1987-06-11

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-2038, 332-2040, 332-2041, 332-2432 to 332-2434 inclusive, 332-2445, 332-2446, 332-2456 to 3322494 inclusive, 332-2501 to 332-2571 inclusive and 332-2596.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which deals with the agri-food program of the Department of Agriculture. The committee is concerned that farm income programs need to be more carefully planned, funded and co-ordinated to ensure that adequate reserves are built up to assist farmers at times of greatest need. This is highlighted by the recent dramatic increase in the western grain stabilization fund deficit which has risen to $850 million in April, 1987, from $175 million on December 31, 1986. A need for better information and analysis in the administration of this program is required, as well as better information to the Minister in the exercise of discretionary authority.
Your committee is concerned also about the health hazard posed by inadequate procedures and facilities for the storage and disposal of dangerous substances. This problem had been noted in earlier reports and therefore your committee will pay particular attention to the Department's aim of 100 per cent compliance for the handling, transporting, storing and disposing of these materials.
As a result of two cases in London, Ontario, involving major capital projects which demonstrated a lack of consciousness, the committee is calling on the Department to demonstrate its capacity to accept increased responsibility and to be cost conscious in the expenditure of taxpayers' money.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106. The petitioners reside in Hinton, Grande Cache, Rimbey, Lethbridge, Red Deer, Condor, Edmonton, Camrose, Calgary, Jasper, Drayton Valley, Robb, Sherwood Park, St. Albert, Stony Plain, Edson, and other locations in Alberta. The petitioners are of the opinion that increasing numbers of chemicals used as herbicides and insecticides are being proven to have harmful effects on human health. They believe these chemicals also produce short and long-term harmful effects on non-target organisms, soil and water, and that the same chemicals in past years have been registered and approved as safe for their various uses. The petitioners therefore call upon the House of Commons to initiate a full public inquiry into the safety, testing, registration and regulation of the use of pesticides and an examination of alternative ways of controlling pests such as biological control and plant-derived pesticides.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition on the concerns of people with regard to pesticides. In this petition people from Ontario, B.C., and Nova Scotia express their concern and call upon the Government to have a full public inquiry into the safety, testing, registration and regulation of the use of pesticides and an examination of alternative ways of controlling pests such as biological control and plant-derived pesticides.
If I may sneak in a short editorial, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that I am presenting this petition at the same time as Cesar Chavez of the United Farm Workers is meeting with MPs on this very topic.


Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 121 will be answered today.


Mr. Manly: 1.	Since its inception, have any specific issues been referred to the Pacific Advisory Regional Council (PARC) to be investigated and reported upon and, if so (a) what are they and what is the timetable for a report on each issue (A) how many directly concern the commercial fishing industry on the West Coast?
2.	What percentage of members appointed to PARC are (a) natives (A) sport fishermen (c) processors (4) seine fishermen (e) troll fishermen (J) others?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1.
(a) PARC has not determined a formal agenda of issues to be considered nor their timetable for deliberation and reporting.
(b) Each of the 15 items on the list of prospective issues submitted to PARC are of concern to the west coast fishery including the commercial fishing industry. The majority of prospective issues involve other interests in addition to commercial interests.
2. Selection of PARC membership was not based on organizational affiliation, however, selections were made to ensure "balance of knowledge and experience in the different aspects of the Pacific fishery. The members of PARC have a broad generalized knowledge of the west coast fishery: some also have a very specialized knowledge of particular sectors. Many PARC members fall into more than one of the categories specified (e.g., commercial native fishermen), therefore the following add up to more than 100 per cent.
Commercial (troll, seine, gilinet) gears (5)	38%
Processing (2)	15%
Native (3)	23%
Sports (3)	23%
Other(2)	15%


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 29 I ask leave today to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the issuance by the Government of France of drilling and exploration permits to foreign and French companies to drill in Canadian sovereign waters.
I make this request in the interest of ensuring that Canadians and, more important, Newfoundlanders, have an opportunity to debate fully in the House all of the consequences and implications of such extraordinary action which has been taken during recent days by the Government of France.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the Chair and Hon. Members. The Hon. Member applies under Standing Order 29 which is a provision under which an application can be made for an emergency debate in circumstances in which the matter is not only important but the discussion of it is urgent.
The matter raised has been the subject of some comment in the Chamber in the last several days and is with regard to permits allegedly being granted to certain oil companies or oil corporations by the Government of France for exploratory drilling in waters which Canada alleges are Canadian sovereign waters. As I say, there has been some preliminary exchange on this issue during Question Period for the last two days.
The matter is important. There is no question of that in the mind of the Chair. However, as yet 1 do not think it is appropriate for the Chair to accept the application for an emergency debate. This, of course, is without prejudice to Hon. Members to raise the matter under Standing Order 29 at another time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Speaker:: Today being the final day for the supply period, the House will proceed as usual with consideration and adoption of a supply bill. Considering our recent practice, do Hon. Members agree to have this Bill distributed now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That Vote 60, in the amount of $64,443,000 under the Department of Communications-National Film Board-Revolving fund, operating loss, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications.


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that, today, the Government should have to defend an institution as prestigious as the National Film Board. However, because of a motion by the New Democratic Party to substract $100,000 from the National Film Board's budget, the Government of Canada has a duty to defend an institution that has made its mark in the cultural and social sphere in this country.
The reputation of the NFB has been recognized by the public, and in fact internationally, for many years. And each year's production confirms that this reputation is not exaggerated, witness the NFB's latest productions under the directorship of Fran?ois Macerola and his team. We have every reason to be proud of an institution that is one of the great success stories in Canada's cultural history.
Since it obtained its initial mandate, the NFB has been producing and distributing films, and now videos, and plays a major and strategic role in the world of the motion picture industry, culture and communications, where public and private institutions work side by side. In this respect, the NFB is an essential adjunct to our country.
It helps provide Canadians with basically Canadian cultural products that respond to their expectations and their needs, Madam Speaker, and which offer a comprehensive view of our own reality and culture.
The NFB's primary role is to help Canadians become aware of their own cultural identity, to enhance their knowledge of what they are and of the values by which our society is defined. Because of its mandate, the NFB is not subject to the same financial constraints as the private sector. It is therefore our responsibility, here in the House, Madam Speaker, to ensure it has the means to carry out that mandate.
That does not mean the National Film Board, as a State-funded filmmaking agency, can afford to neglect current developments in the industry. Several years ago, it established a number of objectives for institutional renewal which have helped to make its organization less unwieldy and more flexible, and as a result, the NFB has been able to introduce more efficient operations and filmmaking practices. Building on the experience acquired over the years, the NFB has
Supply
rejuvenated its image and while stimulating the creativity of in-house filmmakers it has also attracted independent film artists who increasingly are taking advantage of the institution's new open policy in this respect.
This publicly-funded producer is becoming increasingly better equipped to fulfil a mandate that is particularly important today. Its success and its image are due first of all to the daring, quality and excellence of NFB productions which respond to the social and cultural needs of Canadians. Fiction feature films, documentaries and thematic subjects all reflect a Canadian reality. In addition, the NFB also plays a role in developing and advancing filmmaking techniques.
One example is the development of the IMAX Three-D, which was used to make the first production to be actually projected in 3D. Madam Speaker, I am referring to the film Canadians had the pleasure of seeing at Expo 86 in Vancouver. This film was seen by about 700,000 visitors from all over North America and the rest of the world.
Madam Speaker, I would also like to mention a fond memory. During Expo '67 in Montreal, the city where I was born, the NFB presented a film which people are still talking about. It was screened in the Fabyrinth Pavilion where film producer Roman Kroiter and his assistant Joan Henson, a close friend of mine with whom I attended McGill University, had prepared an absolutely extraordinary documentary highlighting Canada's cinematographic evolution. It was the NFB which provided these highly talented young Canadians with an opportunity to produce this film at the pavilion, a film which earned general plaudits at Expo '67. As early as 1967 therefore, 20 years ago, the NFB made a name for itself and for Canada in the realm of cinematography.
The NFB continues to be very active on a number of research and development fronts, experimenting with new techniques and thus keeping abreast of state-of-the-art technologies which it uses to its own ends and from which cinematographic circles in Canada and abroad can readily benefit.
A visit to National Film Board headquarters is all one needs to see how very succesful it has been. The walls are literally covered with plaques and awards attesting to the excellence of its productions.
One hundred and forty-six NFB productions were singled out for awards during the last fiscal year: 69 here in Canada, 40 in the United States, 39 in Europe, and one in Australia. The Decline of the American Empire alone accounts for 18 awards.
If I may, Madam Speaker, I would draw Hon. Members' attention to a special program designed to warn children against sexual abuses. This has to be the current topic with which we can all readily identify, and here again the NFB is leading the way. I am referring to the series Mon corps, c'est mon corps which is distributed by public organizations throughout Canada. In recent months this series has sold 7,686


Supply
video copies and the NFB is planning to send 3,500 videocassettes to public libraries from coast to coast.
Such success can only stem from the NFB growing popularity and the need for this kind of agency. Fully aware of current trends, the NFB has revamped its distribution network to make its products more readily accessible. Ever more organizations are promoting and distributing NFB films because its products are increasingly geared to a variety of needs. The number of Canadian viewers is on the increase and sales abroad are booming.
The National Film Board is responsible also for training our filmmarkers and upgrading their skills. Together with departments and provincial agencies, the NFB has developed experimental training programs dealing with various moviemaking trades, as a result of which we are witnessing a new breed of people increasingly skilled in their craft, to meet the needs of our own producers and those of foreign producers who come to make movies in Canada.
Moreover, the NFB is making every effort to attract a larger audience by ensuring its presence on the national television networks during prime time, as well as on the educational networks. Over the past two years, the English and French national networks added more and more NFB productions to their programming.
Moreover, the NFB has been trying, in its programming to reach the various strata of our Canadian society, supplying with quality videos institutions such as video clubs, film archives and film theatres, as well as video distributing machines. Also in the area of broadcasting, the Government Film Commissioner tabled recently with the CRTC a request for licenses to be issued to Tele-Canada and TV-Canada, which will specialize in public interest non-commercial television services.
In line with the Caplan-Sauvageau Report recommendations, these services would serve essentially to identify Canadian social and cultural realities, to represent Canada in its entirety, to broadcast quality programs, to give Canadians, both men and women, with creative abilities better access to television, and to provide complementary programs.
That kind of project evidently reflects the will of the NFB to have the widest distribution possible for its productions. This is a necessity as important as the capacity to produce, Madam Speaker. Why have excellent films if people cannot see them? So this is a necessity for which funds are required. This is not the time to reduce the funds; we should rather try to add to the existing funds. This is why, breaking new grounds in the distribution area, the NFB has concluded agreements with public and school libraries to make them partners in the distribution of its films and videos.
That kind of agreement is very successful. I will give only one example but it is without doubt very telling. In 1984-85, the city of Quebec public library rented 335 videocassettes and 254 were viewed on the premises. However, following the signature of the agreement, in 1985-86, that is under our
government, Madam Speaker, the renting of videocassettes went up to 5,525 and then to 8,070 in the first nine months of the following financial year; to that number must be added 3,700 internal viewings. Therefore, we realize, Madam Speaker how much public access to viewing has increased.
The countless successes of the National Film Board are not due to chance. They are due in the first place to experienced personnel which can be found at every level of the organization. They are due also to the leadership of the Commissioner and his management team. The NFB was not afraid to set itself some high objectives and does not hesitate to innovate and encourage creativity. As a public producer, the NFB provides support to all talented filmmakers everywhere in Canada. In fact, 70 per cent of NFB films are made by freelance filmmakers, a major contribution to the development of new talents and the growth of our cinematographic industry.
Madam Speaker, another plus is the very special consideration given women by the NFB which has set up mechanisms to promote the cultural constituency they so properly deserve. Whatever one may say, Madam Speaker, whatever the NDP opposition may claim, the Access and Equality program is aimed at wage parity and employment equity for women working at the NFB. Under this program launched last year, it is expected that parity between male and female permanent and casual NFB staff will have been achieved by 1996.
In this respect, Madam Speaker, it must be recalled that in 1974 the NFB created a separate unit-Studio D-to meet the specific needs of women film producers and English-speaking viewers. This is the special domain of anglophone women filmmakers. Through this unit the NFB makes it possible for women to produce films and provides them with an opportunity to become proficient in every sectors of cinematography. Ever since it opened its doors, Studio D has gained international recognition for the quality of its productions.
So those are some of the accomplishments which were made under the aegis of Franqois Macerola and which ought to be kept in mind. We must be fully aware of them and realize how enriching they are for all Canadians, men and women alike. Are we going to take a stingy axe to such a cultural heritage? Are we going to deprive our filmmakers-even partially-of such an essential tool for our own development?
The NFB is a large and diversified public undertaking. It has already agreed to make major budget cut-backs, thus contributing to reduce the national deficit, as would any agency or ministry of a Government intent on setting public finances back on an even keel. Even at that the NFB has managed to fund its activities and come up with new programs. At the present time, the socio-cultural balance of Canada's cinematographic industry rests squarely on three production sectors: film production by women, regional production, and production of fiction feature films. These three creation sectors deserve the financial backing required for more dynamic expansion.


We owe the NFB the support it needs to carry on with its activities. It would be an unfathomable loss, Madam Speaker, for the private and public movie industry if our public producer were to be forced to reduce its involvement in areas of activities that are so important to each and everyone of us.
In this vast country of ours, with a number of remote isolated communities, movies play an essential role as an outstanding communication medium. We should give the film industry all our support and even increase that effort so that it can serve the Canadian people even better, rather than calling for cuts in its funding.
The suggestion under consideration bears the mark of ignorance, or at least of inexplicable blindness, and is therefore unacceptable. Such a lack of common sense is beyond belief, Madam Speaker. The motion calls for cuts of $100,000 out of a $72 million budget, for reasons which appear to be rather personal. I read the report of an exchange which took place at the Standing committee between the Hon. Member in whose name this motion for $100,000 cut stands and Mr. Macerola, and I must say that I was taken aback by the personal and agressive remarks of that person, and that I felt very sad when I read that text, because I deeply respect the Hon. Member who moved that resolution. I am surprised at the approach she has decided to embark upon for reasons which she will no doubt be explaining to us later on.
Deep in the memory and in the experience of every Canadian man and woman, there is a character, a lansdcape, a situation, which have helped them know and understand themselves better. We could all mention a movie of the NFB, a documentary which made us feel proud to be Canadians.
Let us think for instance of the innovation of Mr. MacLar-en. 1 remember as a child, as a teenager at school, when we were shown those outstanding short films.
Just skimming through the 300 pages of the NFB inventory will provide an answer for everyone. The NFB is our collective memory, and that past and present memory deserves to be respected and protected. Presently, the National Film Board needs us and is asking us to let it keep its share of the development of the Canadian movie industry.
As we are the ones who need the NFB, Madam Speaker, we will agree with that request out of generosity and self-respect, and we will reject in no uncertain terms the suggestion of the New Democratic opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).


Ms. McDonald:: Madam Speaker, I am rising on debate rather than to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary. Can we move to that?
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: This is the period for questions or comments, but there being no questions or comments, we will resume debate.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, it may seem to be quite an anomaly, and indeed it is, for me to be proposing a cut of $100,000 from the budget of the National Film Board because I am a long-term supporter of the National Film Board. I have protested against the very substantial cuts the Government ordered against the NFB and which have been defended by the Parliamentary Secretary who is going to the rescue. She is trying to defend against my proposal today, which is for a very specific purpose, and I will explain very precisely why. This is a symbolic gesture. The $100,000 that I propose be cut from the budget of the NFB represents the salary and benefits to the President of the NFB who has acted in a most irresponsible way. I intend to document to this House precisely in what kind of irresponsible fashion he has acted and why he is unworthy to be the head of the NFB.
I would like to see the NFB get lots more money, not just $100,000 more. I think it could use far more money than that.
1 have supported it in principle being involved a TV Tele-Canada proposal, which not everyone does, but I want to see the NFB involved in that.
I have opposed the drastic cuts suggested for the NFB in the past by government commissions, task forces and so forth. So I am a supporter and I am very disappointed about the way it is acting on the very important question of funding films for women, its own Studio D in English production and, of course, it is not making a priority for women in French production.
Studio D has been very important for women in this country. It has been a means of expression for women. It has given an opportunity for women film makers who, after all, have a much tougher time getting independent film money. The role of funding film makers who are women is absolutely essential for women to have voice and to be part of the world of film and video in Canada.
There has been a long history of attacks on Studio D. I can recall when I was President of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women defending Studio D when it was always about to be cut completely. We had to run to its defence because it was speaking for women in a way in which no other body was. I note also that the model of Studio D has been proposed as a model to emulate in other institutions. The Caplan-Sauvageau report, for example, made a recommendation that Studio D, the women's arm of the NFB, should be seen as an important player in the NFB's contribution to TV Canada, its expertise in producing women's films serving as a model to the entire broadcasting industry. I very much agree with this assessment. I think it is quite right.
I recall that for women trying to get the CBC to have more women producers, directors and more broadcasting reflecting women's points of view in an area where women were still


Supply
badly represented, Studio D was a positive model and it is a very important part of our cultural life.
I have been raising this issue with the President of the NFB when he comes before the committee for Estimates. I want to quote what was actually said. He came before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in 1985 on Estimates. I asked him about the role for Studio D. Mr. Macerola turned the responsibility of answering my question over to Mrs. Joan Pennefather, the Vice-Commissioner and Planning Director. She said: "The NFB is stating quite clearly its continuing support for women's production at the NFB and in Canada". With respect to production both in Studio D and by Francophone women at the Film Board she said: "We are not only supporting the continuance of Studio D but the expansion of its mandate, a national mandate to reach out to Anglophone and Francophone women". She goes on to say: "There it is, its work is continuing. It is not satisfactory and we want it to grow". She also talked about expansion.
1 have already pressed them on the need to have an equivalent studio for Francophone women since Studio D makes only Anglophone productions. There has been a great demand for that. There has been a demand for the great films of Studio D to be subtitled in French so that they will be accessible. That has not been allowed, or at least not in nearly adequate numbers.
1 suggested that in terms of popularity, rentals and sales Studio D is actually Studio A. In terms of winning prizes Studio D is Studio A. Indeed, when I suggested this in committee, the President of the National Film Board, Mr. Macerola, said: "Yes, you are absolutely right. Yes". I asked him about funding and why the studio was not getting more.
As to the discussion about the exact amount of money that it was getting, Mr. Macerola said: "The object is to increase that budget". This is from the transcript of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture for May 9, 1985, at page 12:23. That is a very specific promise.
On the next page, page 12:24, Mr. Macerola states:
We are just in the middle of the exercise of allocating the financial resources. It will be the normal increase . . . but that is not enough.
I cannot give you a precise figure. Nevertheless, the objective is to increase the budget of Studio D and to increase the amount of money devoted to film making by women at the NFB. It will be a significant and a very important increase, but I cannot tell you the percentage because we are in the middle of it.
Nevertheless, significant and important suggests significant and important-large, not small. We have been promised a significant increase, and that was before a parliamentary committee which represents not only Parliament but the people of Canada in vetting the estimates of the National Film Board. It is what the President of the National Film Board promised.
What did he do? He did not increase the budget of Studio D. We know that in the meantime the NFB experienced cuts.
But when we look at the period from 1985 until 1987, although there were cuts, that money has been restored. If we look under the heading "English Programming Financial Resource Allocation" for women's production, we see that the actual figure for 1985-86 is $2,531,000. The estimate for 1987-88 is down to $2,184,000. For marketing the figure for 1985-86 was $288,000 and for 1987-88 it is down to $228,000. These are decreases, not increases. Yet we had a promise of significant increases.
The total resources in this area of course have gone up. The total for production in 1985-86 was $22,960,000, whereas by 1987-88 the figure had increased to $24,939,000. For marketing there had been an increase from $4,079,000 to $4,715,000. This is a section of the Film Board that has had an increase in its allocations while Studio D has gone down. It has gone down in proportion, and it has gone down in actual figures. Yet the President promised an increase, and a significant one.
The Parliamentary Secretary thinks that my reaction is a personal one, as if it were somehow a peculiar reaction for a Member of Parliament who sits on the committee. The Parliamentary Secretary did not sit on the committee. She did not hear that promise. But she can look it up in the minutes of the committee meeting and see that he made a promise to the committee of a significant increase. She can read right in front of her that there is a real decrease. That is not a personal reaction. Here we have the President of the National Film Board making a promise to a parliamentary committee and then reneging on it and cutting the money.
If one turns the page in the Estimates to the next page and looks at French productions, one will see that women's productions are not even on the list-so much for making it a priority area for Francophone producers, directors and performers. This is something which has been demanded before.
The National Film Board likes to talk about its employment equity program. I applaud it for introducing an employment equity program. Every government Department and every enterprise of any size ought to have one. I am not against it. I have said before that I am in favour of it. I am pleased to see that it has one. Women should be able to move into other roles. Women should be part of every studio at the National Film Board. They should have opportunities for training and promotion, of course. But that is not a substitute for having Studio D, or a Francophone equivalent of Studio D. Women must feel so at home at the Film Board that they can get their ideas across so that there is not a situation of women film makers having to go to male managers of departments or studios and asking and trying to convince them that their point of view, while it might be a bit different, is nevertheless worthy.
We have to accept the fact that there may be differences of opinion as to what is the best way to do things artistically. There is a difference. Vive la difference. We want to see that the creativity of women and men has a chance to be explored. While there is a managerial structure that is overwhelmingly


