultation with her. We have had an acting executive director within the Council. There is no question of either Government interference or lack of direction within the Council.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POLICY DISCUSSIONS-CANADIAN CONTENT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Why is it, in the ongoing discussions of trade policy, that the Government has rejected the option of Canadian content requirements which, if properly negotiated, would require the creation of employment and the development of new technology in Canada, and the reinvestment in Canada of profits generated in Canada for the benefit of Canada?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Hon. Member that to my knowledge Canada has not, at this point, rejected any options with respect to our trade, either import or export. As he well
Oral Questions
knows, what we are presently doing in the discussion paper is examining all options and asking for all points of view. Following that, we will consider whether or not that suggestion would be viable for our trade.


GOVERNMENT DISCUSSION PAPER
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, recognizing that other countries in the world have in fact adopted such programs, Japan being the best example, why did the Government not include such an option in its option paper? Why was it specifically excluded from the discussion paper tabled by the Minister two days ago?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member that in the discussion paper itself we said that the paper was not inclusive or exclusive, that all options were open, and because that one was not specifically included does not mean that it was excluded.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Canada's five million working women are alarmed by the Finance Minister's proposal that paid maternity leave be removed from the Unemployment Insurance Program. Will the Minister say exactly how he propose to do this? Will expectant mothers have to apply for provincial welfare, even if they are working? What happens to the contributions they have made to the Unemployment Insurance Program?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no reason for Canada's five million working women to be alarmed, as the Hon. Member would suggest. All that we are talking about here is the possibility of some shifting in the financing.
I would caution her, before she embarks too strenuously on the politics of fear that she is working on-


Lloyd Axworthy: Here we go again. You are the one who said it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me say that, by removing this obstacle that will inhibit small business from creating more jobs, we will be able to create jobs for many, many more working women.


Aideen Nicholson: I regret that the Minister dismisses this matter because there is a very important symbolic question about how maternity benefits are to be paid.

January 31, 1985
Oral Questions WORKPLACE EQUALITY


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister to try to understand, if he does not understand already, the implications of making the statement and not developing it. There are serious implications about equality in the workplace, and I trust that he will address himself to them.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there was a question in that last statement by the Member. I can only refer to what I said in my first response, that there is no reason for there to be any concern on the part of working women.


TOURISM
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Tourism. I am sorry that the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario, the Hon. Roy McMurtry, is not here to hear this. In a recent visit to my riding he expressed concern over the fanfare which surrounded an agreement signed by the Province and the federal Government to provide $44 million of subsidy for the tourist industry over five years. He referred to that as "peanuts" and a "leaky roof' approach. Does the five-year agreement signed between the federal Government and the provinces represent the sum total of the Government's commitment to tourism?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of State (Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the Hon. Member refer to the amount of the agreement as peanuts because it was, in fact, a $44 million agreement. It was the most generous of all the agreements signed with any of the provinces, save one. On a per capita basis I think it was, by any standard, a lot of largess from the federal treasury.
Indeed, in the 16 or 17 weeks during which I have been Minister of Tourism, I have signed more agreements with more provinces, worth more money, than the previous Government did in the entire term it was in office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary. I am sorry I stunned the Hon. Minister, but the word I used was borrowed from one of his provincial colleagues in the Conservative Party.
In view of the importance of tourism and of the hospitality industry for our overall economy, why would the Government not put forward a discussion paper on tourist policy?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that a paper will be released, I hope in a few weeks. It will be a consultative document and a tool for collaboration with the provinces, the industry, and other parts of the federal Government. I think that even the Hon. Member will be pleased with the contents of that paper. It does not reflect consultation so much as it initiates a long process of consultation which we expect to embark upon by mid February, and which will lead to a major national conference involving the provinces, labour, business, and the industry, sometime next fall.


HOUSING
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for housing. We have heard the kind of "Trust me, dear," attitude that comes from the Minister of Finance. I hope we don't get the same kind of response from the Minister responsible for housing.
The Minister will be aware of the document that he released yesterday which outlined a half million Canadians in housing difficulties. He is suggesting a funding cut-back instead of legislation to meet this pressing need. Can the Minister tell us what specific action he is prepared to take to address the half million Canadians who are desperately in need of housing but are not being addressed in this particular consultation document?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would tremble in fear at the words that the Hon. Member suggested I might use in replying to her question. Her point is well taken. It is not the intention, through the consultation papers or the discussions I will be having with those in the non governmental areas, to seek ways of reducing the present cost. It is intended to seek ways of delivering housing more effectively to Canadians, and particularly to those Canadians who are most in need.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I must say that the Government's musings on housing policy are as frightening as your musings on pregnancy leave.


RENT CONTROLS-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the report suggests that rent controls are to be blamed for rental market problems across Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Wherever you got her, send her back.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I realize that the tone may be high, but the intent is very sincere.
January 31, 1985

Does the Minister believe the statement in his own document that "If the problems arise from matters under provincial jurisdiction such as rent controls, then the appropriateness of federal assistance must be questioned"? This is a clear threat to the eight provincial Governments across the country that have rent control. Does the Minister believe that this kind of threat will assist the housing market across Canada, especially those half million Canadians, primarily women, who are living in rental accommodation and who need assistance from the Government?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me the time, I will be pleased to answer the several questions the Hon. Member put forth. If I could direct her mind to the exact quote contained in the document, it is in the form of an observation; it is certainly not in the form of a threat.
In reply to the Hon. Member for Spadina, I suggested that part of the consultation process would involve discussion with those eight out of the twelve jurisdictions in Canada that have rent controls to see if there is a way of providing housing without having what is considered by some people to be a disincentive. Also in the same vein, I would advise the Hon. Member that such measures are within the prerogative of the provinces, not of the federal Government.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, January 30, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, could we allow the House to revert to Question Period, at least to the extent that I can ask the Government House Leader what he proposes for the business of the House for the coming week?


Mr. Speaker:: I take the point seriously. I take it the Hon. Member is rising on the business question at this point?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House Leader for the Official Opposition, and to Members of the House generally, that the business for tomorrow will be Bill C-20, which we are considering today, if we have not concluded our deliberations today. That will be followed by Bill C-23, a Bill relating to the Small Businesses Loans Act
Business of the House
amendments. If both of these Bills are passed at second reading, the back-up Bill will be Bill C-22, an Act to establish the International Centre for Ocean Development and to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation thereto.
On Monday, the first order of business-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not mean to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I am sure there are Members in the House who are really trying to follow this answer. I suspect other Members of the House might allow us to do that, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think the whole nation is listening in rapt attention to what I have to say concerning my answer to the Hon. Opposition House Leader.
In any event, if debate on Bill C-26 is completed I propose to call-


Ian Deans: Sorry, I did not hear that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -the Bill relating to an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the far-sighted and wonderful legislation we are bringing forward to help the seniors of this country which will be well known to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Ian Deans: You don't have to be snarky. I did not hear you say it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Then listen. Put your ear plug in.


Ian Deans: The microphone was turned off.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: After this Bill I propose to call-


Mr. Beatty:: Ian, stick it in your ear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -the Bill amending certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) proposes to introduce later this day.
Tuesday will be the third allotted day in the current period of supply. On Wednesday and Thursday the order of business will be the same as I have just announced for Monday.
We will monitor, of course, the progress that has been made with respect to this legislation. If circumstances change, there may be changes in the order of business and I will try to reserve the right to stand at some future time to change that. I hope we will make progress and be able to carry on with the legislative package that I have proposed for next week.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I just want to suggest to the Government House Leader, lest others should misinterpret our exchange which was more acrimonious than usual, that the reason I asked the question is that his microphone had been turned off when you rose, Sir. Though I did have my ear-piece

January 31, 1985
Committee Reports
in place and though I was listening attentively, I did not happen to pick up his reference to Bill C-26.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Speak to the nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Since God gave us all the same number of hormones and the Hon. Member decided to blow his on facial hair, obviously it has affected his hearing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Government House Leader want to try his other foot?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry in both official languages, and hairless.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[ Translation]


DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I would like to table in both official languages copies of the Annual Report of the Department of Communications for 1983-84. This report must be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, pursuant to Standing Order 46(4).


EQUALITY RIGHTS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I take pleasure in tabling in both official languages a discussion paper entitled Equality Issues in Federal Law, which I hope the House will decide later to send to a special committee so that representations can be accepted from the public and recommendations made.


PETITIONS
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have used all my hormones on facial hair and I, too, take exception to the statement of the Hon. House Leader. Next, someone will be picking on our glasses, Sir!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ted William Schellenberg: Moving on to business, I have the honour of presenting to the House a petition from 499 residents from the Town of Parksville, B.C., concerning the location of a new post office in that town.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition on behalf of the Prince Edward Island Crafts Council and citizens concerned over the increases to National Park fees announced in the Finance Minister's (Mr. Wilson) statement. Craftspeople on Prince Edward Island are concerned that increases to National Park user fees will discourage tourists from visiting Prince Edward Island, so endangering their livelihood.


John Carnell Crosbie: for leave to introduce Bill C-27, an Act to amend certain Acts having regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
January 31, 1985


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Tuesday, January 29, 1985, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 59 and 158.


Mr. Howie: What are the (a) names (b) positions of the persons who occupy positions on the Executive and Board of Directors of the Medical Research Council and, in each case, what amount was he/she paid in respect of that position in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1984?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The Medical Research Council is a federal agency consisting of a President and not more than 21 other members all appointed by Governor in Council. The Executive Committee consists of the President and seven other members of the Council.
(a) and (b)
Dr. Pierre Bois, President*
Dr. H. B. Dinsdale, Vice President*
Dr. J. H. Dirks*
Dr. G. J. Mogenson*
Dr. M. W. Spence*
Dr. R. L. Cruess*
Dr. D. Gagnon*
Dr. S. Carriere*
Dr. N. Begin-Heick Dr. H. G. Friesen Dr. C. Kay Dr. B. Schnell
Order Paper Questions Dr. J. G. Levy
Hon. Mr. Justice D. Marshall Dr. K. Dorrington Professor M. Gent Dr. K. Lederis
* Executive Committee Members
With the exception of the President, all other members of the Council and Executive Committee serve without remuneration but are entitled to receive reasonable travelling and other expenses incurred while absent from their residence in the course of their duties.
The President, Dr. Pierre Bois, is remunerated at the DM-1 level ($79,120 to $93,040). His salary is paid by the University of Montreal and reimbursement is made to the University for salary and benefits paid in accordance with a contract between the Medical Research Council and the University of Montreal.


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


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned: No.


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


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Question No. 88 is a very simple one. It concerns proposed regulations for camping permits on Parliament Hill. It could be answered by the Government by a simple yes or no. When can we expect an answer? The question has been on the Order Paper since November 15.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, soon.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member for Mississauga South that question No. 88 could be answered very easily with a yes or no. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take that into consideration and give us an answer forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary will take note that there is a non-partisan agreement on getting an answer to that question.
The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

CRTC Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Masse that Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Canadian Radiotelevision 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.
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, before one o'clock I was addressing the objectives of Bill C-20 which relate to offering a power of policy direction over the CRTC in broadcasting and in telecommunications matters, to be exercised by Governor in Council, as well as a power to allow Cabinet explicitly to order the CRTC to deregulate telecommunications services that can be provided on a competitive basis.
This power of policy direction in Section 14.1 was recommended by the Lambert Royal Commission as well as by the Special Parliamentary Committee on Regulatory Reform. As part of the March, 1983 broadcasting strategy, the previous Government announced that it would introduce the power in legislation. The power in necessary if the Government is to ensure that its policies are carried out by the CRTC in the areas of telecommunications and broadcasting. Without this power, the Government cannot control the direction of policy development, placing it in an essentially reactive position vis-a-vis the Commission. Interested parties, including the provinces, are generally supportive of the power of policy direction. It allows parties to lobby the Government to establish certain policies as part of the regulatory framework.
I draw to the attention of the House a recent example of the CRTC reacting to public opinion. In fact, it was its first reaction to public opinion in many years. It is noteworthy that that reaction took place in the shadow of this pending Bill. The example relates to the refusal of the CRTC to renew the licence provisions of cable operators vis-a-vis the carriage of a certain FM station, KMBI-FM from Spokane, on cable systems in Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta. Apparently this station was offensive in some way to the CRTC because it purported to carry a Christian message. There was such a flood of public opinion against the heavy-handedness of the CRTC that in fact a reversal of the decision took place and happily the station was restored to those particular cable systems.
The power of policy direction is also a necessary instrument to implement federal-provincial agreements on policy matters. The second power, which is referred to as the power to deregulate, is complementary to the power of direction. Generally speaking, this power is intended to increase competition and decrease regulation in telecommunications services. This power is necessary because under present law the CRTC has
no option but to regulate the activities of companies which fall within the Railway Act definition of a telephone company, even though the companies are planning to offer telecommunications services on a competitive basis, thereby removing any need for CRTC regulation of rates.
The second power would allow the Government to order the CRTC to deregulate telecommunications services which the Government felt should not be regulated because they are offered on a competitive basis. For example, the previous Government announced that it intended to license cellular mobile telephone services under the Radio Act on a competitive basis with two companies competing in each market. However, the Commission felt itself legally bound to regulate the companies, albeit in a relatively light fashion. The power to deregulate would allow the Government to order the CRTC to deregulate these services altogether.
As an alternative to the power to forbear, the CRTC argues that questions of deregulation should be decided by the Commission in the first instance using a new power under the Railway Act. If the Government was not satisfied with the CRTC's decision, it could either vary the decision under Section 64 of the National Transportation Act or repeal the decision, issue a policy direction and require the Commission to hold a second hearing. This approach involves considerable delays. Moreover, it undermines the principle that the Government should be responsible for establishing basic aspects of telecommunications policy.
In summary, it is clear that Clause 1 provides some vitally needed direction for the whole broadcasting industry which has many cultural and technological ramifications today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) a question relating to his comments about the cellular mobile telephone decision. I do not question the idea that the Minister and therefore the Government should lay down policy. However, would the Hon. Member agree that there was one advantage to the system under which the CRTC dealt with the question, that CRTC procedures required and made possible open hearings at which interested parties could ask questions, obtain information and challenge recommendations?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. In fact, he can be reassured that where matters of contentious public policy are involved, the hearing process will undoubtedly continue.