male and women have to go to male managers to ask for money, that is not adequate. There may be a time in which Studio D is not needed. That may happen. But I do not see it happening yet. Until that happens we need a strong Studio D.
I can give Hon. Members an example of what the President of the Film Board said himself. This is from the committee hearings held on May 21, 1987. Again, he was being asked about Studio D. Mr. Macerola states, as reported on page 42:22:
-well, I have some problems, frankly speaking, with the filmic approach of
certain films. I think they are putting too much emphasis on the content but
nevertheless,... this film is returning some good revenues.
From Mr. Macerola's perspective he does not like some of the work that Studio D does. He is entitled to his opinion. But it is important that there be a studio where women can make the decisions about what is film quality and not have to answer to a male manager who may have a different opinion. It seems to me only fair that that should be the case. Women should have a chance to explore and to use their creative abilities. If they have some differences, they should be expressed, just as men express theirs. In the meantime-we want to see women moving into positions in other studios and being able to do their work in other studios working with men.
When we have the situation of Mr. Macerola lying to a parliamentary committee, not fulfilling his promises, what do we do? The idea of having a separate vote for Studio D, to have a National Film Board women's division, seems to be not the way we like to do things in Canada. We like to have women and men working together. While we have a situation in which women have been very under-represented, not appointed to managerial positions and not being given any opportunities for expressing themselves, having a separate studio for Anglophone women and a separate studio for Francophone women makes sense. That is a reasonable Canadian type of compromise. The idea of having a completely and separate parliamentary vote, a completely separate board of directors and so forth seems to me to be going too far. That kind of separation of women and men is not what we want. I would like to think that women and men can by and large work together. But while women are still not on an equal basis in reality with men, we need two studios, by language, in which women can have their own voices heard.
I think the idea of having a separate vote and so forth, going to those lengths, is wrong. I am not suggesting we go that route. But I can tell Hon. Members that I feel very much puzzled as to what else we can do. I do not think we can continue with a President of the Film Board who comes to a committee and who admits that the studio is doing good work and who promises it extra money and then reneges on that promise. What is a parliamentary committee for if people will come before it and not do what they actually say they will do? We have to be able to count on the heads of agencies who come before us. If their word is not good, we have to get rid of those people and bring in people who will actually do the jobs properly and will be fair to both women and men.
Supply
If progress is made in employment equity, that is fine. I understand that some new appointments are coming up and I am very pleased to see that. We will certainly applaud any move in that direction. Women have been appointed as head of the camera department, head of the Atlantic regional office and recently head of the Pacific regional office in Vancouver. It is very good to see these appointments and no one is complaining about them. However, until there is real equality between men and women, we must see adequate funding for Studio D.
I note that an advisory committee for Studio D composed of people both in and out of the Film Board, film-makers and representatives of women's organizations across Canada, recommended that Studio D needed $3 million to $5 million to do its job. The people who made this recommendation know the Film Board and its capacity for work. They know what can be done. This year, $2,154,000 has been awarded to Studio D. That is not terribly close to what the advisory committee indicated would be sufficient.
Mr. Macerola has said that 36 per cent of English film production will be done by women this year. That figure does not sound too bad. It is not 50 per cent or 52 per cent, but it is not a bad figure. I note, however, that it is a bit of an exaggeration because the Daughters of the Earth program took a very large amount of money. There is a little blip from that and normally the participation of women is not nearly that good. Yet the quality of the films produced by Studio D is very good. Those films win awards all around the world. They are very popular. Canadian people watch them, rent them and buy them. They are sold in other countries as well.
A study done by Chris Scherbarth on Studio D productions in comparison with other NFB productions found that Studio D productions were borrowed or bought twice as often as other films produced by the National Film Board. We have an enormously successful studio, yet the President of the National Film Board is simply not giving it the opportunities it should have. This is despite its artistic success and popularity.
I believe my proposal is the only symbolic gesture I can make. I would like to see the NFB receive more money for Studio D and for other studios. However, I as a private Member cannot move for an increase in the budget. As all Hon. Members know, that is not open to a private Member. However, I am concerned that there be fairness for women and men film-makers. Women and men taxpayers contribute to the National Film Board and I am concerned about fairness.
As a parliamentarian, I am concerned that the head of an agency came before a parliamentary committee and gave an undertaking which he did not respect. I think we must respond to that, and I throw it back to the Government. What should the Government do when the word of the head of an agency cannot be relied upon? I believe that a person like that should be replaced with someone who will be honest and open to the


Supply
needs of Studio D and who will be fair to both the women and men who work at the National Film Board.


Claudy Mailly: Madam Speaker, today we have seen a perfect example of what would happen to government policies if the NDP ever got into power. We have heard a whole mish-mash of emotions but very few facts. Some of those facts, to be polite and use parliamentary terms, are so twisted that I cannot recognize from where they come from.
I would like to point out what the Eton. Member said in the exchange about the separate set-up for men and women at the National Film Board during the meeting of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture which the Hon. Member read. It reads:
I suggest to you that it is inadequate, that you are insensitive, and that you
have rested on the fact of having an employment equity program, which may
do great things in the long run.
The Hon. Member says that women have to run hat-in-hand and hat-pin in the other hand to react to men at the National Film Board. In saying that, she is omitting a few facts. The trustees of the National Film Board are composed of four men and four women. The National Film Board senior management committee is composed of three men and four women. The heads of the National Film Board's English regional studios are three men and two women. The National Film Board's French fiction studio which administers over $11 million in co-production funds is composed entirely of women. I do not know where she gets her figures.
I have before me the budget summary of the National Film Board for the period from 1983 to 1987. The figure at the bottom designates money attributed to the French unit of Studio D which our Government brought in, in 1986-87, first with a budget of $159,000 and now for 1987-88 a budget of $404,000. The Studio D budget went from $579,000 to $795,000, which means there is already $1,300,000 where there used to be $600,000 for Studio D and its French counterpart which did not exist previously. Added to that is the federal Women's Film Program, the International Year of Youth training project, which was also done by the NFB and dealt with men and women, the Employment Equity Program, which has $337,500 in training funds right now, as well as the Women's Market Development Group. In 1983-84, that was $504,142 altogether, and what is it for this year? It is $1,678,430. How can that be a decrease? I do not understand.
What we have here is a difference in philosophy. I have discussed with the Hon. Member for Vancouver-East (Ms. Mitchell) the NDP's approach to equality for women. Members of the NDP think in terms of quotas. Since 50 per cent of the people in Canada are women, they think that 50 per cent of every program everywhere, even if women are not involved in a particular activity, should be composed of women. That is ridiculous.
Members of the NDP think in terms of quotas and reverse discrimination. They think in terms of ghettos. They feel that if they cannot get their pound of flesh, men and women should
live in separate ghettos. That is the philosophy of the New Democratic Party. Members of the NDP think that women cannot hack it in the real world so they should be put in a favoured environment, watered and fed so that they will grow like beautiful flowers. That is nonsense.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I note that the Parliamentary Secretary simply totally ignored the Estimates of her own Department. She said she does not know where I got my facts. Expenditures in 1985-86 were $2,531,000, an amount which has gone down to $2,184,000 for 1987-88. I do not understand how that can be an increase. Of course, there has been a loss in purchasing power because of inflation. Those are the facts.
The Parliamentary Secretary has taken some very selective positions and has referred to them. The board of trustees does not decide which individual films will be funded. Let me quote what Mr. Macerola said about the NFB before the committee, and this can be found at page 42:36 of the transcript of the meeting of May 21, 1987. He said:
What I was saying is that for the time being, I am head of a cultural organization that is a male organization, like all the other ones. Therefore I have to redistribute the existing funds, that is I have to go and get the money that is being spent by male producers and directors in order to give it to another constituency.
He was complaining about my suggestion that Studio D ought to get more money. He said "no", that the NFB was a male organization, and that he had to cope with the male producers who run the NFB. That is what he said in committee. Then he went on to say:
The easiest way for me would be to "ghettoize" the women who work at NFB and increasing Studio D's budget by $2 million or $3 million.
He was counting on an increase to Studio D, which he promised before the parliamentary committee two years earlier. Then he said that that would be to ghettoize women.
It is absolutely preposterous to say that giving money to Studio D is to ghettoize women. If that is the policy of the Government, then it ought to get rid of Studio D altogether. We do not want a ghetto. We want a climate where women can work and get their stuff out. That is what Studio D was doing. I do not think the Government can have it both ways. If it wants to say that it is a ghetto, that it is a bad thing, then the Government ought to get rid of it.
We certainly cannot have the head of an agency come before a parliamentary committee in 1985 and promise an increase for Studio D, and then return to the same parliamentary committee two years later, having decreased the funds available to Studio D, with the excuse that it was on the grounds that the male producers who run the NFB would not let him do otherwise and that to give more money to Studio D would be to ghettoize it.
Why did he not say in 1985 that he was against Studio D and against ghettos? He has simply not been honest.


I should like to see the Parliamentary Secretary respond to these false statements made to the committee. I am absolutely astounded. She was not at the committee at that time, but now that 1 have brought it to her attention, I hope she will take it up with the Minister.
It is grossly irresponsible for her to say that it is all right for the president of an agency to come before a committee, to lie, to make promises and not to fulfil them, and then to attack someone who points that out and react personally. I think Parliament ought to be very concerned when the head of an agency comes before a parliamentary committee on the Estimates and lies before that committee.


Mr. Orlikow:: Madam Speaker, I hesitate to ask this question of my colleague as she is a member of our Party, but I say to her that I would ask this question of any Member.
I think it is a very serious matter for a Member of Parliament to rise in the House when the Member has what the Member says is privilege and the person accused does not have the opportunity to reply.


Claudy Mailly: Right on.


David Orlikow: My colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect, has said repeatedly in her speech today that the head of the National Film Board lies. I do not know how the head of the National Film Board can reply to that.
When the committee was meeting and when the head of the National Film Board was there, did the Hon. Member make that charge to him so that he could reply to that charge at the meeting?


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I did not make the specific charge there because I wanted to consider carefully copies of Hansard and the Estimates. I asked him and gave him an opportunity to give an undertaking that he would fulfil his word.
I asked him very explicitly, since he had brought in these Estimates which were a decrease, if he would then undertake to increase the budget of Studio D. He then said "no", absolutely and categorically. I gave him a last opportunity to make good on his word.
Subsequently I went over the record very carefully to compare his original statements in the 1985 meeting with what happened in 1987.
As I say, I gave him an opportunity to make good on his word, and that is when he came up with the response that it was a male institution. He came up with excuses as to why he was not going to make good on the word he gave back in 1985.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, I somewhat reluctantly join in this debate on Vote 60 in respect of the cut of $100,000 to the budget of the National Film Board.
Supply
I am disconcerted by the manner chosen by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) to bring to the attention of the House what she perceives to be untruths spoken and undertaken by the chairman of the board and our film commissioner in respect of Studio D.
I was not there in 1985. I was not the communications critic at that time. I was at part of the meeting to which the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood referred in May, 1987.
1 actually left that meeting because I believe that one has an obligation to be at least polite and to maintain a degree of decorum when one is speaking with public servants and technocrats who are there to serve our society. One can disagree, but one does not have to be disagreeable. I was so discomfited that I left.
I went over the exchange but not with the same fine-tooth comb as the NDP Member went over the exchange. I have subsequently asked myself what we are talking about in respect of the National Film Board and women.
I know that the National Film Board has a very wonderful Studio D. I know that it produces some extraordinary films about, for, and addressed to women as well as the general population. The film commissioner has a commitment to the cultural space occupied by women at the National Film Board and to film-making in general, film-makers in Canada. He has been attacked by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood. In my view he has shown-and I say it in all sincerity- some leadership and a great deal of sensitivity to the matter of equal opportunity and to the development of women, not only in Studio D but throughout the National Film Board.
The track record of the National Film Board and the final results we have seen-and one must assume it is because of the leadership; I have no other way of making such a presumption-have indicated an ongoing improvement since the appointment of the present director, Mr. Macerola, in 1983. If we look at our other cultural industries, whether it is broadcasting, cable, television, or book publishing, in every single industry the situation of women and their presence in those industries is indeed something to criticize.
I suggest that the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood is as strong a proponent of the role, space, and place of women as I am. However, I think we see things somewhat differently. I see the world as a shared partnership, families and people who live together in society. I do not look at 52 per cent per se. I look at competence, equivalents, and the right to move regardless of one's sex.
I also say that there has been discrimination and stereotyping and that therefore we must do some additional promotion, which is called employment equity. I have been very critical of the Government's employment equity Bill, Bill C-62. I have said very strongly to the Parliamentary Secretary-and she knows that I have said it-and to the Minister that all the right words are in place; the problem is that there are no teeth in the Bill to put employment equity into action. All one must do, according to the Government, is to deposit a report. You


Supply
can avoid any kind of punishment and any kind of sanction. That is not good enough, Madam Speaker. On that score, the Government has done lovely things with words, flowers and smoke and mirrors, but it has put no practical application to it. On the other hand, we have the chairman of the National Film Board, the film commissioner, who has said, contrary to all his other colleagues in the cultural field, "I intend to do something about this."
In December, 1986, the National Film Board announced- voluntarily-its plan to establish a new division to head an employment equity program which aims to achieve parity among women and men in all National Film Board staff and contract positions by 1996 and to ensure a more equitable place for women in all aspects of film-making in our society, particularly by establishing training and apprenticeship programs. I wish Treasury Board would take note of what the National Film Board has done and apply the same thing across all the Crown corporations in our Government. The goals set will be met through funding and hiring practices, through training programs, film crew selection procedures and greater support of the board's film unit.
The program is the first to be implemented by a major Canadian cultural organization. The program was initiated as a result of a study done by the National Film Board completed in November, 1986. It was not a surprise to me nor to the NFB that the study found that men make up 78 per cent of the management, 69 per cent of the film-makers and 85 per cent of the technicians. Furthermore, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of this, men make $4,000 to $6,000 a year more than women in all categories except in the support staff. It is traditional and normal in Canadian society that women get paid a 60 cent dollar. I think women now get a 64 cent dollar, but we are looking for a 100 cent dollar.
In the meantime, the National Film Board took a really solid look at things. Because women comprised 72 per cent of the board's support staff and 93 per cent of the its clerical and secretarial staff it said something had to be done. In actual fact, when you look at the number of National Film Board employees, as of February 28, 1986, you have on full-time staff 324 women and 421 men. In terms of division, women are trying to get to an equal situation-we have not made it yet- but at least there is a program being put in place that will see an improvement in this unfortunate distribution which does not reflect women's competence, capabilities, ingenuity and creativity in the cultural sector. This program grew out of the Film Board's five year operational plan which guarantees Canadian women equal partnership in the National Film Board's reform.
The federal employment equity legislation to which I referred before, Bill C-62, passed last spring required all federally regulated employers and Crown corporations to report annually to Parliament on the progress in the hiring and
promoting of women, the disabled, native and visible minorities, as per the whole of Section 15 in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it being the equality section. The concept was to be applied in the National Film Board. We have been addressing particularly Studio D.
I suggest that there are other aspects which need to be addressed, not only Studio D, relating to visible minority women, relating to visible minorities, relating to native people, women, and native people in general. We have to look at the whole ball of wax and see what the National Film Board will come up with in all of these categories.
The Film Board, as you well know, Madam Speaker, does not fall under the employment equity legislation. That is why the President and his board must be complimented. They have shown leadership. They did not have to put themselves under Employment Equity legislation because NFB is an arm's length cultural institution. But Mr. Macerola intends to keep the Government informed about the progress and the implementation of the program. That is a very forward move.
The Member quoted from the hearings and the exchange with the Vice-Commissioner of the National Film Board, Joan Pennefather. I too asked about employment equity. She went on to tell us that not only was the NFB involved in an employment equity program, but it would also bring in contract compliance, something which the Government did not even bother to do in its legislation which it should have done and which was promised during the election. The Government forgot to keep that promise along with many others. What did Joan Pennefather say in response? She said that the National Film Board has gone further than the employment equity legislation and has implemented contract compliance. Contract compliance is an essential component of the employment equity program ensuring that when the National Film Board is working on co-ventures with partners in the independent producer sector, it will see that employment equity is involved through contract compliance.
The Hon. Member said there were cuts. There may have been some cuts. I am not prepared to argue down to the finest of details. But I am prepared to suggest that one should look at what happened to Studio D over a year ago. Through no fault of Studio D it had a deficit. Anyone who is in business, whether in public company business or private company business, knows that when you have a deficit it has to be dealt with. Studio D had to deal with that deficit. Studio D had a lot of carry-overs, projects which it carried over from 1985 to 1986. There was, and understandably so, some discontent at Studio D. There were film producers who were not getting jobs. There were new projects. Studio D has a million and one new ideas which are good, exciting and dynamic. But you and I know that we cannot have everything we want. We have to do things within certain parameters. Studio D, with this long list of carry-overs and with the deficit it had to pay back, did not have the kinds of funds it wanted that year.
Let us look at what has happened. Basically, we have had dollars invested in film projects produced and directed by


women. In the English branch we had a total of $18,121,898 in production, $6,581,334 of that or 36.3 per cent was done by women. In the French branch with a total of $12,334,697 of production, $3,610,423 or 29 per cent, was done by women. That is not fifty-fifty, but I hope we will move to fifty-fifty.
There have been no cuts in the over-all budget. In Studio D in 1983-84 they had $363,708, and the amount was $795,450 in 1987-88. I will place in the record, if I have time, the total of this budget, but I now want to go on to another aspect.
With respect to the over-all National Film Board, we are talking about five studios in Montreal, one in Toronto, one in Halifax, one in Winnipeg, one in Edmonton and one in Vancouver. Each one of these studios has projects dealing with women and with women's issues. Not all projects with respect to women come out of Studio D.
The Member said that she does not want to see Studio D perceived to be a ghetto, and neither do I. I am saying to you, Madam Speaker, and to the Member for Broadview- Greenwood, the leadership and the motion before us, which is a motion of censure on the management and leadership of Mr. Macerola, is not a fair critique. We see coming from all the studios some excellent projects and programs which deal with women and women's concerns. They are not just women's concerns, they are society's concerns. Things concerning women, from women's point of view, are very important. There are also women who produce and direct on their own, not necessarily in Studio D.
Studio D, which was founded in 1974, the International Year of Women, has produced many films to date. It has been a training ground for young film producers. They have gone on to other studios with their skills, training, their vision and view, scripts and productions.
Studio A is an animation studio and it boasts five studios in Montreal. It was founded by Norman MacLaren. Wendy Tilby of Vancouver has produced a wonderful film called Tables of Content. She has already won two major awards, one in France just last week. She won the best women's film award at the Annecy meeting in France. She does not come out of Studio D, she comes out of Studio A. Quite frankly, I do not care what studio she comes out of as long as she has produced a fine film with taxpayers' dollars which reflects women's concerns from a woman's perspective. I do not think she has to be from Studio D. Obviously, if Mr. Macerola were not interested in women, he would have done something that would have been counter-productive to producing these kind of women.
Studio A has an opportunities program for young children animators and film directors. On the French side, research is being done in the two-dimensional animation field. We have produced Sand Castle which won an academy award and gave us a chance to experiment in new technology and new technique.
Supply
In Studio B, the fiction studio, great features have been produced. We have had some excellent critical awards. One of the best film-makers, Donald Britton, did that film on Mackenzie King. Do not tell me that women in our society are not interested in Mackenzie King, his peccadilloes, his view of women and whether or not he looked in a crystal ball. Women are just as interested in that as men. The fact that it was produced in that studio does not detract from Studio B or the vision we have.
The film on Hal Banks which was produced last year had a very serious impact on the lives of women. It impacted on how their husbands live. I do not think you can discount that. Sitting in Limbo and 90 Days are excellent films that need to be recalled.
With respect to Studio C, the centre for documentaries, it has produced wonderful film series such as the one done by Gwynn Dyer on war and the consequences of war. Does that not impact on women? Some day we ought to look at a film series done by women on the impact and consequences of war. It might be a different film. I hope in that sense we will see an evolution in the role of women in the National Film Board. Co-production on the French side in that studio is very important.
In Studio G we are doing multi-media and educational programs. My friend talked about how young people view themselves within the educational framework. Those are important projects.
What is the true portrait? The NFB board of directors is composed of four men and four women. Senior management is composed of three men and four women. The heads of the regional studios are three men and two women. The French fiction Studio C, which administers over $11 million in coproduction, is composed of women only. What I am trying to say to you is that the NFB renewed its commitment to the federal Government's women's film program in the amount of $2 million over the next five years, and that is some commitment.
In closing I want to point out to you that the voice which the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood brings to this debate is not consonant with the voices of some women's organizations. Madam Louise Dulude, in December, 1986, had only praise for the NFB announcement and said that since they are a federal government agency they are under no obligation with respect to employment equity or the promotion of women. She feels they deserve full credit. That credit goes to the head of the NFB. In March of 1987, MediaWatch, the Canadian Coalition Against Media Pornography, and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women held a conference called "Adjusting the Image: A National Conference on Canadian Broadcasting Policy" and paid compliments to the NFB.
I want to conclude by saying that I oppose the sense of the amendment. We cannot afford to cut $100,000 from the NFB. It goes against the creativity which has been demonstrated in


Supply
the leadership and all the way down the line. So 1 reject out of hand the amendment to the motion.


Rodney Edward Murphy: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Through an inadvertent slip-up the amendment which the Hon. Member just spoke against has not actually been put to the House. There have been consultations with the Parliamentary Secretary and the Liberal Whip and, with unanimous consent, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) should be allowed to make her motion at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?
[ Translation]


Claudy Mailly: Madam Speaker, I would like to reply to this point of order. We would agree with the proposal except for the fact that we would like to complete the 10-minute question period, and then proceed with unanimous consent to the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). We wish to go on, but I do not think that the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) is aware of this, and she has now gone out. I have a question to ask her. When the 10-minute period is over, if everyone agrees, we can proceed with the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There seems to be consent that we complete the question and comment period following the speech of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). I will then recognize the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) to put her motion.
Questions or comments.
[ Translation]


Claudy Mailly: I thank my colleague for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) for her speech. I know that she is a member of the Standing Committee, on which my position of Parliamentary Secretary unfortunately prevents me from sitting. A Parliamentary Secretary cannot sit on a Standing Committee to ensure that all its members will have every freedom to develop policies on the issues involved. This is why the Parliamentary Secretary does not sit on the Committee. It is out of respect for the independence of the Committee. However, since the Hon. Member for Mount Royal herself does sit on the Committee and quoted some of her own comments before the Committee,
I would like to ask her to confirm officially what Mr. Macero-la said in reply to the question asked by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). The Acting Chairman had just asked the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood to let the witness answer since he was being bombarded with questions. Mr. Macerola then replied.