David Orlikow: good part of the success of television stations and the new pay television systems is due to the commitments they made when they applied for licences. They made commitments to have Canadian content, to produce Canadian plays and to broadcast music, ballet and such. Most of those promises were ignored and forgotten. Except for the CBC, we virtually have no Canadian production with the use of Canadian writers, artists, actors, musicians, dancers and so on. Would the Hon. Member agree with those comments?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I believe the Hon. Member has a little research to do. I would be pleased to assist him in that regard. I do not have all the facts and figures at my command today.
However, I stress that the figures I cited related to the significance of the private industry, both transmitting undertakings and broadcast receiving undertakings. I would challenge the Hon. Member's contention, though, that private broadcasters have not lived up to their promises of performance. In fact, to my knowledge there is not one private broadcaster in this country nor one private broadcasting network which has not lived up to its promise of performance and its commitments made during the licensing process.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, when the CRTC was considering its policy with regard to pay-TV, there were a large number of applications. The CRTC agreed to a number of regional systems. They all made commitments that they would produce and show Canadian programs. The assumption of the CRTC that a number of regional systems could operate viably financially has proven wrong. As the Hon. Member said earlier, in English Canada today we really only have one system. Is the Hon. Member aware that that system is doing very little in the way of producing Canadian programming?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Hon. Member has narrowed the focus of his question to the matter of pay-TV. In that regard, he is quite correct, with reference to the CRTC having somehow been misled, in believing that the number of pay-TV licences granted could survive in this country. In that they were sadly mistaken. I believe that is one good reason why we should have the powers under Clause 1 to give some economic direction to the commission since they do not seem to have any economic sense. I would stress that because of those accidents of licensing and also because of the economic recession, the commission in the relicensing and the adjustment of licensing of pay-TV services has given considerable concessions. I concede that to the Hon. Member with regard to the present and remaining licensees.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I invite the Hon. Member to look at the records of some 20 or more years ago, not the applications of the pay-TV system but of the commercial TV stations and networks. He will see the promises they made when making applications, that there would be a great deal of Canadian programming, music, dance and variety. Compare those promises with the realities. I recognize the difficulties. I
CRTC Act
recognize that the revenue to do those kinds of things is not there because the advertising dollars are not there. That is the only way they operate. I urge the Member to look at that so that he will realize that what we have said is actually fact.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am just delighted to be taken back 20 years. I remember the regime of the Board of Broadcast Governors which, to be kind, was a gentle regime. More recently we have had the CRTC, which has some teeth. Further to that we have had a rebirth in a sense of Canadian identity which was not the product of regulation but rather was a spontaneous outpouring dating back to 1967, the year of our glorious Centenary. I should point out the great contributions made to this country by the Canadian broadcasting system. The private sector since that time, at no cost to the Canadian taxpayer, has contributed to the building of the finest broadcasting system in the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Is there unanimous consent to revert to the Tabling of Documents so that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) might table a document?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for giving unanimous consent to revert to Tabling of Documents. Pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I would like to table a discussion paper on tax issues and agricultural matters.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.
[Stage Direction]
January 31, 1985
CRTCAct
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 to amend legislation governing the CRTC, broadcasting and radio was introduced on December 20, 1984, and it is the outcome of the major reform announced nearly a year ago by Communications Minister Francis Fox.
Two major aspects of this Bill must be mentioned. First, the power of the Governor in Council to issue executory directions to the CRTC on any matter within its jurisdiction. Second, it explains clearly the Canadian Government commitment towards the principle whereby all Canadian men and women are entitled to programs which fully respect the dignity and equality of all individuals. That is in keeping with Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That last statement deserves every consideration, but it is so closely linked with the new powers given to the Minister that we will have to remain ever vigilant, and we must warn against any attempt at such manipulation as might detract from the primary objective and lead to failure to give priority to important issues related to human respect and dignity. The best way to explain this is to refer to my previous experience as president of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
The issues of dignity, respect and equality which we were talking about concern women particularly, and they are too often related to the problem of violence.
During my term with the Council, that outlook did mobilize our efforts over a number of years. Since 1975, the Council has voiced specific recommendations for major reforms to our statutes and to the administration of justice. Our assumption had been that our statutes should be one of the mirrors of our society. But it has been our experience that such a mirror too often has distorted to a very high degree the actual facts, and it had become urgent to change the glass.
The Council was therefore pleased to see the new direction taken by legislators in amending that part of the Criminal Code which deals with sexual offences, first by deleting and second by reviewing obsolete offences, and stressing the values and mentalities that more truly reflect present day perception of sexual offences.
I would ask you to become aware of and to be heedful of violence against women, and also of violence in general, especially violence against children. Acts of violence against children also point out a frightening reality. All this leads us to ponder over the roots of that evil.
In that respect, the broadcasting of any violence, by whatever means but especially by means of television, which comes under the jurisdiction of the CRTC, disseminates and legitimizes in some way those forms of violence, and their repetition generates senseless and brutish acts of pointless violence.
It is essential that this House should pay attention to and monitor that area, and hopefully the new power given to the Minister in this area will be used with judgment, responsibility and respect for the individuals and groups concerned with
those parameters, and not used to other less honourable purposes, but true to our expectancies. These new provisions and attitudes have become absolutely essential because of the growing pattern of violence. It is also because of women's new open approach to their sexuality that the absolute need for such amendments has been identified. That approach is in turn conditioned by the over-all feminist process. Women's reaction in the face of the kind of violence they are too often still subjected to is not a phenomenon separate from the over-all status of women.
In that context, the Criminal Code's new philosophy with respect to sexual offences answered the legitimate expectations that were based on the concept of violence and put the emphasis on the effects rather than on the nature of the act.
Notwithstanding the principles of equality and respect, the mere fact that in our society thousands upon thousands of women are abused justifies such an intrusion into the privacy of families by means of a better monitoring of the media, those privileged intruders into the life of the private individual and family. Their exemption was no longer justified. In that respect, the Minister is to be commended for recognizing the importance of such reform undertaken by the Liberal Government under the leadership of the then Minister of Communications, Mr. Francis Fox.
A word of caution is needed however. That lofty intention which fulfills specific needs in certain areas as I illustrated earlier, should not open the door to high-handed attempts at promoting specific values that would prejudice the effects of a positive representation of women and other groups. This without infringing upon the freedom of expression provided for in the Broadcasting Act, but always keeping in mind the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, especially as far as Section 15 is concerned.
Furthermore, the new powers given to the Minister must be implemented with a true political will to safeguard dignity and justice, and not remain pious wishes without direct effective action.
This Government, Mr. Speaker, too often has delighted in utopic promises, aimed only at appeasing certain interests, but where safeguards and action are still forthcoming.
My party, Mr. Speaker, is very much concerned with this reform. We intend to give it constant attention during consideration in committee.
This Government must show its political will but within the spirit of the legislation, which is to prevent and not to serve as a springboard for directed action that would bypass the actual problems with which we are confronted, and important features of which have been described in my speech.

[English\


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In view of the fact that there are no questions or comments, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on debate.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 is a modified version of a Bill which was introduced in the last Parliament by the then Minister of Communications. The major difference is that the part of that Bill which dealt with the reorganization of Bell Canada has been separated and the House will deal with that part when Bill C-19 is debated.
Bill C-20 deals with the power of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) to give broad policy directions to the CRTC on matters of important public concern. This Bill also gives the Governor in Council the power to exclude a service or activity from regulation by the CRTC. We support the idea that the Minister should have the power to lay down broad principles. However, we are somewhat concerned about the greater power which the Minister wants. The Minister of Communications has long been able to pass the buck on contentious issues by arguing that they were being considered by the CRTC. At the same time, the Minister has said that he will bring forward a policy on the broad question of telecommunications. We agree that the Minister and the Government should have the power to lay down broad policy guidelines. But, because the Minister has not yet enunciated his policy on telecommunications, and because the CRTC-as it is legally entitled-is still dealing with the question, we have the very strange situation in which the CRTC is now looking into the question of the deregulation of the telephone system. The CRTC is now considering the application of the CNCP Telecommunications system to enter the long-distance telephone service.
It has been argued by Bell Canada-a company for which I have no great love-by consumer organizations, and by the telephone companies of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba-all of which are publicly-owned systems-that to permit CNCP Telecommunications to enter the long-distance telephone business in competition with the existing system, would have a tremendously adverse effect on their systems. It would have a disastrous effect on local subscribers. We have a great telephone system in Canada. It has been estimated that 97 per cent of the people in Canada have telephones. The telephones are modern and efficient, and the rates which Canadians pay for the service are relatively low. Certainly they are low in comparison to the rates which are paid in other countries. A large part of the reason for the telephone rates being so low is that the systems have charged rates for long-distance telephoning which have provided substantial profits. Those profits have been used to subsidize the rates which are paid by home owners, farmers and small business people.
The United States deregulated their telephone system some years ago, and there is evidence that deregulation and the permitting of competition for long-distance rates has driven them down, but has meant very substantial increases, some-
CRTC Act
times in the neighbourhood of 100 per cent to 200 per cent, for local telephone subscribers. That will happen in Canada if the CNCP application or any other application is permitted. That view has been expressed by telephone systems, provincial Governments and consumers groups.
The Minister has said that he will bring forward a policy paper on telecommunications. If that is not done, before we know it the CRTC may indeed make a very fateful decision and give CNCP the right to compete with the existing telephone systems. The losers will be home owners, farmers and small business people. The winners, the people who will get the benefits of competition, will be the large corporations, which have a tremendous volume of long-distance business. So we say to the Minister that if he wants the power to lay down broad policy guidelines, we will support him, but we want him to exercise that power now not later.
There is a section of the Bill which we oppose, and that is Part I, Section 14.6, which gives the Minister the power to exclude services or activities from regulatory control on the basis of competition that is sufficient to ensure just and reasonable rates. This constitutes a broad and unnecessary expansion of the powers of the Minister to deregulate broadcast or telecommunication activities. I understand that the Ontario Government opposed the deregulation of telephone systems before the Government had established the policy.
Part II of the Bill deals with revisions to the Broadcasting Act. First, it clarifies the definition of a broadcasting undertaking to include any person who distributes or transmits a signal other than a telecommunication common carrier whether or not for remuneration. This clarification arises out of the failure of the federal Government in prosecuting unlicensed broadcasters. In 1978 the Government prosecuted the Holiday Inn in Winnipeg and it lost the case. In Part II, clause 3, a new provision, is added to broadcasting policy to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. Other changes are consequential to the changes in Part II and Part III.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), has already indicated the position of our Party with regard to the section dealing with sex. We believe that the addition of this provision is to provide for the promotion of equality and dignity under the Broadcasting Act which arises out of the findings of the special subcommittee on sexually abusive broadcasting. This provision will bring the Act into conformity with the Charter. Therefore, we support the amendment.
We have some concerns, Mr. Speaker, about Part III. We believe it is consistent with Part II which revises the Broadcasting Act and clarifies what constitutes a broadcasting undertaking in the Radio Act. The effect of this, however, will be to require rooftop master antennae on hotels, condominiums and apartment blocks to be considered as TV receiving businesses. Individual households, taverns and small apartment blocks will continue to be exempt. We do not oppose the extension of regulatory control to satellite receiving and

January 31, 1985
CRTCAct
rebroadcasting operations, but we advocate that special consideration be given to small community-based, non-profit satellite rebroadcasting operations by the CRTC. This is a very contentious problem.
I believe Hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent the isolated communities in most of northern Canada know how difficult it has been for those communities to receive adequate television broadcasting. Some of them have been able to get improvement to their service with the extension of the CANCOM system to their areas. But, Mr. Speaker, CANCOM is not everywhere, and in any case in a number of communities small groups acting on their own have already established non-profit systems with the use of a satellite dish. If the Government proceeds under the law as it has been doing-and I understand it will continue to do so-and implements the law in a very narrow and legalistic way, it is going to create real difficulties for many of these small communities.
We understand that a special CRTC task force has been set up to look into these questions and is to report sometime in the next month. We hope that the Minister and the Government will pay careful attention to the recommendations of the task force and, if possible, will integrate into the Bill, while it is in committee, any of the recommendations which might be made by that special task force.
Some Hon. Members who represent areas which are much more involved in these kinds of problems than in my own will undoubtedly expand on these problems. I hope that the Minister and the Government will pay attention to their concerns.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the wide-ranging remarks made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). First of all, by way of comment and without pre-empting any remarks I might like to make later in this debate, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) and the CRTC were indeed looking at the question of rural and isolated communities and the problems involved there. The Hon. Member will find that outlined in the press release dated December 20, 1984.
I will elaborate at somewhat greater length when it is my turn to speak in this debate on Bill C-20, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to put a question to the Hon. Member. We understand the urgency and need for the Minister to be able to exercise certain powers under Bill C-20 right now, but would the Hon. Member not agree that the very reason this Bill is now before the House is to receive second reading so that we can get it into the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture as quickly as possible in order to receive the widest possible consultation from all Members of Parliament? We can then get it back here for third reading, so that it can become law. Then we will have that power of direction over the CRTC. That is why we want to deal with this Bill as expeditiously as possible.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, nothing that I have said, and nothing said by members of my Party, is intended to hinder the rapid passage of this Bill. Certainly, we agree that the
passage of this Bill will clear up the log-jams which seem to happen, and I am now thinking back to what has happened with former Governments. Whenever any public organizations or individuals would raise questions or objections to decisions which were made, they would be told, "We understand what you are asking and the point you are making, but we don't have the authority because the authority is vested with the CRTC".
As an illustration of what I mean, Mr. Speaker, I will come back to what I said a little earlier. The Minister wants the right to lay down policy, and we think he should have that right. At least, that can be discussed and debated. But right now the Minister says he has not the right and he has not even wanted to indicate to the CRTC that it should not reach a decision before he has this right and before he has adopted a policy on the principles of telecommunications. Right now the CRTC is dealing with the application of the CNCP, and it could make a decision to give the CNCP the right to enter into competition with existing telephone systems for long-distance telephone business. Much more important than the fact that I have said it is the fact that the telephone companies, the consumers' association, and a number of provincial Governments have said, "We don't want CNCP to be in the business because that is going to affect our citizens very adversely and it is going to affect the telephone rates very adversely". So what we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that, yes, we want the Minister to have the authority, and we want the Minister to exercise that authority, but if he does not have the authority, he can certainly suggest to the CRTC that if it really has to have its hearings, it should not make a decision before the Minister has had the authority to lay down a policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there no further questions or comments? I would like to recognize now the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley).