Mr.   Macerola@: What I was saying is that for the time being, I am head of a cultural organization that is a male organization, like all the other ones.
Obviously he meant a male-dominated organization. That is the world as it is, but we want to change it. He continues:
Therefore 1 have to redistribute the existing funds, that is I have to go and get the money that is being spent by male producers and directors in order to give it to another constituency.


Sheila Finestone: What page is that on?


Claudy Mailly: I am on page 42:36 of the minutes of May 21, 1987. He continued:
The easiest way for me would be to "ghettoize" the women who work at NFB and increase Studio D's budget by $2 million or $3 million. However, I decided to choose the harder way.
I have chosen to enhance the cultural space occupied by women, not only within Studio D, but also within the NFB and within the Canadian filmmaking milieu.
So, the whole world is our oyster, Madam Speaker. He said:
That is my philosophy. That is why 1 believe that 1 have all the required competence and capacities to lead that organization.
I ask whether Mr. Macerola answered that way in committee.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I would like to be able to say that I was there and heard it with my own ears. Regrettably, I had to leave before the end of the meeting. Therefore, I did not hear it. I have, however, read it. I wondered what the meaning of that jargon was. I called Mr. Macerola and asked him what he was talking about when he said: "I have chosen to enhance the cultural space occupied by women, not only within Studio D but also within the NFB and within the Canadian film-making milieu". I told him that I did not understand his philosophy in English and asked him to explain it to me.
I am glad the Member asked that question because the answer really meant that he was going to apply employment equity and ensure that women get equal opportunity based on their competence, the projects they will present, and the fact that they are creative, innovative and competent. He said that he believed that to be the case and that it should apply not only in Studio D but across the board in those areas in which he has an involvement.
If the Hon. Member wants to know whether I heard it, the answer is no; whether I read it, the answer is yes. As to what it means, I have just told you what it means.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment first and then ask a question. I am very perplexed by why this has to be an either/or proposition, that either we have employment equity or we have Studio D. I am in favour of both, and I would hope all Members here would be in favour of both. It is not an either/or proposition. We need Studio D. The day may come when we do not need it, when women will be so much at home in any studio that it will seem superfluous to have a separate studio. However, in the meantime we need it and we had a promise that funding to it would be increased.
I applaud the employment equity program. I do not know why the Liberal critic talks about support for the NFB by the National Action Committee, MediaWatch and so as if that were somehow in opposition. Of course they should applaud


the NFB when it does the right thing. I do too. There is no opposition. That is a completely false opposing of sides. I applaud their employment equity program, but it is not a substitute for Studio D. I think this false opposition has caused us to miss the point of the debate.
1 would like to ask the Member a question for clarification. Was there a decrease between 1985 and 1987? The Member referred to figures from between 1983 and 1987, but I am not talking about 1983. The Member's figures showed an increase between 1983 and 1987 but there was in fact a decrease between 1985 and 1987. Would the Member confirm that? The promise was made in 1985.
Second, is it all right for the President of an agency to come to a committee and promise an increase and then to decrease the funds?


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I will answer the second question first. 1 was not there when the promise was made. From the Hon. Member's description the promise seems to be more of a global nature than a specific nature. From reading the minutes of the committee proceedings it seems to me that the promise to increase Studio D related to a budget cut which had taken place. There was a hope that money would be coming back to the National Film Board from the Treasury Board and that if such funds came back a portion of them, or perhaps all of them, would be turned over to Studio D. I was not there in 1985. All I can say is that I have heard the Hon. Member speak to Mr. Macerola, in not the most gentle of terms, with respect to that issue.
I will send my hon. colleague a copy of the figures I have on the Studio D budget. I said that in 1983-84 Studio D had approximately $363 million. In 1984-85 it had $343 million. In 1985-86 it had $554 million. In 1986-87 it had $579 million, and in 1987-88 it has $795 million. When I subtract 579 from 554 I still get an increase rather than a cut.


Lynn McDonald: No, no.


Mr. Gormley:: That's it for questions and comments.


Sheila Finestone: Does my hon. colleague who just chaired the other meeting want to ask a question too?


John Kenneth Gormley: I will let you ask me questions.


Lynn McDonald: Sheila, you haven't got the right figures.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, if I do not have accurate figures I will have to recheck them. I am not lying to the House or misleading it. These are figures which I have taken-


Lynn McDonald: Look at the Estimates.


Sheila Finestone: I am looking at the budget summary, Madam Speaker. These are the figures in the budget summary. However, I will go back and check that to which the Member is referring. My over-all sentiments remain the same. I have not heard the President mislead or lie. I was not there. I
Supply
understood that there was a promise "if', and that promise was not realized because new moneys were not forthcoming or moneys were not recovered.
I am sorry but I still cannot agree with the Member for Broadview-Greenwood, as much as I would like to support her. She usually does very good research and there is something wrong somewhere.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments is over. Pursuant to prior unanimous agreement of the House I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) to move an amendment.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the amount of $64,443,000 and
substituting therefor $64,343,000.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have received the amendment and it is in order.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to know if this in any way nullifies the debate which we have already had due to a lack of process.


Rodney Edward Murphy: No, you're still on record.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Not in any way. There was unanimous consent of the House to allow this amendment to which everyone has referred throughout the debate this morning. The amendment is now before the House.


John Kenneth Gormley: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to this particular motion. However, I must confess that it is not without a rather strong sense of incredulity that I find myself compelled to defend the proposed 1987-88 budget for the National Film Board. It is lamentable, in fact completely incomprehensible, that any Member of the House would suggest diminishing our support for the National Film Board of Canada.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, I know I speak on behalf of all government Members in saying that the Government wishes it could have given more to the National Film Board this year and we regret the budgetary constraints that do not make this possible. However, we live in cognizance and awareness of certain economic realities.
I find it strange that a member of the Opposition would actually suggest that we appropriate less money for the National Film Board this year. I find it rather reprehensible that it would come from a Member who I believe has a long and distinguished record not only in the field of communications and culture, but in having women play a complete and equally participating role in Canadian society.


Supply
That Member has spent a great deal of her career defending the National Film Board and has often stated what she and the New Democratic Party believe are many of the dangers to culture from free trade. We know that these fears are unfounded. One has the impression of posturing when members of the NDP talk about a freer or enhanced trade threatening the cultural sovereignty of the National Film Board but then proposing less money for the National Film Board of Canada.
There is no question as to where the true danger lies. It is not with our Government's far-seeing policy of securing economic growth through expanding our markets. However, it is in the betrayal by any Member of the House of the kind of cultural rights that we try to uphold.
Many of us see these cultural rights residing in the National Film Board and the kind of work that it does. To undermine this cultural instrument in Canada through arbitrarily slashing money off the budget, $100,000 in this case, is truly dangerous to Canada's culture.
The Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), on this day when we discuss Estimates, should be defending the National Film Board rather than attacking it. Anyone versed in the cultural history of Canada would know that contribution that the National Film Board has made to our national identity. The international reputation of Canada has been indeed illustrious in the NFB's 48 years of history.
Established in 1939 by the legendary John Grierson, the board quickly became a pioneer in documentary film-making. It remains a world leader to this day.
In the early days when the NFB got its start, it did not remain exclusively in the documentary field for long. With the arrival of Norman MacLaren in 1941, the NFB began laying many of the foundations of its international reputation for imagination and innovation in the field of animation. This reputation still holds true today, not only for independent Canadian film-makers but in the good name of the NFB itself.
MacLaren was a genius who continually developed new film-making techniques, drawing, painting and even scratching directly on the film itself to achieve effects that others never even imagined. Norman MacLaren was honoured around the world not only for his artistic achievements, but also for his contribution to world peace and understanding through films such as Neighbours.
But his brilliance might never have been able to flower had it not been for the National Film Board, where he was free to transcend the commercial pressures of the bottom line and to pursue innovative ways that were artistically and culturally far ahead of many of the pioneer film-makers. His techniques have recently reached critical acclaim from mass audiences.
His productions, and those of the NFB in many disciplines-features, documentaries, shorts, animated films and videos-were far ahead of their time in the 1940s and 1950s. They were popular and acclaimed. In the ensuing 40 years,
NFB productions have appeared in some 60 languages and have won innumerable international film festival prizes, acclamations, and awards.
For example, in 1960, the film Universe won the Jury's Prize at the Cannes Films Festival for the exceptional quality of its animation, as well as 23 awards from other film festivals. Other NFB films have consistently won prizes at Cannes. These winners have included over the years: Blinkity Blank, City of Gold, Women on the March, and most recently all Canadians are very familiar and proud of Le Declin de I'Empire Americain which won the Cannes International Critics Prize just this last year.
Other NFB films have won the prestigious Robert J. Flaherty Award of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts. They include Nobody Waved Goodbye, Grierson, Los Canadienses, Prologue and Sad Song of Yellow Skin.
The films which were winners at Cannes and in the British Academy also won many other international prizes. However, these films represent only a few of the international award winning productions of the National Film Board of Canada.
Many Canadians, particularly those in the more widely distributed commercial film category, look to the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for the Academy Awards. The Academy Awards are often a test around the world of the commercial viability and success of popularly distributed film.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has recognized the National Film Board achievements with an astounding total of over 50 Oscar nominations for NFB productions. The Film Board has had eight Oscar winners so far. They are: Churchill's Island in 1948, Neighbours in 1953, Le Chateau de Sable and I'll Find a Way in 1978, Special Delivery in 1979, Every Child in 1980, If You Love This Planet in 1982 and Flamenco at 5.15 in 1984.
All of these award-winning productions were rooted in the Canadian experience. Many involved powerful and occasionally searing explorations of Canadian cultural and social life.
Many were done on low budgets through the NFB's regional offices, which contracted much of the production work out to free-lancers.
We should all be very proud and amazed at what the NFB has accomplished with the money Canadians have entrusted to it over the years. The board's record calls for all the support that this Government is able to give to the NFB.
It is time for fiscal prudence. I believe every Canadian who sees the astonishing national debt that was bequeathed to this Government by years of reckless spending by previous Liberal Governments, knows that tough decisions must be taken to achieve the kinds of savings the Government needs.
The National Film Board has achieved substantial saving under its five-year plan. It is not a time to be lopping off $100,000 from the NFB budget, an institution which has been a source of great pride to many Canadians over the years.


I want to comment on this motion and why it has been moved at this time. Since it is not parliamentary to impute motives to another Member, I will not do so. Elowever, I will directly share with the Elouse why this is being done.
As a member of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, I know there has been a rather unfortunate, long-standing and ever increasing degree of enmity, animosity and open hostility between the New Democratic Party member of our committee, the Member for Broadview-Greenwood, and the very renowned and esteemed President of the National Film Board, Mr. Francois Macerola.
In a rather distasteful exchange recently before the committee, that NDP member called the President of the Film Board arrogant. Just this morning in committee, she said that he had "lied to the committee".
I understand that earlier this day during the debate the Member for Broadview-Greenwood also referred to iying. The Member's concern is about the place of women in the National Film Board and their place as producers and directors and those contributing to Canadian film. Her concern is shared by every Member of the House. They say the best way to make any man a feminist is to have daughters. That we will see our daughters with full equality with men in Canadian society in the next 10 or 20 years is of great importance to us.


Mr. Skelly:: That is paternalism.


John Kenneth Gormley: The Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party interrupted me just as I felt a wonderful speech on feminism coming, but perhaps I will save that for another day. We who have children want to see our daughters attain an equality in the arts, culture, business, law and in many other sectors of Canadian society.
The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood has had a long-standing row with the National Film Board over what she believes the NFB is doing in place of allocating funds for Studio D, the women's studio, for employment equity and for encouraging the development of women. However, I think the Hon. Member has far overstepped parliamentary privilege in referring to a Canadian citizen as lying under parliamentary privilege where that citizen has no recourse against that allegation. I think a careful examination of the record will show that as well as being unparliamentary and unfair, it is simply not correct in this case to refer to the film commissioner of Canada as having lied or having misled a parliamentary committee. More than that, this row has led to the motion today to eliminate $100,000 from the operating budget of the NFB. What the Hon. Member is trying to do is somehow to punish the film commissioner for what she believes has been a lack of performance on his part on behalf of women's issues.
The mind boggles at that philosophical approach. I do not always agree with Mr. Juneau of the CBC, but is the answer to cut more money from the CBC? I do not even like Knowlton
Supply
Nash. I would not have hired him as an anchor man. But should we eliminate his salary from the CBC? Any good and sensible parliamentarian would see that it is the height of irresponsibility to try to inflict upon a Canadian organization, particularly a cultural organization, one's own viewpoint, in this case, often dogmatically, by assaulting the fiscal planning of the NFB by trying to reduce money from its budget. I think Members of this House, particularly those on the government side, and members of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, feel a sense of revulsion about this.
I am not usually very partisan in this House, but this is really an example, I think, of what we see as a great contradiction. Back where I come from, the NDP goes out to talk to farmers and damns the grain handlers every time there is a strike. This is the same NDP which is run by the Canadian Fabour Congress, of which the grain handlers are dues payers. That is the height of hyprocrisy. It is typical of the New Democratic Party.
The NDP cultural critic, who extols the virtues of the NFB, as we all do, scares the devil out of the cultural community by saying the NFB will be jeopardized if we have free trade, and we all know that as false. Here is a person, who is a self-styled, well respected advocate of the NFB, standing in this House asking us to lop money from its budget. That cut in money is designed to cause personal harm to the Film Commission of Canada and the chairman of the NFB, Francois Macerola. I think it is a petty way to deal with one's difficulties and disagreements with the policy of the NFB.
I would hope that in the remaining part of this debate, and in the future of the NFB, we do not see this kind of narrowminded, overly partisan sort of attack, not only on the NFB but on the very integrity of a man who is respected by all Parties in this House for doing an excellent job in leading Canadian film policy. I would like to point out that if one looks at the record of NFB with respect to women, one will find that of the eight Oscar-winning films I mentioned just a moment ago, three have come from the NFB Studio D. The only permanent women's film making unit in the world, Studio D has often given compelling expression to the Canadian voice on the world's stage, a voice of conscience, reason and personal dignity.
Many who know my background will know I have not always agreed with Studio D. Some Studio D productions have offended my sense of balance on certain moral issues. However, do I, as a member of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, say to lop money from the budget of Studio D because I did not like a film on abortion, or that I did not like the direction taken in a certain program? All Members of this House know that that is not the way one tries to effect a balanced policy in Canada's National Film Board.
Not a Love Story, for example, which was nominated for an Academy Award in 1982, graphically portrayed the destructive effects of pornography on both men and women. This acclaim was given to the NFB for that production, and to


Studio D, wherein that production had its development and its promotion, and 1 think that was a very wide acclaim to us in Canada who are so concerned with the harmful effects of pornography. If You Love This Planet in many ways polarized and balkanized the great concern over how we view nuclear arms, and to all of us involved in the debate as parliamentarians, it gave us a warning and yet a hopeful message. I think that is something about which all Canadians are justifiably proud.
The continued support for Studio D is part of a comprehensive policy designed to increase the cultural space occupied by women.
During Francois Macerola's mandate, the NFB has increased resources to women working in studios and other parts of the country. Just recently a film on entrepreneurial women was shown to a meeting of Ministers for the Status of Women in Halifax. The NFB's over-all approach is to ensure fairness in the workplace for women. As the government film commissioner, Mr. Macerola, recently announced, an employment equity program, as detailed in Equality and Access a New Social Contract has been hailed as one of the most progressive anywhere in the federal Government. Mr. Macerola's action was not compelled or forced. This was voluntary. This was developed by a senior manager in Canada's Public Service who has that kind of commitment.
The NFB has undertaken to conduct a comprehensive program of employment equity as provided for in the Charter of Rights to improve the status of women not only in the employ of the NFB but in the film arts of Canada. The NFB has been reviewing its programming and distribution systems to ensure that all their components recognize and honour a commitment to the full partnership of women in Canadian society. It has identified specific training objectives to be pursued in terms of the promotion of women within its ranks.
I would think the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood, whose concern with the advancement of equality for women is well known to all Canadians, would want to reward Mr. Macerola for moving in the right direction. I know that until we have a House of Commons with 141 elected women- probably about 143 women would reflect the true percentage-women have some distance to go in Canadian society. But if one looks at the commitment of the NFB, at the testimony before the standing committee of Mr. Macerola and his senior staff, many of whom are very well respected women managers in the Public Service and in the film industry, I think one could take lessons in many respects from what the NFB has done. I would hope that as we analyse the NFB and its work, we would provide a hopeful message to the NFB, not only for the Studio D but particularly for women who are hoping to produce, write and make film across Canada, that these people can indeed be recognized as women and as Canadian artists in their own right.
For this reason, I will conclude by saying that I reject out of hand, as I am sure all Hon. Members do, that the NFB should have any kind of budget reduction based on a very partisan,
political aim, which I know is unacceptable to every Member of Parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being one o'clock p.m, I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: In 1986, Mr. Speaker, I had the great pleasure of traveling through Canada from Halifax to Vancouver to consult small businesses and find out their needs with respect to federal policy. Today I am very pleased to present this report of the national Liberal task force on small businesses, a report which features the representations made to us.
Mr. Speaker, it must be emphasized that the tax reform which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is committed to unveil on June 18, 1987 will undoubtedly have a significant impact on small businesses.
Since the Liberal Party wants to take a positive and open approach to this reform, we will wait until the white paper is tabled before commenting and announcing our position on taxation and small businesses.


ALASKA STATE SENATE'S CONGRATULATIONS TO CANADA ON ARCTIC OIL PROGRAM
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is quite interesting to see ourselves as others see us. Very occasionally the view can be quite complimentary.
On April 23 the Senate of the State of Alaska passed the following resolution after noting in the preamble how Canadian industry and government had successfully worked together to explore, develop and transport Arctic oil from the Beaufort Sea in a visionary and environmentally sound manner. The resolution reads as follows:
Be it resolved that the Alaska State Senate sends its hearty congratulations
and expresses its deep admiration to Gulf Canada Corporation, the
Government of Canada, and the governments of the Yukon Territory and


Northwest Territories for successfully developing a leading edge in Arctic oil production for the international petroleum industry.
In return perhaps we should compliment the honourable Senators on their perspicaciousness.


PESTICIDES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, today on Parliament Hill, Members of Parliament had the opportunity to meet with Cesar Chavez of the United Farm Workers who indicated his concern regarding the affect of pesticides on consumers and farm workers.
The control and use of pesticides are an issue of growing concern to many Canadians, and all New Democrats. Today the New Democrat environment critic in Alberta, John Younie, is launching a campaign to increase awareness of the potential hazards of many pesticides and calling on the federal and provincial Governments to implement the following changes to pesticide regulation and control: That Health and Welfare Canada, Environment Canada, and the general public should have more control over the registration of pesticides in Canada; that all substances in pesticides, including active and inert ingredients, should be listed on packaging and should be fully tested and registered; that stronger regulations on testing should be devised that ensure human and environmental safety, with the producer or distributor bearing the testing costs, and the use of all pesticides that do not meet test standards should be suspended until these standards are met; that the public should have access to all toxicological data concerning pesticides so that informed choices can be made regarding their use; and that a test review board should be established to permit an all-Canadian, independent audit of tests done by private labs to check the appropriateness, validity, methodology, lab practices and accuracy of test results.
These are measures which my New Democrat colleagues and I urge the Government to consider seriously.


PAGES AND MEMBERS ANNUAL BALL GAME
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, "It's one, two, three and you're out at the old ball game"!
The "Expo" MPs and the "Blue Jay" Pages played their annual ball game in the rain. The "used-to-be" ball-playing MPs, with the help of three Pages, garnered 14 runs against 6 by the middle of the ninth inning. During the game the MPs gradually weakened while the Pages grew stronger.
When the Pages came to bat at the bottom of the ninth they batted the ball all over the diamond bringing their score to 14. But considering that the Pages playing for the MPs made three runs the Pages really won the game 14 to 11.
Superb sportsmanship permeated the whole game as did friendly comradeship. As the two teams "three-cheered" each other, every MP felt proud to have had an opportunity to work with such splendid young Canadians. We need have no fears about a wonderful future for Canada when our Pages, with other youths like them, take over the reins of Government. Vive les Pages'.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to the drama now unfolding in the town of Murdochville and, in fact, in a major part of Gaspe. Hon. Members know that fire swept through the Murdochville mine in April. Two hundred workers had been laid off. We learned recently that these 200 workers will definitely lose their jobs and that 200 more will be laid off soon, with the result that in a town like Murdochville 400 families will be jobless.
Mr. Speaker, as if the situation were not serious enough, a few days ago I heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) tell the House that the only intervention of the Government would be to help "support" whatever financing may be offered by the Quebec Government.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the role of the federal Government in regional development is much more extensive than that, and I urge the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as well as the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) to look immediately into this dramatic situation which is having a serious impact not only on the town of Murdochville but also on the entire economy of Gaspe.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House passed Bill C-50 to reinstate the eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits of early retirees who had filed applications before January 5, 1986. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree that June 10, 1987 was a great day for early retirees in this country. After waiting for many months, all those who took early retirement and filed their applications for unemployment insurance before January 5, 1986, will at least get the amounts to which they were entitled.
Above all, I would like to say to these people that it was a privilege to work with them, as I did by taking part in a number of private and public meetings with the ARSAC on this matter, and I am proud of the fact that thanks to the provisions of Bill C-50, they will be reimbursed. I also want them to understand I will continue to intervene on their behalf, as 1 did throughout this debate in my representations to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), so they will get their cheques as soon as possible.
1 am delighted with the outcome of this debate which means that all workers concerned will receive fair treatment.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, 1 have just received a response from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) to questions I put on the Order Paper regarding the Cape Breton Development Corporation. From January 1, 1986, to March 1, 1987, a period of just over one year, the corporation spent $54,792 on legal fees related to one aspect of industrial employee relations.
Specifically, this money was spent to deal with cases brought before the Canada Labour Relations Board on employee classifications. The firm Mclnnes, Cooper and Robertson were the recipients of this outrageous amount of money.
Since the Cape Breton Development Corporation has a fulltime industrial relations department, on behalf of the people of Nova Scotia who want to know why so much extra money was spent on industrial employee relations, 1 call upon the Minister to order an immediate investigation into the legal expenses of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, last night Canadians of Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Ukrainian origin held their 15th annual ecumenical memorial service here in Ottawa. This service is held each year to remind us all of the six million to 10 million Ukrainians who perished in a man-made famine or in Siberian labour camps, to remind us of the one million, or one in six Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians who were liquidated or deported to Siberia, and to remind us all of the continued suppression of national cultural, religion, language and freedom in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine today.
iO)
This year's service should remind us all, as we debate the defence White Paper and as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) meets today and tomorrow in Reykjavik to discuss arms control with NATO Foreign Ministers, that there is no real peace without freedom.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, as of June 8, Carmen Quintana, the young Chilean student who was horribly burned with gasoline last July, returned to Santiago, Chile, to testify against the soldiers responsible for this hideous crime.
Quintana, who now resides in Canada, returned to Chile in April to meet with the Pope during his visit. While there, a death squad threatened to kill her, and written graffiti calling her a traitor were on walls everywhere. As a result of this previous visit, human rights groups in Chile and the InterChurch Committee for Human Rights in Latin America here in Canada are extremely concerned for her safety.
Carmen Quintana's lawyers, one of whom is from Montreal, are asking the Chilean court for an re-enactment of the incident that almost ended Carmen's life but claimed the life of a friend. The Pinochet regime has already conducted a reenactment but without the benefit of any witnesses.
The results of the Government's re-enactment show that Carmen kicked the container of gasoline on herself that nearly ended her life-a remarkable conclusion. Her lawyers are requesting another re-enactment with the benefit of witnesses to prove the Government's allegations to be incorrect.
It is clear that Carmen Quintana is in environment that is very hostile, and any requests to challenge the Pinochet Government's earlier claims of the incident will not be taken lightly.