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the Hon. Member rising on a question?


Sheila Finestone: I stood up before him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish the Hon. Member were present in the House instead of being behind the curtain. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) for a question.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member if, in the delaying of the consultation to accord the children's channel, he perceives a sense of real concern for Canadian content if the supposed need for, let us say, a Disney-world channel from a financial perspective remains the only reality because of the fiscal constraints which would otherwise be found in producing Canadian content TV? How would he react then, with respect to according permission to Disneyland, Disneyworld or whatever, to enabling us to have
January 31, 1985

Canadian content in our own channels that would be indigenous to the Canadian people?
I would also like to know how the Hon. Member feels about The Friendly Giant being cancelled?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, of course I agree with all other Members who have expressed their regret that The Friendly Giant program was cancelled.
With respect to the children's pay TV channel, we have had representations, as I am sure the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) and the Conservative Members have, from a large number of organizations involved in working to improve the lot of children. They are very concerned about the distinct possibility that if permission is given to some private company for children's pay TV, we will get, as we see on other pay TV channels, almost entirely American programming such as Disney or someone else. The only proposal which the CRTC had, which would have guaranteed a substantial Canadian content in its programming, was the proposal made by the National Film Board which proposed to work together with other organizations to set up a non-profit organization. We are happy that, although the CRTC rejected that preliminary application, it has now put back any final decision and is prepared to hold hearings across the country. I hope it will take another serious look at the proposal made by the National Film Board.


Sheila Finestone: A supplementary?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, I will allow the Hon. Member a very short supplementary because there is only about half a minute left.


Sheila Finestone: My supplementary deals with the Hon. Member's knowledge of the original proposals put forward by TV Ontario which were extraordinarily creative. Is there a chance that that particular project might come back?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not qualified to answer that question. However, having seen some of the things that TV Ontario does, I would be very happy if organizations like the Film Board and TV Ontario, or any other non-profit organization, would co-operate in setting up a real Canadian pay TV children's channel.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Mr. John Cormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak today in favour of Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Radio Act. There are two significant factors to which I would like to address my comments, the first being the amendment to allow Government direction in matters of policy concerning the CRTC, and the second being the Broadcasting Act as it pertains to abusive programming.
First of all, dealing with Section 14.1, in the minds of many Canadians, and I speak both as a former broadcaster and as
CRTC Act
one who has an interest in communications, this provision is long overdue. As we watch the work of the CRTC, we must distinguish in a more clear and forthright fashion the difference between the establishment of policy and the parameters of regulation. Historically, the CRTC, through its regulatory powers under the present Act and through convention, has established what amounts to policy. This particular clause empowers the Governor in Council to issue directions to the commission concerning areas of general policy, for example, the matter of telephone deregulation which has been debated by others today. As one who believes that the policy-maker, the Government of Canada, should be the one to establish the general policy regarding telephone competition-and I think I echo the views of many people-I would like to see the matter of telephone competition under the direction of the Governor in Council. This would include the matter of committee study and the process of consultation.
As a Member of Parliament from Saskatchewan I have risen in this Parliament before to voice my concerns about the proposed deregulation as it would affect Saskatchewan. This is why I prefer the process of consultation with the Minister in the political process to determine what exact policy we as the Government should take in this particular area. It has been well documented in a Saskatchewan study, both by the provincial Government, consumers' organizations and many other people, that the impact of opening up long-distance telephone communications in Saskatchewan would be very debilitating. This is particularly true in rural Saskatchewan where the high cost of installing even basic phone service is offset by SaskTel, the government-owned telephone company, which does so by charging the rates it does for long distance. It is in the interests of the people of Saskatchewan, as it is of people everywhere, for all people to be able to afford a telephone service. I have spoken in this House before on this matter and I welcome the opportunity to be part of that consultative process, so that when the Government gives direction to the CRTC it is done with the national interest in mind. It should acknowledge our differences in the many diverse areas of our province.
Concerning the power of direction, I think it should be stated strongly for the record to those who are concerned about the Government getting directly involved in regulation, or perhaps being seen to be too politically involved, that the amendments clearly spell out under Section 14.1(2) that:
No direction shall be issued ... in respect of the issuance of a broadcasting licence ... the amendment or renewal of a licence ...
The regulatory aspect of broadcast licencing, which should be a matter of the closest regulatory scrutiny, remains under the purview of the CRTC. Further, there is the specific caveat, as we have mentioned, respecting the reference of this matter to committee and opening it to consultation, so it is not and does not appear to be the case of the Government issuing a policy recommendation and thereby being seen to be arbitrary, unilateral or heavy-handed. The approach here is open, conciliatory and consultative.
In looking at the ability of the Government to advise the CRTC on policy, I do have concerns even about the day to day

January 31, 1985
CRTCAct
workings of the CRTC. I acknowledge that this particular proposal deals with national interest and policy. I would like to recount for Members a story of a difficulty that some people in my constituency are having with the day to day functioning of the CRTC. I hope that in the interest of Canadian unity the CRTC will see fit to tighten up its day to day operations. A small cable television company, Battlefords Community Cablevision, is assessed an increase on line rental by the telephone company from time to time. To use the different telephone company lines to carry the cable service, increases are levied as rates go up. Under the regulatory aspects of the CRTC, this company must go to the CRTC and ask permission to pass that increase a long to consumers. It is not a rate increase but merely what is known as a pass through.
The cable company experienced a difficulty some time ago. This year it knew six months in advance when the increase would be effected. It made the appropriate petition to the CRTC to be allowed to pass the increase on to the consumer. The appeal was made in August of 1984. After months of assuring this small cable company that the matter was being addressed, it was only last week that the CRTC got around to putting it into the Canada Gazette. Following the gazetting it will take another month before this proposal can be implemented. For six full months a small cable company has been asking for a very routine procedure.
It is points of day to day operation such as this that concern many Canadians about the CRTC's method of operating. Its bureaucratic method of operating makes small operators and individuals in Canada feel that they cannot deal with this regulatory agency. I hope the CRTC will take upon itself the responsibility to deal in a more understanding and directly responsive way with small cable television operators and small broadcasters in the country.
I would like to discuss the area of abusive broadcasting and the effect of Bill C-20 on Clause 3 of the Broadcasting Act. The provisions in the Bill with respect to abusive broadcasting are welcomed by many Canadians. As one of the members of the Opposition said earlier, this conforms with Section 15 of the Charter of Rights. It is not only a feminine issue per se. The particular amendment reads:
The programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should respect and promote the equality and dignity of all individuals, groups or classes of individuals regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability;
That provision goes beyond the issues of feminism and deals with the common decency of all Canadians who watch or listen to established broadcasting systems. These people have been demanding a clear-cut standard of what is considered public decency. This is not to undermine in any way the important measures being undertaken by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) regarding pornography in the Criminal Code. This is a matter of taste for many people. Over the years they have seen the standards degenerate to the point of gratuitous violence, sexist stereotyping and very unhealthy role models in terms of derogation of the family on popular television broadcasting. We will now have specifically outlined provisions with regards to abusive programming within the Broadcasting Act.
I found the remarks made in the House this afternoon, particularly by members of the Opposition, to be very interesting. It has been said that this is an old Bill which is simply bringing in something that the past Government brought in. It is significant that in the first six months of the Government's mandate it is acting to effect policy within broadcasting. We are dealing with abusive programming. The last Government took considerably more than six months to listen finally to what Canadians have been saying about the CRTC and to deal with what we have been asking for for a long time with regard to broadcasting in Canada.
It has been said that we should be elucidating a clear-cut policy on telecommunications and deregulation before going ahead with this particular amendment. It is noteworthy that this amendment will go much further than affecting the very important issue of telecommunications and telephone deregulation. It will deal with many other issues related to the wide purview of CRTC in radio, television, telecommunications and other areas. For the sake of the public interest we should move as expeditiously as possible to implement this provision. As we debate specific issues before committee we will have an opportunity to examine further the individual policy initiatives which the Government plans to take.
In conclusion I would like to say that the steps taken in Bill C-20 are only a beginning. Bill C-20 deals with matters other than the specific ones we have addressed such as abusive broadcasting. It deals with matters such as satellite dish rebroadcasting. It lifts a burden off many private broadcasters by extending the maximum license length to seven years from five years. What this Bill endeavours to do could almost be called housekeeping. As we undertake broader policy initiatives and examine further the operation of the CRTC as well as the Broadcasting Act and related Acts and statutes, the Government will be able to embark on a system which more clearly represents the legitimate interests of private broadcasters, cable television operators, small locally owned co-operatives, and distant areas that rely to a greater extent on satellite television. These matters will open up further as we examine the Broadcasting Act and the laws that govern the CRTC.
I would like to indicate my support for this Bill and ask other Members of the House to give it their support. We can study this Bill further in committee. We can now move to the very important job of representing the legitimate interests of Canadians who want a clear-cut policy in the hands of the Government and leave the CRTC to regulate rather than to be the policy-setting agency which in fact it has been.
January 31, 1985



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)- Agriculture-Amount of farm debt, (b) United States program; the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille)-Education-Funding of student loans program, (b) Tuition fees query; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-VIA Rail-Age of locomotives-Government plans.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Masse that Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Canadian Radiotelevision 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.
James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to rise in the House. If I may be permitted to bootleg a little, I would like to thank the people of Essex-Kent for sending me here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Eber Caldwell: Essex-Kent is the most southerly riding in Canada. It is the home of Point Pelee Park and Jack Miner's Bird Sanctuary. Wheatley, my town, has the biggest inland freshwater fishery in the world. Furthermore, my riding also includes one of the major communications areas in North America. Those who are familiar with our geography will know that Detroit, Michigan, is located half a mile from the City of Windsor and has been a leading communications centre for many years. However, like many other areas of Canada, it has been affected by CRTC rulings. Station CKLW Windsor, which is a 50,000 watt station, was once the leading radio station in North America. However, as a result of CRTC regulations, it has now dropped to a much lower level. It is an example of how the CRTC does not bend the rules to suit Canadian businessmen.
CRTC Act
In our area it is possible to receive 32 AM stations and 40 FM stations. We can use only rabbit ears to receive 10 to 15 stations. Windsor is one of the last cities in Canada to be cabled. This is being done at the present time.
I spent some 18 months in the broadcasting business, like some of my colleagues. I have seen great changes take place in those 18 years in both private and public broadcasting. I remember when there were only one or two stations available in my rural area of eastern Ontario. Today, television basically runs our lives. It has become the principal disseminator of news, and the principal vehicle for entertainment in the country. It has become the national performance stage and the national forum of information and debate.
It is time for us to decide how we will use these new communications and how they will affect our lives in the future. Canadians now spend half of their leisure time watching television, an average of 23 hours of television per person per week. That is 3.5 hours per day for every man, woman and child in Canada. The combined time that Canadians spend reading books, newspapers and magazines, going to movies, watching VCRs, going to the ballet or symphony, attending a sporting event, playing with the home computer or even doing nothing, does not total the time spent watching television.
I believe it is very appropriate that our Government is introducing new legislation concerning our future and future generations. Our children are spending more and more time watching television and being influenced by television. It is also appropriate that our Conservative Government is changing the Broadcasting Act, because it was during the depression year, in 1932 that the Conservative Party, under the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, established the principle of the national sovereignty of the airwaves and created a national network.
The Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act passed the House with only one dissenting vote. There were only a few radio stations at that time that were low in power and were being overpowered by the United States.
Just 50 years later, communications have changed, but in many ways we still face the same old problem of being inundated by U.S. programming. The numbers of hours of television watched by our children will certainly have an effect on our future generations. What R. B. Bennett said in 1932 still holds true today, that this country must be assured of complete Canadian control of broadcasting from Canadian sources, free from foreign interference or influence.
This is the purpose of Bill C-20. It will set out some overdue rules and regulations. I would not say they are long overdue because the communications industry is moving so rapidly that I do not believe even the Government can make changes fast enough to keep up with the industry. This Bill is an attempt to make changes as quickly as possible. It is important to act now before the industry is completely out of control.
We live in an era when consumers can, by the flick of a switch, receive as many as 100 channels to get as varied information as they desire. While I am sure that everyone

January 31, 1985
CRTCAct
would like to have a satellite dish on their roof, I have a personal belief about their effects on the communications industry. I support the fact that this Bill will establish rules and regulations with respect to the distribution of those dishes. I am pleased that it recognizes that programs from pay-TV channels cannot be distributed through dishes on the roofs of hotels and other establishments.
If consumers believe that everything is free, I suggest that no more programs will be produced because those programs that are now on pay-TV channels are paid for by the cable operators. They buy those films from the producers who, in turn, pay the artists. Consumers must realize that programs that are transmitted through the air are not necessarily free. If these programs are pirated, there will simply be no more programs. Who will pay the artists if no one pays to watch the programs?
I also support the provisions that prevent the owners of apartment buildings from distributing programs to their tenants. If they were allowed to do so it would cause further hardship to cable companies that are already experiencing financial difficulty.
With respect to the control of our broadcasting system, I would be the first to object to the Government dictating what goes on the air. I am sure that if the Government had found it possible, it would have changed some of its policies with respect to cut-backs to the CBC. Some Hon. Members are aware that I had worked for the CBC for 18 years, and some people may also say that I took a roundabout way to avoid being laid off. However, it should be noted that the Government does have an arm's length agreement with the CBC not to interfere with its daily programming. The Government can no more interfere with the CBC's decisions about lay-offs than it can with what Mike Duffy says on the air each evening.
I am pleased to have taken part in this debate. In closing I will say that, I have had experience working in private radio for some time and I believe that a licence period of five years is too short. I support the extension of that period to seven years because it will give radio programmers an opportunity to put their programs into effect.