I call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to inform the Pinochet regime that the Canadian Government is maintaining a careful watch on Carmen Quintana throughout the trial until she returns to Canada, and to press other countries to pursue the same course.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week RCMP officials arrested six Toronto area immigration consultants and lawyers and charged them with aiding and abetting Portuguese nationals to remain in Canada through fraudulent means.
The role which certain unscrupulous lawyers and immigration consultants played in the movement of groups to Canada claiming refugee status is a matter of concern to us all. Such abuses bring our immigration laws into disrepute and, above all, have flooded our refugee determination system with false claims, while those refugees with valid claims have been forced to wait months and years before their claims could be resolved.
The Government's action in seeking out and charging individuals engaged in such reprehensible practices is to be applauded. I urge the Ministers responsible to continue their efforts to track down and prosecute those consultants and lawyers who prey upon the natural desire of people who, because of poor economic or political circumstances in their homeland, seek to come to Canada in the quest for a better life.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure 1 rise today on behalf of all Saskatchewan Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. July 1 will be the twenty-fifth anniversary of the introduction of medical care into North America.
It was on July 1, 1962, that the first medical care plan came into effect in the Province of Saskatchewan. Tonight, community health care personnel from across Canada will have a special banquet to commemorate and celebrate that occasion in the city of Prince Albert. The guest speaker tonight will be the very distinguished Canadian, Mr. Emmett Hall.
The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) would normally want to make this statement, but he is currently making use of medical care. He is recovering from minor surgery, so he asked me to make the statement on his behalf.
On his behalf, and I am sure of all Saskatchewan Members of Parliament, I want to say that Canada owes a great debt of gratitude to the Premier of that day, Premier Woodrow Lloyd; to his Minister of Health, Mr. Allan Blakeney; to the former Premier of the province, the father of medicare, Tommy Douglas; and to Mr. Emmett Hall, who prefers to be called the grandfather of medical care.
Community health care workers who have gathered from across Canada in Prince Albert have asked me to request that pages distribute these little pins I hold here, commemorating this twenty-fifth anniversary, to all Members of Parliament from Saskatchewan.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, once again the confidence of Canada's business and investment community continues to be reflected in sound economic figures. Not only are we hearing of a continuing decline in unemployment figures, increased new housing starts, and higher consumer spending, but Statistics Canada has reported that Canada posted a $1.6 billion merchandise trade surplus in April, the largest surplus since April, 1986.
The merchandise trade surplus-the amount that Canadian exports of wheat, metals, and other goods exceed imports- was up 55 per cent from the $1 billion level in March. Economists see the over-all April figures as a good sign for the Canadian economy.
My congratulations to Canadian producers for increasing their productivity and showing very clearly that Canadian producers can compete very favourably in world markets. This gives added impetus to our Government to secure an enhanced trade agreement.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
1983 BUDGET-SPENDING PROJECTIONS
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 8, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) who was Acting Defence Minister for the day made a misleading and wrong statement in this House of Commons. The Minister's misleading statement was:
As a matter of fact the fiscal plan, and it is in the budgets of the former
Finance Minister, the Hon. Marc Lalonde, called for no increases in defence
spending after 1983.


Oral Questions
Then he went on to say:
I think the Hon. Member should check that out before making an accusation.
Imagine the Minister telling a Member of this House to check his facts when he hasn't even done so himself.
I have here the 1983 Budget Papers dealing with National Defence financing, Mr. Speaker. In the fiscal year 1983-84 the defence budget, under Marc Lalonde's fiscal plan, stood at $7,840 billion. In the next year an additional $930 million was added and in 1985-86 another $724 million was added. In 1986-87 another $865 million was added. In this present fiscal year another $766 million would have been added under the 1984 Budget, hence making it more than $800 million higher than the present Conservative Budget in this country.
Really the Budget Papers of 1983 and 1984 proved beyond a doubt, right here, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal defence spending projections called for sustained increases in the defence budget.
Meanwhile, we have the spectacle of two Conservative Defence Ministers running around the country trying to convince Canadians that they are doing such great things when, in fact, they are doing less than the previous Liberal Government whose defence purchases they are even trying to claim as their own. The program is a scam.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, under the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) leadership, Canada has been at the forefront of those nations calling for a new set of rules for international agricultural trade.
As a result of the Prime Minister's efforts, agriculture was raised as Canada's number one issue at the Tokyo Summit, the first time agriculture has been raised at a summit. Agriculture is being considered in the new round of GATT negotiations, and the OECD agreed to the need to reform international trade and issued a communique incorporating our Canadian proposal. This week, at the Venice Economic Summit, the Prime Minister took the lead against agricultural protectionism.
The Prime Minister obtained agreement from all seven leaders to consider a stepped up timetable for negotiating solutions to the world grain wars.
I have been asked by farmers in the Peace country to commend and thank the Prime Minister for his understanding of agricultural problems and for his actions on behalf of Canadian farmers.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the behaviour of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
According to reports in the media, $900 million were squandered at the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion over a period of two months. The Minister is unable to tell us why or to deny or confirm this report. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, he is incapable of saying whether $100 million are still missing for other programs. And he is incapable of saying whether funds earmarked for new projects have been frozen.
His responsibility for the development of the Atlantic region has been taken away from him by the Prime Minister.
My question is as follows: Why is the Minister staying in Cabinet, if most of his duties have been taken away from him?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister has indicated in this House on a number of occasions an internal audit and an outside audit are being undertaken. DR IE is in business. It is functioning in its usual manner and capacity. It is honouring all commitments and accepting applications and considering them, as it should be.


REPORTED FINANCIAL SHORTAGES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to specify the situation as we understand it. There have been reports, neither confirmed nor denied, that the Department is $900 million short. There is another report that the Department is short an additional $100 million for new programs. Furthermore, there is a report that there has been a freeze on all new programs in the Department.
The Prime Minister has relieved the Minister of his responsibility for the Atlantic region. Because of the Deputy Prime Minister's responsibility, the Minister no longer has any responsibility in western Canada for the diversification program. This is not just an internal problem. It is now affecting the country.
In these circumstances, why does the Minister remain in Cabinet since he really has nothing left to do?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is acting in a very irresponsible fashion today. He is using media reports as the premise of his questions. He is


suggesting that the Minister has been stripped of his duties. Both the reports and the suggestion are false.


FUNDING FOR YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, 1 think we can substantiate the particular responsibilities quite clearly. The Deputy Prime Minister has responsibility for the west. There is a new organization in Atlantic Canada taking over the east. The Minister is left with virtually nothing.
I want to add something which undoubtedly the Deputy Prime Minister has had drawn to his attention. Over the weekend the Government of the Northwest Territories criticized the Minister for delinquency with respect to programs in the Territories. Yesterday the Yukon Territory also attacked the Minister. Our citizens north of 60 have already been shabbily treated by the Government on the Meech Lake Accord where they were not consulted at all. Now they find out their regional development moneys have been frozen.
My question is this. Why are the Northwest Territories and Yukon being punished for the delinquency of the Minister? We now have a Department in shambles, and it is being taken out on our citizens north of 60 in particular.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman insists on making careless assumptions today as he did yesterday and the day before. I simply repeat that all commitments are being honoured. Applications are being received. DRIE is in business as usual.


YUKON APPLICATIONS-FUNDING OF PROJECTS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In Yukon, an important part of Canada's great northwest, there are 62 applications pending, worth $3 million, under three different regional development programs. These projects will create a large number of new jobs. They will trigger another $6 million in public and private investment. Is there any money available for these projects? If there is, when will Yukoners see it?


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see Hon. Members opposite recognize the validity and usefulness of programs put in place by this Government. 1 can only reiterate the response of the Deputy Prime Minister to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition when he suggested that DRIE is in business. The doors are open.


John Napier Turner: DRIE has dried up.
Oral Questions


J. Michael Forrestall: DRIE has not dried up. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition persists in misleading and mischievous questions on the floor of the House. He knows better and he should be somewhat ashamed of himself.


PROPOSAL TO CREATE NORTHERN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, there is no answer for Yukon. Let us see about the Northwest Territories.
On June 9 the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly, by unanimous motion, called upon the Government of Canada to help stimulate and develop the territorial economy. In particular they asked the Government to create a northern economic development agency. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this time what response the Government has to this motion from the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, Atlantic Canadians were pleased by the announcement of the Prime Minister together with the four Atlantic Premiers a week ago Saturday. So will the government leaders in both the Northwest Territories and Yukon be pleased with the plans which will flow very soon from this Government.


REPORTED OVER COMMITMENT OF FUNDS-REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and is with regard to the over-commitment of funds at the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. According to one of the internal investigations taking place, as of yesterday the overcommitment had reached $90 million for the fiscal year 198788. That figure will probably approach $100 million, if not more.
The most important thing a Member of Parliament can do in this House is scrutinize the spending of public funds. In light of the fact that we are today dealing with the Estimates, would the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether he would agree to have this whole matter referred to a special parliamentary committee so that we can discover why a Minister can allow the over-commitment of nearly $100 million by his Department, which is unprecedented in this country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that Member of the New Democratic Party has been in this House for a long time and has some knowledge of the rules. He knows very well that these kinds of things can be considered by standing committees which have the perfect right to do so. As a matter of fact, the Estimates have been before the appropriate standing committees and standing committees are empowered to engage in any studies they so desire.


Oral Questions


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Deputy Prime Minister is not opposed. I hope we can now convince the chairman of the committee.


INDUSTRIAL REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM-DELAY IN TABLING ANNUAL REPORT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the annual report of the Industrial Regional Development Program was supposed to be tabled in this House on June 1. It is now June 11. Why is this annual report, which details the amounts spent and the dates commitments are made with regard to DRIE's programs, overdue? Is this just another way of trying to cover up what is happening in that Department?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the annual report will be tabled very soon.


Some Hon. Members:: When?


J. Michael Forrestall: It will be tabled very soon. If the Hon. Member or other members of his Party bothered to show up at DRIE meetings once in a while, as members of the Official Opposition do, they would be aware that officials are there, as they will be this afternoon, to answer questions of Hon. Members in detail.


REQUEST THAT LIST OF APPROVED PROJECTS BE TABLED
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, this Ministry is almost $100 million over-committed after only two months in this fiscal year. That is without precedent in the Government. Most Ministers would be fired immediately by a Prime Minister.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister make a commitment in the House that he will make public and table in this House a list of all the projects which were approved in that Ministry in the last 18 months? Will he make that commitment to Members of Parliament and the people of Canada so that we can get to the bottom of this important issue?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, a question similar to that was put to the Minister responsible. 1 think he has responded to it.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and pertains to the latest episode in the continuing saga of the lifestyles of the rich and famous.
In the latest episode of the redecorators His Excellency, Ambassador at large, Dr. Fred Doucet, spent $35,150.37 of taxpayers' money to renovate his office and build a kitchen.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain to this House why fast Freddy needs a $35,000 kitchen to cook his hamburgers at noon? Could he explain to the people of Canada why such extravagance is necessary?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the person in question holds a very important and strategic post in the Government. He is involved in very confidential conversations on behalf of the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stewart Donald McInnes: It was necessary to renovate his offices to ensure that appropriate security was made available to him.


Don Boudria: Most Canadians have never seen a $35,000 kitchen, let alone have one in their office.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF OFFICE RENOVATION EXPENDITURES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask why the Prime Minister's friend, Fred Doucet, had to spend $35,000 to renovate his office and install a kitchen.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why he tolerates this kind of spending, especially considering that in a recent poll, 70 per cent of Canadians indicated they were fed up with the kind of life being led by Cabinet and the Prime Minister? Furthermore, could he inform the House who authorized this kind of spending and what punitive measures will be taken in the circumstances?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition may take the importance of summit meetings for Canada lightly, but in view of the fact that this country is hosting three summit meetings next year we view the involvement of Doctor Doucet as very important. It is essential that he have the appropriate security and surroundings to carry out his functions properly.


HARBOURS AND PORTS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last week, when I asked about the Minister of Fisheries'


small crafts harbour cabinet proposal, the Minister of Transport said that it has been dealt with in a very satisfactory manner. In fact, it has not yet gone to Treasury Board so that no one, particularly not the Minister of Transport, knows what the final figure might be.
Since 47 Newfoundland ports will be closed over the next five years unless adequate funds are found for maintenance, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if the $1.2 million for harbours in the St. John's area that the Minister of Transport announced in the last couple of weeks comes out of the already allocated fund which is less than $8 million for all of Newfoundland? If it does not come from that fund that is already allocated, where does it come from?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, when the new policy on small craft harbours is fully concluded it will be announced in an appropriate fashion. I just ask my hon. friend to be patient.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, this is important to fishing communities all across Canada. They are being asked to be patient while the Government is playing politics with their livelihoods and safety. Why has the Government been so cynical about this issue? Why does it not announce a policy now that will maintain these small craft harbours for the safety and livelihood of Canadian fishermen?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we know that it is an important issue. That is why we are acting. I am sure the Hon. Member will be fully supportive of the policy when it is announced.


THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD-ABORIGINAL AND MULTICULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COUNTRY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the 1987 Constitutional Accord.
One area of the Accord which needs vast improvement is its poor recognition of Canada's multicultural and aboriginal dimension which affects some 10 million Canadians.
Our Canadian society is undeniably made up of the French, English, aboriginal and multicultural dimensions. Clause 1 of the Accord only recognizes the English-French linguistic duality as a fundamental character of Canada. Therefore, is the Government prepared to amend and thereby strengthen Clause 1 by also entrenching the multicultural and aboriginal fact and reality as a fundamental characteristic of Canada so
Oral Questions
that the Constitution will truly reflect our bilingual and multicultural nature as a country and as a people?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond to the Hon. Member in that regard because it is important for the Hon. Member to understand that, while we appreciate very much the unequivocal support that has been given to us by the Liberal and New Democratic Parties with respect to the Accord, I would not want his question to be misinterpreted as a correct statement of the Accord and the recognition which it does in fact pay to two very important groups in our society.
I think our Government's commitment to the third of Canadians who are neither of English nor French extraction is manifested in a number of ways in terms of our policies and particular programs that are brought forward by the Government, and by the very make-up of the Government in terms of the heritage of the membership in the Cabinet, and appointments made by this Government to very important positions. This Government has given leadership to the multicultural and aboriginal groups that is unprecedented.


Sergio Marchi: The Minister, who had the responsibility with the Prime Minister to draft this Constitution, is simply skirting around a very important question.


RECOGNITION OF MULTICULTURALISM AND ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, without the inclusion of the multicultural and aboriginal dimension, Clause 1 is incomplete and an inaccurate definition of the Canada of today, regardless of what is in Clause 16 at the end of the Accord.
Since the Constitution must clearly define and express the reality of our country and our people, which is unquestionably bilingual and multicultural, why does the Minister refuse to give the undertaking, while not detracting from anyone, to add to Clause 1 the fundamental character defined through multiculturalism and our aboriginal peoples? Why is he continuing to justify ignoring the contributions and aspirations of some 10 million Canadians, one-third of Canada's population?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure of the purpose of the question because it is based on a wrong proposition. The reality is that in the Constitution there is the recognition of multiculturalism as an essential ingredient of our country. There is an important recognition of the rights of aboriginal peoples in this country. Indeed, the provision with respect to the rights of the multicultural society in Canada was moved by the Progressive Conservative Party at the time of the original Charter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We do not need any lectures from the Hon. Member with respect to a commitment, not only in this Accord to reaffirm that very important principle of our country, but also with respect to the record of this Government which is unprecedented.


Sergio Marchi: Absolute garbage.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He should be ashamed of himself for even asking that question.


FISHERIES
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the inshore fishermen of Newfoundland will be adversely affected by the lack of an adequately negotiated price for capelin, and that yesterday the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicated in the House that he was considering a marketing agency to deal with this problem, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how soon the Government intends to act on a marketing agency for the capelin fishery?


Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises an important question dealing with the capelin fishery. Of course the Minister is concerned that we have an adequate market for that species from Newfoundland. I know the Department is actively working on it. Since the Minister is not in the House today, I will bring it to his attention later this afternoon.


John R. Rodriguez: That is a small comfort to the inshore fishermen of Newfoundland, when they expect some action from a Government that has such a massive majority.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to make another positive suggestion to the Government. Hopefully it will act on it. Since the inshore fishermen have not begun fishing capelin and many of them are not receiving unemployment insurance benefits because benefits stopped on May 15 according to the Act, is the Government prepared to extend unemployment insurance benefits to the inshore fishermen of Newfoundland who have not started to fish the capelin?


Patrick George Binns: Mr. Speaker, of course the matter of unemployment insurance benefits is something that would have to be considered not only by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but by the Government and the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I know that they will take the representations seriously and consider that particular matter.


SMALL BUSINESS
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Small Businesses, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In 1985, the Government consulted Canadians to find out the needs of the small business sector. Two and a half years later, we are still waiting for the report. In 1986, the Liberals consulted Canadian business people from Vancouver to Halifax, and today, we are proud to be able to submit our report to the public. Why is the Government hiding a report that was printed in 1986?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister, I will take that question as notice.


RELEASE OF GOVERNMENT REPORT
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have with me a copy of the government report entitled "Toward Progressive Action for Small Business". I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister would allow me to release the government report today with my report?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Government does not have to take any lessons from Members opposite with respect to our support for small business. We brought down interest rates. We brought in a $500,000 capital gains tax exemption. We have done a number of things which have enhanced the profile of small business in this country.
Small businessmen are very proud of what the Government has achieved for them. We are the best friend they ever had.


AGRICULTURE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the Special Canadian Grains Program. As the House is aware, farmers have found this program very helpful, but are concerned about the cheques which will be going out on the second mailing. Would the Minister tell us what actions he has taken with regard to those second cheques? And what safeguards will be put in place in case of postal disruptions?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome that question because it provides me with an opportunity to deliver another good news message to Canadian farmers. I am sure they will take great pride and satisfaction in knowing that throughout this day all the cheques will be mailed to them.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence-


Mr. Beatty:: At last.


Ms. Copps:: At last he is here.


Pauline Jewett: -whom 1 welcome back to the House.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Thank you.


Pauline Jewett: As Greenpeace has recently pointed out, and as the Minister must surely already know, his nuclear-powered attack submarines would require highly enriched uranium fuel. Canada has no facilities to create such a fuel. Does the Government plan, then, to export Canadian uranium to the United States or another major nuclear weapons state to have it enriched for his subs? And is this not a blatant violation of Canada's own policy of forbidding the export of uranium for military purposes, including the fueling of nuclear submarines?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I do thank the Hon. Member for her question. I want her to know that, when I was on the road, 1 missed her just as much as she missed me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Because it is the first new comprehensive defence policy in 16 years, 1 felt an obligation to go out and
Oral Questions
tell the Canadian people about it. 1 am pleased to be able to report to the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Henry Perrin Beatty: -that they are delighted we have a new policy for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Answer the question.


David Orlikow: Get to the point.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The purchase of nuclear-powered submarines is completely consistent with our obligations under the NPT. It will be done in a way which will respect Canada's obligations and our policies with regard to non-proliferation.
What we do have with that purchase is an indication by this side of the House that we are prepared to take the measures necessary to keep this country strong, independent, and free.


URANIUM EXPORTS-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Minister is not aware, nor, apparently, is the Cabinet, that it is Canada's long-standing policy to export uranium only for civil reactor purposes. That is our longstanding policy. Our agreement with the United States explicitly states it shall not be used for military purposes, so that the Minister is deceiving-misleading the House and the people. He is indeed saying we are staying with our nonproliferation practices.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Withdraw that remark.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member who is a very experienced Member of this House, knows when a question goes into argument. Please put the question.


Pauline Jewett: Does the Minister have the agreement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Cabinet to this violation of long-standing Canadian policy and practice that we will not sell our uranium for enrichment except for civil reactor purposes?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, certainly Cabinet is in support of the policy contained in the White Paper, which represents the first new defence policy for Canada in 16 years.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Answer the question.


David Orlikow: Answer the question.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Any action we take will be fully consistent with our treaty obligations. Any action we take will be fully designed-


Oral Questions


Pauline Jewett: Read your own treaties.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I wonder whether the Hon. Member, having put her question, will allow me to answer it?


Mr. Blaikie:: You are not answering.


Pauline Jewett: Read your own treaties.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister will answer the question.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to have a chance to answer this question because I think, for the first time, there will be an clear indication of where Parties on all sides of the House stand on the issue of defending Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair, as Hon. Members will know, has asked the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam to put her second question succinctly, which she did. I ask the Hon. Minister to answer it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes, Mr. Speaker. All of our actions will be fully consistent with Canadian treaty obligations under the NPT. They will be consistent with our policies with regard to non-proliferation, and these reactors will be under Canadian control in Canada.


LEVEL OF DEFENCE SPENDING
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Defence. For the five years previous to the first Budget brought in by this Conservative Government, previous Liberal Governments had an average of over 7 per cent real increase in defence spending. In the previous 10 years before the election of this Government, Liberal Governments averaged over 4.5 per cent real increase in defence spending.
How can the Minister travel around Canada with his 2 per cent and tell the people what great things this Government is doing? Why did he not make it 3 per cent or 4 per cent? Why did he not make it 6 per cent as was promised by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs during the last election campaign?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the figures used by the hon. gentleman for the Trudeau years are rather interesting because the average during the Trudeau years was 2.2 per cent. The floor under the P.C. program will be 2 per cent. In addition, as major capital projects come along, we will be adding to that.
The Liberal policy left us without a single minesweeper in the Canadian Navy. It left us without adequate armaments for our CF-18s. The Liberals, over their time in power, ignored the Canadian Forces, and it is too late now for them to attempt to kiss and make up.


SIZE OF EXPENDITURES
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is still on his ego trip with his big 2 per cent. What he did not say was that he is using total years. I mentioned five years and 10 years-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -and now he is talking 15 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Lets face it, is it not true that the Government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is always some latitude, of course, allowed in preambles, but arguments over figures really do take up a great deal of time. I know the Hon. Member has a succinct question and again I would ask that he put it.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Is it not true that the Government has simply put 15 years together in the White Paper because that is the only way it could make its program look big at a measly 2 per cent per year? That is a fact of life the Minister cannot deny.
Is it not true that the Government is playing a public relations campaign by stretching out the program? The reason why it has to be stretched out is because there is absolutely no firm or big enough commitment on the part of the Government. It has now promised 2 per cent per year when it promised 6 per cent in the last campaign. That is one thing about which the Government will never hear the end.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I love it, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals have finally discovered the Armed Forces of Canada which they ignored for 20 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the vice-president of the student council over there shouts across the floor. I want to know whether she feels we are spending too little on defence.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs my question might interest the Minister of National Health and Welfare, although I am not sure. It has to do with the release of a report which has long been secret, having to do with the


fact that the Perry nuclear generating station in the United States was built with a flawed design. It has been described as an accident waiting to happen.
Is the Government now prepared to change the view expressed to me, in reply to a letter which I wrote several months ago, that it has confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the United States? Is it now prepared to take some more critical action vis-a-vis this reactor and other American reactors on the Canadian border which may be in a similar condition?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, we are of course aware of the press reports concerning this secret report on the safety of the Perry nuclear reactor. We are looking into it. We will have to study the matter on something more than just press reports before making any further comment.
I remind the Hon. Member that we do discuss these security issues related to nuclear reactors on an ongoing basis, both bilaterally with the U.S. and with multilateral organizations. I will take the matter up with the Secretary of State for External Affairs on his return.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a U.S. official retiring from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said that it would not be a surprise to him if there were a serious melt-down in the United States within 10 to 20 years-in fact he said it would be a surprise if there were not-I want to ask the Government this.
With respect to the nuclear generating station which I have mentioned, as well as the Hanford reactor about which the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has written to the Government, when will it adopt a more critical attitude on behalf of Canadians-not just for the sake of being critical but a critical attitude toward the increasing evidence of serious flaws in the way that nuclear power stations are being run in the United States, and the ability of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do anything about it?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have assured the Hon. Member that the types of discussions to which he refers are carried out on an ongoing basis between the two countries, particularly in cases in which the Canadian population could be affected. I am certain that we will have an answer to his question before the end of the 10 or 20-year timeframe about which he talks.
___________________________ 6999
Oral Questions STATUS OF WOMEN


REPORT ON BATTERED WOMEN-LACK OF SPACE IN TRANSITION HOUSES
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Linda MacLeod report on battered women that was released yesterday indicated the shocking fact that one out of two women who go to a transition house or a shelter are turned away because of lack of space. This is not a new problem.
Can the Minister tell us what we have been doing for the last two and a half years about providing for transition houses for women in situations such as this? Bearing in mind the fact that this is International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, will the Minister give us his undertaking that during the current year we will close the gap and provide enough spaces for all women in these circumstances?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question which deals with a very serious topic. He will recall that yesterday in a reply that I gave to the House I mentioned what we refer to as the abbreviated form for application under the Canada Assistance Plan so that people can access transition homes. I also mentioned that, along with my colleague responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing, additional recommendations will be examined in terms of social housing.
In respect to the Hon. Member's specific question, I should say to the hon. gentleman that at the present time there are an estimated 265 centres which currently provide emergency shelter to women and their children. We are cost sharing with approximately 100 of them. I understand from statistics that that is a substantial increase over 1984 when this Government took office. As I said yesterday in the House, I think we still have some distance to go.


PLIGHT OF UNEMPLOYED AND HOMELESS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Youth and concerns the plight of unemployed and homeless youth. The Leader of the Official Opposition and myself met with representatives of various groups that are dedicated to helping unemployed and homeless youth. After explaining how upset they were about the Government's failure to act, they described the growing numbers of unemployed and homeless youth in Canada's main cities. There are between 10,000 and 20,000, depending on whether we are talking about Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, while numbers are increasing in other Canadian cities. Mr. Speaker, these young people want to


Oral Questions
know why the Government has failed to take any concrete steps to deal with the plight of unemployed and homeless youth across Canada.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think we have to recognize there is a fundamental rule that applies to youth and their place in Canadian society, as far as employment and every other aspect of their lives is concerned. When the economy in Canada is not working properly, young people are the first to suffer, and when the economy picks up, they are the last ones called back. So for this Government, as I imagine it is for all other governments, the fundamental rule is to make sure the economy can function properly. That is why the youth unemployment rate has dropped 4.3 per cent since we came to power.
Second, I think the Hon. Member will agree there is no miracle solution to this particular problem. Recently, one of Canada's major newspapers published a series of articles on the homeless, and there were constant references to young people who in many cases suffered abuse from parents or other adults, in many cases, and young people who were victims of crimes and violence. These problems are not easily solved. However, we are very concerned.


EXPECTATIONS OF YOUTH-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, I think at least one thing is clear, and that is that homeless youth and the people who are responsible for helping them are amazed at all the pomp and circumstance with which some programs are launched, and I am sure that they would rather have something to put on their own dinner table. These young people would like to know whether the Government is truly concerned and, especially, whether it is prepared to put in place a permanent means of ensuring that someone will be giving their needs and their problems the attention they deserve.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice who has been a Member of this House for some time now is referring to the pomp and circumstance with which we launched certain programs. I am not sure exactly what he is referring to, but I do know that since I was elected to the House of Commons, we had a motion from his party on this subject on one of the Opposition days. Unfortunately, I did not hear the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice speak that day, and furthermore, if he has anything positive to say to the Minister of State for Youth, 1 would appreciate that. I would be delighted to hear even one new idea from the Official Opposition.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Before the last election the Conservative Party criticized the science policies of the Liberal Government and promised that a Conservative Government would double support for scientific research and development in Canada. According to Statistics Canada, we are now down to an all-time low. We are only putting in 1.35 per cent of GNP. Will the Minister explain why this is happening despite the promises?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as I have told the House before, the urgent priority was to reorganize the apparatus of government in tune with the new realities and the new age that is dawning on us before we made further spending commitments. The fact is that spending has increased very significantly, admittedly because of the significant if not spectacular growth in the GNP. It has not kept pace in terms of the percentages on which the Hon. Member would like to make his comparisons, but he will be pleasantly surprised, and I am pleased the socialist Party is as concerned about science and technology as it has indicated and that it sees it as being as urgent as we do.


CONSORTIUM'S APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Government has said that it wants to get the private sector involved. There is a proposal for the formation of a consortium in which Inco, Stelco, Ontario Hydro and Quebec Hydro are involved. They have asked the Government for start-up money in the amount of $10 million. That is precisely the kind of idea the Government has been pushing. Why has the Government not approved that financial support for this group?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, it is true that such a proposition has been advanced. Knowing that the NDP will support this kind of initiative by the private sector will make the decision that has to be made in regard to that easier for me.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that there will be one single question from the Hon. Member for Mount Royal and that will be the last question. I would like to thank Hon. Members for having taken some pains today to make their questions and responses shorter.


FILM INDUSTRY
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, last week on June 5, Senator Bensten, the Chairman of the powerful U.S. Finance Committee, co-sponsored a resolution of the U.S. Senate warning Canada that the implementation of our film distribution policy could result in an absolute bar to the successful completion of negotiations and Senate approval of a free trade agreement between Canada and the United States.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Who is making the film distribution cultural initiative policy, Elollywood, Jack Valenti, the U.S. Senate, or our Cabinet? If the Minister of Communications has not been forced to change her tune, will the Minister bring the film distribution policy into the House now before the end of June, or is the Government bowing to American pressure?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, such decisions always have been and always will be made by the Cabinet under this Conservative Government. The Minister of Communications has already told the House that she is proceeding with the legislation as planned. Since she has told the House that, I do not see why the Hon. Member is so critical of her intentions.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the customary question one asks on Thursday; namely, what business does the Government intend to call for the next several days?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will be dealing with the second reading of Bill C-55, amendments to the Immigration Act. On Monday, we will be dealing with report stage and third reading of Bill C-13, the Bell reorganization Act, and also second reading of Bill C-60, the Copyright Act.
I also wish to indicate that I have been unable to reach an agreement after discussion with representatives of the Parties opposite with respect to time limits on Bill C-18. Therefore, I give notice that I will be moving at a later sitting, pursuant to Standing Order 117, that four hours, the equivalent to one day's sitting, shall be allotted to the further consideration of report stage of the Bill and four hours shall be allocated to third reading stage.
On Tuesday, we will move to the report stage of Bill C-18, the National Transportation Act, followed by report stage of Bill C-19, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. On Wednesday,
Oral Questions
June 17, we will call Bill C-18, the National Transportation Act, for third reading and Bill C-19.
Other business will be announced later this week or early next week. We are still working out some agreements with respect to Thursday, June 18, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will be bringing down his statement on tax reform.
I would also like to inform the House that I will be tabling today with the Clerk a motion which seeks the concurrence of the Senate to join the House in the establishment of a special committee to consider and report on the constitutional amendments proposed at the First Ministers' meeting. I would hope that members could be appointed to this committee soon after it is passed. The committee would have most of the usual powers allocated to such committees plus substitution provisions and broadcasting provisions. We are proposing 12 Members from the House and five from the Senate. I know that all Hon. Members would want to join me in support of this initiative and we hope that we can move on it with expedition so we can get into the committee hearings.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, referring to the latter comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), I would like to indicate how much we in the New Democratic Party support the proposal presented by the Deputy Prime Minister. We find what is happening in the other place to be outrageous. The hacks, flacks and bagmen over there, the Liberal appointees, are circumventing the process of Parliament.
I simply want to say that this is an issue of Parliament, not of the Senate or of the House of Commons. That is why we feel so strongly about this initiative. It is time to get on with advancing the Constitution and we would hope that the people in the other House, particularly those from the Liberal Party, would put Canada before politics on this particular issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair feels that the House can and will take its own responsibility on the matter.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on House business. You did not see me even though I rose before the House Leader of the NDP.
My question is on the order of business, and I am very glad the Government House Leader mentioned it and the House Leader of the NDP commented on it. It has to do with the creation of the special committee, and I certainly agree that it should be a joint committee.
So that there will be no misunderstanding and so that no one will be caught by surprise, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if, when the motion is brought in and after discussion with House Leaders on all sides, there will be no collusion of House Leaders to have only one speaker from each Party speaking on whatever motion is brought in.


Supply
I would like the House Leader, for whom I have the greatest of respect, to give a public commitment now that when the motion is brought in, in whatever form, it will be an open debate like the free trade debate so that Hon. Members who wish to speak will have a chance to speak and the debate can go into the wee hours of the morning if necessary. Otherwise, Hon. Members will have to stay here to ensure that they take a watching guard to refuse consent on any motion, whether or not it is agreed to by House Leaders.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I will certainly take that into consideration and under advisement when I am discussing the matter with the other House Leaders. As a matter of fact, we have not negotiated any particular timeframe for it to be called. There still may be some negotiations and some refinement, but we will certainly take that into account.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I simply want to confirm what the Government House Leader has said in that regard. I am sure that when the House Leaders meet to discuss those aspects in a constructive spirit, we will take into account the feelings of Hon. Members on this matter. Also, in a constructive vein, I want to say, with respect to the motion which the Government House Leader said he would be putting on the Notice Paper, that I am sure a way will be found to look into this matter through a committee in a constructive way, a way which would give full consideration to the role of the House of Commons. I am very optimistic that that would be the case.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on another point of order. On May 29, the House passed Bill C-204 at second reading. Back in November, 1986, a legislative committee with a chairperson and appropriate members was struck.
Standing Order 93(3) indicates:
A legislative committee constituted pursuant to sections (1) and (2) of this Standing Order, shall meet within two sitting days after the adoption of the motion for the second reading and reference to a legislative committee-
I simply want to say that almost two weeks have passed and no meetings have been held, and I simply want to flag it as a breach of the Standing Orders. I assume the Government House Leader would see to it that this is acted upon forthwith.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for drawing that matter to my attention. In consultation with the Whip of my Party, I have been informed that the Chairman of the committee is out of the country at the present time and is due to be back next week.
I will certainly take the Hon. Member's suggestion under advisement and hope that we can resolve the matter soon.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. de Cotret:
That Vote 60, in the amount of $64,443,000 under the Department of Communications-National Film Board-Revolving fund, operating loss, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House rose at one o'clock p.m., the Hon. Member for The Batt-lefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) had completed his speech. I will now recognize Hon. Members who wish to question him. Otherwise, we will resume debate.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley).
I should like to begin by making a very brief comment that there seems to be some misunderstanding about my position. I am not at all against employment equity in the National Film Board. I think it is excellent. I am a great supporter of the National Film Board. I have said publicly on many occasions that 1 think it ought to have more money.
My concern in my resolution is apropos a very specific question, that is, the refusal to give an increase to Studio D, which was promised at a previous committee meeting.
I am pleased to see the support for the NFB and Studio D given by the Hon. Member. I note that at committee he was not at all supportive of Studio D. As reported in the committee hearing for May 21, he said:
I watch sometimes with dismay ... Studio D, for example, very dogmatic. It is the work of ideologues, some of it, and very sadly. I do not find much of an appeal-in fact, I find it rather offensive.
Then the head of the NFB pointed out that nevertheless it made a certain amount of money, that the returns were good. The Hon. Member was rather surprised by this; he was not a supporter of Studio D at all. I am simply interested that he has changed his tune.
1 have a very specific question to ask him. It concerns the statements made by the head of the NFB on May 9, 1985. He indicated:
It will be a significant and a very important increase-
He was referring to the budget of Studio D, and those are his words. How can the Hon. Member for The Battlefords- Meadow Lake reconcile a promise of a significant and a very important increase in funding for Studio D with the figures in the Estimates?
The Government's own Estimates for 1985-86 indicate $2,531,000 for production and $288,000 for marketing. For the following year, 1986-87, there was a decrease to


$1,908,000 for production and an increase in marketing to $273,000. For the following year, 1987-88, there is $2,184,000 for production and $228,000 for marketing. That is clearly a decrease. However, the resources for that section, English language production, had increased from $22,960,000 to $24,939,000.
How does the Hon. Member reconcile these figures with the statement made in committee that there would be a significant and a very important increase?


John Kenneth Gormley: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to reply first to the comments and then to the question of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).
I have made very critical comments in the past of Studio D.
I do not see them as being particularly inconsistent with my comments this morning.
This morning, if the Hon. Member were listening to my speech, she would have heard me say that I have had cases where 1 do not agree with Studio D. I have had cases, particularly in respect of the abortion issue, where I believed that Studio D was unbalanced in its programming. I would go further and reiterate the words which I said in committee when 1 referred to the work of ideologues being rather dogmatic. However, that does not derogate from the need for Studio D to advance programs by women for women. Neither does it derogate in any way from the work of the National Film Board.
I would not see any great inconsistency in my position on the needs of Studio D, however, with the qualification that sometimes I do not agree with the tilt of some of its programs.
I mentioned this morning that it is because of the very question of how we voice our opposition to something that we are here today. The member of the NDP, with typical NDP double standards, has a difficulty in that she believes the chairman of the National Film Board has not followed through on a commitment made to her, so she asks for the Estimates to reduce the budget of the National Film Board. Every responsible Member of the House finds that absolutely unacceptable.
In answer to the question the Hon. Member has asked about funding for women, I refer to the budget summary for women in the National Film Board. I see in the 1987-898 expenditures the figure of $795,450, which is approximately $220,000 more than the previous year.
If one takes into consideration Studio D funding, funding for women in film production and development, and funding for youth and young women, one sees that there has clearly been a commitment by the National Film Board to see this funding increased. I do not think it is an entirely healthy attitude when one views women in film as somehow being exclusive to Studio D. I do not think responsible people in the film community would say that the budget of Studio D is therefore reflective of the commitment-


Lynn McDonald: Read the Estimates.
Supply


John Kenneth Gormley: Oh, gosh, Madam Speaker, I cannot hear myself think; the NDP is heckling again. We all know how the NDP deals with things it does not like to hear, like yelling at President Reagan. Its Members will not let someone answer; rather, they yell them down.
If I could have a couple of seconds, I will conclude by saying that Studio D, women's programming in totality, and funding for young producers are big commitments of the National Film Board. I do not believe that the chairman of the National Film Board has in any way deceived the committee. I really think that what this Member has been doing is pretty irresponsible.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) was wrong this morning. The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) has just been quoting the same figures at which I have been looking. They include the planning priorities of the National Film Board and the priority areas in which Studio D is located, but not the figures quoted by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood who pointed out inaccurately that the 1985-86 figure for production was $2,531,000 and that the figure for marketing was $288,000. She pointed out that it was a decrease or an increase; it did not matter how she read it because she was confusing-and I should like the Hon. Member opposite to respond to this-the planning priorities of the National Film Board, including women's programs which cut across all lines, not just Studio D.
She forgot to compare the actual figures of Studio D, as I told her this morning, which went from approximately $363,000 to $795,000 in 1987. I mentioned those figures in the speech which I made this morning. I would suggest that the increase from $504,000 to $1,678,000 for women in the National Film Board is a significant one.
Would the Hon. Member agree that the chairman has not been reneging on his duties?


John Kenneth Gormley: Madam Speaker, in reply to that question and for the sake of clarification, indeed I confirm that if one looks at Studio D in isolation there is a proposed increase this year of $220,000. However, I should like to refer to something that just an oversight on the part of the Hon. Member of the Liberal Party. She did not refer to the National Film Board renewing its commitment to the federal women's film program. We are dealing with approximately $2 million over the next five years and much of that money will be used through Studio D. I think it is clear to all who follow the work of the National Film Board and the film community in Canada that Studio D has, in fact, received an increase.
The National Film Board is committed not only to its very good level now of the development of women's programming of films but is also increasing that level to bring women to a full position of equality, not only in production and filming but in


Supply
the management of the NFB, film programming and distribution throughout Canada. Certainly the proposal today by the New Democratic Party to take funding away from the National Film Board is puzzling, rather bizarre and shameful.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, the way in which Parliament and its committees work makes it very difficult for Members who do not serve on a committee, such as the one with which we are dealing today, to be as knowledgeable and as aware about the actual workings of, in this case, the National Film Board as one would like to.
1 enter this debate because I have been very interested, supportive and impressed by the tremendous work which the National Film Board has done over the years, beginning during the World War II years when it was organized and led by John Grierson and by many of the people whom I have known, some who came from my City of Winnipeg, such as Gordon Burwash and later Bernard Ostry.
We know that films made by the National Film Board dealt with every aspect of Canadian life, even labour management relationships. We saw recently the film the NFB produced about Bob White, head of the Canadian Autoworkers Union. It has dealt with farm problems, with inner-core city problems, and with the problem of racial prejudice.
I remember a film made many years ago which dealt with prejudice and discrimination against black people who at that time lived in Dresden, Ontario, whose grandparents and great-parents came from the United States before and during the Civil War because Dresden was the end of the underground railway for slaves escaping from the U.S. We know how many awards and on how many occasions in national and international competitions at film festivals the National Film Board has been honoured.
We know that at the National Film Board, as at the CBC and in the private film and TV industries, many more women are now involved than there were some years ago. That does not mean we are satisfied that women have yet achieved the important role which they ought to play at the National Film Board or anywhere else.
Let me say something about the whole question of employment equity, not just at the NFB but everywhere. I had the opportunity to spend about 15 years of my life before I came to Parliament and after coming here working with the Canadian Labour Congress on the whole question of the kind of prejudice and discrimination which we had and still have- hopefully to a lesser degree-in this country against people who are non-white, against women, against natives and against handicapped people. It was the labour movement in cooperation with farm groups, co-operatives and church groups which persuaded first the provinces and then the federal Government to enact the fair employment practices Act and the fair accommodation practices Act and later the Bill of Rights.
We have accomplished a great deal, but we have a long way to go. I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that one of
the very sad things so far as we are concerned is that the employment equity legislation which the Conservative Government is so proud of is flawed. If you compare the Act here and the way it is in the legislation in the United States, Madam Speaker, you will see very quickly that our legislation is very much the way President Reagan would like the American legislation to operate. In other words, our legislation is based on voluntary compliance. That will not work. In the United States where the Americans have had a great deal more experience than we have had with that kind of legislation, the U.S. Manufacturers' Association has said that it is quite happy with the laws as they are. The U.S. law gives them a target. It tells them that they have to move toward hiring more people from minority groups: the non-whites, the handicapped and women. Companies are given goals. A year later they have to report how far they have moved to accomplish the objectives given. There are no misunderstandings, nor misapprehensions.
If you leave things loose and to voluntary acceptance, there will be criticism because there will be something that has not been done that should have been done. Unfortunately, this Government did not take the time to look into the way the system works in the United States and it is following an entirely different course which, as I pointed out, even the Manufacturers' Association in the U.S. says will not work. It will not work in the States and it will not work in Canada.
Having said that, I want to deal with the National Film Board. As I have said, and I have said it many times both in the House over the years that I have been here and in committee when I was a member of that committee, we are happy with the work done by the National Film Board. We would support any proposal by this Government, as we did for the former Government, to increase the budget of the National Film Board to permit and encourage the National Film Board to do even more than it has done. We know at the NFB as everywhere else there are not enough women, certainly not in responsible positions. There are still not enough people employed at the NFB who come from the visible minorities. There are still not enough people who are physically handicapped. That is true of every government Department and agency. It is true of every private sector employer. We want that situation to change. We do not call for quotas, but what we do say is necessary is some reverse discrimination.
Minority groups, whether women, handicapped, ethnic groups or non-white groups are represented in the NFB as in every other employment in this country, but they are underrepresented. We do not say, "Hire them just because they are women, handicapped, from visible minorities or are native", but we say, "If they have the qualifications to do the job for which there is a vacancy, then give them a little bit of extra support, because unless you do, we are probably looking at 100 years before they will get their fair share." We are not saying we want precise quotas. We are saying we have to make a special effort, and I do not see that being done by the Government.