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell) on his speech. As a former broadcaster, I also support the Bill. One concern with respect to Canadian television is with the reason why Canadians do not watch as much Canadian content as we would like. Is it possible for this Bill to address that problem?
I am reminded of an editorial cartoon that I saw some years ago. General Motors was having difficulty selling its product because too many cars were being bought from Japanese manufacturers. The planners were studying their vehicles, trying to find why they could not sell enough cars. The sign, in block letters behind them, read, "Build a Better Product". How can we build a better product so that more Canadians will watch more Canadian programs? Could the Hon. Member comment on that?


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. He has addressed a difficult question. Yogi Berra once said, "If they won't come out to the ballpark, we can't stop them". I think that the same thinking applies here. We can put the programs on television, but we cannot make people watch them.
I feel we cannot simply sell out to the Americans completely. I have a great fear-if I might diverge from this matter a little-regarding the way the telecommunications industry is going. Again, one cannot legislate morality, in my opinion. But when a person can go to the corner store, buy a movie, go home and watch the movie, and do this continually every night, it bothers me. Are we going to have a generation of people who watch only western movies, if that happens to be their favourite, and what about those who watch a Playboy cassette, or whatever? It bothers me. Is this what we intend to do for our entertainment each night? I feel that as long as we have the commercial networks and the public networks, at least on some occasions some people might tune in to The Journal, an opera on CTV or CBC, or watch The Nature of Things and those types of programs. What happens if we simply throw up our hands and say, "It is wide open, folks. Do whatever you like". I realize that we cannot stop somebody from going home and watching a VCR, if that is his choice. If everybody is watching VCRs, who is going to produce the programs for the CTV, the CBC, Global or other channels? That is a problem and I do not know how we should address it. It certainly will be a problem.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, may I, first of all, on behalf of all our Members here congratulate the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell) on his maiden address, and a very fine one at that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: He is not going to get off that easily. I want to ask him, as a 17-year veteran with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, one who knows well the operations of the Canadian broadcasting system and who comes from an area as inundated with American signals as is the Windsor market, does he have sufficient faith in the Canadian broadcasting system to believe that it can withstand such a heavy inundation of American signals?


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Communications (Mr. Scott) for that question. As I said, I did work there for 17 years. The situation has always been difficult. We are not going to be able to compete fully and have the ratings of a "Dallas" or shows of that type on opposite channels in the area. The CBC in Windsor was continually rated fourth in all its broadcast market as far as the area around Windsor is concerned and in my particular riding, other than for news and information. I wonder whether some of the programs we were doing within the CBC should have been done. I still think we heed to have a heavy concentration of news and information in that area. I
January 31, 1985

am very happy to see that during the past that was one area left alone by CBC management, and so the 90 minutes of news and information are on each night. I believe it is the only station in Canada doing that. It has been doing it for about a year or a year and half.
To answer the Hon. Member's question about whether we can compete, I do not think we will ever be on an equal basis. We will be on an equal basis on certain shows, those that are very popular and comparable to some of the American-type programs. On the other hand, the CBC has a complex, and we have all heard it, that people think the CBC is "arty", or it is this or that. People do not tend to watch art all the time or want to be convinced that they are watching art. CBC does some very fine programming, but it is a matter of how one sandwiches that in between shows to get the ratings and to get the people to start watching it.
It is a very difficult situation. I always felt that the CBC in Windsor could be a showcase for the United States. There are four million viewers within the area served by CBET, and the station could very well have become a show window. I was very disappointed that the CBC chose to make cuts as heavy as it did in that area. There were 65 cuts out of about 211. It was very unfortunate that some programs were cut. I do feel, however, that the CBC has to pull up its socks and get on with the job of programming and what it is supposed to be doing. It bothers me somewhat that there are still too many management people left within the CBC and that the programming people are the ones who are getting cut.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is over.


Marcel Prud'homme: Are there ten minutes for questions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there is still time, I will allow the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) a question.


Marcel Prud'homme: I do count the minutes, Mr. Speaker. I made my maiden speech 21 years ago. I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member on the excellent delivery of his speech. If he can deliver a speech so easily today, I wonder what he will do if he stays here for 20 years.
Would he comment on one of the great concerns in English Canada? I am speaking of the fear of Americanization. This is a fear, as the Hon. Member knows, which francophones share much less because they have other problems of survival. Having been a witness to a thousand of the best of what the Maritimes can produce, I can assure the Hon. Member that among the coalition of the people of Nova Scotia where I was last Sunday there was immense concern about Americanization. Would the Hon. Member care to comment briefly about the danger of deregulation concerning the cultural survival, especially of English Canada?
CRTCAct


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Member was in the House when someone asked me a question very similar to his. I have great respect for the Hon. Member sitting across from me. I thank him for his comments. I know he is very well respected in the arts and communications community.
We do have a problem in trying to get Canadians to watch Canadian programming. It is also very difficult to compete against the Americans. We all know very well that the "King of Kensington", for example, cost $60,000 an episode, whereas "Dallas" costs a couple of million. How does one compete against that, even if the artists are as good? You are going to fall down somewhere. You are not going to be able to produce those programs. Rather than the CBC trying to be all things to all people, let us do some things really well and sell them on the North American and international markets.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Eber Caldwell: This is what I think we should be doing. I think it makes very little sense for each region in Canada to be doing its own variety and jazz shows and so on. Why not do one bang-up jazz show, sell it, co-sponsor it, whatever one has to do in order to have a good production, so that we can stand up and say "this was produced in Canada" and it is a darn good production".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now over. Debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take part today in the debate on this Bill, especially since the offices of the CBC are located right in my constituency of Saint-Jacques and many of my constituents will probably expect me to speak on this legislation today.
I wish to take this opportunity to join those who have congratulated the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell) on his maiden speech in this House. Listening to him, one could tell that he had a lot of experience in the field of communications, and I was not surprised to hear him say at one point that he had worked in this field for nearly 17 years.
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are sincerely happy that Bill C-20 has been introduced. Basically, it is similar to the Bill introduced by the previous Government.
The former Member for Blainville-Deux Montagnes, the Hon. Francis Fox, who still has many friends in this place, had been the first to introduce this legislation. However, upon consideration of this Bill which has now been introduced by the new Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), we realize that it will have less impact than the previous Bill which included many sections which have been omitted in this one. Any mention of control over telecommunication, of Bell Canada, and so on, has been removed. However, I realize that

CRTC Act
the Government has decided to include these matters in another piece of legislation, namely Bill C-19. I am therefore not concerned about the omission of telecommunications in this Bill. My major concern, and what I consider to be an important omission is the fact that this Bill says nothing about the CBC and virtually nothing about the development of the movie industry in Canada, two issues which were amply covered by the previous bill sponsored in this House by the Hon. Francis Fox.
I shall come back to these omissions later, but as I begin my comments, I want to say that this is a matter of some concern for me. One thing that I like however about this bill is the fact that, in what remains of the previous legislation, at least part of the philosophy of the previous Liberal Government has remained. The Government wants to have more power over the CRTC in areas which I believe to be compatible with the arm's length relationship that the government must have with the whole broadcasting system in Canada. What we find objectionable is the interference of the Government in the granting of licences to broadcasters. At the time, the Liberal members of Parliament did not want the Liberal Government to get into this for fear of control over the granting of broadcasting permits. Indeed, this was not one of the changes contained in the previous legislation. In this regard, we note that the Conservative Government is quite right, in not wanting to interfere in the granting of permits, even though I would have no objection if the new powers which the Minister will have and which will allow him to have some influence over certain of the policies of the CRTC, went as far as to enable him to examine the criteria governing the granting of permits, without, however, the Minister or the Governor in Council being able to decide which broadcasting company will obtain a permit. On the other hand, as for the Government having its say in the matter of the criteria impartial selection, it seems to me that it might be a field in which the Government could intervene, on the condition that it will do so with good judgment.
By agreeing to Bill C-20, we shall be giving additional powers to the Governor in Council, and therefore to the Minister of Communications and the Government. I must admit that it is not without some concern that I shall finally give my agreement to this bill. We trusted the former Minister who had always, as did his predecessors, maintained a very clear boundary between the Government and the Broadcasting system in Canada. However, the new Minister of Communications seems to have a tendency to intervene a bit more than his predecessors.
First of all, CBC is completely removed from the jurisdiction of the CRTC. However, it seems that the Minister wants to become himself more involved in the affairs of the CBC. Before introducing Bill C-20, he approved cuts of $75 million in the operating budget of the CBC and of $10 million in the capital budget of that corporation. We are also concerned
when we see the Minister requesting new powers on the broadcasting system in Canada. The Minister has made cuts in the budgets of the NFB and of the National Arts Centre. And today, he is asking for more power to influence the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. But before he made that request, he slashed $1.5 million in the budget of the CRTC. In addition, the Minister will in some way penalize the broadcasters when the rates set for the applicants of broadcasting licenses will be drastically increased. Indeed, a review of the estimates tabled in the House shows that as a result of those new rates, the CRTC will increase its revenues by a hefty $22 million. The Minister did all that before he even began to consider how he could exert some influence on the CRTC.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) on a point of order.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I understand that relevance is one of the criteria for an address. I see nothing in the Bill that deals with cuts to the CBC. I am just wondering where we are going, whether or not this is the wrong forum or something inappropriate is happening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate. I think the Hon. Member will become very relevant in a very short time.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, if the Hon. Member had been listening to what I was saying instead of reading his newspaper, he would have found that I was relating my remarks to the Bill. What worries me in terms of the cuts, in particular the cuts to the CRTC, is that before bringing enabling legislation into the House like Bill C-20, which would afford the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) extra power to deal with the CRTC, he is starting first by chopping off money. If that is not relevant to what we are talking about, I am at a loss to determine what is relevant in this debate.

In order to control and supervise the cuts made in the budget of the most important Canadian broadcaster-$75 million in the operating budget and $10 million in the capital budget as I mentioned earlier, the Minister has lost no time in appointing a troika of communications experts who will scrutinize every move by the officials of the Corporation . . .
Evidently, my friends opposite are obviously not pleased to hear me remind to Canadians and to the House that the troika controlling the expenditures made by the most important broadcaster in Canada is led by a communications expert who was the main adviser of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during his last election campaign.
January 31, 1985

There is also something else that concerns me. When the cuts were made and some Canadians were anxious about the effect of those cuts on the quality of programming at the CBC, he eagerly rose and indulged in heroics as he suggested that CBC was not cutting its programming but rather its administration costs. He tried to act as the saviour of programming. The fact was flatly denied by the president of the CBC, Mr. Juneau.
I submit that the arm's length relationship between the government and the broadcasting system in Canada should be maintained. That is why we will keep an eye on the use the government is about to make of the new powers that are being granted by Bill C-20 over the CRTC.
I think that whoever reads Bill C-20 cannot help but notice that there is no mention at all of the first and foremost Canadian broadcaster, namely, the CBC.
We are left to wonder who now is the real boss of the CBC? If the CRTC can no longer issue directions to the CBC, it is therefore the Minister who does! And given the unfortunate way in which the Minister has dealt up to now with the CBC, we have every right to worry and ask questions of this government.
Let us return to the objectives which should determine the government when it gives instructions from now on to the CRTC, since this is what this bill is all about.
In this connection, I submit that the Department of Communications and the Government should aim first and foremost at quality programming.
One of the most deplorable aspects which one can observe in the whole area of broadcasting in Canada is that the goal of quality programming is unfortunately not always compatible with the financial concerns of the producers and broadcasters.
While channel-hopping every night in the quietness of our homes, we realize the wide chasm which exists in the quality of the various broadcasts. There is no mistake that the CBC or Societe Radio-Canada, as it is called in French, is the leader in the area of quality programming in Canada. It is also the leader as far as protecting the Canadian identity. The problem, however, is that the CBC is very expensive and is funded with taxpayers' money. That is something which several Hon. Members have already mentioned and which has resulted in the budgetary cuts which I have indicated earlier. We must realize just the same that quality programming often results in decreased revenues for broadcasters. It brings about lower benefits for shareholders. That is why I suggest that it was wrong to divert the CBC from the influence of the CRTC. And I am anxious to see what sort of relationship the CBC and the Minister of Communications will entertain.
Quality programming must be the first consideration, something which is eagerly sought after throughout our broadcasting system, and the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) who is a newcomer in this House, was absolutely
CRTC Act
right when he compared the quality of American cars to the quality of Japanese cars. We have the same problem with respect to the quality of programming. And that is, for the most part, at the root of our problem of Canadian content.
This is the problem that threatens English-speaking Canada which has the feeling that it is continuously being invaded by American programming. There is first of all the sheer quantity of programs from south of the border. There is also another phenomenon, namely the quality of programs. In larger cities like Toronto and Winnipeg, when looking at the reports compiled by the BBM, the agency that gathers statistics on TV audiences, it is a pitiable sight to see that fairly often the seven or eight favorite programs watched by the local people are American-made. We too have this problem in French Canada, but to a much lesser degree. First of all, French Canada is protected by the language barrier. Yet it is striking to look at the BBM reports and see what the most popular programs are in Montreal, for example. We are also sadly surprised to see that among the four or five most popular programs there are two or three that are American.
So, probably the most important problem facing the CRTC, if they really want to protect Canadian culture and particularly the Canadian culture in English Canada, unprotected by the language barrier, will be that of dealing with the Canadian contents problem and, in the end, the problem of quality. And this is the point where some of the deregulation objectives proposed by the Minister of Communications are beginning to worry us. I think the danger that threatens us with respect to deregulation is most of all one of anarchy in the broadcasting system. Usually coming next is the problem of low revenue, the problem of ensuring a fair sharing of revenue between the broadcasters, which eventually always end up affecting quality.
Mr. Speaker, my remarks will simply make you aware that on this side of the House, while we agree over the broad objective of Bill C-20, we will have to think it over for some time before giving it our approval. I would even go so far as to ask the Minister to rise in the House during the debate on Bill C-20, and make a statement on the way he intends or expects to meet some of the objectives I have mentioned, particularly with regard to the quality of programming and the protection of Canadian culture against the invasion of American programs. I am officially extending that invitation on behalf of my party. We would greatly appreciate it if the Minister, before being granted the nonetheless significant powers he is requesting through Bill C-20, powers enabling him to interfere in the policies of the agency monitoring radio and television in Canada, could make a statement in the House on these objectives and answer questions asked by Opposition members and even by members of his own party anxious to know more about the objectives the Minister will want to pursue when in the future he will have the possibility to influence the CRTC.

CRTCAct


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Very well, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, naturally I would not want to put the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) or any member of the Liberal Party on the spot. However, he spent most of his speech saying that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) should keep his hands off the CBC. Just about every second day Liberal Member after Liberal Member asks the Minister of Communications to order the CBC not to cut a certain program. I realize that we have a philosophical dilemma here. This is a matter on which I would like the views of the Hon. Member. He cannot have it both ways. Where would he draw the line as to where the Government should tell the CBC what to do in terms of its programming, what cuts to make, when and how?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, does the Member have difficulty in understanding what this Party stands for with regard to the CBC? We have never said "hands off the CBC". We said, leave the knife or the axe aside. We are not happy with the way the CBC has been treated. Its budget has been chopped by $75 million. That does not mean we do not want the Government to look at what the CBC is doing. We have never suggested the Government should get involved in the programming of the CBC. That is the arm's length relationship. We never asked the Government to do that with any broadcaster.
I said earlier in French that the CBC has a very special role. It is funded by the public. Its first goal should be quality, not making a buck, as it is that of the private broadcaster. It is certainly no help to the CBC to have its budget chopped to the tune of $85 million.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, is the Member for Saint-Jacques telling this House that there are no savings to be made in the CBC, that no cuts can and should be made in such a huge corporation as the CBC when in the interest of bringing down this massive deficit cuts are being made across the board? Is he saying the CBC should be left alone? I understand his sympathy is with the CBC, but is he saying that no savings can be made and no cuts should be made?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member heard me say that, my memory must be awfully short. I did not refer to that. That is not what I said. If money can be saved in the administration and transferred to improve programming, I would be in favour of that, but that is not what we have seen. We have seen chopping by degree, $75 million on November 8 and then $10 million. What burns me even more is that the Minister is playing the hero who is saving programming. The rumor went across the country, and we saw
the Minister say over television, that he is coming to the rescue of programming. That was contradicted the next day by Mr. Juneau. What is the joke? You do not chop off $75 million and then play the hero coming to the rescue of the CBC.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the comments of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) concerning the quality and content of Canadiana in the CBC. I think the CBC has a national responsibility to maintain that. We are inundated with propaganda from the United States in the printed form and in the visual form.
The Hon. Member may recall that I spoke last week about an indigenous Canadian children's program that was cut by the CBC. That program was The Friendly Giant. Many Canadians have written and telephoned me to express their tremendous concern that this indigenous piece of Canadian culture has been removed from the CBC. What would the Hon. Member and his Party do to maintain that kind of integrity and Canadian content in CBC programming?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member cannot ask me what my Party and I will do tomorrow and the day after. We are no longer at the helm. Let him examine the record of the last ten or fifteen years when my party was in power to realize to what extent CBC programs have increased in number and in quality. Indeed, it is obvious. All I ask the Government now in office is to have the courage to tackle the problem of Canadian programming, to take the bull by the horns, as the previous government did. Surely it is not by cutting the CBC budget that the wishes expressed by the Hon. Member will be answered. Yet, I heard his bleatings in support of such cutbacks. Here he is now complaining about the way the programming is cut.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Further questions and comments? The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short comment in reply to the interjection of the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney). Indeed, she has a very good question. She asked, "Where would you cut?"
We believe that in society a choice must be made. Some believe that we should cut across the board and make everybody equally unhappy. However, in our opinion-and I do not expect everyone to share it, as the Hon. Minister I am sure does not expect everyone to share her opinion-the choice should be considered. We look at where survival is more important than cost.
If I were an English Canadian, I would not touch the CBC. Why? Because in English Canada, CBC is an important institution as it relates to the cultural survival of Canada. I am not talking about the Francophones; I am talking about the survival of English-Canadian culture. It is in great danger because of the Americanization which faces it. Recently that
January 31, 1985

view was expressed by authors and artists in Halifax. It will continue to be expressed across Canada. That is one of my worries, and it should be of some concern to the Government.
Where do we cut? In my evaluation, we should not cut across the board and penalize everyone equally, but we should choose where those cuts will be made. We would not have chosen the same cuts, but I think it is a fair point to debate. The Government has chosen to cut across the board. I will not challenge that. That is my reply to the Hon. Minister's question put to the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).


Miss Carney:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault). In light of the comments which were made by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), does the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques concur with the idea that in a corporation such as the CBC, which costs taxpayers close to $1 billion a year, there is no room and scope for expenditure cuts, particularly at the overhead and management level? Is he suggesting that taxpayers should commit a certain amount of money to any institution with absolutely no overview of the way in which the money is spent by the institution? Does he feel that $75 million cannot be cut out of a corporation which was established by a Conservative Government and which has goals which are supported by the Conservative Government? Is he saying that in an operation of nearly $1 billion, $75 million cannot be saved in day to day overhead and management operations?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question. It was posed a moment ago by the Parliamentary Secretary. I expressed very clearly that I was against the way in which the cuts were made. First, they were made without warning-


Pat Carney: Do you agree?


Jacques Guilbault: I am answering her question. She does not have to provide the answer.
Without notice, overnight, on November 8, the cuts were made. We on this side disliked it when the Minister of Communications posed as a hero and said that he was saving programming. The next day the President of the CBC denied that completely. I am not-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, but the Hon. Member's time has expired. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) on debate.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, in view of the considerable-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) rises on a point of order.
Louis David Riel


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) was seeking the eye of the Chair. We have just heard from an Hon. Member on the opposition benches. I wonder if the Speaker might have missed the Hon. Member for Calgary West?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have recognized speakers in the order in which I feel they should be recognized. Therefore, I recognize the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) on debate.


John Edmund Parry: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the obvious anxiety of the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), I would be more than happy to defer to my hon. colleague who, I am sure, has remarks of great substance to make.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the House is going to be so reasonable, on the Hon. Member's behalf I will recognize the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) for debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) rises on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think that your judgment was very good and that we can deal with this matter by asking for unanimous consent. Therefore, I would request that you put the question to the House to ensure that it is unanimously agreed that the Hon. Member you recognized first will be superseded by the gentleman on the government side, so that his position to speak will be protected.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognized the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River, however, he gave his position to the Hon. Member for Calgary West. I have then recognized the Hon. Member for Calgary West. He has the floor. Now I will call it five o'clock.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["Order, please. I should have cut off debate two minutes ago as we started two minutes early. I have given the House an extra two minutes because I know how important it is to Private Members to extend their debate in this House. It being six o'clock, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall order No. 2 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

January 31, 1985
Louis David Riel LOUIS DAVID RIEL



Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moved: that Bill C-217, an Act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss this Bill in order that a wrong of long ago can be righted. I will be brief in order to give my colleagues in the other two Parties time either to confirm their election promises that they support this measure, or to deny yet another promise to the Metis people by not allowing this Bill to pass.
1 do not seek a pardon for Louis Riel which would, of course, be the purview of Her Majesty and the right of the Crown and, as such, would require a motion seeking permission to receive royal consent as opposed to assent. Instead, Sir, I seek a revocation of the conviction of Louis David Riel. I seek the expression of Parliament's will that this conviction was wrong, that Louis Riel was never guilty of the offence of high treason, and that Parliament now wishes to take the action it should have taken at the time, 100 years ago, to recognize the Metis and other native people's right to selfdetermination and the right to negotiate the terms of their entry into the Canadian confederation.
Louis David Riel, his role in Canadian history, and the long-standing controversy over his execution for treason, have long aroused in many Canadians a profound sense that errors of both commission and omission remain to be addressed and rectified. There is a great sympathy in the public mind for action in the reclamation of Riel's stature as the father of the Confederation we now enjoy and as the founder of the Province of Manitoba, in recognition of the cause Riel fought and died for, a cause with which the people of Canada are only now grappling through the aegis of constitutional discussions on aboriginal rights.
Parliament has a special interest in the Riel legacy because of the dual, often Janus-like, role that this House has played in the events leading up to the execution of Riel and the destiny of Diaspora left to the Metis people in 1870 and again in 1885. This destiny has been further reinforced by federal action again and again ever since. Riel served as the first duly elected Member of this House for the constituency of Provencher. Yet, for reasons intimately tied to his subsequent persecution, he was denied the right to take a seat here and instead was forced into exile. Later, 100 years ago this November, Riel was hanged, not the least of the motives being the unseemly revenge against his actions in 1870. This was the error of commission undertaken by the Government of the day and, until rectified in this House, it is an error shared by every Member of this House.
The fundamental terms of the union, struck by Riel's provisional Government with the Dominion of Canada, as it was then known, despite their legitimate constitutional stature,
have yet to be met. This is a continuing error of omission. Parliament, therefore, has a privileged interest in ensuring that the errors of commission committed against one of its former members, who was so shabbily treated in the early 1870s, so unjustly tried, convicted and hanged in 1885, be redressed.
We cannot revive Riel or compensate for the damage done to his family and to his people, but we can take action to ensure that Canada and Canadians accept that an error was made and that justice, however delayed, is nevertheless done. Parliament has a special obligation to respect the earnestness of the Metis people in their opposition to any measure, such as a pardon, which would merely legitimize the errors of commission and perpetuate the errors of omission.
Today's climate of federal and provincial reticence seriously to respect the need for entrenchment of aboriginal and Metis rights in the Constitution means that we must act to remove barriers to change. We can start by having Parliament say that Louis Riel was innocent of the charges brought against him. This small action in the centennial year of Riel's death is not intended to close the book on this issue but is only the first chapter of our fundamental, and ultimately more pressing, obligation to the Metis people as a whole. That obligation to settle the grievances of land claims and constitutional rights has been waiting 100 years to be settled. If Parliament acts now, we can start down the road to justice, knowing that we have removed some of the unjust actions of our predecessors.
Just as Japanese Canadians seek redress for actions taken by this Parliament in wartime, so too do I seek redress for wrongs done in the aftermath of another war in which Canada extended its sovereignty into another nation's territory, the Metis and Indian lands to the west, and then prosecuted their leaders as being treasonable to the country, a country of which they had never actually agreed to be part. Until all of the treaty rights which were negotiated for and never received and the rights which were taken away without treaty are returned, this issue and the good name of Louis Riel will not be resolved.
I ask this House at a most appropriate time, 100 years since Louis Riel's death, to do something about which we will all be happy, that is, to correct the wrong which was committed 100 years ago.