I want to say something about the National Film Board and the work it has done for women. We in Manitoba are very proud of the fact that the NFB produced in my City of Winnipeg a series entitled Daughters of the Country. It consisted of four one-hour dramatic episodes. I am proud of the NFB for doing it and I am proud of the NDP Government of Manitoba which helped make the series possible by investing $500,000 in the project through its jobs fund. That was an important series because it depicted the history of the Metis people as seen through the eyes of Metis women. We hope there can be more series like that and we hope to see a great deal more film productions by the NFB in the regions. Whether it be in the Maritimes, the Prairies, or British Columbia, we want to see a lot more of it.
Let me say a word about Studio D. We know it has produced some excellent films. We know it could do more. We have to, as I have over the years, support and defend the CBC and call for more assistance. I have done that even though not infrequently I see a CBC program I disagree with. I expect the same will be true of the NFB. I want the film board to do more. I want it to give women more opportunities. I would be concerned if any Member of Parliament started to interfere with the work the NFB does on specific projects.
I am reminded of the film it made about Billy Bishop. I saw the film, but I must admit I am not an expert on Canadian history, and even less of an expert on Canadian military history. I do not know whether it gave an accurate depiction of Billy Bishop and his involvement in World War I. However, it really disturbed me when Members of the other place made what I considered to be a very vicious attack on the NFB. I hope we let the NFB do its job. If we are not satisfied with the way the board treats Studio D or some other group, that can be discussed in committee, as it should be.
Aside from that, I think on the whole we have a great deal to be grateful for to the NFB for what it has done over the years. I am looking forward to many more great productions and I urge the Government not only to give the support it has up until now to the NFB, but to increase its funding and let it do an even better job in future.


Claudy Mailly: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for that very thoughtful speech. I think it is very typical of him. He looks at a question not only with his heart but with his head.
I would like to tell him about how the responsibilities of the Minister for the NFB are defined. This will show that the Hon. Member is very right in saying that his colleague has brought before us a motion which is not really in keeping with the relationship between the Government and an independent National Film Board. Under the Act, the board operates subject to the direction and control of the Minister, but it is an arms length relationship. It is based on a blend of legislation and practice. It has never been interpreted to mean that the Government becomes involved in the day-to-day operational
Supply
decisions of the NFB. It is also a tradition that Ministers exercise direction only on matters of general policy.
Today we are being asked in this motion to subtract $100,000 from the NFB budget. That amount bears a curiously strong relationship to the salary of the chairman of the NFB. All Members of this House are in effect being asked to make a policy decision not only in general terms but in the day-to-day operation of the board. We are being asked to deduct the salary of one person on the NFB because a Member of this House, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), does not agree with his approach to equality of women in cultural matters. She believes he wants the world to be a man's oyster. In fact, he wants the whole industry to be open to women. He is working toward that goal. The Hon. Member has blinders on, as always, and is only looking at a very narrow field. She suggests that we should punish one person, the head of the NFB, who under the Act has every liberty to carry out his mandate. We should not interfere because he is doing a good job. She calls this a symbolic gesture. It is more than that. It is an insidious and very sinister gesture toward silencing someone who has a different approach from her to a very serious matter.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member, who is a very thoughtful and serious person, how can it be that two such different people should be in the same Party, one who is willing to allow freedom of divergent opinions while being concerned about the emancipation of women, and another who seems to be so autocratic?


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, let me answer that question by relating to the Hon. Member the answer I gave to someone after a two-hour discussion on the question of capital punishment. This person is a member of my Party in my constituency and he disagreed with me very violently on this question. When I realized after two hours that I could not convince him that abolition was a good idea, and I knew very well that he would never convince me that I should support capital punishment, I tried to think of a way to get out of this pointless discussion without offending him too much. I told him that we would never agree on the subject of capital punishment but there was one thing I thought we could agree on. That is, this is a wonderful country because he had stopped his Member of Parliament for two hours, called him all sorts of names and told him how wrong he was, but he knew and I knew that if he went home that evening he would not be fired from his job. He would not be evicted from his house. He would not be put in jail, as would happen in many countries in similar circumstances. I knew that the worst he could do to me was not vote for me in the next election. Therefore, I thought we could agree that this was a wonderful country in which to live.
In response to the question asked of me by the Hon. Member, in our Party, like in every Party, Members sometimes disagree. I can only speak for myself. I tried to explain how I felt about the National Film Board, how it should


Supply
operate and what kind of support it should have. If the Parliamentary Secretary has differences of opinion with my colleague and friend, the Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), she should take it up with that Member rather than with me.


Sheila Finestone: 1 would like to make an observation. I do not know if my hon. colleague, the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), felt the same way as 1 did about the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary who said that it was typical of a man to look at an issue not just with his heart but with his head. It is my view that human beings, men and women, look at issues with their hearts and their heads.


Claudy Mailly: I said that man.


Sheila Finestone: I personally took great umbrage with the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary. That may be why the employment equity Bill does not function as well as it should.
The Hon. Member has given this House a very fine review of the outstanding role which the National Film Board plays in bringing Canadians closer to their own reality in order that they can see reflections of themselves. That is somewhat different than what we normally see on the screen, which consists of approximately 97 per cent foreign films.
With regard to the $100,000 which is at issue, would the Member tell us whether the New Democratic Party plans to support the Estimates of the budget of the National Film Board?


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I have some difficulty in answering that question, not because I do not want to, but because to my knowledge that question was not discussed by members of our caucus, although it may have been discussed at a meeting which I did not attend. Therefore, I cannot give the Hon. Member an answer on that on behalf of the caucus.


Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Madam Speaker, I am sure Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that the Government stands behind the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, as tabled on March 2 of this year. Indeed, 1 find it hard to understand why the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) would propose a reduction in funding for an organization which has contributed so much to Canada's cultural development and which has been particularly responsive to the interests and concerns of Canadian women. Were it possible in the current climate of fiscal austerity, the Government would happily increase funding to the National Film Board of Canada, a fine organization of which all Canadians can be proud.
Hon. Members are well aware of the enviable reputation of the National Film Board of Canada. From its founding in 1939, the NFB has built a record both at home and abroad as a producer of films of the highest artistic quality in all areas; features, documentaries, shorts, animated films and videos. More than almost any other institution in Canada, the NFB
has allowed Canadian men and women to capture their own cultural identity, to perceive more clearly who and what they are, and to reach a fuller comprehension of the values that shape and define the society in which we live.
Each year, this year being no exception, a number of films produced by the NFB enjoy acclaim both in Canada and abroad. Permit me to cite some statistics from the 1986-87 fiscal year alone. During that period, 146 NFB films obtained prizes; 69 in Canada, 40 in the United States, 30 in Europe and one in Australia. Of these 146 prizes, 57 were awarded to fiction films, 50 to documentaries, 30 to animation films, three to film strips, and six to special projects.
1 imagine many Members have seen a film called The Decline of the American Empire, which was co-produced by the National Film Board. It garnered 18 awards, including the Silver Hugo in Chicago and the International Critics Prize at the Cannes Film Festival. It was the first Canadian film ever to receive an Oscar nomination as the best foreign film. It was voted best foreign film by the New York Film Critics' Circle.
I would like to mention a few of the other titles which have received honours and awards. They include Canada's Sweetheart, the saga of Hal C. Banks, Democracy on Trial, Final Offer, Sitting in Limbo, Sonia and The Big Snit.
I should point out, Madam Speaker, that the NFB continued to earn awards, critical acclaim, and wider audiences for its films despite a reduced budget. Like other departments of Government, the NFB has had to contribute its share to cost-cutting in keeping the Government's deficit within reasonable limits. From April, 1984, to April, 1986, the NFB's permanent staff was reduced by 25 per cent, from 947 to 705.
Savings resulting from the reduction of permanent staff and administrative costs were intended to generate more funds for the production and distribution of films and videos. However, cumulative vote reduction in the order of $5.5 million from 1984-85 to the present hampered the NFB's ability to realize these objectives. Yet, today we hear the unusual proposition by the NDP Member of Parliament for Broadview-Greenwood that the budget be further reduced by $100,000.
In addition to its artistic achievements, the NFB places a high priority on contributing to the development and advancement of film technology to the benefit of the film industry as a whole. For example, the NFB contributed to the perfection of the Imax three-dimensional camera and to the making of the first genuinely three-dimensional visual document. This work, called Transactions, was one of the major events at Expo 86 in Vancouver where it attracted 1,700,000 visitors from every corner of North America and the world.
Research and development are being carried out on several fronts simultaneously. Revolutionary new technologies such as computer assisted animation, infography, and many other techniques are being developed in NFB studios.
In co-operation with the private film sector and with university research centres, the National Film Board is

working in the field of videodisc, high definition television, stereophony and electronic editing. The NFB remains on the leading edge of new technologies, developing them for its own purposes as well as making them available in Canada and abroad.
The National Film Board takes a dynamic approach to communicating with its audience, an approach which allows it to reach more Canadians and to increase continually its presence on national television during prime time as well as on educational channels. As an example, in 1985-86 audiences for National Film Board productions scheduled during prime time on the French and English national networks increased by 54 per cent respectively over the previous year. Furthermore, the National Film Board has been able to successfully market many of its films abroad. Members of the public who watch PBS stations in the United States can see many National Film Board productions.
The NFB also takes seriously its role in the community and the importance of producing films which can lead to the betterment of life for Canadians. In this context, I want to point to a specific program of video productions aimed at warning children about the serious problems of sexual abuse. The distribution of this series called Feeling Yes, Feeling No, in English and French, is being handled by public organizations across Canada in connection with the NFB.
The latest report indicates sales of some 7,686 copies of these videos in the past few months. Following an agreement reached between the National Film Board and Health and Welfare Canada, 3,500 video cassettes in French and English will be distributed soon in public libraries across the country.
The National Film Board has also taken initiatives to broaden the audience for its films through agreements with public and school libraries. The agreement concluded with the Public Library at Quebec City is a noteworthy example of the validity of this approach.
During the 1984-85 fiscal year, before the agreement was signed, the Quebec Public Library had rented 335 video cassettes and screened 254 on its premises. After the agreement was signed, during the 1985-86 fiscal year, 5,525 video cassettes were rented from the library. In the first nine months of the following fiscal year, the number of rentals rose to 8,070, in addition to 3,700 inside screenings. This means that in less than two years, rentals and screenings in total rose from 500 to 10,000. "
Let me turn for a moment to the specific concerns which the Member for Broadview-Greenwood has expressed over the position of women at the NFB. As Hon. Members may be aware, in 1974 the National Film Board created Studio B, a separate unit within the NFB designed to meet the particular needs of women film-makers and audiences.
Since its creation, Studio D has earned an international reputation for producing unique and often controversial films.
Supply
Its productions include Not A Love Story, an award-winning film on the pornography industry's exploitation of women. They also include If You Love This Planet, an academy award-winning film about nuclear war.
Studio D is unique in the world as a film production unit directed by women producing films by, for and about women. Its mandate is to provide training for women, with emphasis on the film crafts from which women have been traditionally excluded, to increase the employment of professional women film-makers across Canada, to maintain an environment where women can bring women's perspectives to all social issues through the medium of film.
Since its inception, Studio D has produced, co-produced or assisted in the production of approximately 80 films. These included films made under the Federal Women's Film Program, those made under the International Youth Year Training Project Film, the Working Mothers series and the Canadian Children's series.
Studio D was responsible for the creation of the Federal Women's Film Program in 1981. This program is aimed at increasing the number of informational, educational and promotional films produced by, about and for women, as well as increasing opportunities for the creative expression of women. The Federal Women's Film Program produces and distributes films and organizes information campaigns and workshops.
Recently, the Canadian Institute for the Promotion of Culture for Women declared Studio D a "national treasure". Kathleen Shannon, Director of Studio D from 1974 to 1986, received the Order of Canada for her contribution to filmmaking in Canada.
In November, 1986, the NFB announced the creation within the French program branch of a women's production unit. This unit's mandate is to increase the presence and influence of women in all areas of documentary film-making within the French program branch. This unit will strive to promote discussion and change in social, cultural, economic and political relationships between men and women, and focus on new ways of examining human relationships.
The creation of Studio F is just another example of the commitment by the National Film Board to expanding the role of women in Canadian film production.
In December, 1986, the National Film Board announced plans to begin implementing, early in 1987, an employment equity program designed to increase the participation of women in film production and ensure that women achieve parity with men in all NFB staff and contract positions by 1996. The Hon. Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) has expressed her enthusiastic support for the NFB's employment equity program, which is one of the most extensive in any government agency.
All areas of the NFB's recruitment, training, promotion and contracting practices will be addressed in order to ensure that


Supply
women achieve parity in what is generally still a male-dominated industry. For example, in competition with all other factors being equal, preference will be given to hiring women in occupations where they are under represented. At the NFB, these include management positions as well as positions as film directors, producers and technicians. Conversely, men will be given identical preference in occupations where they are under represented. The only occupation at the NFB where men are under represented is support staff, particularly secretarial and clerical jobs.
This program is based on targets and timetables established by managers, and parity is to be achieved through funding and hiring practices, training programs, film crew selection and procedures, and the sustained support of Studio D and Studio F.
While the NFB maintained a voluntary equal opportunity program, the mandatory employment equity program was established to address inequities that have persisted within the NFB and in the film industry in general.
The chairman of the National Film Board recently told the House of Commons Standing Committee on Communications and Culture:
Despite the progress we have recorded and the success we have achieved, it is increasingly difficult for us to provide the material and financial support necessary for a more dynamic development of three production sectors in particular which are vital for the social-cultural equilibrium of Canadian cinema: production of films by women, regional production, and the production of feature films developed from alternative models.
In other words, a cut in the Estimates for the National Film Board would likely result in cuts to production of films by women, and I cannot believe that this is a result which the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood would wish to see.
Rather than entertain the Hon. Member's motion to reduce the NFB's funding by a further $100,000, I suggest that the House reaffirm its support for this excellent Canadian institution. In particular, I suggest that we reaffirm our support for the Board's continuing efforts to ensure the fullest possible participation of women in one of Canada's most important cultural industries.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to put some comments on the record regarding this particular motion by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). I believe it is important that Members realize what is happening here today.
We have heard many accusations from Hon. Members which I suspect were made with honourable intention. There were suggestions that the New Democrats wanted to see a decrease in the federal support for the National Film Board. Nothing could be further from the truth or more distant from reality. Nothing could be more illogical in relation to what New Democrats have stood for since their inception.
For decades and decades we have been on record on every occasion as recognizing the value of the National Film Board in terms of the strategic role it plays in bringing Canadians together, making us proud of our culture and heritage and recognizing the past achievements of outstanding Canadians. We would like to see the budget for the NFB increased. That is why we are so outraged today when we look at the Estimates before us and see that the significant increases which have been called for by all Canadians have simply not occurred. Once again the NFB, for all intents and purposes, when one factors in the rate of inflation, has fallen under the axe, the knife and chain-saw of the hackers in the Department of Finance when it comes to budgeting.
Let us for once indicate the truthful position. We want to see a significant increase in the funding of the NFB in all areas. 1 want to focus on one area in particular, and that is the area about which the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood made her comments and what precipitated this particular vote. The Hon. Member was concerned about one of the critical areas of the NFB, referred to as Studio D, which is particularly involved with the production of movies, videos and other forms of communication, portrays the concerns of women and develops the talents of women in film production and in a whole variety of other very crucial areas. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood raised this particular issue of Studio D in committee. She put to the president of the National Film Board a variety of questions to find out from his perspective what was going to happen to the funding for this particular sector of the NFB. He said that the objective is to increase the budget of Studio D and to increase the amount of money devoted to film making by women at the NFB. He said it would be a significant and very important increase.


Claudy Mailly: It was.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That was in 1985. I am looking at the Estimates before us today. The Estimates for women's production in 1985-86 totalled $2,551,000.


Claudy Mailly: That is not Studio D.


Nelson Andrew Riis: When I look at the Estimates for 1987-88, I find it has not increased, it has decreased to $2,184,000, with marketing also on the decrease.


Claudy Mailly: You are looking at the wrong copy.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am hearing embarrassed Members on the Conservative side saying I am looking at the wrong part.


Claudy Mailly: I am not embarrassed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am reading the Estimates. We are debating the Estimates. We are debating this vote. If those Members have some hidden little pool they use, then it should be in the Estimates. That is what we are reading today.


Claudy Mailly: You are reading it wrong.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is what we are debating today. My friend, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood, stood in her place and said there is something haywire here, something has gone awry because the president of the NFB said there would be a significant increase in women's productions and there is a significant decrease. That is not only in women's production, it is in other areas about which Members of Parliament are deeply concerned, that is, the welfare of our young people, our future resources.


Claudy Mailly: That is right.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The most important future resources of our country are the young people of Canada. I look again at what the actual production allocations were in 1985 and I look at what the Estimates for this particular year are, and they are about half. They have been reduced by 50 per cent.


Claudy Mailly: Because International Youth Year is finished. You know that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Oh, I see, my hon. friend says it is because the national youth year is finished and, therefore, we can forget about our interest in youth, that there is no need to be concerned about film production and marketing for young people. I think it is important that our concern for youth goes on every single year, not just in the national year of young people.


Claudy Mailly: But you cannot have it every year.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We cannot have it every year, the Hon. Member says. I say we can have it every year and I hope in her next breath, as she screams across the aisle, she will ask where we will get the money. In other words, if we are going to increase the NFB because we want to produce more films and videos in support of young people, where are we going to get the money? Increase the budget? No. There are 79,000 profitable corporations in this country which do not pay a single cent in federal income tax.


Claudy Mailly: Stick to the subject.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I wish she would shut up, Madam Speaker. She has been bugging me. She has been sitting there yapping on, quite frankly.


Claudy Mailly: It is because you are not speaking on the subject.


Nelson Andrew Riis: She is obviously embarrassed by what I am saying.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The Chair is quite surprised at the language used by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). The Chair, knowing how much everyone is being passionate in discussing the issue today, has been rather patient. However, I can assure the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap that had he been here this
Supply
morning, he might have heard someone from his side of the House also trying to get her point across while the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) was trying to get her point across. So I would like to ask all Hon. Members to please be quiet and everyone will get a chance to express his or her view as much as time will allow.


Claudy Mailly: Point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, if I need to,
I would-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first point of order was called by the Hon. Member for Gatineau. I will then recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Claudy Mailly: I thank you for this clarification, Madam Speaker, but I want to say that I was going to rise on a point of order anyway, because the speech of the Hon. Member is becoming irrelevant. We were debating a motion to cut $100,000, and the Hon. Member has been dwelling on all sorts of other matters. He has been talking about the National Film Board generally. That is not what the motion is about, Madam Speaker, that is not the point.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I also want to suggest to my hon. friend that it is not a point of order, or it is a bogus point of order. I do not know if it is appropriate for her to challenge the work the Chair is doing. Flowever, 1 want to clarify the record, Madam Speaker, by saying that I was in attendance this morning. I think it is inappropriate for anyone, with all due respect, to refer to the perceived absence of Members of the House of Commons. We have many duties which require us not to sit in our seats all day long-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair does apologize for having made that remark. I must say that when 1 hear Hon. Members screaming from one side of the House to the other, it sometimes becomes very difficult. I do apologize to the House for that remark. It was not meant in a derogatory way. On the other hand, I would ask the Hon. Member to allow the Chair to decide what is or what is not a point of order. Let us go back to debate. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I presume your intervention was most appropriate because things seem to have subdued significantly to allow us to continue. 1 appreciate the interjection of my hon. friend as well. These are important matters we are debating and we have many other items we must debate today under these Estimates. With that in mind, I will wrap up my comments very quickly by simply saying that when 1 look at the Estimates today, I see the significant decrease in support for children and for youth when it comes to marketing and production for the NFB, a reduction in women's production for NFB for the year 1985-86, and that there are a variety of deductions in what 1 think are perhaps the most critical areas.