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the House today on the motion of the Hon. Member for a number of reasons. First, I want to applaud the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) for bringing this motion before the House. In doing so, he is perhaps making more Canadians aware that this is in fact the one hundred-year anniversary of the rebellion to which he refers. I hope that the results of his motion and the anniversary celebrations which are occurring this year will be more than just a reawakening in the public's mind of the fact that 100 years ago there was a rebellion-in fact, a second rebellion. I hope that Canadians will take the opportunity during the course of this summer to learn more than they now know about the role of the Metis in Canadian history.
January 31, 1985

I am pleased to participate in this debate for personal reasons. I was born and raised in the Province of Saskatchewan in a place not far from Batoche, which will be the scene this summer of the one hundredth anniversary of that final struggle. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I now live in the Province of Manitoba, and Louis Riel was very much the father of Manitoba. There is no debate in history about that particular point. As you may also know, Mr. Speaker, in my previous endeavours I was an historian of western Canada, so that the subject of Louis Riel has been, and continues to be, a subject of great interest to me. In addition to that, I have had the privilege over the years of teaching a number of Metis students at university. I know the importance to them of the subject which is before us.
This is a very timely debate, Mr. Speaker, for two or three reasons. It is timely because this year in fact is the one hundredth anniversary of that rebellion of 1885. The Province of Saskatchewan, from which the Hon. Member comes, has named this Heritage Year in part as an opportunity to commemorate the role of the Metis in the history of that particular province. I might note in passing that I understand that a number of the events which are related to the International Year of Youth will also be directed toward Metis youth in particular.
I believe it is exceedingly important to understand, in my opinion, at least, as an historian and as a politician, that Louis Riel should be remembered for his life rather than his death. The part I regret most about the Hon. Member's motion is that it directs attention primarily to his death and the way in which that event was subsequently handled by historians. Louis Riel should be commemorated for his contribution to Canadian history. He was a distinguished western Canadian in that he was the father of Manitoba. Unfortunately, even as I listened to the Hon. Member, it seemed to me there was some confusion of events between the rebellion of 1869-70, which led my province into Confederation, and the rebellion of 1885, which was an unsuccessful military event and the people whom Riel led were the principal losers in many senses of the word.
The young Riel, the Riel of 1869-70, was a remarkable young man. He had recently returned from his studies for the priesthood in Quebec, studies which he unfortunately never completed because of the untimely death of his father. That had a tremendous impact on him personally. He returned to the Prairies an unemployed person, not unlike many of the young people today who have talent and no opportunity to utilize their talent. He came back to a very agitated society. By 1869 the Red River was undergoing a dramatic socio-economic change. Those of you who are familiar with the history of the West may well remember that Fort Garry in the early part of the 19th century was a fur trading post. It also became a retirement home, if you will, for fur traders who were unemployed after the union of the two principal fur trading companies in 1821. Many people, some from the Orkney Islands and others from eastern Canada, particularly those who were the byproducts of marriages which had taken place according to
Louis David Riel
the country style between fur traders-both of French and Scottish descent-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Order! What has that got to do with the Bill?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: It has a great deal to do with the Bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It has nothing to do with it.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: The purpose of the Bill is to recognize the role of Louis Riel in history.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, the purpose is to revoke his conviction, you idiot? Read the Bill!


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I am suggesting to the Hon. Member, and I think he was not listening, that it is important to recognize and commemorate the life of Louis Riel rather than the death of Louis Riel. There was a very unique culture developing in the Red River area to which Louis Riel came back at age 23 in 1868. He then became a very distinguished leader of the new and growing Red River society.
As a result of the troubles, Mr. Speaker, the people of the River River, not just the Metis but the collective community, united together for the most part in opposition to what they perceived to be the encroachment of central Canada. They were of course acting very much in the tradition of western Canadian history.
As a result of deliberations which took place over several months, the very small postage stamp Province of Manitoba entered into Confederation in 1870. It was very clear that one person more than any other was responsible for that, and that individual was Louis Riel.
As a result of his success he was elected to the House of Commons twice. Regretfully, because of the conflict which existed in Canada in the 1870s-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Called bigotry.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: He was barred from taking his seat. The tragedy of Riel in 1870 was that he and many others in that community became a part of a struggle with which they were not in any way involved. This struggle was between the English and the French, the Catholics and the Prostestants. I have talked about this on other occasions at regional meetings of the Metis Federation, and what matters to them is that Louis Riel and his role in Canadian history should be and must be recognized to a much greater degree than it has been up to this point in time. I would hope that our intention during the course of this year will be to commemorate the accomplishments of the entire Metis nation-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, by passing this Bill.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: -not to focus simply on one individual. Riel was only a small part of a group of people whose accomplishments in Canadian history were very substantial.
1890

January 31, 1985
Louis David Riel
As I said before, the Metis people were unique in that they were a byproduct of two particular cultures, and they themselves, perhaps more than any other group of people, were responsible for the peaceful settlement of the West. Contrasting Canadian history with American history, we note that our history was much more peaceful, and thankfully so. One of the reasons for that is that the Metis people were a liaison, a vital and continuing link. We have not had in the history of the Canadian West a clash between two cultures which had had no previous contact with or understanding of each other. Riel and the Metis were an integral part of that relationship.
It is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians attempt to understand in this centennial year how the history of the Metis is divided into two separate areas, that is, the Metis in Manitoba and the Metis in Saskatchewan. In my mind, the Metis were the victims of technological change.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Like the CPR and the Gatling gun.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Certainly the problems which developed in Manitoba in 1869 were, to a very large degree, a byproduct of the coming of the railway. Unfortunately, after 1870 and the arrival of settlers from southeastern Ontario, many of the Metis left the Red River and went into the North Saskatchewan-South Saskatchewan River area where Batoche is located. Many went into what is now Alberta, your home province, Mr. Speaker. Here they remained, while Riel was out of the country, for 10 or 12 years until the arrival again of the CPR. In the meantime, a tremendous tragedy took place in the Indian community because of the failure of the policies of the Canadian Government to negotiate with respect to reserves. This, the coming of the railways and the coming of the settlers, leads us directly to the crisis of 1884 and the return from Montana of this now not-quite-so-young Louis Riel.
When I look at the events of 1884-85 in the Northwest Territories, I think it is a mistake to think only in terms of one individual. In doing that we are probably doing a disservice to the individual because we are placing too much stress upon the events of 1885 and the results of that particular trial.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is a service to the Metis people.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: In addition to that, we place too much stress on the role of one individual in the history of an entire culture.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Nonsense!


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is entitled to his opinion. He has had his few moments, and I think I am entitled to mine.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have had your few moments.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: In 1884-85, the Canadian Government was guilty, as it has been so often throughout our history, of neglect. There was a breakdown in communications. Every western Canadian knows the story of letters being sent
to Ottawa and answers coming back weeks and months later. Unfortunately, that is a problem which does not always seem to be restricted to the 19th century. There was a recession on the Prairies and cut-backs in the Department of Indian Affairs. By 1884, the climate on the Prairies was explosive. The Canadian Government must accept responsibility for that, at least in the sense that this lack of communication had led to its creation.
When Louis Riel returned to Batoche, then deemed to be the headquarters of the Metis community, he returned to a situation to which in part the Canadian Government had contributed. What happened thereafter is a tragedy in that it was a clash between two totally unequal technological forces. On the one hand, you had the so-called modern army from eastern Canada armed with the Gatling gun which had been sent here by the Americans as an experiment. On the other hand, there was an aging and weaker society in the Metis culture trying to defend itself against new methods of warfare. In my opinion, the Metis people would have been better off had the second rebellion not occurred. The rebellion occurred, and I think that in many ways the Metis people were the victims of that for the reason that their history had been tied almost exclusively to one individual, the figure of Louis Riel.
In this particular case it is important to look back and recognize that the history of a people is more than the history of one individual. It is also important to realize that one can be heroic and still have controversial characteristics. As an example I think of John A. MacDonald, the first Prime Minister of Canada. Teachers of Canadian history were embarrassed for many decades to admit that the man had certain problems with alcohol consumption. Later on we became mature enough to realize that the man was heroic despite his weaknesses.
I am saying that the Metis people can and should be proud of their accomplishments regardless of the controversial question of how Louis Riel was treated in the judicial courts in 1885. The Metis people should honour Louis Riel for his accomplishments, as should all Canadians, regardless of how the courts dealt with him in 1885.
I read the transcripts of 1885. I dare say there are not many people among the 282 Members who can say that. I do not pretend to be a lawyer; I am only a historian. Having read virtually all of the material that has been published, I can say that the debate on the validity of the trial of 1885 will go on for time immemorial. The fact remains that Louis Riel was an exceptional politician. He was a man of substantial stature who led the people of Manitoba into Confederation. He was very sincere in his attempts in 1885 to get a better deal for the people of the Northwest Territories. It is also evident, and must not be forgotten, that he was part of a people who have every right to be proud of their history and their accomplishments.
January 31, 1985


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be taking part in the debate this afternoon. It is a rather emotional subject, because to us, Louis Riel is a hero. I therefore wish to start by congratulating the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) for proposing Bill C-217, an Act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel.
The explanatory note, Mr. Speaker, reads as follows:
The purpose of this Bill is to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel for high treason, as opposed to merely granting him a posthumous pardon.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) spoke as a historian. He made the point that the history of Canada, at least where it concerns the development of this country, is a controversial one and always will be, I imagine, according to the historian himself, a subject of debate. I agree that when we read all the documents on the historic trial and hanging of Louis Riel, there are diverging views on both sides. The fact remains that to many of us, this controversial figure in the history of our country is a hero, a man who managed to unite his people in a common cause and who left his mark on our history, not only as far as his own people were concerned but also, and I think the historian who spoke before me, the Member for Brandon-Souris, will agree, as the founder of the Province of Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much of the House's time, and I just want to make a few brief comments and invite my Quebec colleagues, as French-speaking Canadians, to take part in this debate and express their views. In every new session, over the last twelve years, we have had occasion to discuss this matter.
The same Bill has been proposed many times before by Members of the New Democratic Party. I heard Mr. Yurko, the former Member for Edmonton East, make the same proposal. There have been many statements under S.O. 43. However, I must admit I have rarely heard any statements or views on the subject by Members from Quebec. I speak today as an Ontarian by birth, with a solid Irish, Scotch and French background, and I would ask those Members in this House who are from Quebec to take part in the debate so that we will finally know where they stand and what their position is on an issue that has been a very important one in this country. The House will remember that Ontario was the bad guy and that Quebec was "deeply offended" by what happened, which gave rise to some serious problems with respect to Canadian unity.
I think this will be an opportunity for our Quebec Members ... I see the Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) who often speaks during the hour for private Members, and I wonder whether she would be willing to state her views on this important matter. I am sure she is well up on the subject and would be able to give us some clarification regarding the views of those Quebec Members who all too often remain silent on such important issues.
Louis David Riel
Mr. Speaker, to avoid prolonging the debate, to give these Members a chance to express their views, and to show that this House is interested in making some progress in clearing up controversial matters, I would like to make a proposal I consider important. I want to suggest to the Hon. Member who presented the Bill that he withdraw it so it can be referred to committee for consideration. Perhaps the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) will agree that the proposed legislation deserves more thorough consideration than can be given in one hour here in the House. I therefore move, seconded by the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) that the motion be amended by deleting all the words following the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-217, an Act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter there referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, that is my proposal!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I have looked at the amendment and I accept it as proposed by the Hon. Member. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) on debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, is there no vote?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, there is no vote. Debate continues until six o'clock. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Private Members' Bill C-217. First I want to express some regret about the speech made by the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who, as did the Liberal Party even before 1900, attempted to frame the issue on the basis of whether one is French or English. He tried to put it into a French-English ratio basis. That was incorrect then and it is incorrect today. It is typical of the Liberal Party that it is prepared to play on the deepest emotions that people have had historically in this and other countries for the benefit of his Party.
Having said that, I believe that he does have the correct approach in that this subject matter should be put before a committee. The Bill, as reflected in the scholarship of the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), shows the typical simplistic approach taken by the NDP which is lacking in any true appreciation of what the reality was then or what it is now. If there is anybody who is in left field, it is clearly the NDP, ideologically and in reality.

January 31, 1985
Louis David Riel
This topic needs time. With every passing year and with the excellent scholarship by our historians, more is being revealed about the true reality of the situation in Canada at the time. Therefore, I submit that it would be quite improper for the House to act precipitously on this issue by passing this Bill. The amendment by the Member for Ottawa-Vanier is closer to addressing the issue. That may be the proper approach once proper discussions are held and the background set up. Indeed, there are many of us who would be prepared to see that happen in the future.
There is enough scholarship today to allow a committee to get to the bottom of the whole question. In fact, the real issue was a religious issue, which we find very hard to believe today. However, in those days to be a Roman Catholic or Protestant was similar to the situation in Northern Ireland today.
Members of Parliament hold the great privilege of having immunity in this place. I suggest that Members do a disservice to the people of their riding and of the country by trying to take advantage of those deep emotions of people.
The historic truths are jsut now coming to light. The most recent book entitled Prairie Fires written by Professors Bob Beal and Rod MacLeod sets out the context as best as has been done. I do not believe there are any more documents coming to light. Therefore, I believe this would be an appropriate time for the topic to be considered. I hope all Members will read that book because it will give a sense of the background and the reality from which western Members come. When we stand to present our western grievances in the House, as our colleagues from other provinces present their grievances, we must learn more about our historical development.
Members who study this issue will have a deep sense of outrage about what occurred to the Metis people and to Louis Riel. It is true that the actual legal events that occurred were very likely correct and clearly appreciated by Louis Riel himself. He was defended by the leading defence counsel of the nation. There is no doubt that he understood the legal position he was in and the stand taken by the defence counsel on his behalf. They knew in terms of the law that there was only one defence that would prevail for him, but he rejected that defence, quite properly.
The life of Louis Riel shows and the book reveals that by 1869 the Metis people were a totally self-contained racial group in this country. They were not Indians, even though they could live like the Indians in many respects. They were not like Anglophone Canadians, even though they could operate in that world. Indeed there were many English-speaking Metis, although their definition correctly applies only to a French-Indian combination. They were not French Canadians in the tradition of the French habitants and the people who spent their lives in Quebec.
It is not possible to become a separate nation overnight. The Metis had 200 years' experience of being their own people on their own land with their own culture. They lived along the rivers in Manitoba on lots that were surveyed in long lines, as was done in Quebec. Naturally, they objected when surveyors came in 1869 and rejected those property rights in favour of
the square toroid system in which the western country was surveyed. In fact, that is why Louis Riel is a hero to anyone who knows his western Canadian history. Louis Riel was the first man to stand up to the oppressive, unilateral and dictatorial actions of the central Government, and others have subsequently and paid a bitter price for it.
That is what the National Energy Program involved. It reflected an insensitive, uncaring central Government foisting its view upon a region of this country. The National Energy Program was a western Canadian issue, but there could be other measures affecting other provinces. Indeed, Parliament responded in many ways to the pressures that came from Quebec to allow Quebecers who wanted to participate in this country with their language as Canadians. That is what the official language is about. That is why I can defend the Official languages Act in my riding with no problem at all. Its purpose is to allow people who live in a region of our country to feel that they are a part of Canada and can contribute to the greatness of this country.
By the same token, Quebec Members-especially Progressive Conservative Members from Quebec-went to Quebec and argued against the National Energy Program that was so vicious and wrong for western Canadians.
The Provisional Government of Louis Riel was legal. In 1869 and 1870 there was a gap between the time when the central Government got Rupert's Land and the time when the Northwest Territories and its government was legally installed. Therefore, the Provincial Government of Louis Riel was quite correct in terms of law. However, it made a political mistake when it executed Thomas Scott. That inflamed the religious passions, which we find hard to appreciate today but which were very real at that time. That enraged Ontario, just as Quebec was enraged after the execution of Louis Riel. These events were framed in terms of race and religion and they set off an uncontrollable reaction. It inevitably led to the events of 1885.
Again, the Hon. Member for Regina West has made no distinction in terms of his scholarship and understanding of the problem that it is necessary to isolate the events of 1885, which led to the treason charge, conviction and hanging, from the events of 1869. In 1885, Mr. Speaker, it was much the same. Again, the Metis had resettled along the south branch of the Saskatchewan River. They had been there for many years; their children had been born and raised there. They had grandparents and parents who were on the land. That gave them a validity that only farm people perhaps can appreciate, having ancestors who have worked the land and are part of the land. Again, the surveyors came. You would have thought that the central Government by then would have appreciated that one should give respect to some of the rights of the Metis, but the surveyors did not. They simply came and started to trample over their land once more. The Metis did not know what to do. They did not have any natural-born leaders in terms of politics. Gabriel Dumont, the greatest buffalo hunter and organizer they had sent to Montana for Louis Riel. A delegation was sent. Riel came back reluctantly. By that time
January 31, 1985

he was an American citizen and was proud to be an American. He said he really wanted to remain an American and planned to go back, but the Metis needed his advice. Riel came. They had all sorts of meetings all over the Metis territory. They sent petitions. They wrote out their grievances very carefully, sent them to Ottawa, but Ottawa did not respond. It so happens that the Government was a Progressive Conservative Government. We all express regret that the Government in Ottawa at that time was no better than subsequent Governments have been, the last example being the Liberal Government and the National Energy Program.
The Metis became desperate. At the same time the research shows that in two areas Louis Riel was unable to keep his common sense, as we would say today. One was in politics. He was incensed about what had happened in 1869. He created Manitoba. He got no reward nor acknowledgement. In 1885, he came back. After weeks and weeks they sent petitions and letters, but got no response. Suddenly, troops were sent out. In the area of politics Riel was so frustrated that, again, he took politics into his own hands and declared a separate Government. That was all right in 1869 because in terms of the law there was a gap, and so it was quite acceptable. In 1885, there was a properly, duly constituted law in the Northwest Territories. What Riel did was simply illegal. It was treason to declare it. Then things got out of control, Mr. Speaker. If I recall, 29 or 30 people were killed. These were proper, law-abiding residents who were living in the Northwest Territories and who were killed by the Metis and the Indians. It was out of that that the charge of treason arose.
When it came time for the trial, there was no doubt in terms of the law, with 30 people having been killed, that there was going to be a conviction. Riel's lawyers raised a defence of insanity. Louis Riel himself would not accept that defence of insanity, even though subsequent scholarly studies show that in the area of politics and in the area of religion Louis Riel lost his common sense. In terms of religion, Louis Riel by that time had come to see himself as a prophet. In fact, the leadership of the church at that time was very upset with the position he was taking and developing. Riel wanted to make one of the bishops Pope of the new world and he was going to be the prophet. That is the historic reality of it. The leaders of the church were not happy with him then.


Marcel Prud'homme: He was hanged.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I say read the letters of Father Andre. Get in and actually do the research. If you want to look at it, it is there in black and white. Therefore, the church leaders, we have to accept, were not all that unhappy. They did not want him to be killed. The irony, I suppose, is that once he was killed and no longer a threat to the leadership, they took Riel to their hearts.


Marcel Prud'homme: What an explanation!
Louis David Riel


Blaine Allen Thacker: That is the reality, my friend, and I say to you to take a look at it.
This is why this Bill has to go to a committee at some point. If the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier had done his research, he may have come up with that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: With what?


Blaine Allen Thacker: I would be interested in what the Hon. Member has to say. He scoffs. Has he read the book?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I spoke in this debate. I moved a motion. I do not think I ever implied that the Member speaking was ignorant. He was present when I spoke. I think he should withdraw his comments with regard to my remarks. He did not understand-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I regret that the Hon. Member does not have a point of order. He has a point of debate. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) has the floor.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) rose. I was praising him for his strategy. I was wishing that we had had time to think about it before. I was directing my comments to the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) who has not read his history and was not even here for most of the speech. He would not appreciate the background at all.


Marcel Prud'homme: But we have a good television system. It is much better that I was not here.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He could not believe his ears. That is why he came in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Hey guys, what are you doing to my Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) has the floor.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, we have the Liberal-NDP coalition working again. They are trying to set us up so we cannot discuss the facts and the reality. The Liberals and the NDP have to start the catcalls.


Marcel Prud'homme: Don't talk about the National Energy Program then.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The Hon. Member for Regina West stands alone in the House again. There is no one in his Party to support him. There are three or four Liberals in the House trying to raise a ruckus so that the House will be misled and the issues not dealt with properly.
That is my view, Mr. Speaker. I wish we had more time because I would have liked to lend support to the Hon.

January 31, 1985
Louis David Riel
Member for Ottawa-Vanier. It is a subject that could be looked at, although I believe it will be found that the conviction of Louis Riel was correct in terms of the common law at that time. In terms of the politics, it was wrong and insensitive. But that has been the history of this government in Ottawa.


Marcel Prud'homme: But he was hanged.


Blaine Allen Thacker: We should take it as a lesson that we as Members of Parliament should be very sensitive in the use of power. We should not be standing using our immunity, as the Member for Ottawa-Vanier did, trying to frame it in terms of ethnic and racial differences, because that was not the true basis of Louis Riel and his conviction.


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased as a Quebecer to rise today and speak on such an important and interesting chapter of our Canadian history. I would like to join my colleagues from Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) and Lethbridge (Mr. Thacker) in paying tribute to a hero of our Canadian history. I consider it important that in this House, occasionally, we should have an opportunity to pay our respects to those men who paid so dearly to have their mark left on our history. I hope that my colleague from Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) will take part in the debate today. 1 want to point out to the House that we have among us a Metis, and I hope he will contribute to this debate.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that such a subject should have been introduced in this House because in this year 1985 the Metis resistance will be commemorated in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I think it is with much pride that the Canadian Government is now discussing with representatives of the National Council of Metis this matter of grants for the celebration of the 100th anniversary of Batoche, which will take place in Saskatchewan in July of 1985. I must also stress the active participation of the Saskatchewan Government in those activities. The many events that will take place next summer, that is in July 1985, will have the scope of a truly national celebration, with many social and cultural activities, and we are proud as the federal Government to be associated with that event. This goes to prove, Mr. Speaker, that this Government wants to encourage cultural Metis activities in Canada.
We all know here, in this House, that Louis Riel has played a very important role in our Canadian history. We may even think that Louis Riel is one of the founders of Manitoba, even though there has been a lengthy controversy on that subject. We recognize today the important contribution of all the Metis of the area in the building of our Canadian society. The Government of Canada is negotiating with the representatives of the National Council of Metis and other native groups to better define their constitutional role. Besides, I would like to point out to the House that there will be an important conference of First Ministers on April 2 and 3,1985 on the subject of
natives.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in order not to take up too much of the time of the House, I would like to conclude by expressing my feeling of fraternity with those people who want to be identified in Canada's great mosaic.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, because I know that everyone would welcome the opportunity to vote on the subject. If the Hon. Member who has just spoken truly believes in and wants to make all Canadians aware of the history of the Metis people, I think a first step would be to revoke the verdict of guilty as his Government is empowered to do. I would therefore urge all other members to support us in the Liberal Party with our amendment, to support our friend from the New Democratic Party on his Bill, and stop talking nonsense if you are not ready to vote.


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak on this Bill with great emotion because I stand here with a heritage which goes back to the Metis in the Province of Manitoba. In my grandfather's living-room there was a picture of Riel, but it was not the Riel who is being projected here today through this Private Member's Bill. It was the Riel who accomplished something for his people, my relatives.
As I stand here today I look at the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I have seen them before speaking on issues, presenting Private Members' Bills and trying to create divisiveness within the House.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This is not the first time the Hon. Member has tried to do that to me. I ask him to tell me when I have ever tried to do such a thing. I have been a Member of this House for 21
years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.


Marcel Prud'homme: I have worked all my life for the creation of friendship among all of us. Unless he does so, he should put up or shut up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that that is a point of debate. He will have an opportunity at another time-


Marcel Prud'homme: I know what I am dealing with. That is the only question that will make me lose my temper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It is a
point of debate.


Marcel Prud'homme: No, Sir.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, obviously I have hit a sensitive nerve in the Opposition.
January 31, 1985


Marcel Prud'homme: Put up or shut up. When have I done that?


Gerry St. Germain: Obviously, Mr. Speaker-


Marcel Prud'homme: It is a negation of what I came here for, what you are trying to do.


Gerry St. Germain: -if the shoe fits, wear it. I think the intent of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is honourable. I do not question that. However, I think it is slightly misguided, and I hope that it is not for political reasons that he has brought this Bill forward.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Tell that to the Metis people.


Gerry St. Germain: You are talking to one of them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This is on their advice, not yours.


Gerry St. Germain: Let us look at the Metis accomplishments rather than the eventual problems and outcome which Riel had to face. Let us speak of the accomplishments and contributions they made to the Canadian culture and to the Canadian mosaic. The Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) said: "Let's not talk of the death of Riel, but let's talk of his accomplishments, accomplishments which shaped and moulded the lives of many of us Manitobans as we grew up".
From 1869 to 1870, as history proves, Manitoba went through considerable turmoil. There were problems. I say in retrospect that if we had to face those problems today, we would not necessarily have handled them as they were handled then. However, it is part of our history and it is something from which we should learn rather than cause division on.
Riel, in 1869 and 1870, was working and trying to establish a better life for the people he represented. Those people supported him to the point where Mr. Riel had to leave the Province of Manitoba. The Metis did not leave; there are still an awful lot of them there. Some of us have moved on to different areas of this great country, but we contributed and Riel contributed.
I want to tell the House something about growing up in the Province of Manitoba in the era in which I grew up. There were still injustices being done to us. However, we do not look back on them with anger. We have learned. We have learned to be tolerant and to understand. Hopefully, we can pass this on to future generations so that as Canadians we can live and develop a country with understanding for all cultures; not only native Indians and Metis but all cultures which came from all parts of the world to this great country. They knew that there was understanding and that possibly life had to be given to create this great country of ours. Let us look at it positively. Let us not try to divide.


Marcel Prud'homme: Let's vote now, then.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Let's vote on it.


Gerry St. Germain: Let us work toward the future of Canada instead of looking backward.
Adjournment Debate
There is no way in this world that we can make up for the mistakes and wrongdoings of the past. We must seek and continually work toward doing justice within our own time. I have no time for those who would promote divisiveness by the use of this House or by the use of any means or methods within the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I should have cut off debate two minutes ago as we started two minutes early. I have given the House an extra two minutes because I know how important it is to Private Members to extend their debate in this House. It being six o'clock, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the adjournment motion this afternoon because in the gallery today are representatives of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Over 150 visited Parliament Hill today and presented a brief to many Members of Parliament, I believe to almost every Member from the Province of Ontario. I welcome them to the Hill today.
Yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) concerning the farm debt crisis, the most important problem presented to us today by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They pointed out that almost 39,000 out of 228,000 farmers in Canada face very serious debt problems. This is due to the fact that commodity prices have been very low, interests rates for the past three or four years have been very high and in many cases land values have dropped by at least 50 per cent in the last three or four years. This has resulted in excellent farmers suddenly having no equity in their farm property.