Supply
We can debate which are the most critical areas in terms of support for film production of the NFB, but when it comes to women's issues and children's issues, I certainly feel these are areas which ought to receive a considerable expansion of funds as opposed to a reduction of funds. Under no circumstances are we suggesting that the over-all budget of the National Film Board should be dramatically decreased now or in the future. It is exactly the opposite. We are advocating a significant increase in the funding for the National Film Board.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood was simply trying to make an important symbolic gesture to the President of the National Film Board to the effect that when he appears before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture and says to its members that it is his intention to significantly increase the budget for Studio D and women's programming, and a number of other areas which I will not take the time to mention, that that is what we assume he means. But when he obviously agrees and then in the final budget analysis does something different, we want to register our concern with that decision.
The National Film Board is something about which we feel very strongly. As a matter of fact, as a youngster going to school 1 remember those Friday afternoons when we watched films about Canada. It was probably a way for us to run out the week and give the teachers a bit of a break, I suppose, since we were restless on Friday afternoons. But year after year I was introduced to parts of Canada through the National Film Board. I became educated and informed as to the lifestyle and culture of people living in Labrador, parts of Newfoundland and northern Quebec-in fact, all parts of Canada. For that, to this day, I am very grateful.
I certainly wish to recognize the outstanding contribution that the National Film Board has made to international cinema. The awards which it has won in virtually every film festival has put Canada, along with a number of other private producers, on the cinema map of the world. For that we are all grateful.
I simply wish to clarify these two points. The first point is our support for the National Film Board funding. The second is with respect to the concern of the president in terms of what appears to be his commitment to increasing significantly the amount of money for women's productions under NFB.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to bring to the attention of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party that the discussion we are having relates to a misunderstanding, I believe-and I hope it is not a wilful misunderstanding-on the part of the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), a member of his Party. In the document to which he has been referring he looked at
children/youth and women's production on page 27 of the document entitled "National Film Board 1987-88 Estimates Part III Expenditure Plan". He is looking at planning priorities. It states quite clearly "priority areas" and then states "English Programming Financial Resource Allocation". That is all women's programming, not just Studio D.
The figures which I outlined this morning, and they are figures which I support, come out of a government department, the Department of Communications. For the Hon. Member's information the booklet is entitled:
[ Translation]
The briefing notes for the meeting of May 21 1987, National Film Board, Department of Communications, Madam Speaker, and I can hardly think that errors could have been made in that presentation too. In those papers-

There is Studio D and Studio D. I have said it three times today, I think, and I would like the House Leader of the NDP to understand it. There have been ongoing increases every single year in Studio D. The problem that was being referred to by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood is with respect to the fact that there was an overrun, a budget miscalculation in one year which had to be made up the following year, as well as a carryover of projects and programs that were being developed. It is true, and I said this before, that there were certain producers who could not meet their program objectives because certain fiscal matters had to be attended to first. Whether it is one's mind or one's heart, there are still fiscal matters to which one has to attend.
The facts are clear. The budget for Studio D was not decreased. The women's programming on the English side includes a whole series of programming. Yes, according to the Estimates, programming did go down for the year 1985-86 from $2.5 million to $1.9 million and then increased to $2.1 million. So there has been a realignment of funds. Thus in the total score for women at the National Film Board we have, I am pleased to say, gone from $500,000, approximately, to $1.6 million.
When we look at the issue in terms of productions being at $6.5 million, as well as the $3.5 million on the French side, we are talking about close to $10 million. I do not think that one can chastise the National Film Board in that respect.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member this. Will his Party support the amendment of his colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood? What is his Party's position with respect to the National Film Board and the $100,000 which members of the New Democratic Party wish to cut from the budget? How does the Hon. Member intend to vote?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's interjection. I think it needs to be said again that the initiative to reduce the budget by $100,000 is symbolic. It is an attempt to send a message to someone, a message which is obviously not getting through to certain people. On the one hand I say


that we would like to see the over-all budget significantly increased, but that is another question which we will discuss later. Today we are discussing the Estimates for the National Film Board for 1987-88. That is what we are doing. We are trying to send through this vote, which we will support, a clear message to the National Film Board, and presumably to responsible members of the Government and of the Official Opposition, that we would like to see a significant increase in moneys for women's production.
When I look at what was spent in 1985-86, with all due respect, and look at what the Government plans to spend this year in terms of production-and all I can go on is what is in the Estimates-I see a decrease. What is even more alarming is when I look at the French programming, it is not even mentioned. So if the Government plans to have some new initiatives, then for goodness sake this is the place it should be. In this way Members of Parliament could make an informed decision on whether or not we should support it. And when I look at the French Programming Financial Resource Allocation for 1987-88 and do not see it mentioned as a priority, then I have to be concerned and assume that it is not a priority. I cannot second-guess what someone somewhere might have as a priority if it is not in the Estimates. After all the Estimates estimate where the Government plans to spend money in certain areas. It is as simple as that.
I have listened to the interjections and I respect them. What I am saying is that I hope next year, in the best interest of all concerned, that when we look at the National Film Board we will see Studio D put aside in a special, separate section. In this way we would be able to see specifically what the funding was last year and what it will be this year and next year. I say that because there is obviously some confusion now. I will not make any suggestion as to where that confusion might originate. Nevertheless, it would be a significant way to improve the ability of Members of Parliament to follow through what the Government is actually expending in certain areas of this very important budget.


Claudy Mailly: I would like to have a division on this matter, Madam Speaker, for 1 cannot let the Hon. Member get away with that last comment. It is quite clear.

The Budget Summary is very much part of the Estimates. It was available to all Members of Parliament, including the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). It is very clear. For instance, the Hon. Member mentioned French programming, something which we instituted in 1986. For the budget of 1986-87 it states very clearly $159,000. For 1987-88 the figure is $404,000. It has not decreased, it has increased. The same applies to Studio D. In 1986-87 the figure was $579,880, which has been increased to $795,450 for 198788.
Supply
I think what has happened is that there is some confusion about the total budget of the National Film Board. The budget for Studio D, the English counterpart of the women's program, is not the whole program for women. The whole program for women at the National Film Board was worth in 1986-87, $1,174,000, and it will be receiving funding in 1987-88 of $1,678,430. That is definitely up and not down.
I believe the confusion lies in the reading of those figures to which the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood referred. She came to a different conclusion, but this does not negate the fact that what has been suggested by the Hon. Member in this motion is to cut $100,000 from the budget, one-fifth of the budget allocated to Studio D. That is a large cut.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I would like to reply-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) would have the right to answer. Does he give the floor to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I do not have much to say in response to that. I heard the Hon. Member's comments and I accept them. I expect we should get on with the debate.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I simply want to respond very briefly. It has been stated many times by the Parliamentary Secretary that somehow my response is a personal one and that the head of the National Film Board has a different way of proceeding. She has said that I simply want to be autocratic about this. I wish to respond to the criticisms-


Claudy Mailly: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Mailly) on a point of order.


Claudy Mailly: Madam Speaker, I am somewhat confused. The Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party just said that he had nothing to add in answer to my question, which means that the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) is now commenting on my remarks instead of the remarks of the Hon. Member who just spoke. I suggest that the debate is over and we could now put the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There was one minute left in the questions and comments period after the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) ended his remarks. I therefore allowed, and I think it is quite proper to do so, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) to speak during that one minute before we resume debate.


Supply


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, briefly, in the time that is left, 1 want to respond to the comments that are being continually made by the Parliamentary Secretary indicating that somehow my reaction is personal. The head of the NFB has the notion that he can do whatever he wants and he has chosen-


Mr. Hicks:: Madam Speaker, the point made in the point of order which is on the floor is that no one is allowed to begin questioning and commenting on the remarks of a questioner. Under the provisions of the Standing Orders, I believe Hon. Members are only allowed to question and comment on the remarks of the Hon. Member who has just spoken on debate.


Lynn McDonald: I am making a comment. If I may continue with my comment-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.
The House divided on the amendment (Ms. McDonald) which was negatived on the following division:


Claudy Mailly: On my speech, not his.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will allow the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) to continue with her comment but I will warn her that it would be better for her to keep her comments related to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, in the one minute left, my comment is that the President of the NFB went to committee, made an explicit promise about Studio D and did not fulfil that promise. The Estimates very clearly show that.
Other comments that have been made throughout refer to sub-categories of the Estimates, project money in effect. Looking at the total amounts available, which is what I am referring to in the Estimates, it is very clear that there has been a decrease, contrary to the promise made by the head of the National Film Board to a Parliamentary Committee. I think that is a very serious matter to be fooling around with sub-categories where there is a different kind of trend when the general trend is such an unfavourable one and when I explicitly asked the head of the NFB if he would then grant an increase and he said no.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry, but the time allowed has now elapsed. Is the House ready for the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
(Division No. 141)
	YEAS Members	
Althouse	McDonald	RiisBenjamin	(Broadview-	RodriguezBlaikic	Greenwood)	Skelly-13Heap	Mitchell	Keeper	Murphy	Manly	Nystrom
NAYS Members	Andre	Gagnon	MarchiAttewell	Garneau	MartinBelsher	Gass	MazankowskiBertrand	Gauthier	McCainBlais	Gerin	MclnnesBlouin	Gervais	McKenzieBoudria	Girard	McKinnonBoyer	Graham	McMillanBrightwell	Gray	MerrithewBrisco	(Windsor West)	NicholsonBrowes	Greenaway	(Trinity)Cadieux	Grondin	NicholsonCaldwell	Guilbault	(Niagara Falls)Cardiff	(Saint-Jacques)	NickersonChartrand	Hamilton	NowlanComeau	Hicks	OberlcCopps	Hopkins	O'NeilCorbett	Howie	PaproskiCrombic	Hudon	PennerDarling	James	PetersonDaubney	Jepson	Pietzde Cotret	Jourdenais	PlamondonDella Noce	Kempling	PriceDesjardins	King	Prud'hommeDorin	Lapierre	ReimerEpp	Lawrence	Robichaud(Provencher)	Leblanc	St. GermainFennell	Lewis	ScottFinestone	MacDougall	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Fontaine	(Timiskaming)	ScowenForrestall	MacLellan	SulukFoster	Mailly	TardifFretz Gagliano	Mantha	(Charlesbourg)Taylor	Van De Walle	WinegardThacker	Vincent	WiseTremblay	Weiner	Witer-103(Quebec-Est) Tremblay	White	(Lotbiniere)


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the
amendment lost	. Is the House ready for the next question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gauthier:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25, DEPARTMENT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Robert René de Cotret: that vote 25, in the amount of $662,941,000 under the Department in the Solicitor General-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, be concurred in.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I would like to explain why 1 put a motion on the Order Paper of the House giving notice of opposition to this vote . .. -when Hon. Members are finished talking, perhaps they would care to listen-Madam Speaker, I moved that $100,000 be subtracted from Vote 25 moved by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) for the simple reason that at least a year ago, it was last June, we were asking questions in the House about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and its commitment to follow-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It is very difficult for the Chair to understand the Hon. Member's statement. I am sure all other Hon. Members want to hear what their colleague has to say. The Chair would appreciate everyone's co-operation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, of course the subject I want to discuss this afternoon is whether the RCMP, as a federal agency, realizes that the Official Languages Act applies to all federal agencies, including the RCMP.
Madam Speaker, there are problems in certain agencies, and today I would like to take this opportunity to discuss these and perhaps even try and correct some of the problems that exist at the RCMP.
Supply
Madam Speaker, there was a time when public opinion in this country was such that it was very difficult to introduce bilingualism in the public service in general and especially in certain Government agencies.
Today, although some reluctance still exists, I have the feeling, and I think the House will agree, that in our Canadian federation we are seeing a phenomenon that is the exact opposite of what we saw nearly twenty years ago in 1969, when the Official Languages Act was adopted. Today, we see in this country an increasing understanding, respect and generosity within the language groups and as a result, I think we have a far better understanding between the founding groups. Canada's duality is in better shape today.
As I said, attitudes have changed and the public at large has become ever more aware of this reality, acknowledging as well that it is necessary for the federal Government, its agencies included, to ensure full respect for this legislation, the Official Languages Act, and to promote it among Canadians generally.
The situation, Madam Speaker, more specifically with respect to the RCMP, is not particularly encouraging, something we have been witnessing for several months both in committee and in the House. RCMP officers are complaining, they write letters, and I could quote lengthy passages of the letter written and made public by C Division Assistant Commissioner J.E.J. Julien, an important letter which indeed raised a few eyebrows and bore the signature of many people, among others that of the C Division Assistant Commissioner, and which I think reflected the state of mind in Quebec.
In the rest of Canada, particularly here in the national capital, we could tell that the central administration was somewhat ill at ease.
At times it was difficult to make the RCMP Commissioner admit, in committee and elsewhere, that he was in the process of attempting to convince the force to show respect and follow the three major themes: the main theme being the language of service, that is the language of the institution which must serve the Canadian public; the language of work, of course, which is the right of every Canadian individual to work in the language of his or her choice, be it English in Quebec or French elsewhere, a worthy objective; and the third theme, which is fair representation.
Generally speaking, I think we have now reached what might be called an equitable level of about 26 or 27 per cent within the Public Service of Canada, and I am pleased about that.
However, I found it rather strange to hear and read that the RCMP was talking about reducing its objective, which was not 26 or 27 per cent, but 20 per cent, and which it had set in agreement with government authorities a few years ago, to some 12 or 14 per cent of the regular force, and this is why I would like to examine these events chronologically. When we asked questions in the House to the President of the Treasury Board to see whether he was aware of what was happening, he

when we are being deprived of information, we have to insist of course.
In the matter of the RCMP, it is my view that the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Standing Committee of this Elouse on Official Languages, individual Members, not only myself but interested Members from the Committee on Official Languages from all political persuasions in this House, are entitled to a degree of consideration, a degree of information sharing. If, as the Governement suggests, they now have an overall plan and all that remains to be done is to print Jt-as they suggested almost a month ago-we are still waiting for it. So I told myself: Today is supply day, the last day where we are going to appropriate to the RCMP a substantial amount for operations, some $600 million. 1 told myself: Darn it, I would like to know where that report is, and from the RCMP Commissionner, what they are going to do to satisfy us as far as overall plans on officials languages are concerned.
So the first thing is this: Where is the report? 1 am asking this now. If someone in this House can respond on behalf of the Government and meet that request, I will sit down, Madam Speaker, I will read the plan, and along with other Members I would like to discuss it. I am not the only one to ask for some clarification.
I have here the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the 1986 Annual Report-should you look in the 1985, 1984 or 1983 Report, you would find the same thing-where it says that despite improvements in the RCMP they still have a long way to go. I would like to quote from page 125 of the 1986 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages:
Even though the Royal Canadian Mounted Police took a few intersting
initiatives in 1986, some of its actions may well delay achievement of linguistic
equality.
Madam Speaker, I could read what the Commissioner of Official Languages has to say about the RCMP and the official languages, but I invite all the Members do so it, it is not very long, only about four pages.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is clear, Madam Speaker, that there is a real need in some organisations to being the managers up to date. There are some officers, not just in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but also in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, in the Correctional Service of Canada and in some other agencies, some top civil servants, people in managerial positions who, in 1987, still think that the Official Languages Act passed by this House in 1969 is only some form of regulation to be applied as such.
I do not like having to say so, but this is the law of the land. It must be followed and applied, and along with other Members of this House, I shall insist that it be applied literally and that it be improved.
I shall close by saying, because it is important for Canadians to know this, that this Act has been in existence for 18 years and it needs to be improved and brought up to date. In 1987, it
Supply
should reflect the views which my friend the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) and myself believe Canadians hold today, that is that there should be true equality, not better treatment for one group or another, but equal treatment. I would like the RCMP to understand that 1 am not singling it out. I am using the RCMP as an example today, but there are many others I could use. The Official Languages Act is not just a series of regulations, it is one of the basic laws of this country. I hope that it will be amended to give it some teeth.
I hope that it can be made to reflect what I believe to be the general view in Canada about the issue of official languages. There is an element of maturity in this country nowadays. There are no, or at least very few, groups which oppose the French fact or the "Frogs" as we used to be called. There are very few of them. The same is true for the Quebec anglophones. I believe that, in the public service in general, as I said earlier, Madam Speaker-
When we speak about official languages in Quebec, I think that we have some grounds which we can put forward in terms of fairness and gains which can be made. I for one think that the Public Service of Canada, for example, reflects the linguistic balance of the country in terms of per centages. But it is not fair in terms of regional representation. I think that the English in Quebec are not getting a fair shake in the Public Service of Canada. I think that the Francophones outside Quebec are not getting a fair shake in terms of fair representation among the-
[ Translation]
-ranks of the Public Service of Canada. I think much remains to be done, and that is what we want: not more and not less. And when we asked representatives of the RCMP to try and listen to what we had to say, and when they appeared before the committee, on the first day of the hearings held by the Committee on Official Languages-a committee of the House-with a document in one language only-


An Hon. Member:: In English only.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -and we had to say: Just a minute, according to one of the Standing Orders of this House, any document tabled by the Clerk or the Speaker of the House must be tabled in both official languages- A translation was done practically on the spot, but it was a translation of a document that had been prepared in one language only by the RCMP.
That started the meeting off on the wrong foot, Madam Speaker. It wasn't that easy. We had to be firm and tell Commissioner Simmons: Sir, sorry about that but you are a couple of years out of date. So the document was translated. Not a very good translation, since there were seven grammar mistakes and twelve spelling mistakes, but at least we had a translation an hour and a quarter after the committee s proceedings had started.


Supply
Madam Speaker, I want to end on a positive note. Today I think there is a new attitude in Canada towards the official languages. I think that when our legislation is amended to reflect the Canada of 1987, not just the RCMP but all Government agencies should act accordingly. And finally, and this was the purpose of my speech, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud):
That the motion be amended by striking out the amount of $662,941,000 and
substituting the amount of $662,841,000 therefor.
-or a reduction of $100,000, which represents the salary of the RCMP Commissioner.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: A period of questions and comments follows the speech of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). The Hon. Member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff).


Mr. Cardiff:: Madam Speaker, I would just like to make one comment with respect to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. He made various comments about the Solicitor General not providing information on official languages. Perhaps the Hon. Member is not aware of this, and I wish to make him aware of it. Is he aware that the SIRC report dealing with this issue will be tabled within the next few days?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, I was not aware of that, Madam Speaker. That goes exactly to the gist of my intervention today. It was to ask where this report is, a report which was asked for by Treasury Board and the Minister for the last three or four weeks. I have been promised the report. The Minister said in Montreal some time in May that he was waiting for the report to be printed. That report is very important to me. It gives us the objectives, the plan and it sets forth in the years to come what the RCMP stands for in terms of language policy. That is basically why I oppose what is before us today. It was so that I would have the assurance of the Government that it would indeed make the report public.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have just a couple of points to make. I participated in the Official Languages Committee when this subject was covered. It is difficult not to support the concept put forward by the previous speaker. The dilemma, of course, is that everyone in the House asks that Parliament be respected and that linguistic fairness and the targets outlined by the Parliament of Canada be respected by not only the RCMP but by all other agencies in the country. So we completely support that principle. We regret that the RCMP has not been able to move in a more satisfactory manner toward linguistic equality.
Back in the early 1980s we saw a period of time in which the country was in a deep recession. At that time very few people left the RCMP and recruitment was very low. Indeed, the Government of the day provided very few resources to enable the RCMP to meet its targets. Unfortunately, the RCMP did recruit quite a number of Francophones during this period of
time to the exclusion of many other areas that had to be addressed.
It was pointed out in the committee, and has been pointed out in the country over the past few years, that the RCMP functions primarily in western Canada and in the North. Many Anglophones who had exceptionally good qualifications were denied access to the RCMP while the organization tried to meet its linguistic commitments in a period of very low recruitment.
One must come back to the Government of the day in that period from 1980 to 1984 and ask this. Why were additional resources not put aside so that the RCMP could meet its targets? Why was it not insisted upon that special resources be put aside to recruit and to meet those targets?
The same Government deprived the RCMP of resources to meet other important areas. The RCMP functions in native communities. It provides law enforcement services to native communities in the North and in the western provinces. What we have here is a very serious under representation of native people and of women. The RCMP provides law enforcement in areas in which I think it is absolutely important that the number of women officers be increased. The force deals with issues such as sexual abuse of children and rape and assault.
It is a situation in which the proportion of women for effective law enforcement be increased for two reasons. The first is that in many cases they deal more effectively in that area of offences. The second is that in terms of striking some form of fairness and equality for the participation of women that more initiative has to be put into recruiting women for the RCMP. Indeed, in these years I personally raised matters with officials of the RCMP because in the area of the country I represent there is a desperate need for women members, both with respect to the point of equality and with respect to their ability to deal more effectively in some areas of law enforcement.
We have lost the initiative in three important areas because the Government of the day failed to provide the resources to the RCMP in periods of low recruitment to make those programs work. Indeed, the same kind of shortage of resources is presented today in the Budget of the present Government. The present Government has turned a blind eye to the issue of allowing the RCMP to meet those targets with additional resources, especially with respect to these primary and important areas: increasing linguistic equality and the recruiting of more women and native people so that they can be present in the communities in which the RCMP provide law enforcement services.
I for one support the principle put forward by my colleague who serves on the Official Languages Committee in a very distinguished and effective manner. This point must be addressed and we support it, but we must not lose sight of the need to recruit more women and native people into the RCMP.