January 31, 1985
Adjournment Debate
An OFA representative who visited my office today described how he had purchased a farm for $320,000 about 10 years ago. He took out a $240,000 mortgage with the Farm Credit Corporation. When he had the farm appraised last summer, the value of his hog farm had dropped to $165,000. He has totally lost his equity in the property due to falling land values.
I asked the Minister what he was going to do about the serious financial difficulties of the thousands of farmers on the verge of bankcruptcy or default. The Farm Credit Corporation estimates that defaults on farm properties in the next couple of years will amount to $2 billion, the largest default since the 1930s. It will be in the realm of Dome Petroleum and other massive defaults in this country. Instead of involving a big oil corporation, it will affect hundreds of thousands of small farmers. What is sad is that these are our youngest and most productive farmers. They are technologically advanced farmers who produce half of all the food produced in this country.
The Minister stated that they had reduced interest rates to 12% per cent. The Farmers Union and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association are asking that the interest rate be reduced to 8 per cent. The Minister said they can appeal to the Farm Credit Corporation in the event of a foreclosure. He said they are running a pilot project to consider ways to assist these farmers.
That policy of the Mulroney Tory Government is a policy of abandonment. They are saying to the 39,000 farmers in serious financial trouble, and the Farm Credit Corporation estimates that the number has grown to 45,000 in the last two months, that they are abandoning them.
Compare that with the policy in the United States. Approximately four weeks ago a number of parliamentarians went to the United States and met the Secretary of Agriculture John Block. He told us that theirs is a policy of continuing to spread the loans over a longer period of time. Two of us had the opportunity to meet and talk with the Farmers Home Administration. We were told that their policy was a policy of continuation and that they wanted to continue to have young, productive and technologically-advanced farmers on the land. They told us that if those farmers were put off the land, the land values would fall on surrounding farms and the situation would be exacerbated.
Let us consider the abandonment policy of the Minister of Agriculture and compare it with the policy of the United States Government. The U.S. is prepared to write down interest rates of from 11 per cent or 12 per cent to 5 per cent or 7 per cent. The U.S. Government is willing to set aside 25 per cent of Farmer's Home Administration loans for a five-year period and is willing to pay the interest on the loans during that period of time. If a private-sector loan is involved, and the bank is willing to forgive more than 10 per cent of that loan, then the Farmer's Home Administration in Washington will provide a loan guarantee for 90 per cent of the balance.
To this date, that administration has had 109 applications. It has processed 3,000 set-aside applications. It has written down 8,000 loans to 5 per cent or 7 per cent. That is the policy which keeps young people on the farms. That is the policy of continuation which strengthens, encourages and supports the rural area.
That is exactly what the Ontario Federation of Agriculture wants this Government to do. However, instead we have the Tory policy of abandonment. The Government has said to the 45,000 young farmers across Canada, "We are abandoning you and the devil take the hindmost. We are not going to support you. We are not going to assist you in any way". It is a callous, uncaring, short-sighted and inhuman way to treat the young farmers who are the life-blood of the rural area and the agricultural economy for the years ahead.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am always somewhat surprised that the Hon. Member for Algoma should constantly raise these questions, which makes us wonder what was the former Government doing when the interest rates were around 16 and 17 per cent. It was this Government which authorized such loans to farmers by the Federation, Mr. Speaker. What we are doing now is to try to minimize the effects of a policy which caused serious problems and was hardly acceptable to Canadian farm producers.
Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite would like to know what action the Government intends to take to prevent farm bankruptcies in Canada. This is what he asked in his question yesterday and today and this is what he spoke about in his comments. 1 would like to point out that, since it came into power, the Progressive Conservative Government has done a lot to prevent these bankruptcies.
During the last few weeks, we have taken several initiatives which will be of great assistance to Canadian farmers. Something over two weeks ago, on January 15, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced that 5,600 farmers would be eligible for a reduction in the interest rate on their loan. Many farmers on the verge to bankruptcy now have better hope to overcome their difficulties. Thanks to the action taken by our Government, eligible farmers will be able to save about $16 million a year during the next five years.
To help those who find themselves in a dire straits or against whom legal proceedings have been or will soon be taken, the Government has extended the terms of reference of the appeals commissions of the Farm Credit Corporation. This means that, when a farmer who has borrowed from the Corporation finds himself in dire straits, he will be able to go before these appeals commissions and ask for a review of his case.
He can appear alone or accompanied by his other creditors so that those concerned can look for valid solutions. It is not always easy, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that, as parliamentarians, we must try to find solutions with farm producers instead
January 31, 1985

of simply saying that our policy, is to give up which is certainly not the case. The facts are very clear and I think that the action taken by the Canadian Government since September 4 show a real desire to help farm producers.
Hon. Members have also asked about a debt forgiveness program. We are now considering many options which could help to prevent farm bankruptcies, and I must say that these include such a program.
We have the duty to examine carefully all possible options. A program of debt forgiveness may seem interesting and simple, but we have to consider all its consequences. Subsidizing interest rates could have about the same net effect for the farmer, but it might be simpler to apply. The Government can no longer afford to spend or to reduce its revenue without the assurance that the results will be worthwhile. You can be certain, Mr. Speaker, that the Government will discharge its responsibilities.


EDUCATION-FUNDING OF STUDENT LOANS PROGRAM. (B) TUITION FEES QUERY
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, in December I asked the Hon. Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) a very important question regarding his Government's approach to the young people of this country and the availability, access and opportunity for them to have a college or university education, a post-secondary education. 1 asked this question because of the cuts made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his economic statement in the fall, and because of my grave concern for the future of the young people of this country. I am sorry to say that I did not receive a clear answer, or even an understandable one, from the Minister.
The future of Canada and the future of our young people are inextricably tied. If our youth are properly trained and educated to face the future, Canada will be the beneficiary. If our young people gain the required education, if they are given the opportunity to get an education, they will then, through their imagination and intelligence, be stimulated to think, invent, research, produce and to make Canada's economy much healthier. Not only will our economy be healthier, Mr. Speaker, but also our entire civilization. Its culture, values and quality of life will be enhanced by exposing our youth to a post-secondary education. Therefore, much of our future is in the hands of our youth. If we are to be competitive in the future, we must have a well educated population. We must give access to a post-secondary education to as many young people as possible.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, at this time of high youth unemployment, many of our young people who cannot get jobs are staying in school because they know that statistics prove that the higher the education, the better the chance to get a job. For example, approximately 96 per cent of the people with university degrees obtained jobs last year while nearly 14 per
Adjournment Debate
cent of high school drop-outs were not able to obtain employment.
Professor David Foot, professor of economics at the University of Toronto, who is an expert renowned in his field, has made extensive labour-market studies and has given us ample evidence that education is fundamental to providing a worthwhile future, a future with decent and relevant employment for our young people, and is also vital to the future of our great country and its economy.
With all of the evidence of the importance of post-secondary education to our young people, to our economy and to our healthy future, what does the Tory Government do? It puts a freeze on student loans, holding them to present levels. It takes away the indexed adjustment for the cost of living which was earmarked for students by the former Liberal Government. This it does while hypocritically talking about its concern for those in greatest need. The Tory Government socks it to the student who can no longer afford to stay in school because of the freeze it has put on the level of student loans. The Tories say one thing and do another.
Even in the January, 1985 consultation paper just released this week, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), said, "Social responsibility dictates that wherever possible, and to a greater extent than is the case today, scarce resources should be diverted to those in the greatest need . Is this how the Government diverts resources to those in need? The Tories are quite willing to hurt the poorest kids in our society by removing their ability to borrow important dollars which could make the difference as to whether or not they can attend school. Actions speak louder than words.
It is the student from a family living in poverty, with its limited income, where every dollar counts, who is the one who needs to borrow this money. Not every student needs to borrow the entire limited amount available under the Student Loans Program. They can manage with a partial loan and, fortunately, many can get on without any loan at all. But a ceiling on student loans does hurt the poorest students, those with the greatest need. How could the Conservative Government so cruelly remove the $5 million cost of living increase and hit the students who are weakest and least able to cope, all the while crying crocodile tears about its concern for the poor?
The present Conservative Secretary of State has been given by Parliament the authority to enlarge student loans. He could have increased the loan limits. As a matter of fact, he did not even have to do that. The former Liberal Government had already taken steps to include the increase in its Budget. So why did the Secretary of State freeze them? Why did he sock it to the poor kids in this way?
Maybe the Minister of Finance kept the Secretary of State from doing what I am sure his own conscience told him he should have done. Or did he really want to disenfranchise a whole segment of the student population, the poorest, from their right to a post-secondary education. The students of Canada and the people of Canada are entitled to a clear

Adjournment Debate
answer to this question. Is this Government going to help the poor or just talk about it? How can he possibly justify a freeze on student loans?
[ Translation]


Mrs. Monique Landry (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence concerning the Government's decision not to raise the weekly loan limit under the Student Loan Program in 1985-86, perhaps I should begin by explaining how this program works.
From the outset, may I point out to the Hon. Member that we are talking about the Canadian Student Loans Program which is administered by the provinces under the appropriate legislation. Student assistance offices in the various provinces analyse the financial needs of applicants, and any loan made under the program take into account expenses incurred by the student for personal needs, his resources and real tuition fees. Therefore, should a province decide to raise tuition fees, as Ontario is about to do, according to the Hon. Member, that factor will be included in figuring out loans. The Hon. Member must know that real tuition fees have always been and will always be taken into account in figuring out loans under the Canadian Student Loans Program. The Hon. Member probably knows as well that in most provinces this program is only one aspect of student assistance; they can also apply for grants or special assistance, or resort to loan programs for additional financial assistance. Taken as a whole, those programs offer generous help.
As to the loan limit at current levels and the reduced outlays for 1985-86, I should tell the Hon. Member that, contrary to what he seems to imply, next year's budget for the Canada Student Loans Program will be increased, from $229 to $270 million. I am sorry to say that we had to cut expenses under this program by some $5 million in 1985-86, but the fact remains that the increase for next year amounts to 17.9 per cent. I am sure the Hon. Member will agree with me that nobody gets any less than what he or she can rightfully expect.
Most students will not be unduly alarmed if the loan limit is frozen at current levels, that is $105 a week. Mr. Speaker, I must point out that a student entitled to the maximum amount can receive $3,360 over a 32-week school year, not to mention any help he might get from the province. The average loan under the program is $2,300, so that the current $105 limit does appear reasonable, but the freeze on the weekly limit might adversely affect the odd student who is otherwise eligible for the full loan. Still, that is $160 a year at most and, keeping in mind the low inflation rate, we do not expect dire consequences.
As to graduate students without jobs, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows very well that, in June 1983, Parliament increased financial assistance to post-secondary students and set up a program under which jobless borrowers do not pay
interest. This has been a very successful program, and that is just another way for the-


VIA RAIL-AGE OF LOCOMOTIVES-GOVERNMENT PLANS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, on November 19, 1984, which seems like a long time ago now, I addressed a two-part question on VIA Rail to the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard). The first part had to do with whether VIA Rail had any plans for improving and expanding its service. The second part had to do with what plans VIA Rail had for getting its horrendous deficit under control.
The first part of my question came about as a result of the fact that just prior to the date of my question the Canadian Transport Commission had released a report indicating that of all of the passenger railroads in the industrialized world, VIA Rail had the most obsolete, oldest and worst equipment. That report also indicated that VIA Rail had lost something like one million potential passengers between 1982 and 1983.
The second part of my question dealing with the deficit of VIA Rail was prompted by the fact that in spite of the $93 million reduction in the budget of VIA Rail that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) called for at the beginning of November, VIA was left with a $600 million deficit for the current year. This of course will have to be subsidized by the taxpayers and will be part of that over-all $37 billion deficit which the country is facing right now. If the figures are correct, in 1983 the Government and the taxpayers of the country were forced to subsidize every single passenger on VIA Rail to the extent of $70.
Since November 19 the Government made two announcements; the first was actually made that same evening. On November 19 the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), speaking in Edmonton, appointed a three-member rail passenger action force. He indicated that the Government had plans to improve and renew the locomotives and equipment of VIA Rail and that the Government was also considering expanding and bringing back some of the passenger lines that had been discontinued by the previous Government. On January 15 of this year the Government announced that it was bringing back six of those discontinued passenger rail lines and reinstating them.
Those are excellent moves, Mr. Speaker, which I think that we all applaud, as far as they go. Unfortunately, I do not think they really address the key question of the $600 million deficit of VIA Rail which is hanging over the heads of the taxpayers of the country. Something must be done about that. One answer is to reduce costs. I am sure we would all applaud that solution. However, that alone is not going to solve a $600 million deficit. The only thing which will overcome that will be to increase the revenue of VIA Rail, and the only way to increase the revenue is to increase the number of passengers who are using the VIA Rail system.

How are we going to increase the ridership on VIA Rail? First, we are going to have to provide faster and more comfortable trains. We must also ensure that those trains leave and arrive on time. The speed and comfort of the trains should be addressed through the new equipment. The question of punctuality is an entirely different matter.
I recently went to meet my daughter at the Union Station in Toronto. She was travelling on a VIA Rail Rapido train coming from Montreal, supposedly arriving at 10.20 p.m. In fact, it did not arrive until 11:15 p.m., almost an hour later than scheduled and after four different announcements of time delays and postponements. One can imagine the feeling of my daughter and the other passengers on the train, and the feelings of myself and those waiting to greet the passengers on that train.
How do we overcome this problem? In my opinion it can be solved in the same way the Americans solved their problem; with an agreement similar to the Amtrac agreement. It is an exclusive right-of-way agreement that provides penalties for the railways over which Amtrac trains travel. We need something similar to that in this country. We must ensure that VIA can provide on-time service.
I would ask the Minister's representatives what plans the Government has to either reach an agreement with CN and CP or to legislate an agreement which will compel an exclusive right-of-way for VIA and ensure that penalties are imposed for interferences and delays with VIA Rail on-time service.


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, I am pleased to answer the question of my colleague from York East.
Adjournment Debate

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) had made renewal of VIAs fleet one of his top priorities. The majority of VIAs fleet is 30 years old. The equipment is expensive to operate and maintain, prone to breakdowns in severe weather conditions, and it does not offer a level of comfort and reliability which the travelling public demands from rail passenger transportation.
The Minister of Transport has asked the rail passenger action force, headed by Dr. Hugh Horner of Alberta, to make recommendations on equipment renewal as part of the mandate of the action force. The task force is to look at ways and means of bringing rail passenger services up to modern, cost-efficient standards. Specifically in terms of equipment renewal, the main option being considered is the replacement of existing rolling stock with modern, state of the art, high capacity, proven technology cars and locomotives manufactured to the highest degree possible with labour, components and engineering obtained from across Canada.
The Minister of Transport considers that new equipment is essential to the future viability of rail passenger services in Canada and, as he has previously stated, a substantial capital program of approximately $200 million exists within VIAs budget for this purpose.
Steps have already been taken to improve VIAs performance vis-a-vis service to the public, as is evidenced by a more successful Christmas season this year. Of course the essence of the Minister's objective is to strive for continued improvement in VIA Rail's performance, both financially and in the provision of rail service to the Canadian people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.29 p.m., the House adjourned.

Friday, February 1, 1985