Certainly the issue of multicultural representation is critical as well. The Government of the day must provide resources to meet the targets and it must provide resources that are specifically targeted to aid in that area of recruitment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to that. I think there are grounds for the kind of grievance expressed, particularly by western Canadians. I for one believe that there have been some errors in balancing recruitment over the years, and it goes both ways.
In his comments to the committee, Commissioner Simmonds recognized that indeed the RCMP is a national force and it must recruit nationally, but it must also meet its provincial contract requirements and accept the fact that a large portion of the force is mobile. Many members of the force are called upon to spend two or three years in one place and then have to move either because of the requirements of the force, because of experience or sometimes because of promotions. I accept that. I think over the years there has been some imbalance, but in the last few years the recruitment of Francophones and Anglophones has been pretty well equal to proportional population representation and of course to the workload of the force.
I am told that in 1983-84, 65 per cent of the only 84 members who were recruited were Francophones. Of course, there were only 84 members recruited that year because there was a down-sizing of the force. In the last year, there were 542 recruits and 26 per cent of those were Francophones. There has been a re-establishment of the proportions.
I understand the grievance of the western provinces. I understand they feel that they should be well represented, and I accept that. However, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, we have a long way to go to ensure regional representation and allow both the English-speaking in Quebec and the Francophones outside Quebec to participate fully in this national public service. We understand the difficulty. The grievance is well put and we will try to work toward reestablishing some equity.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) opposing the $662,941 operating expenditures proposed in the RCMP Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988. Given the Hon. Member's longstanding interest in official languages issues and particularly in those matters pertaining to the official languages program of the RCMP, I would like to take this opportunity to provide to the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members some indication of the current status of official languages in the RCMP and of the direction the force will be going in the future.
A balanced assessment of the RCMP with respect to official languages will recognize both accomplishments as well as areas where continued efforts are required. With respect to
Supply
accomplishments, the force has been highly successful in developing innovative approaches to delivering bilingual policing services to the public in the vast unilingual areas served by the RCMP through the use of the unit bilingual complement concept.
The unit bilingual complement, or UBC, approach ensures that in each of the 276 significant demand areas served by the force, at least one officer is available to provide the public with bilingual service. Approximately 90 per cent of all UBCs are fully staffed with competent bilingual personnel. Efforts are continuing to improve practices so that the public is aware that service is available in both languages in these predominantly unilingual regions of Canada.
In bilingual regions such as northern Ontario, New Brunswick and the metropolitan areas of Quebec where both official languages groups represent a sizeable portion of the population, well over 80 per cent of serving RCMP members are bilingual. These figures reflect a significant commitment by the RCMP to offering, where required, service to the public in both official languages.
I am of course aware that the Government's official languages program consists of more than just service to the public. It also seeks to improve the language of work environment and to provide for equitable participation of both language groups. The status of these other aspects of the official languages program of the RCMP has experienced a gradual but sustained improvement over the last decade. I use the word "gradual" advisedly as incremental change is the only type of change possible in a career organization such as the RCMP. This is particularly so when it pertains to changes to the profile of RCMP members themselves.
Francophone participation in the RCMP stood at approximately 9.8 per cent in 1976 when the official languages program was first established. Since that year, the RCMP, through a vigorous recruitment program in which bilingual skills were given a very high priority, has increased the number of Francophones on average by 0.5 per cent per year. These results were achieved as a direct result of RCMP recruitment efforts and are evidence of the force's commitment in this area.
I should also add that in addition to recruitment, another reason for the advances made by the RCMP in increasing its bilingual resources and Francophone participation has been language training. The recruit official language training program was introduced in 1977, and since commencement, over 400 unilingual recruits, equitably divided between English and French-speaking candidates, have been given training in the other official language.
Having referred to areas in which the RCMP has made substantive progress, including the development and implementation of the UBC concept in unilingual areas, a proactive and progressive recruitment program designed to support official languages objectives and a small but effective cadet language training program, I will now touch upon three areas where further work is necessary.


Supply
The Commissioner of Official Languages has commented upon the number of bilingually designated positions in the RCMP in which the incumbent does not yet fully meet the language requirements of the position. In headquarters, for example, just over 50 per cent of bilingual positions are staffed by members who do not meet the linguistic requirements of the position. This can, of course, be explained by the fact that headquarters is made up of members drawn from the regions, most of whom served in English-speaking provinces. Nevertheless, this points to the need for the force to increase beyond its immediate requirements the size of its bilingual resources. A substantial pool of bilingual members is necessary if the force is to maintain a flexible policy of promotions and transfers while at the same time maintaining a high level of bilingual capability at headquarters.
It might also be stated that the Francophone participation rate is both a success and a shortcoming. It is a success in comparison to where the force was in the past but a shortcoming in view of where it wants to be in the future. Francophone members of the force still comprise less than 15 per cent of the regular member category, exclusive of special constables, a considerable distance from the full participation objective of 20.8 per cent for Francophones which the force set for itself in 1978.
These and other shortcomings have been referred to by the Commissioner of Official Languages and by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier during committee hearings on official languages. As the Hon. Member is aware, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) has submitted proposals to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) for changing some aspects of the RCMP official languages program.
These proposals are designed to address the shortcomings which I have just mentioned. It is also worth noting that these proposals would build on the successes of the existing official languages program.
I am speaking here of the UBC concept which has been demonstrated as being a flexible and valid approach to providing bilingual service in unilingual areas. I am also referring to the recruit official language training program, and I believe that I can safely say at this point that there will be no dimunition at this time to the long-term commitment of the force to provide for equitable participation of both official language groups.
I am not at liberty at this time to go into the details of the proposals of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher). However, I am sure the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) will be hearing from the Solicitor General concerning these matters in the not too distant future.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment negatived.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Cotret), which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 142)
++YEAS
Members
Attewell	Epp	LawrenceBertrand	(Provencher)	LeblancBlais	Fennell	LewisBlouin	Ferland	LopezBoyer	Fontaine	MacDougallBrightwell	Forrestall	(TimiskaminjBrisco	Gagnon	MaillyBrowcs	Gass	ManthaCaldwell	Gerin	MartinCardiff	Girard	MazankowskiChart rand	Graham	McCainComeau	Halliday	MclnnesCorbett	Hamilton	McKenzieCrombie	Hicks	McKinnonDarling	Howie	McMillanDaubney	James	Nickersondc Cotret	Jepson	OberleDella Noce	Jourdenais	O'NeilDor in	Kelleher	PetersonKempling	PietzPrice	Tardif	Van De WalleReimer	(Charlesbourg)	WhiteSt. Germain	Thacker	WinegardScott	Tremblay	Witer-72(Hamilton-Wentworth)	(Quebec-Est)	Scowen	Tremblay	Suluk	(Lotbiniere) Tupper
NAYS Members	Althouse	Heap	NicholsonBenjamin	Hopkins	(Trinity)Blaikie	Jewett	NystromBoudria	Kaplan	OrlikowCaccia	Keeper	PennerCopps	Lapierre	Prud'hommeFinestone	MacLellan	RiisFoster	Manly	RobichaudGarneau	McDonald	RodriguezGauthier	(Broadview-	Skelly-32Grondin	Greenwood)	Guilbault	Mitchell	(Saint-Jacques)Murphy


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


Philip Derek Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following proposition: That there be no further debate, and that Motions Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and the amendments thereto, will go on division, presumably with the Government winning the voice vote and the Opposition losing the voice vote. Elowever, that the recorded division that was just taken be applied to the unopposed votes showing on the Order Paper. In addition, that there be no further debate or amendment on any stage of Bill C-65, an Act for granting Tier Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, including Committee of the Whole, but that the same recorded division just taken be applied in all instances where a recorded division could be taken in order that those of us who are here will benefit from an addition to our voting records. When third reading is completed, the House has agreed we will call it ten o'clock.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that indeed there have been negotiations and I concur with the proposal made by the Parliamentary Secretary.
I would like to ask a question of the President of the Treasury Board. Can he assure the House that the Bill as presented is in proper form and in keeping with tradition?


Robert René de Cotret: Madam Speaker, I am happy to inform my colleague that the form of the Bill is the same as in previous years.
Supply


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I was late arriving for the vote and I would like my name recorded with the Government on all the recorded votes to follow.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, essentially I want to concur with the proposal made by the Parliamentary Secretary. I would like to propose one change, and that is that Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as presented receive the vote that we just experienced on this division but that the amendments proposed to 3, 4, and 5 be opposed on division. That would enable Members to obtain three additional votes and I think it is appropriate that we do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, we are in a position to agree with that.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I, too, like my friend from British Columbia, was on the phone. I thought I would be able to participate in the vote. I would like to have my vote counted on the government side for all the divisions that were agreed upon.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The votes of the Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) and the Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) will be included in the divisions on the government side.


Mr. Vincent:: Madam Speaker, I too would have voted on the Government side.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The same will apply to the Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent).


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5, DEPARTMENT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 5, in the amount of $133,589,000 under the Department of the Solicitor General-Canadian Security Intelligence Service-program expenditure, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, be concurred in.
The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 143)
++YEAS
Members
Attewell Belsher
Bertrand
Blais
Blouin
Boyer


	Supply	
Brightwell	Halliday	NowlanBrisco	Hamilton	OberleBrowes	Hicks	O'NeilCaldwell	Howie	PetersonCardiff	James	PietzChartrand	Jepson	PriceComeau	Jourdenais	ReimerCorbett	Kelleher	St. GermainCrombie	Kempling	ScottDarling	Lawrence	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Daubney	Leblanc	Scowende Cotret	Lewis	SulukDella Noce	Lopez	TardifDorin	MacDougall	(Charlesbourg)Epp	(Timiskaming)	Thacker(Provencher)	Mailly	TremblayFennell	Mantha	(Quebec-Est)Ferland	Martin	TremblayFontaine	Mazankowski	(Lotbiniere)Forrestall	McCain	TupperGagnon	Mclnnes	Van De WalleGass	McKenzie	VincentGerin	McKinnon	WhiteGirard	McMillan	WinegardGraham	Nickerson	Witer-75NAYS	Members	Althouse	Heap	NicholsonBenjamin	Hopkins	(Trinity)Blaikie	Jewett	NystromBoudria	Kaplan	OrlikowCaccia	Keeper	PennerCopps	Lapierre	Prud'hommeFinestone	MacLellan	RiisFoster	Manly	RobichaudGarneau Gauthier	McDonald (Broadview -	Rodriguez Skelly-32Grondin	Greenwood)	Guilbault	Mitchell	(Saint-Jacques)	Murphy


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10, DEPARTMENT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Robert René de Cotret: No, 4
That Vote 10, in the amount of $618,481,000 under the Department of the Solicitor General-Correctional Service-Penitentiary Service and National Parole Service-operating expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the Fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, be concurred in.
The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:
Graham	Mantha	ScottHalliday	Martin	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Hamilton	Mazankowski	ScowenHicks	McCain	SulukHowie	Mclnnes	TardifJames	McKenzie	(Charlesbourg)Jepson	McKinnon	ThackerJourdenais	McMillan	TremblayKelleher	Nickerson	(Quebec-Est)Kempling	Nowlan	TremblayLawrence	Oberle	(Lotbiniere)Leblanc	O'Neil	TupperLewis	Peterson	Van De WalleLopez	Pietz	VincentMacDougall	Price	White(Timiskaming)	Reimer	WinegardMailly	St. Germain
NAYS Members	Witer-75Althouse	Heap	NicholsonBenjamin	Hopkins	(Trinity)Blaikie	Jewett	NystromBoudria	Kaplan	OrlikowCaccia	Keeper	PennerCopps	Lapierre	Prud'hommeFinestone	MacLellan	RiisFoster	Manly	RobichaudGarneau	McDonald	RodriguezGauthier	(Broadview-	Skelly-32Grondin	Greenwood)	Guilbault	Mitchell	(Saint-Jacques)	Murphy


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15, DEPARTMENT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Robert René de Cotret: That Vote 15, in the amount of $122,136,000 under the Department of the Solicitor General-Correctional Service-Penitentiary Service and National Parole Service-capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, be concurred in.
The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 145)
++YEAS
Members
(Division No. 144)
++YEAS
Members
Attewell	Cardiff
Belsher	Chartrand
Bertrand	Comeau
Blais	Corbett
Blouin	Crombie
Boyer	Darling
Brightwell	Daubney
Brisco	de Cotret
Browes	Della Noce
Caldwell	Dorin
Epp	Attewell Belsher Bertrand Blais Blouin Boyer Brightwell Brisco Browes
(Provencher)	Caldwell
Fennell	Cardiff
Ferland	Chartrand
Fontaine	Comeau
Forrestall	Corbett
Gagnon	Crombie
Gass	Darling
Gerin	Daubney
Girard	de Cotret
Della Noce
Dorin
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Gagnon
Gass
Gerin
Girard
Graham
Halliday
Flamilton
Flicks
Flowie
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kelleher
Kempling
Lawrence
Leblanc
Lewis
Lopez
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
Mailly
Mantha
Martin
Mazankowski
McCain
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon


Supply
McMillan	Scott	TremblayNickerson	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	(Lotbiniere)Nowlan	Scowen	TupperOberle	Suluk	Van De WalleO'Neil	Tardif	VincentPeterson	(Charlesbourg)	WhitePietz	Thacker	WinegardPrice	Tremblay	Witer-75Reimer	(Quebec-Est)	St. Germain Althouse	NAYS Members Heap	NicholsonBenjamin	Hopkins	(Trinity)Blaikie	Jewett	NystromBoudria	Kaplan	OrlikowCaccia	Keeper	PennerCopps	Lapierre	Prud'hommeFinestone	MacLellan	RiisFoster	Manly	RobichaudGarneau	McDonald	RodriguezGauthier	(Broadview-	Skelly-32Grondin	Greenwood)	Guilbault	Mitchell	(Saint-Jacques)	Murphy


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Madam Speaker, in each case you have just mentioned you read the main motion, but not the amendment, the conclusion being that the amendment must be voted on before the main motion. First we dispose of the amendment and then of the main motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We realize that after the motion of the Minister there were notices of opposition to certain motions. However, since there was no debate the notice could not be moved as such and therefore we cannot vote on a notice which has not been moved, on a notice which did not become a request for amendment.


Mr. King:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ensure that my vote is recorded with the Government on the subsequent divisions.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The vote of the Member will be counted on the government side in the following divisions.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN MAIN ESTIMATES, 1987-88
Robert René de Cotret: That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, laid upon
the Table Monday, March 2, 1987, except the items disposed of earlier this
day and less the amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in.
The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 146)
	YEAS	
	Members	
Attewell	Girard	OberleBelsher	Graham	O'NeilBertrand	Halliday	PetersonBlais	Hamilton	PietzBlouin	Hicks	PriceBoyer	Howie	ReimerBrightwell	James	St. GermainBrisco	Jepson	ScottBrowes	Jourdenais	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Caldwell	Kelleher	ScowenCardiff	Kempling	SulukChartrand	King	TardifComeau	Lawrence	(Charlesbourg)Corbett	Leblanc	ThackerCrombie	Lewis	TremblayDarling	Lopez	(Quebec-Est)Daubney	MacDougall	Tremblayde Cotret	(Timiskaming)	(Lotbiniere)Della Noce	Mailly	TupperDorin	Mantha	Van De WalleEpp	Martin	Vincent(Provencher)	Mazankowski	WhiteFennell	McCain	WinegardFerland	Mclnnes	Witer-76Fontaine	McKenzie	Forrestall	McKinnon	Gagnon	McMillan	Gass	Nickerson	Gerin	Nowlan	NAYS	Members	Althouse	Heap	NicholsonBenjamin	Hopkins	(Trinity)Blaikie	Jewett	NystromBoudria	Kaplan	OrlikowCaccia	Keeper	PennerCopps	Lapierre	Prud'hommeFinestone	MacLellan	RiisFoster	Manly	RobichaudGarneau	McDonald	RodriguezGauthier	(Broadview-	Skelly-32Grondin	Greenwood)	Guilbault	Mitchell	(Saint-Jacques)	Murphy


Robert René de Cotret: that Bill C-65, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1988, be read the first time.
The House divided on the motion of Mr. de Cotret which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 147)
++YEAS
Members
Attewell	Brightwell	ChartrandBelsher	Brisco	ComeauBertrand	Browes	CorbettBlais	Caldwell	CrombieBlouin	Cardiff	DarlingBoyer	
Supply
Daubney	Kelleher	Petersonde Cotret	Kempling	PietzDella Noce	King	PriceDorin	Lawrence	ReimerEpp	Leblanc	St. Germain(Provencher)	Lewis	ScottFennell	Lopez	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Ferland	MacDougall	ScowenFontaine	(Timiskaming)	SulukForrestall	Mailly	TardifGagnon	Mantha	(Charlesbourg)Gass	Martin	ThackerGerin	Mazankowski	TremblayGirard	McCain	(Quebec-Est)Graham	Mclnnes	TremblayHalliday	McKenzie	(Lotbiniere)Hamilton	McKinnon	TupperHicks	McMillan	Van De WalleHowie	Nickerson	VincentJames	Nowlan	WhiteJepson	Oberle	WinegardJourdenais	O'Neil	Witer-76NAYS	Members	Althouse	Heap	NicholsonBenjamin	Hopkins	(Trinity)Blaikie	Jewett	NystromBoudria	Kaplan	OrlikowCaccia	Keeper	PennerCopps	Lapierre	Prud'hommeFinestone	MacLellan	RiisFoster	Manly	RobichaudGarneau	McDonald	RodriguezGauthier	(Broadview-	Skelly-32Grondin	Greenwood)	Guilbault	Mitchell	(Saint-Jacques)	Murphy	Bill read the first time.	Hon. Robert de Cotret thereupon moved that Bill C-65, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st	March, 1988,	be read the second time	and referred to theCommittee of the Whole.	The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne) the House to adopt the motion?	: Is it the pleasure ofSome Hon.	Members: Agreed.	The House divided on the motion of Mr. de Cotret which	was agreed to on the following division:	(Division No. 148)	YEAS	Members	Attewcll	Chartrand	FennellBclsher	Comeau	FerlandBertrand	Corbett	FontaineBlais	Crombie	ForrestallBlouin	Darling	GagnonBoyer	Daubney	GassBrightwell	de Cotret	GerinBrisco	Della Noce	GirardBrowes	Dorin	GrahamCaldwell	Epp	HallidayCardiff	(Provencher)	HamiltonHicks	McCain	TardifHowie	Mclnnes	(Charlesbourg)James	McKenzie	ThackerJepson	McKinnon	TremblayJourdenais	McMillan	(Quebec-Est)Kelleher	Nickerson	TremblayKempling	Nowlan	(Lotbiniere)King	Oberle	TupperLawrence	O'Neil	Van De WalleLeblanc	Peterson	VincentLewis	Pietz	WhiteLopez	Price	WinegardMacDougall	Reimer	Witer-76(Timiskaming)	St. Germain	Mailly	Scott	Mantha	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Martin	Scowen	Mazankowski	Suluk
NAYS Members	Althouse	Heap	NicholsonBenjamin	Hopkins	(Trinity)Blaikie	Jewett	NystromBoudria	Kaplan	OrlikowCaccia	Keeper	PennerCopps	Lapierre	Prud'hommeFinestone	MacLellan	RiisFoster	Manly	RobichaudGarneau	McDonald	RodriguezGauthier	(Broadview-	Skelly-32Grondin	Greenwood)	Guilbault	Mitchell	(Saint-Jacques)	Murphy	
Bill read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Chairman, I suspect that if you sought the guidance of the House you would find unanimous consent to deem that we have gone through all the stages necessary to complete this process.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Certain things cannot be done by unanimous consent.
Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-65, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1988.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the Schedule carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the preamble carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the Bill carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Bill agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall I rise and report the Bill?
Supply
Fontaine	MacDougall	ScottForrestall	(Timiskaming)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Gagnon	Mailly	ScowenGass	Mantha	SulukGerin	Martin	TardifGirard	Mazankowski	(Charlesbourg)Graham	McCain	ThackerHalliday	Mclnnes	TremblayHamilton	McKenzie	(Quebec-Est)Hicks	McKinnon	TremblayHowie	McMillan	(Lotbiniere)James	Nickerson	TupperJepson	Nowlan	Van De WalleJourdenais	Oberle	VincentKelleher	O'Neil	WhiteKempling	Peterson	WinegardKing	Pietz	Witer-76Lawrence	Price	Leblanc	Reimer	Lewis	St. Germain	Lopez	NAYS	Members	Althouse	Heap	NicholsonBenjamin	Hopkins	(Trinity)Blaikie	Jewett	NystromBoudria	Kaplan	OrlikowCaccia	Keeper	PennerCopps	Lapierre	Prud'hommeFinestone	MacLellan	RiisFoster	Manly	RobichaudGarneau	McDonald	RodriguezGauthier	(Broadview-	Skelly-32Grondin	Greenwood)	Guilbault	Mitchell	(Saint-Jacques)	Murphy


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When shall the Bill be read the third time pursuant to Standing Order 82(11)? With the unanimous consent of the House, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be concurred in.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
The House divided on the motion of Mr. de Cotret which was agreed to on the following division:
Attewell	(Division No. 149)
 YEAS Members Browes	Daubney
Belsher	Caldwell	de CotretBertrand	Cardiff	Della NoceBlais	Chartrand	Dor inBlouin	Comeau	EppBoyer	Corbett	(ProvenclBrightwell	Crombie	FennellBrisco	Darling	Ferland


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. de Cotret), which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 150)
++YEAS
Members
Attewell	Corbett	GagnonBelsher	Crombie	GassBertrand	Darling	GerinBlais	Daubney	GirardBlouin	de Cotret	GrahamBoyer	Della Noce	HallidayBrightwell	Dorin	HamiltonBrisco	Epp	HicksBrowes	(Provencher)	HowieCaldwell	Fennell	JamesCardiff	Ferland	JepsonChartrand	Fontaine	JourdenaisComeau	Forrestall	Kelleher
Supply
Kempling	McMillan	ThackerKing	Nickerson	TremblayLawrence	Nowlan	(Quebec-Est)Leblanc	Oberle	TremblayLewis	O'Neil	(Lotbiniere)Lopez	Peterson	TupperMacDougall	Pietz	Van De Walk(Timiskaming)	Price	VincentMailly	Reimer	WhiteMantha	St. Germain	WinegardMartin	Scott	Witer-76Mazankowski	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	McCain	Scowen	Mclnnes	Suluk	McKenzie	Tardif	McKinnon	(Charlesbourg)
NAYS Members	Althouse	Boudria	FinestoneBenjamin	Caccia	FosterBlaikie	Copps	GarneauGauthier	MacLellan	OrlikowGrondin	Manly	PennerGuilbault	McDonald	Prud'homme(Saint-Jacques)	(Broadview-	RiisHeap	Greenwood)	RobichaudHopkins	Mitchell	RodriguezJewett	Murphy	Skelly-32Kaplan	Nicholson	Keeper	(Trinity)	Lapierre	Nystrom	
Bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6.32 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.32 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, June 12, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers