1988-09-20

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture entitled Review of Taxation of Artists and the Arts.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to six petitions numbered as follows: 332-5327, 3325338 and 332-5343 to 332-5346, inclusive.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In an article in The Ottawa Citizen dated Tuesday, September 20, 1988, an ex-employee, Grace McCaffrey, alleges that she was coerced into falsifying travel claims.
Miss McCaffrey became seriously ill shortly after she became a permanent employee of my office. We held the job open for her while she recovered her health. Two months later she resigned.
Miss McCaffrey makes no direct charge as to who coerced or encouraged her to fabricate the "reason for travel". At no time during her employment in my office did she raise this issue with myself or Miss Janet Binks, my executive assistant. We are surprised that she would wait six months to raise such a serious charge.
I have asked my staff if there is any truth to this allegation. They have assured me that they have no knowledge of any threat, coercion, or encouragement in connection with travel claims, or any other matter. To the best of our knowledge, all travel claims before, during and after Miss McCaffrey's employment have been completed in accordance with the regulations. There is absolutely no truth to these allegations.
[DOT] (mo)
However, I have asked the Privy Council Office to oversee an investigation into these allegations, and the PCO has arranged with the Comptroller General to conduct an audit of the travel claims submitted during Miss McCaffrey's term of employment to ensure that they are in compliance with the regulations for travel by Ministers and their staff. The results of this audit will be made public as soon as they are made available.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the Minister that we believe him. Indeed, we feel as he does, that these things have to be clarified. Miss McCaffrey's allegations raise certain questions in the public mind such as for whose purposes these travel claims were made, if any, and who signed them. I take it that when the Minister makes public the results of the investigation we will have answers to those questions because I understand only a Minister can sign such claims.

September 20, 1988
Broadcasting Act
I take it we will get answers and I would like to join with other Members of Parliament in saying to the Minister that he has our support.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, September 19, consideration of Bill C-136, an Act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mrs. Finestone: Motion No. 74
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 44 by striking out line 14 at page 28 and substituting the following therefor:
"contemplated by subclause 3(1) and in particular paragraphs 3(1 )(j) and 3(l)(k)f"
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Motions Nos. 49, 56, 67, and 68 are grouped for debate and will be voted on separately.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:: Motion No. 49
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 32 and 33 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"(d) facilitates the provision of Canadian programs to Canadians;''


Mr. Alan Redway (York East) moved:: Motion No. 56
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 10 by striking out line 35 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"gramming undertakings in order to protect the financial viability of the programming undertaking or to assure the retransmission by distribution undertakings of programs produced in a language other than French or English;"
Motion No. 67
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 25 by adding immediately after line 36 at page 21 the following:
"(3.1) Where, under subsection (3), the Commission reconsiders a matter that relates to the conditions of a licence issued or to be issued to the Corporation, it shall not render its decision under that subsection before holding a public hearing on the matter, thereby giving the public an opportunity to make representations."
Motion No. 68
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 29 by adding immediately after line 23 at page 22 the following:
"29.(1) An order or a regulation that is proposed to be made under section 9 or 10 of this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament at least thirty sitting days before the proposed effective date thereof.
(2)	Where, within twenty-five sitting days after a proposed order or regulation is laid before either House of Parliament under subsection (1), a motion for the consideration of that House to the effect that the proposed regulation not be approved, signed by no fewer than eight
Senators or fifteen Members of the House of Commons, as the case may be, is filed with the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Speaker shall, within five sitting days after the filing of the motion, without debate or amendment, put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion.
(3)	Where a motion referred to in subsection (2) is adopted by both Houses of Parliament, the proposed order or regulation to which the motion relates may not be made.
(4)	Where Parliament dissolves or prorogues earlier than twenty-five sitting days after a proposed order or regulation is laid before both Houses of Parliament under subsection (1) and a motion has not been disposed of under subsection (2) in relation to the proposed order or regulation in both Houses of Parliament, the proposed order or regulation may not be made.
(5)	For the purposes of this section, "sitting day" means, in respect of either House of Parliament, a day on which that House sits."


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, let me just quickly go through my amendment, Motion No. 49, and make a couple of comments about the amendments moved by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). I keep telling this story, to the Hon. Member's consternation, but I want to warn him that there is an election coming. The House will recall Robert McGregor, who used to be the Member for York East for about 22 years. They called him Silent Bob McGregor because he did not speak for 22 years, then he made the mistake of getting up and moving a motion and was defeated in the next election.
One of our concerns in the NDP with Clause 5(2) as it stands is that it does not clearly indicate that the system should facilitate Canadian programming in particular. It must be made patently clear, we believe, to the CRTC, the regulatory body, that it should give priority to Canadian programming services over others. This has already been stated in Clause 3(1 )(r) and should be reiterated here. I find it difficult to understand how the Minister can oppose this motion which I think is consistent with past reports and the history of broadcasting policy in Canada.
I want to make a few comments about Motions Nos. 56, 67 and 68 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York East. I have no objection to Motion No. 56 which involves protection of non-English or French services in case of difficulties with the carriage arrangements with cable companies. It gives priority to program undertakings in such disputes. It was submitted, I believe, by the Ethnocultural Council and I could support that.
Motion No. 67 would permit a new public hearing on matters referred back to the CRTC by the Cabinet through its power of review. As the amendment explains, this is not a bad idea as it will permit the public to express itself at such hearings and perhaps open up the process a bit. That is supportable.
Motion No. 68 is where the Hon. Member's streak ends, as far as I am concerned. I find this an extraordinary amendment, perhaps because it is from an extraordinary Member. It says that any order or regulation made by the CRTC under Section 9 or Section 10 would be laid before Parliament for 30
September 20, 1988

days before it comes into effect. At least 15 MPs or 8 Senators, if they filed a motion that the proposed order or regulation not be put in place, could cause a vote on that motion. If the MPs win the vote, the CRTC regulation or order could not be carried out.
To put it mildly, I find this a recipe for regulatory and parliamentary chaos. It is also a recipe for massive political interference in the affairs of the CRTC. This is a little bit of back-bench dinosaur type of thinking of the Conservative Party. Perhaps my friend will explain it as opening up the process for participatory democracy or something like that, but I would like him to deal with the fact that it seems to me it will mean chaos. The CRTC is a quasi-judicial body, and what does he want to do? He wants us to review the decisions of that body after we have given it the power to make certain decisions. He wants to drag some controversial matters back into Parliament after the CRTC has dealt with them. Perhaps the Hon. Member can explain himself.
However, I can support his other motions and I hope he will support my Motion No. 49, as I would think the Minister would support it. Once again, it deals with strengthening Canadian programming and giving choices to Canadians so they can see good quality Canadian programming and we are not submerged in the North Americanization of the media that this Bill will bring in as well as the Government's free trade legislation.
Those are my amendments and my comments on the amendments of the Hon. Member for York East.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to these three amendments that I have laid before the House, which deal with three different issues. I am not entirely sure why it was decided that they were to be grouped for debate, but let me say I want to deal very briefly with the first one, Motion No. 56, and then spend most of my time with Motion No. 68.
Motion No. 56, as the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has pointed out, was originally suggested before the legislative committee by the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. It was one of its submissions. I put it forward also in light of concerns that had been raised with me by my own constituents and by ethnic broadcasters in Metropolitan Toronto. One of the great concerns, particularly with broadcasters who are involved with a closed-circuit FM broadcasting from cable television is that their existence, their career and livelihood are dependent upon the whims of cable companies. They can be cut off at a moment's notice. I refer specifically to Mr. Gus Agathos who broadcasts in this fashion in Metropolitan Toronto. He is a Greek broadcaster who has been on the air for years and years but is constantly under the threat of being cut off by the Rogers Cable Company. There is the possibility that all of his lifetime of work, the business he has built up with his listeners, can just be wiped out by some sort of arbitrary decision without some form of appeal. This
Broadcasting Act
motion would give at least some form of mediation to that process.
A second problem Mr. Agathos and others like him have is the lack of access to other cable companies within the Metropolitan Toronto area. Because of the monopolistic distribution of cable franchises, one part of Metropolitan Toronto has one cable company, another part has another cable company and still another part has another cable company. He can only broadcast by negotiating with one cable company. While his potential audience lives all over Metropolitan Toronto and beyond, he is limited by the geographic territorial limits of the cable company's franchise. This would hopefully give Mr. Agathos and people like him some opportunity to deal with the CRTC and the cable companies in a way that would give him at least a little more right than he has now.
Moving on to Motion No. 67, this is aimed at allowing for public participation in the process. Again this is a suggestion put forward by the Canadian Ethnocultural Council to the legislative committee, and one which I as a great supporter of the principle of democracy and public input wholeheartedly endorse.
Motion No. 68, as the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) pointed out, is somewhat unique, but not entirely unique in the annals of Parliament. If the Hon. Member had carefully been following what has been happening in this Parliament he would know that in Bill C-72, in amendments to the bilingual legislation, a provision of this kind was incorporated in the Bill as passed by Parliament. It was a provision agreed to by the Government in that piece of legislation and it is part of the law of Canada at the present time. 1 suggest that we incorporate a similar provision in this legislation.
I again go back to my concern relating to condominium owners. Here where a regulation comes down we have been assured by the Minister there will be exemption for condominiums broadcasting with satellite systems, but the Minister may not be around forever, as suggested by some. We would like to see her around forever but immortality has so far escaped the human soul.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alan Redway: As a result of that, with another Minister, with another CRTC, even with the same CRTC, who knows what it may do with respect to the rights of condominium broadcasters with satellite systems? If the CRTC should by any chance bring down a regulation which would include a condominium satellite TV system as a cable company, this would give Parliament the right to deal with that sort of regulation and reject it. This would be protection for what the Minister is telling us will come to pass and will give Parliament that right as far as condominium ownership is concerned.
That raises the whole issue of the concerns of condominium owners. I agree with them that this legislation is discriminatory against them with respect to their position vis-a-vis a single

September 20, 1988
Broadcasting Act
family detached dwelling owner. As far as condominium owners are concerned, if they are to be regulated as a cable company, that leaves them with no alternative reception, whereas a single family homeowner would have an alternative. If that single family homeowner did not want a cable company, the individual could always put a satellite receiver in his or her backyard and not be regulated. That is not the case under this legislation as far as a condominium owner is concerned. Condominium owners stand to be regulated under the legislation as it is now, apart from the assurances of the Minister, as if they were a cable company. There is no alternative to opting, as a single family home owner can.
In fact, as you know, Madam Speaker, systems that condominium corporations operate as far as satellite television reception are concerned are operated on a non-profit basis. They are not a commercial undertaking. They are operated basically by volunteers. If they are to be regulated, most of these volunteers have told me, and I am sure this will happen, they will just throw up their hands and walk away from the systems, leaving condominium owners no other alternative but to fall into the clutches, if you will, of a cable company. The cable company then will be the only one that can offer them television reception service.
The whole thrust of this motion is to protect condominium owners, to give Parliament the right to deal with that, and to make sure that what we are being told is that condominium systems will not be regulated.
The legislation as it now stands, we have been told in response to my specific questions at the legislative committee, not only will catch condominium satellite television systems but also satellite television systems that may be in a senior citizens' home. Senior citizens' homes in my riding such as True Davidson Acres, the Mennonite Home, the Canadian Macedonia Place and the Ina Grafton Gage Home stand to be caught and regulated by this legislation unlike a single family dwelling which will not be.
For all of these reasons it seems to me essential that if the Minister somehow or other leaves this post thousands of years down the line and we have another Minister, or if the CRTC changes its stripe or philosophy and suddenly comes up with a regulation that does catch condominiums and senior citizens' homes, under Motion No. 68 that regulation would come here to this House and if 15 Members of Parliament thought that was objectionable-surely there would be at least that number-we would then have an opportunity to deal with it. If we felt that it was improper to regulate condominium satellite television systems and systems going into poor, benighted senior citizens' homes, then we could deal with it here and reject it.
It is on that basis that I put forward this motion and I commend it to the Minister and the Government. I hope she
and the Government will see fit to adopt not only Motion No. 68 but Motions Nos. 56 and 67 as well.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, Motion No. 56 relates to Clause 10 and indicates the Hon. Member's desire to have protection of distribution undertakings in order to protect the financial viability of programming undertakings or to ensure the retransmission by distribution undertakings of programs produced in a language other than English or French. Certainly if these programs have been licensed by the CRTC and have received the approval of those communities to which they relate, as is the case with TeleLatino or Chinavision, et cetera, I think this is a very worthwhile amendment. If it does that, I would certainly support it.
I would like to support the motion of my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway as well. I think it too is a very worthwhile amendment. The Hon. Member is saying that the Canadian broadcasting system should be regulated and supervised in a flexible manner, and with that I am totally in accord, and that in and during that regulatory process by the CRTC, the provisions of Canadian programs to Canadians should be facilitated. I think that is the fundamental issue facing us as Canadians and as legislators here in the House of Commons.
It is with somewhat of a sense of sadness that I have been watching the whole process unravel. This is a very important Bill for Canadians and for Canadian content. It is so technical that very few people who are watching this debate sense the real vitality and importance of the thrust of this whole Bill. I had hoped that the thrust would be the Canadianization of the Canadian broadcasting system.
Although the Minister has brought some substantive measures forward, she has also done a fair degree of tinkering. I do not see this as being a partisan issue. I think this is a fundamental issue, irrespective of which Government is in place. We are talking about policies that will endure much longer than any Minister or any Government.
The system will not be Canadian in many ways. It will be a North American system. The Bill really provides for the continentalization of our system. The Minister knows fundamentally that we are not dealing with satellite-to-cable networks which can limit the additional American programs that will have access to our system. She has not accepted constructive amendments which would ensure predominantly Canadian content, nor has she ensured carriage priorities on our cable system in law, issues which will also affect the advertising income of our own broadcasters and will have an impact on the business community.
When I spoke to the Minister about the importance of the amendments brought forward in Motion No. 45 and Motion No. 37, I felt that she was ignoring the fundamental direction of this whole Bill which is that it is a Canadian Bill. Broadcasters cannot even be assured of the exclusivity of Canadian rights. American majors, as she knows, including ABC, NBC
September 20, 1988

and CBS, are players in the field. They can bring programs into our market which carry non-simultaneous advertising because they are in a different time period.
I tried, through amendments, to grandfather every network that we already have in the system, the 17 that were there previously and the five new ones, the 22 stations. My motion provided that we could bring in other American programs as long as they are complementary services, not competitive services. I think I have made it very clear that my intention is not to block out what is new, exciting and dynamic but it is to ensure a Canadian broadcasting system. This, regretfully, the Minister has not seen fit to accept.
I talked about the importance of limiting foreign programming carriage, services that would change substantially what we have now, but complementary services are totally acceptable. In the opening clause of 3(l)(a), we say that the first obligation of the Canadian broadcasting system is to provide a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty.
I would suggest that the mechanisms for which we have asked have not been dealt with. Perhaps if we accept the amendment proposed to the CRTC's mandate that would provide that it knows what the Minister and the Government want, that they want a Canadian broadcasting system with Canadian programming, it may well facilitate that.
I sincerely hope that my sense of sadness will be alleviated by some changes that will be accepted by the Minister so we can see in the long run networks that are direct broadcast services and so we can see a diminishing access by new American services in the light in which I think many Canadians see it. They have access to American programming in many ways, and I think that enough is enough. Now let us promote Canadians and let the broadcasters find the financing mechanisms that they need. They need advertising revenue. They cannot sell their stuff if they cannot advertise because their audience is disappearing.
I would suggest to the Minister that she find some more constructive mechanisms, as she has tried to do to date, so that we can have the kind of Canadian broadcasting system that we want.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion on this motion. We are attempting to provide more Canadian programming for more Canadians and I do not expect that there would be a single Member of the House of Commons who would not support that principle. 1 do not think there would be a single Canadian who would not like to see more Canadian programming on television.
To make this case very clear, it is my privilege to present the following motion. I move: "That Motion No. 49 be amended to read as follows: That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 5 by adding after line 33 on page 8 the following: Subsection (e), facilitates the provision of Canadian programs to Canadians."
Broadcasting Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: After reading the amendment to the motion which the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap has presented, the Chair will want to reserve, because at first reading, it seems that the Hon. Member may want to amend the Bill further and not actually the motion which is before the House. I will reserve on the motion and will study it further.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I realize that you have reserved on this, but I think it is important to point out that what the original Motion No. 49 did, which the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) put forward and which the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) automatically adopted, not understanding what it would do to broadcasting in Canada. Unfortunately, it would have had the impact of reducing the extension of services of all broadcasting to those communities, those isolated areas, to which we are trying to direct the extension of services for all broadcasting. We intend to carry that out. We do not want to limit the extension of service.
What the proposed amendment to the amendment is seeking to undertake is to extend as well Canadian programming. It has been stated many times before in this Bill, and I have no difficulty in stating it again. It is somewhat redundant. It is the provision of Canadian programs to Canadians, but it must not interfere with the extension of all services across Canada to people who are not now able to receive them.
I would say, in looking at the proposal, even though you have not ruled on it as yet, that it does have my acquiescence.
With regard to the other matters, I would just say briefly to the Member for York East (Mr. Redway) that I want to assure him, with regard to his Amendment No. 56, that the Bill does cover all languages and not just English and French. Any kind of broadcasting that is done in other languages has to come under the rubric of the Broadcasting Act, and we have taken measures throughout to ensure that that will be both honoured and acknowledged. There is no question of trying to retain broadcasting only in the two official languages. As you know, we have many stations that do broadcast and program in other languages.
With regard to Motion No. 67, regarding hearings in relation to the CBC, the CRTC always holds public hearings in relation to the renewal of or the application for licences by the CBC. That is automatically done, and I want to leave it up to the CRTC to follow that practice, and not say that you must do this with one hearing and you must do that with another.
There is a final amendment that I would like to speak to. I have tried to direct my concern to the problems that the Member for York East sees with regard to condominiums. I am very conscious of it and I know that in the past, in the 1968 Bill, regulations did apply to cable, condominiums, and multiunit dwellings. Exceptions were granted by the CRTC at that

September 20, 1988
Broadcasting Act
time. I have said many times that I expect that to continue. There is no reason to believe that it will not continue.
While I understand the goal of this particular amendment, to try to get even greater certainty for that particular group of people, nevertheless the proposal here would be so onerous, both on Parliament and on people who are involved in the broadcasting industry, waiting for decisions, that I think it would in effect be somewhat of an overkill.
The CRTC in fact issues hundreds of regulations and decisions on issues all the time. To have all these coming before Parliament might very well block everything else that Parliament is able to accomplish. We do not get through very much here as it is.
I want to assure him once again that I have his concerns in mind. I will continue to stress them and I will make a point of conveying that to the CRTC.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I would like further clarification on the amendment to Motion No. 49. The Minister has indicated her interest. 1 certainly support that amendment. Could you indicate to me when we intend to deal with that? I would like to speak to it, if possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I thank the Hon. Member for Mount Royal for her patience. I was just about to deal with it. The amendment has been ruled acceptable, and it will read as follows: Mr. Riis, seconded by Mrs. Finestone, moves:
That Motion No. 49 be amended by deleting all the words after the words "Clause 5" and adding the words "by adding immediately after line 33 at page 8 the following
"(e) facilitates the provision of Canadian programs to Canadians;".
Resuming debate on the amendment. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I would just like to support the amendment and to recognize the Minister's concern which was brought to our attention, i think it is a valid concern. We have never underestimated the power of good American programming. We have never said that good American programming is not welcome on our airwaves.
I would certainly understand that people in small and isolated communities would like to have the ongoing access, particularly to three plus one. I would suggest that this amendment is a very good one. It would enable, I hope, at least the CRTC to ensure Canadian programming for Canadians and at the same time allow what we presently have of the American system access to our airwaves, but then limit any additional access unless it is complementary.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first question is on the amendment to the amendment in Motion No. 49, in the name of Mr. Riis. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 49, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 49 (Mr. Waddell), as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 56. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion is negatived on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion 67 in the name of Mr. Redway.
Motion No. 56 (Mr. Redway) negatived. 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 nays have it.
Motion No. 67 (Mr. Redway) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 68 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
September 20, 1988


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 nays have it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.
Motion No. 68 (Mr. Redway) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next group of motions includes Motions Nos. 49A and 57A standing in the name of the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald).


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Motion No. 49A
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 5 in the French version by striking out line 32 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"ques d'information et leur application ainsi que".
Motion No. 57A
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 12 in the French version by striking out line 1 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"etre annulees ou modifiees par le Conseil, apres".
She said: Madam Speaker, these are two very minor technical amendments to ensure concordance between the English and French languages in the text.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I find the motions perfectly in order and would certainly be pleased to support them.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We in the New Democratic Party also agree with these amendments.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first question is on Motion No. 49A, standing in the name of the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 49A (Miss MacDonald) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 57A standing in the name of the Minister of
Broadcasting Act
Communications (Miss MacDonald). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 57A (Miss MacDonald) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We will now proceed with Motions Nos. 53, 54, 58, 59, 60 and 69. They are grouped for debate and will be voted on separately.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 53
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out lines 27 to 29 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"by making an order under section 7."
Motion No. 54
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 8 by adding immediately after line 33 at page 10 the following:
"(5) The Commission shall hold a public hearing, unless such committee of either House of Parliament has held public hearings pursuant to subsection 8(2), in connection with a proposed order by the Governor in Council, after the order is published in the Canada Gazette in accordance with subsection 8(1), or unless the Commission is satisfied that such a hearing is not in the public interest."
Motion No. 58
That Bill C-136 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 59
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 13
(a)	by striking out lines 6 and 7 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"13.(1) Any decision or order made by the Commission may be made an order of the Federal".
(b)	by striking out lines 11 and 12 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) To make a decision or order an order of a court, the usual practice". Motion No. 60
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 17 by striking out lines 19 and 20 at page 16.
Motion No. 69
That Bill C-136 be amended by deleting Clause 32.
She said: Madam Speaker, Motions Nos. 53 and 54 go together. Motions Nos. 59, 60, and 69 are consequential amendments to Motion No. 58. Motions Nos. 53 and 54 deal with a procedural matter which is far more procedural than it would seem on the surface. This motion would delete the words "either in the form proposed or revised in such manner as the Governor in Council deems advisable".
The present wording would allow the Cabinet to alter directions to the CRTC that may be fundamentally different from what was originally laid before the Houses of Parliament. This would result in no opportunity for public hearings on the revised direction. We have said time and time again that in the field of broadcasting there is to be no Governor in Council intervention. It is to be an open process and what takes place must be known by the general public.

September 20, 1988
Broadcasting Act
The purpose of the motion is to remove the possibility of unwarranted pressures on a Minister and interference in the very sensitive broadcasting area. If anyone should know about the sensitivity of broadcasting and the impact it has on the country it is Members of Parliament whose interpretations are out there for the public to see and who count on the broadcasting media to get their message out.
Whatever the issue-today the truckers, yesterday free trade, tomorrow the taxation Bill-this is a very sensitive industry and it must be treated by Government in the most arm's length fashion in order that we cannot be perceived to be interfering. Unfortunately we are now getting to the point again where the length of one's arm is to the shoulder, and I do not think that that ensures an open process.
I recognize that the Bill cannot direct a House committee on how it should deal with proposed broad policy directions. One can hope it would deal with it, or even expect that it would deal with it, but we cannot direct it to deal with it.
The standing committee made it very clear, first, that it felt that broad policy directives should be tied directly to broadcasting policy as outlined in Clause 3, which the Government has not done directly and, second, that the broad policy directive be heard. Therefore I have proposed in Motion No. 54 that we agree to a process of developing a broad public direction which should be held and involved in a public hearing.
So Bill C-136, while containing provisions for referring directions to committees, is unable to require that a committee hold such hearings. It is for this reason that I bring this amendment forward. I hope that the Minister will be receptive of this amendment because it is asking the commission, in the case of the absence of action on a broad policy directive by the House, or by either part of the House, to hold such a hearing. I believe that this would open up the process.
In Motion No. 54 I have recommended the addition of Clause 5 which would state:
The Commission shall hold a public hearing, unless such committee of either House of Parliament has held public hearings pursuant to subsection 8(2), in connection with a proposed order by the Governor in Council, after the order is published in the Canada Gazette in accordance with subsection 8(1), or unless the Commission is satisfied that such a hearing is not in the public interest.
I think that leaves the commission, the Minister, the Governor in Council, and everyone else with enough latitude.
I would like to deal with the last of the series of my amendments in this particular block of motions. Here I am addressing fundamental and basic procedural fairness in the rule of law. I suggest, through you, Madam Speaker, to the Minister that through Clause 12 we have made the makers of rules, regulations, and orders judges in their own case. This is totally out of Canadian and democratic concepts of fairness in law.
I am sure the Minister received, as did I, a brief from the Canadian Bar Association. They make the observation that Bill C-136 substantially increases the powers of the CRTC
over the broadcasting industry. They point out that any person involved in the broadcasting industry may be subjected to several different sanctions for failing to comply with a regulation, license condition, decision, or order of the CRTC. In creating duplicate offences and multiple sanctions, in their view, the Act places licensees in double jeopardy without sufficient protection. The problem is compounded by the fact that a licensee may be subjected to different orders or decisions issued by one or more panels of the CRTC or even by the full commission itself.
The Minister knows there was a lot of discussion and that there is some disagreement and some serious concern about the use of panels on the "he who hears decides" concept. I think the Minister may be right, but we have to test that out. However, we certainly must be very careful about procedural fairness, and that is what the Canadian Bar Association is talking about.
Through the different powers granted to the CRTC by this Bill it becomes the lawmaker, the law interpreter, and the law enforcer at the same time. The Bar Association says that while this position is not uncommon in the administrative law field, it does give rise to concern that duplicate offences or penalties should be reduced to a minimum.
The purpose of my Motions Nos. 58, 59, 60 and 69, is that the courts would decide upon breaches of orders and regulations and the CRTC would decide upon breaches of conditions of licence. The reason I leave breaches of conditions of licences with the CRTC is that the conditions which we now put as a punishable offence on summary conviction are frequently very elaborate in detail and could easily be subject to a subjective interpretation.
1 believe the CBC supported me in this respect, that conditions are not solid grounds for prosecution in the criminal courts. Furthermore, since there are tailored conditions of licence by the commission, I think that is the best place to deal with it.
Therefore, I suggest that the Minister reconsider these particular clauses. She should review Clauses 12 and 13, then bring in the appropriate motions I have made and be supportive of the fact that we talked about fairness in rule of law.
You cannot be judged in your own case. That is not the Canadian way. I ask the Minister to give that very serious consideration.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam
Speaker, I can support Motions Nos. 53 and 54 brought forward by the Hon. Member because I believe they would lead to a more open public process. I believe that the Member has already cited the relevant testimony we received in committee from such groups as the Canadian Ethnocultural Council among others.
September 20, 1988

Motion No. 58 is more difficult. The CBC objected to this. I suppose it depends on one's assessment of what is an unreasonable power that the CRTC would have. I believe that it is not an unreasonable power. Accordingly, I would not support that motion.
Motion No. 59 simply adds the word "decision" to this section, meaning that the CRTC decisions as well as mandatory orders may be made orders of the Federal Court. Again, that sounds like a reasonable amendment.
Motion No. 69 deletes the clause that makes the breach of a licence condition. If you breach a licence condition set down by the regulatory body of the CRTC, you can be guilty of an offence punishable by summary conviction. The CBC and others feel that the conditions of a licence are by nature not grounds for prosecution in the criminal courts.
I took the opposite view in committee and said that, in fact, there are two different penalties set down in the Act. If you breach a regulation you get some sort of penalty. If you breach an order you get another sort of penalty. I thought that was inconsistent.
1 draw the Minister's attention to the hearings of the legislative committee as reported at page 10:143 to 10:146, where I deal with the Minister and Mr. Kinsman, her official, and some other people on this issue.
I oppose the amendment by the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), but I believe that there are some inconsistencies in the Bill as it is set out. 1 do not think it is a major matter, but there are inconsistencies. That is the position of our Party on this particular group of amendments.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, with respect to policy directions to the CRTC it is important to recognize what is being proposed in this legislation in the way of hearings, consultations and so on.
The Minister must consult with the CRTC on a policy directive. Bringing in this new power of policy direction lays certain requirements on the Governor in Council and on the Minister. The Minister must consult with the CRTC about any policy directive. It is then published in the Canada Gazette with calls for comments. Third, it is tabled in the House of Commons and referred to committee for 40 days for consideration and response. Fourth, there is a second consultation with the CRTC. Finally, the CRTC can then decide whether or not to hold public hearings on general criteria and processes of implementation.
What we have is a very lengthy consultation process on any new policy directive. I think that indeed enhances the process and gives a great deal of latitude for public input and for parliamentary consideration.
With regard to mandatory orders, I think it is very important to recognize that this is indeed an important new power and something which I think will enhance the work of the CRTC. I know that the former Chairman of the CRTC felt,
Broadcasting Act
having worked with the existing powers either to revoke a licence or to administer a slap on the wrist to someone, that neither one was effective. This new power to issue mandatory orders is an important new power and one that I think should be welcomed.
Finally, I just want to say that on the question of legal remedies for a breach of condition of licence, there may well be some argument about this. I want it to be noted that the route we have taken in leaving it with the CRTC was a recommendation of Caplan-Sauvageau, who were in favour of this route, as was the standing committee.


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 Motion No. 53 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 53 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 54 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). 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 nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 58 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.

September 20, 1988
Broadcasting Act
Motion No. 58 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 59 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 59 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 60 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 60 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 69 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 69 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next group consists of Motions Nos. 57 and 61.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 57
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 10 by striking out line 4 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"of one or more classes, or to any persons or class of persons who are exempted from the requirement to hold a licence by subsection 9(2) or section 25."
Motion No. 61
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 17 by adding immediately after line 20 at page 16 the following:
"(d) the making of an order under subsection 9(2)".
She said: Madam Speaker, Motion No. 57 is an amendment to Clause 10(2), which in a sense I am hopeful will allow for a level playing field for all distribution systems and which looks at regulations for exempted persons.
Motion No. 61 will ensure public hearings if an exemption takes place. That is found in Clause 17.
Motion No. 57 enlarges the list of regulations that are possible by the CRTC under the general powers of the commission as set out on page 13 of the Bill. It would define and enlarge the places in which licences could be applicable, or
the classes of licence that could be applicable. It would be applicable to one or more classes, or to any persons or class of persons who are exempted from the requirement to hold a licence by subsection 9(2) or Section 25. In essence, what the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has been talking about, in a sense, would make the process a little more open and a little more fair, I would hope.
The Canadian Bar Association addressed this issue in its brief to the legislative committee. It said, and I quote, "In order to have a level playing ground MATV systems should be governed by the same rules as those applicabale to cable television systems or other distribution systems. Under the proposed Act, these rules could be applied directly through regulations or licence conditions, or indirectly by the terms of exemption orders under Subclause 9(2)".
The purpose of my suggestion is so that where the MATV and the SMATV systems want to bring in and have Canadian content and follow the local rules they will also have the right to get pay-TV, and the kinds of things which they are having a great deal of difficulty doing.
There is one omission in the Act, I believe. It is the fact that the regulations enacted by the commission under Clause 10 of Bill C-136 cannot be made applicable to exempted persons. Clause 10(2) states that the regulations are only applicable to persons holding licences.
This is contrary to recommendation 14 of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, a recommendation which is contained in our sixth report. I would like to remind the Minister about what we had to say, as well as what First Choice, Canadian Communications Corporation, recommended in support of the type of amendment I have brought forward.
First, the standing committee said in recommendation 14 that the power to exempt undertakings from the requirement to obtain a licence should be subject to the right to impose terms and conditions, and regulations applicable to licensees should also be able to be applied to exempted persons. This would permit the CRTC, for example, while exempting MATV systems to require such systems to meet the same obligations or requirements related to the carriage of services, or any other matters as would apply to cable television systems or other comparable licensed undertakings. If they are using our airwaves, and we have said they are to be exempted, then let us find a way to make it a legal exemption.
As well, First Choice, Canadian Communications Corporation, said that there is one omission in the Act, that is, the regulations to be enacted by the commission under Clause 10. Clause 10(2) states that regulations can only be applied to persons holding licences. I bring that to the attention of the Minister.
To implement this I have presented Motion No. 61 to the Minister. I am not quite sure if the wording of it might well raise some concerns with respect to its being too broad a net. I
September 20, 1988

have made the recommendation that the making of an order under subsection 9(2) would allow for this exemption clause to be a more open situation. Maybe it should state "substantial order". Maybe it should read "significant order." Perhaps it needs some kind of refinement, although I personally feel that it is broad enough to allow for the kind of approach that I have been talking about.
With respect to Motion No. 61, the goal is that subsection 9(2) would allow the CRTC the discretion to exempt persons who carry on broadcasting undertakings of any class from licensing and regulations. This is an expansion of Section 17(l)(e) of the 1968 Broadcasting Act that only permitted exemptions of broadcasting receiving undertakings from licensing. This is a good power. It is a great power. But because of the broadness of this expanded power there needs to be a public process to provide fairness for all the players in the Canadian broadcasting system. They should really know why x, y and z were exempted. The Canadian Cable Television Association has said, "The unilateral power to exempt is a very powerful mechanism. The language of this section is very broad, offering no checks or balances on the exercise of power to exempt".
Since the goal of the broadcast policy is the degree of fairness for all players, the rules of the game should be clear, understood and well-defined, and they go through open public process, through the CRTC, through hearings or through procedures. 1 would like to recommend that the Minister give serious consideration to accepting the amendments which I have proposed under Motion No. 61,


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam
Speaker, both the amendments of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) are acceptable to us. I think she has outlined the reasons for that.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first question is on Motion No. 57. 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.
Broadcasting Act


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(1), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 61. 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(1), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next group is Motions Nos. 54A, 63, 64 and 66. They are grouped for debate and will be voted on separately.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 54A
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 9 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 11 the following:
"(i) determine whether the rates charged by distribution undertakings are at all times just and reasonable, and if they are not, may revise them accordingly."


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 63
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out line 25 at page 17 and substituting the following therefor:
"casting policy set out in subsection 3() and Commission regulations and orders as provided for in sections 10 and 11."
Motion No. 64
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 25 by striking out lines 23 to 28 at page 20.
Motion No. 66
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 25 by adding immediately after line 46 at page 20 the following:
"(4) The Minister shall consult with the Commission before the Governor in Council makes an order under subsections (1) and (2)."

September 20, 1988
Broadcasting Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Hon. Minister of Communications.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: On this grouping I am prepared to accept Motion No. 63. I understand there has been some discussion with regard to Motion No. 66, and a possible change to the wording of it. If that wording is worked out then I would be prepared to accept Motion No. 66.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On debate the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Minister accepting those amendments. That leaves Motion No. 54A and Motion No. 64. Motion 64 is the amendment of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). It is identical to my Motion No. 65 which was ruled out of order, because it was identical. I would, of course, support Motion No. 64.
I want to speak on Motion 54A. This is a very important motion. It states:
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 9 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 11 the following:
"(i) determine whether the rates charged by distribution undertakings are at all times just and reasonable, and if they are not, may revise them accordingly."
This amendment reflects the belief of the NDP that cable companies should be regulated by rate of return legislation, and as a result the prices charged to ordinary Canadian subscribers should, like telephone rates, be more closely linked to profits. This has enormous implications, and is extremely important to the average Canadian. It is a necessary protection for consumers who increasingly, especially in urban areas, but also to a great extent in rural areas, view cable as an essential service. Everybody wants cable today.
This is a particularly important amendment at this time because many Canadians are now faced with very substantial increases in cable fees. In the lower mainland of British Columbia, where I am from, whether it is in Port Moody, Belcarra, Coquitlam, loco, Port Coquitlam, or Burnaby, those areas are served by Rogers Cablevision which has a territorial monopoly on cable services. That means that my constituents, if they are unhappy with Rogers' prices or services, cannot move to another company. There is only one cable company, and they are stuck with it. I might add that this is a very lucrative area for Rogers as 95 per cent of the households are cabled.
A great deal of concern has been expressed about that part of the recent price increase which is paid to subsidize the addition of four new services: YTV, Vision TV, Weather Now, and Much Music. They have been added to the basic services in my area of British Columbia. The Sports network will be added next year. There is a lot of controversy about who does and who does not want those services.
The Minister will say that this is a matter for the CRTC. I can hear her argument now. However, as the Minister knows, the Cabinet has power of review over the CRTC decisions. The Minister should know this, because it is part of the same decision that brought those services into the basic service. The CRTC gave the licence for an all-news network to the CBC. Of course, at that time that was not acceptable to this present Cabinet. This was the only part of the decision on which the Minister decided to intervene. The Minister did intervene in this matter because of the pressures from her friends in Alberta. She has delayed and perhaps sabotaged the All-News Network plan. The others, however, which in some cases add very little to the Canadian character of the system, she said nothing about. As one of her colleagues stated four years ago: "But, Sir, you had an option". The Minister did not exercise her option.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You did not want a French-language service.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What is less well understood is that 73 cents of the increase will go straight to the cable company, in this case, Rogers. Even if there had been no new specialty services added to the basic service, Rogers would have received a 60cent per month increase.
Canadians who are watching this debate on cable may be interested in knowing how their cable fees are set. The cable industry is the only territorial monopoly in Canada whose profits are unregulated. The industry is certainly regulated in general terms, but it is still a special case in terms of profits. What is the result of this situation? As Andrew Roman of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre rightly notes:
As a result of this regulatory vacuum, Canadian households pay far more than they should for cable television services. The proprietors of cable licences have been given what has been called "a licence to print money" and, when they wish to get out of the business, to sell their share at a price at which they earn a profit on the sale of the printing press itself.
Cable prices are regulated somewhat by the CRTC. The rates are set by the commission on the basis of a number of variables. The Caplan-Sauvageau report listed those as "the quality of service provided by the operator, additional service proposed, the difference between the projected rate and the rates charged by other operators in the region, the intent of the operator to share the cost involved in providing the service, and financial need." It should be noted that the economic profile of the cable industry prepared for the Caplan-Sauvageau task force by Moss, Roberts and Associates noted the "lack of any formalized, explicit policy for rate setting."
As the Public Interest Advocacy Centre pointed out in practice, "The main criterion is how much other cable companies charge in the same area". The centre also stated: "It... means that the greediest or least efficient cable operator will apply first for a rate increase and the others will follow shortly to preserve consistency in the area whether they need the higher rates or not. Over time, the rates tend to reflect the needs of the least efficient system, which provides
September 20, 1988

service to a majority of customers to earn very handsome returns indeed. In effect these small systems are used by the larger ones as an excuse to overcharge the majority of Canadian subscribers". Think about that, Madam Speaker, to overcharge the majority of Canadian subscribers.
We in the NDP believe that cable companies deserve to earn a fair rate of return. However, Canadian consumers will pay approximately $1 billion for cable services this year, and they deserve to know that they are not being overcharged for those services. Cable, like the local telephone company, has a monopoly. One cannot change companies. Consumers deserve fairness. The amendment that we have proposed goes a fair distance to ensuring for Canadians just that fairness.
It should be noted that the cable industry is, on the whole, enormously profitable. This is particularly true in large metropolitan areas, although some small companies are less profitable. It was Canadian cable subscribers who, in large part, underwrote Ted Rogers' billion dollar American empire from the money that he made in Canada.
If one looks at the financial projections for cable over the next 15 years, as assessed by the broadcasting task force, one can see how profitable it is. If it is assumed that cable fees rise with the rate of inflation, the average return on equity would be some 25.7 per cent. This is almost double the rate of return on equity that Bell Canada is permitted, which is also a carrier and regulated.
We can well inflate the figures for the biggest cable companies. As stated earlier, the result is that consumers are and will be paying far too much to the cable monopolies. The proper criterion is NEED. Andrew Roman has stated: "The correct criterion for determining need is to allow the shareholders a return on their investments of similar risk.
This amendment picks up some of the language regulating Bell Canada in the Railway Act. We believe that it will provide the appropriate basis for setting cable rates in the future, in order that the consumer, as well as cable shareholders, are protected. It is a significant amendment for average Canadians who have cable and have to pay cable fees.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the Minister for indicating that she is prepared to accept Motion No. 63 and an amended Motion No. 66. I understand and appreciate the nature of the amendment. The Minister is perfectly right that we make that move and we will do so in due course.
Speaking to Motion 54A, moved by my friend from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), I think what he is asking makes good, solid sense. He is saying the CRTC already does this so why not put it into law?
The determination of rates outside of the cost of living adjustment I do not happen to agree with. In this case I think it should be part and parcel of the rate hearing. If there is one
Broadcasting Act
thing I have had more complaints about in the last three months, this is it. I am sure the Minister has had the same thing in her riding, although perhaps my riding is somewhat different as it has a very large English and French division. Some of the decisions of the CRTC now being implemented, on the French side by Videotron which has the responsibility to implement them, and on the English side by CF Cable, which has the option to implement them, have created some very serious concerns for both anglophone and francophone viewers in my riding. The cost increases in particular for programs which they do not want have created a lot of concern. We have even had a city council pass a motion expressing its disappointment and concern over the cost and content of the carriage in the system that they are hearing about from their constituents. Therefore, I certainly will support Motion No. 54A because I think it would perhaps settle some of the problems.
The Minister has addressed the panel and its obligation to consult. The Minister has not addressed the last one in this series, the deletion under Motion No. 64. This was brought to our attention by the Agency for TeleEducation in Canada. They felt very strongly that "another area which gives us cause is the cabinet authority in Clause 25(1 )(d). This new power appears to allow the Governor in Council to prescribe the terms under which licences can be issued to otherwise ineligible groups". Perhaps the Minister would care to respond to that. If she is refusing to allow that amendment, it would be only fair to advise the people concerned why she finds it not in the interests of the Canadian broadcasting system and where it might interfere with provincial jurisdiction.
I went to outside legal counsel and they suggest that Cabinet could direct the CRTC to prescribe conditions for provincial educational broadcasters. It strikes them that specific directions on educational programming issues challenge provincial jurisdiction over education. This appears inappropriate unless we are to reach new agreements through federal-provincial communications meetings or appeal to the courts.
The Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications took the view that the power in Clause 25(1 )(d) was too detailed and could lead to interference with the CRTC's normal regulatory and licensing process. The Minister must make a decision and let the community up there know why she is either rejecting or accepting this power which is seen as prescribing conditions for the issuance of licences to provinces. It is seen by others as diluting the federal powers in broadcasting as outlined in 3(h)(3) which I addressed in Motion No. 22.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to put to the House a proposition concerning Motion No. 66. I cannot move this because I seconded the motion, but I understand there is a disposition by other Members to do so. What we are trying to do here, with the Minister's concurrence, of course, is to remove the obligation under Clause 25(2) for the Minister to consult. She would then accept, 1 think, the amendment of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) which says that the Minister

September 20, 1988
Broadcasting Act
shall consult with the commission before the Governor in Council makes an order in subsection (1). We are removing the "s" from "subsections" and removing the "and 2". 1 understand another Member of this House is ready to move that amendment and I just wanted to explain that what we are doing is removing the consultation obligation in Clause 25(2).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, before I move the appropriate amendment I want to add my comments to those of my colleague from Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who suggested in Motion No. 54A that we add immediately after line 34 at page 11 the following:
"(a) determine whether the rates charged by distribution undertakings are at all times just and reasonable, and if they are not, may revise them accordingly."
We all know that the CRTC regulates cable companies and to a certain extent the fees they charge. It is appropriate, when you consider the role cable has come to play in the lives of ordinary Canadians, that we be somewhat more vigilant in determining what they charge to individual subscribers. I know in my constituency that people who have the opportunity to watch the proceedings of this House do so only if they are hooked up to a cable system. If for no other reason, we ought to be more sensitive to the role cable companies play in influencing the awareness of issues by Canadians.
Consider for a moment that cable companies have a monopoly in providing a community service, yet to a certain extent they are unregulated when it comes to the fees they charge. I know that as a Member of Parliament I have received correspondence on a number of occasions from people who feel that certain cable companies have been charging excessively for the services they provide. We have all heard that, at least in certain instances, owning a cable company or being a major shareholder in a cable company is akin to being able to print your own money. It is extremely lucrative. I would emphasize that is true in certain cases. I would not want to suggest that every cable company is a major money-maker because I am aware of some that are not, and which for a variety of reasons have got into some financial difficulty.
However, this very reasoned amendment from my colleague is simply saying that the rates charged to subscribers be just, reasonable and fair. I do not suppose anyone would suggest that rates charged should be anything other than that. We all recognize that as only appropriate. If rates became excessive for whatever reason, this motion would enable an intervention and revision of those rates.
I think we all recognize that at times having an outside organization keeping an eye on the goings on of a cable company with respect to their fees would be appropriate. I know the Minister feels this way herself because of the issue raised by my friend regarding the All-News network. All of us who have been supporters of the CBC over the years recognize the quality service that it has provided and the role it has played in the development of the Canadian ethic. I think the proposal for an All News network was a good one.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You didn't want a French-language one.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yet the Government, I hate to say in its wisdom because I do not think it was wisdom, because of political pressure decided not to approve the license and enable the All News network to proceed, much to the disappointment and chagrin of all progressive Canadians. Setting that aside, I think this motion put forward by my colleague is again a motion that is simply asking us to be just and reasonable. I cannot imagine anybody not supporting this.
To go on to the point made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) regarding a small change to Motion No. 66, which I understand now has the approval of all Parties involved and makes a good deal of sense, I would like to take this occasion to move an amendment to Motion No. 66. I move:
That the motion be amended in the last line by deleting the words:
"and 2", and removing the "s" from "subsections".


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I think it is very important for those who have not completely read the Bill to take a good look at it with regard to Motion No. 54A. I want to point out that Clause 3.(1)(r) states:
Distribution undertakings ... provide efficient delivery of programming at affordable rates ...
Then Clause 5.(1) requires the commission to implement the policy found in Section 3.(1). Clause 5.(2) requires the broadcasting system to be regulated in a manner that facilitates the provision of broadcasting to Canadians. Furthermore, Clause 9.(1 )(b) permits the commission to impose conditions of license to implement the policy in Clause 3.(1). Clause 10.(l)(k) allows it to make regulations to do the same thing. In other words, Madam Speaker, this issue has been addressed in the Bill. Obviously we understand the reason and the necessity for affordable rates of television throughout the country.
One other comment I would like to make is with regard to Motion No. 64. The question was raised by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) whether or not this applied beyond the scope of municipal cable companies. This clause was put into the Bill in the first place to rectify a problem that was raised by the Standing Joint Committee on Regulatory Instruments which found that the 1968 Bill did not meet this requirement. It applies solely to municipal cable companies in a way that they exist, say, in isolated communities on the Prairies or in any province. It has nothing whatsoever to do with educational broadcasters, which are independent of the province and have to come to the CRTC for their license.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam
Speaker, there being an amendment, that allows me to speak again. I think it is a very specious argument that there are affordable rates buried in the Bill in these clauses.
September 20, 1988


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is right up front in the major section.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I think you have to look at them very closely and put that together. I do not think for a moment the Bill tackles the problem of excessive cable fees. If you double my phone bill, for example, you could still call it an affordable rate and I could still pay it. But the phone company is regulated as such. It looks at the rate of return-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You get some value.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -what kind of rate of return it is getting here compared to other businesses, the service that is provided, et cetera. This amendment attempts to deal with the real issue. It talks about the rates, making sure at all times that they are just and reasonable and they can be revised accordingly. This really sets it down. I do not know what the cable companies have on this Government or this Government has with the cable companies. They seem to be kissing cousins. They are more than kissing cousins in this one.
In this Bill the cable companies are the big winners. They get to broadcast as well as just transmit. As I said before, it will make it really difficult to regulate their rate of return in the future because of that. If the Minister would just listen, what is it that these cable companies have with the Government? They are immensely profitable. I cited all the reports. Canadians are complaining. We have complaints about the increases. Why is the Government not tackling that? Why will it not meet the demands of the ordinary Canadian here and not accept a clause like this which gives the CRTC some real power, some real terms, not just previous terms that were in the Bill, and some real criteria with which to regulate those rates so that average Canadians and their families can pay a fair rate of return for their cable, which is an essential service.
Let me conclude by saying something to the people in British Columbia who will be watching this at a time three hours earlier than where we are here. Many people in B.C. think that provincial politics are the really important politics and that federal politics are just out there and not that important. I say to them, and I hope they will consider this, that their telephone rates are regulated federally, cable rates could be regulated partly federally, and their income taxes are regulated federally and so on. So many of the day-to-day issues are regulated by the federal Government. British Columbians should take interest in the upcoming federal election and look at what Party is prepared to deal with fairness for average Canadians and their families. This is the perfect issue here with cable rates. This Government is very cozy with its big, rich friends in the industry, ignoring the interests of average Canadians. This is why it is rejecting this amendment today. Make no mistake about it, Madam Speaker.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). I think his amendment put forward here is an appropriate one. It states:
Broadcasting Act
That Clause 9 be amended by adding immediately after line 34:
Determine whether the rates charged by distribution, undertakings are at all times just and reasonable and if they are not, may revise them accordingly."
I cannot get together in the Nickel Belt area with a couple of people and start a cable company because Northern Cable Services has the monopoly. It has been given the license to provide the cable services in the Nickel Belt area which is made up of the City of Sudbury and a large rural community.
We are told that the CRTC regulates the cable companies. One of the things not effectively regulated by the CRTC is the question of the rates. People in the Nickel Belt area know that, for example, Bell Canada, which has been given a charter to provide telephone service in the Province of Ontario, when it wants a rate increase has to go before the CRTC to justify it. The CRTC looked at the profitability, at all the funny little games that Bell Canada used to play in the past with its subsidiaries. Northern Telecom used to charge Bell Telephone an arm and a leg for the little piece of telephone equipment that was required, so Bell Canada was always showing that it was not making money when it fact it was its subsidiaries that were doing this. After a long process, Bell Canada had to justify this. Oftentimes, the CRTC would not approve the increases. In fact in some cases, Bell Canada was forced to reduce its rates retroactively.
The same is not so with the cable companies. The CRTC has no power to determine whether in fact requested rate increases are fair, justifiable and reasonable. This amendment attempts to deal with that. It attempts to provide the CRTC with the ability to see whether those rates are fair and reasonable. I think that is what the consumers want.
Many of the consumers of cable services in my riding are retired folk, older Canadians, and television has become a very big part of their lives in retirement. We can almost call it an essential service for that element of society, yet they are captive to the rates being charged.
I think the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has put forward a very thoughtful amendment, and 1 would urge Hon. Members to support it. I think it is essential, in a regulated monopoly, that the regulating body have the power to determine whether the rates charged are reasonable and fair, not just in comparison with what other cable companies in the region are charging. That ought not to be the main factor in determining the rates. It ought to be the profitability of the company, what is fair and what the market in the local area will bear.
I have not seen any of these cable companies going out of business. The Hon. Member referred to the relationship between the Tories and the cable companies. I would like to know about the election contributions of the cable companies to the Conservative Party. I wish the Minister would show as

September 20, 1988
Broadcasting Act
much spunk with respect to the CRTC and the cable companies as she showed when she interviewed on the all-news channel. I would like to see some spunk here as well.
I ask Hon. Members to support this amendment. It is fair and reasonable and I think it should be supported.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first question is on Motion No. 54A standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said 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 nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 63 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mr. Finestone). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 63 (Mrs. Finestone) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 64 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). 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 nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 66 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the motion?


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The final question is on Motion No. 66, as amended, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 66 (Mrs. Finestone), as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next group consists of Motion Nos. 71, 73 and 76. They are grouped for debate. Motion No. 71 will be voted on separately. A vote on Motion No. 73 will apply to Motion No. 76.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 71
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 34 by adding immediately after line 29 at page 24 the following:
"(3) The Minister shall consult with the Chairman before the Governor in
Council makes an appointment to the Board."
Motion No. 73
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 39 by striking out line 14 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"hold office for a term not exceeding seven".
Motion No. 76
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 74 by striking out line 20 at page 45 and substituting the following therefor:
"behaviour for a term not exceeding seven".
She said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to have the Minister consult on appointments to the Board of Directors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We find some very specific criteria in Clause 35 which defines the essential qualifications for such appointments. A person is not eligible to be appointed or to continue as a director if the person is not a Canadian citizen ordinarily resident in Canada or if, directly or indirectly, as owner, shareholder, director, officer or partner or otherwise, the person is engaged in the operation of a broadcasting undertaking; has any pecuniary or proprietary interest in a broadcasting undertaking; or is
September 20, 1988

principally engaged in the production or distribution of program material suitable for use by a broadcasting undertaking. It is a matter of amounts or percentages when we are talking about "principally engaged in the production", etc.
I submitted for consideration the fact that Clause 36 provides that a person who is engaged in the production or distribution of program material suitable for use by a broadcasting undertaking may be appointed a director of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, provided it is not his principal activity. The Board of Directors believes that before the person is appointed a director of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, there should be consultation between the Chairman of the Board and the Minister. We make this suggestion in view of the very real possibility of a conflict of interest being created by such appointments, and that is why I moved this amendment and this motion.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Parliamentary Secretary, on a point of order.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), but I believe that you will find unanimous consent in the House to continue the debate after one o'clock.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, we are quite prepared to complete report stage debate on this today, with the clear understanding that the vote on the amendment will occur at three o'clock.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I concur that we could finish report stage, but I have not been consulted nor have I been given a chance to state my views as to whether the vote should be held at three o'clock or later on today. I would like to reserve on that. I agree that we would finish with report stage and the vote would be deferred by the Whips as usual at the time of the Whips' judgment call.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I thank the two Opposition parties for agreeing to continue the debate, but as for the time of the vote, obviously, there will be discussions in the next few minutes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I want to make it very clear that consultations are taking place at this moment. We are agreeing to complete the report stage debate right now, to facilitate this particular stage of the Bill, with the clear understanding that the vote would be taken immediately after three o'clock on the amendments. If that is not understood, then I am afraid it is one o'clock.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I think that it is very clear that these discussions are taking place immediately, that is, I cannot discuss this while I am here-but I can agree in principle that the vote be held at three o'clock, as the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has just suggested.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I understand that my colleague has a holiday this afternoon. I know it will be difficult for him. Why don't we just call it one o'clock now, and we can finish this off some other day?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We will finish it this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It seems extremely difficult for the Chair to decide at this time, because there is no unanimity on the whole subject of consideration of the motions and amendments and the time of the vote. I must therefore say that it being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, despite the denials of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), the truth about his plans to cut further the number of his employees is emerging. A top official says that senior staff were told last Friday to put off cuts for the time being but were not told of changes to the policy of cutting 361 jobs over the next two years.
The Public Service Alliance has a document prepared by Environment Canada setting out a timetable for cutting 742 jobs over the next five years. Since Friday last the Director of Personnel Policies in Environment Canada has been muzzled after confirming the proposed cuts.
All of this is familiar. Be it toxic chemicals in the St. Clair River, PCBs, or departmental budget figures, when the story told by Environment Canada staff conflicts with that of the Minister we see desperate denials and muzzling of staff.

September 20, 1988
We hope Mr. Marks, Director of Personnel Policies, will not end up herding muskox in Ellesmere Island National Park as a reward for speaking the truth.



THE LATE JACQUES BEAUCHAMP

Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, the great family of sports fans in Quebec lost a friend, a giant of the sporting world and one of its most distinguished ambassadors, Jacques Beauchamp.
Jacques Beauchamp was a man loved and respected by all, for his simplicity, his honesty, his frankness, his big heart and his devotion. The Abitibi-Temiscamingue region will keep a cherished memory of this man who did not hesitate to put his trust in one of our local people, Ghislain Luneau, also a sports journalist, who died in a tragic car accident.
Jacques Beauchamp came to our region several times and in his daily column, he regularly kept his readers informed of the people and the sports events in our area.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my fellow citizens and on my own behalf, I would like to extend my sincerest condolences to his wife and family as well as his co-workers.



ABORIGINAL PEOPLES


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government, under the pen of Erik Nielsen and the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), produced a document known as the "Buffalo Jump of the 1980s". Similar to the Liberal White Paper of Jean Chretien of the early 1970s, it proposed assimilation of Canada's aboriginal people and extinguishment of their rights.
The implementation of this plan is now in full flight. Bands presently require over 10,000 homes. These are desperately required by families presently sharing accommodations or living in substandard dwellings.
Earlier this month the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) admitted to me:
Following discussions with Treasury Board, CMHC made slight cuts this
year in its social housing program.
Over the past decade 4,295 units lapsed from CMHC programs due to poor management by the Minister and his Department, a figure not disputed by the Minister. The same
Minister has identified needs for 21,000 new units but has yet even to approach Treasury Board with a submission.
Without adequate housing or jobs there is little choice for most first citizens but to move. This, of course, is precisely what the Conservatives planned and anticipate. By adding to this, cuts in administrative budgets, economic development, and education, and refusing to settle comprehensive and specific claims, the Conservative plans for assimilation and extinguishment gain momentum.



OLYMPIC GAMES-STATUS OF UKRAINE AND THREE BALTIC STATES

Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, close to 100 Ukrainian athletes are participating in the Olympic Games being held in Seoul, Korea. They are the pride of their homeland, yet none of them will be carrying the flag of Ukraine. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were once members of the Olympic movement. Yet they, too, have been denied independent participation by Moscow.
The Soviet Government claims that these countries cannot participate independently because it would violate the Olympic Charter. Yet the President of the IOC has contradicted this claim and the Charter itself states that any nation or dependency which forms its own national Olympic committee may join.
We share in the pride of our own Canadian olympians and this only serves to underscore the injustice to the fine young athletes who have been denied, by Moscow, the opportunity to represent their homeland.
I call on the Government of Canada to issue a formal protest to Soviet officials against this flagrant violation of the Olympic Charter and fundamental human rights, and to demand that Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Ukraine take their rightful place with the Olympic family.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have some very serious concerns that the Government has a hidden agenda with respect to the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I believe that the Government intends to privatize this Crown corporation.
Legislation has been passed to drop the Industrial Development Division from the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Second, the Government is supporting a new coal mine in
September 20, 1988

Pictou County which will impact negatively, both on the future and the present operations of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
There is a clear lack of progress with regard to the Lingan Mine in New Waterford. This lack of progress at Lingan Mine will cause 100 workers to be dropped from the payroll by April 1, 1989. I realize that senior members of the United Mine Workers of America are trying to consummate an agreement with the Cape Breton Development Corporation to ensure that this does not take place.
The real problem with the Cape Breton Development Corporation is here in Ottawa with the Conservative policies that relate to coal development in eastern Nova Scotia.
In addition, no effort has been exerted by the Government with regard to the Donkin Coal Mine. Here we have a coal mine ready to go into production but the Conservative Government of Canada provides monies to a new company to open a new coal mine in Pictou County.
I find this appalling in view of the tremendous history of commitment been made by previous Governments to the miners of Cape Breton.



AIDS DISEASE-PROPOSED FREE HYPODERMIC NEEDLES FOR DRUG ADDICTS

Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Ottawa-Carleton Health Department has joined Toronto and Montreal in considering giving free hypodermic needles to drug addicts to help combat the spread of AIDS. I find this type of initiative disgusting. We should be finding ways of curtailing drug use, not looking for ways to continue it.
Consider this. No diabetics receive free hypodermic needles to inject insulin each day in order to live. Diabetics did not choose to contract the disease. Drug addicts, on the other hands, chose to use drugs and they have the option to curtail their use. Diabetics have no such options. They have to inject insulin for the rest of their lives.
If any free needles are to be given, it should be to those who medically need them. In fact, these three boards of health should concentrate on helping individuals who truly require assistance rather than indirectly condoning drug use.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, today is the United Nations International Day of Peace. In calling the attention of the House to this particular day I have a couple of points which I would like to make.
First, with respect to a lot of the optimism which surrounded the INF agreement and what one might almost call a dangerously relaxed view of the world now toward the issue of nuclear disarmament, we need to remember that the INF was only a beginning and that the Canadian Government and others should be very careful that it not simply become the end of one era and the beginning of a new era of modernization of nuclear weapons through sea-launched and air-launched Cruise missiles, et cetera. It is very important that that be seen.
Second, when we talk about peace we should be careful that we do not commit the sin of the false prophets who cry "peace, peace" when there is no peace.
We should remember always those people whose oppression sometimes dwells in obscurity. I think of the Kurds of Iraq, the people who were recently massacred in Burundi, and the people of East Timor who have been oppressed by the Indonesian majority. These people do not make the headlines but are nonetheless human beings and part of our common humanity. We should be paying more attention to them when we talk about peace. There can be no peace without justice.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, Albertans are pleased to learn that Nellie Mildred Carlson of Edmonton is a 1988 Persons Award recipient, one of only five across Canada.
The Persons Award recognizes outstanding contributions toward improving the status of women in Canada by celebrating the efforts of five well-known Alberta women pioneers; Emily Murphy, Louise McKinney, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlley, and Henrietta Muir Edwards. These Five outstanding pioneer Alberta women were instrumental in petitioning constitutional amendments in 1929 to allow women to be appointed to the Senate.
Nellie Carlson has been a dedicated promoter of native women's rights in Alberta. Albertans are justly proud of the historical contributions Alberta women have made to Canadian society.

September 20, 1988



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker,
The Cabinet announced yesterday that it was giving a salary increase to Mr. Donald Lander, President of the
... Canada . . .
... Post Corporation, but refused to specify the amount.
What is known is that the salary for Mr. Lander's position was between $175,000 and $205,000. It is now between $189,000 and $221,400.
Furthermore, over the summer, the President of Canada Post was to receive 25 per cent in bonuses. On a salary of $205,000, Mr. Speaker, that makes $51,250. Adding the two increases together gives a total of $67,500, or a 33 per cent increase, Mr. Speaker; 33 per cent for the President of Canada Post and 3 per cent for the employees. That is a Conservative Government for you, Mr. Speaker: the rich get richer and the poor are always poorer.
* *
*



FREE TRADE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, 57 per cent of Quebecers questioned on free trade believe that it will be beneficial. The Government of Quebec has made its position on free trade official and its manifesto analyzing free trade from the Quebec point of view comes out in favour of free trade.
The Leader of the Opposition in Quebec, Jacques Parizeau, has made the Parti Quebecois's position official in a preface to Bernard Landry's book Commerce sans frontieres ("Trade Without Boundaries"). Quebecers want free trade, which has been good for auto workers in Ontario for 23 years, to apply to all workers in Canada and to every Canadian province.
That is the message they will give in the coming elections.



CANADIAN HERITAGE


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, the CPR still haunts the Canadian people through its former president who is now a Liberal Senator.
Bill C-205 is a Private Members' Bill proposed by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) which would help Canada keep part of its heritage by allowing us to preserve our historic railway stations. We had all-Party agreement in the House of Commons and the House of Commons committee, but preserving our heritage does not seem to matter much in the infernal other place. They have stalled Bill C-205 by having it sent to a committee for study.
The former CPR president, now a Liberal hack in the Senate, is telling this country that, after all the people of Canada have done to support and build the CPR and CNR for a hundred years, with land grants, cash grants, loans and tax breaks, it is just not important to them to preserve the physical reminders of our railroad history. This is the thanks we get as taxpayers from the CNR and CPR for ensuring their viability.
This insulting arrogance on the part of railroads continues. The latest example is the unconscionable behaviour of the Government and the CNR in the treatment of employees and independent truckers by Route Canada. It is a swindle of the taxpayers, the employees, and the contracted independent truckers.
It is with great sadness that I must report to you and the Canadian people that both the Tories and the Liberals, as well as the railroads, today stand convicted of arrogance and callous insensitivity to the needs, hopes, and history of our country.
* *
*



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I was disturbed to read in the Ottawa Citizen today that consultants are suggesting that the National Capital Commission ban downhill skiing at Camp Fortune in the Gatineau Hills.
This apparently is one of the dozens of suggestions in four plans for the redevelopment of Gatineau Park over the next
five years.
I consider myself to be an environmentalist. I have spoken many times in this place on environmental issues. I strongly support greater conservation measures at all national parks, but we must strike a reasonable balance between conservation and recreation.
One of the many wonderful features of life in the nation's capital is easy access to excellent recreational and skiing facilities. To ban skiing at Camp Fortune totally, allegedly in the name of conservation, would be sheer idiocy.
September 20, 1988



THE LATE JACQUES BEAUCHAMP

Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, "Monsieur Jacques", as Pierre Peladeau called him so well, has passed away. Jacques Beauchamp, whom I had the pleasure to know, was a builder, a communicator, a man loved by all sports fans.
As kind and generous a man as could be, he made his mark on hundreds of journalists whom he helped and inspired and on Quebecers, man and women alike. He was a father to so many people in the trade that I cannot name them in the time available to us.
A hard worker, he was a great inspiration to all around him in journalism. An innovator, he helped set up the widely read newspaper Le Journal de Montreal.
To his family, I extend my sincerest condolences and those of my Party. To all his friends, and especially to Pierre Peladeau and Maurice T. Custeau, I want to say that I share their sorrow.



FUR TRAPPING INDUSTRY


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this year Parliament successfully came to the defence of our trappers and our fur industry over the British fur labelling issue. However, we must not become complacent.
Goaded by a combination of animal rights activists and former British Labour Party MP's such as Barbara Castle and Clinton Davis, the European Parliament has adopted an antiCanadian fur labelling resolution.
The Government of Canada must redouble its efforts to protect the livelihood of Canadian trappers.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, postal rates are going up again but some residents who pay those same rates do not get equal service. I rise on behalf of the residents of Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, and Coquitlam, British Columbia, who have written to me protesting the installation of supermailboxes in their community.
Oral Questions
Mr. John Collins writes: "We are both senior citizens and I am in a wheelchair. No consideration or thought went into allotting our postal superbox. Our's is the second row from the top and hard for me to reach from my wheelchair".
Beth Christianson writes: "Collecting mail from a superbox is a hardship not only for seniors and the disabled, but also for mothers at home with very young children".
Are these mothers or fathers, as the case may be, supposed to hire a babysitter every time they have to pick up their mail?
Let us get rid of these Mulroney superboxes and give our seniors, our handicapped, and the Canadian public in general the door-to-door service of mail they deserve and have paid for.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Because the Government appears to be in such obscene haste to privatize everything that moves, the Conservative Government is directly responsible for crushing and destroying the livelihood of thousands of employees of Route Canada.
Over 2,000 men and women with families to support have no severance pay, no pension benefits, and now no jobs. Three hundred truckers are out of pocket an average of $13,000 each. Thanks to the Government's policy of privatization, and the privatization of the trucking arm of CN, a couple of people now have real estate worth tens of millions of dollars, and thousands of people are out on the street and out of work.
Why has the Government, which is responsible for this privatization, not already arranged for some interim support for the employees who are out of a job as a result of this privatization, and for the 300 truckers who now have no contract, are carrying their machines under debt and are in an impossible position? Why has the Government not given some interim help until they can get back on their feet?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions, the Minister of Labour, the Minister responsible for financial institutions and myself have explained in the House that in 1986, because Canadian National was losing $70 million, it could either shut down Route Canada or sell it-which it did-to the private sector, which meant that 2,700 workers, less the 600 for which it would become responsible later on, were able to keep their jobs. Mr. Speaker, there were two options. One was to shut down the company, while the other was, basically, to sell to the private sector and thus guarantee these workers a job. That is

September 20, 1988
Oral Questions
what CN did, and, Mr. Speaker, until further notice, if the Leader of the Opposition can show us the papers, fine! However, we have yet to see any notice of bankruptcy or other paper that would lead us to believe that the company has not only stopped operating but has gone bankrupt. If the Leader of the Opposition has such evidence, perhaps he will be so kind as to send us a copy.


REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT PUBLIC INQUIRY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is not responsible for privatization.
Every day of unemployment worsens the situation for these truckers. They need an operating licence and immediate assistance to compensate for the losses they have incurred.
When drought wiped out the harvest of Western farmers, the Canadian Government quite rightly offered several million dollars in assistance. Today, as a direct consequence of this Government's privatization policy, these truckers are suffering incredible losses, and the Government won't help them. They are deprived of their means of making a living because of this Government's brutal policy.
Mr. Speaker, we know from experience that we cannot count on this Government to investigate its own actions and shortcomings. Will the Government hold an independent public inquiry to determine why the Government acted this stupid and brutal fashion toward these truckers and employees?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear what the Leader of the Opposition has said. He should know that Route Canada is a private company.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benoît Bouchard: I am very happy to know-and I want Canadians to know this-every time a private sector company faces difficulties the Leader of the Opposition wants to inject money. In regard to this private company, which three years ago was the property of CN but which for two years has been a private company, the Leader of the Opposition wants us to inject money.
I want to repeat something which I said in French. There is no document at the present time which declares officially that Route Canada is bankrupt. The right hon. gentleman wants us to give it money and yet it has not declared bankruptcy.


SITUATION OF TRUCKERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to turn back to the Deputy Prime Minister
who is in charge of privatization and who once had responsibility for transport.
This is a direct result of the privatization of Route Canada. This type of political fraud and Tory economics ruins any faith in our system in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I had trouble getting on the Hill today but I finally had an opportunity to meet with demonstrators. I understand their anger.
I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question, and I hope he responds. When the Prime Minister returns to the capital-and I understand he is on government business today-will the Deputy Prime Minister remind him that during the last election, and since, the Prime Minister boasted that he was once a trucker? Let him have some sympathy with the truckers who are now in an impossible position as a result of the politics of the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister ordered this privatization. CN privatized its trucking system. The company is nearly belly-up. A few Canadians have ended up with millions of dollars of real estate. Some 300 truckers are out on the dole, 2,000 other employees are out. For God's sake, give us an answer that makes sense.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand the Liberal policy but I cannot.
There was nothing to do with privatization in this case.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benoît Bouchard: In 1986, CN lost $70 million. It has lost money for 10 consecutive years since 1978. Yet the Liberal Government which was in power during that time was never bothered by this question-absolutely not. When $100 million was lost the Liberal Government was not worried. Today, in 1988, CN is not losing that money.
The type of policy that the hon. gentleman proposes to Canadians is that if it is a private company which is losing money then it should receive money from the Government. It was such actions which resulted in the type of deficit created by the Liberal Government in the 20 years it was in power before we took office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISPOSAL OF COMPANY ASSETS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question likewise is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Government has taken a Crown corporation,
September 20, 1988

CN Route, sold it, and the private sector buyers split it into two companies. One was for the trucking assets, and the other was for the property. The private owners then took mortgages on the real estate, along with moneys they saved by not paying their bills for supplies such as tires and gasoline, bought Holmes Transportation, a trucking company in the United States with 30 terminals, and then closed the private company in Canada, throwing almost 3,000 Canadians out of work.
Why did the Government finance and allow this private sector company to bleed the assets of a former Crown corporation, buy a company in the United States, and close the company in Canada throwing 3,000 Canadians out of work?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member is a trustworthy Member. However, the story that he has just related is not true. There is no document to support what he has said.
He talked about real estate. He talked about the operations of the company. What document does he have to substantiate what he has said?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What about the facts?


Benoît Bouchard: Once again, in 1986 there were two options. The Liberals did not deal with the second one. What they would want to do if CN lost $70 million is they would like to close the shop. It would be because a company with a $70 million deficit could not operate.


MORTGAGES ISSUED ON COMPANY PROPERTY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of State for Transport said that his officials assessed the land value of Route Canada Real Estate Incorporated at $34 million. Why is it then that on this sheet of paper that I have in my hand it shows that Royal Trust has given $80 million in mortgage funding to Route Canada Real Estate Incorporated? Is the Government saying that Royal Trust overvalued the property by $46 million? Or is the Government saying it undervalued the property by $51 million? Is the Minister saying that the trust company is stupid? Let us find out. Tell us. Canadians want to know.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will be very short. I will ask my hon. friend to table the document to which he refers. We will then see if it is true.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is a phoney request.


CN ROUTE-AUTHORIZATION FOR PRIVATIZATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the same subject to address to the Deputy Prime Minister who responded yesterday in a way that misled the House-
Oral Questions


Mr. Shields:: Come on!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: If he could control the yappers behind him-I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister did so inadvertently. However, I want to give him a chance to clarify the record.
We now know this. Two years ago in this privatization move the company, which at that time was CN, was obligated to keep its trucking operations going for three years. It has not done so. It is a company about which there have been serious questions raised concerning the value of the real estate. Some 300 truckers and their families have been seriously affected, as well as others. These factors were all part of the deal.
With reference to the claim that the Government was responsible the Minister stated in the House yesterday in reply to my colleague: "No, I am not the guy that privatized it. It was CNR." My colleague stated: "You ordered them to." The Deputy Prime Minister said: "It was a business decision which CNR undertook."
I have a copy in my hand of an Order in Council decision from the fall of 1986 that authorized the privatization of this enterprise by CN, without which decision it could not have taken place.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that it was the Cabinet that made a decision that authorized this privatization and, if so, is the Cabinet not obligated to make sure the obligations undertaken at that time were lived up to?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is deliberating with more precision today than he normally does.
The fact of the matter is that this clearly was an initiative by the CN which was approved by the Government of Canada.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT ON ISSUE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government said it was not responsible for it being privatized. Today it was an initiative taken by CN, but approved by the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister has just acknowledged that the Conservative Government is responsible for this decision. That is what he has done.
If we have now got the Minister to tell the whole truth today, which he did not do yesterday, and since there are more than 300 truckers' families directly affected to the tune of thousands of dollars each, and a few thousand other employees who have their pension plans and health benefits skewered by the company, will the Government live up to its moral obligations and do something about rectifying this situation for the Canadians affected?

September 20, 1988
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I not only try to live up to the truth, I like to conduct myself in a manner that would be perceived as living up to the truth.
I suspect that under the terms and conditions of the Financial Administration Act, or the Crown Corporations Act, because it is a Crown corporation it would ultimately have to have that approval.


REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH WORKERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the privatization CN issued a press statement that said, among other things, that it took a lower price than otherwise would have been the case because it wanted to keep the trucking business in business; second, that it would do so for three years, not two years.
Since there have been serious questions raised about pension benefits for workers, and perhaps a totally inaccurate value given to the real estate transactions, will the Deputy Prime Minister now undertake to do three things: meet with the workers who are in town today who would like a meeting to have their concerns addressed; second, undertake an immediate inquiry into that decision and its consequences; and third, do something about redressing the serious, unfair injury that has been done to many Canadian workers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude from the comments of the Leader of the NDP that he would much rather have seen CN shut the operation down completely at that time.


John Edward Broadbent: Come on!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That was an option that could have been considered-


Nelson Andrew Riis: An unacceptable option.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As the Minister of Transport indicated, and has reminded the House on many occasions, this firm was losing some $71 million in 1986, and it lost money consistently for ten years.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Will you meet with them?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: CN management and the operation wanted to redress that.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Will you meet with them?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not aware whether we have been invited to meet with them.


Mr. Boudria:: Everybody else is aware except you.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the Hon. Member wishes to ask a question, I am sure Mr. Speaker will allow him to do so.


Don Boudria: I will.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I can assure the Hon. Member in the New Democratic Party that I may not be able to meet with them personally, but I am sure that the Minister of Transport would be glad to meet with the representatives.


TRANSPORT ROUTE CANADA INC.-REQUEST THAT MINISTER HELP INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who, like Pontius Pilate, preferred to wash his hands, saying it was a private company.
What I want to know is not whether the Minister of Transport has the documents. We are talking about human beings who have specific problems, who have monthly payments to meet, and the Minister of Transport seems to have forgotten the harsh facts of life that face Canadians who are laid off.
My question to the Minister fo Transport is simply this: The independent truckers are entitled to about $13,000 and they need that to make their monthly payments. The bank is not going to wait until the Minister has his documents and the findings of his investigations.
Is the Minister prepared to take some concrete action to provide financial assistance for those affected by the savage shutdown of this company? Will he help the independent truckers? Yes or no?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Hon. Member for Shefford can argue as much as he wants, but after four years, this is not going to impress very many people in this country, especially in Quebec.
I may remind the Hon. Member once more: We know the Liberal Party's policy and we don't need to be reminded of what it was like. We may do some reminding ourselves if we have to. Mr. Speaker, the issue is simply this: In 1986, 2,700 workers were going to lose their jobs because CN had to close down. It had annnual deficit of $70 million. There was an offer to sell, and there were thirty bids. It was sold to a company that maintained the jobs of 2,700 employees less the 600 that received severance pay from CN, and today, I repeat, there has been no official notice. If you want to invoke any evidence, we will see what it's worth later on.
In any case, right now there has been no notice of bankruptcy or official liquidation notice. An application for bankruptcy was filed in the province of Quebec. The application has been postponed until October 4.
So before playing on the emotions of Quebecers, I think the Hon. Member should start by looking at the procedure that is customary in such cases.
September 20, 1988


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is completely out of touch with ordinary people and their day-to-day problems. The 2,300 people who lost their jobs are waiting for severance pay, holiday cheques, money owed to them. They are not waiting for documents. The only documents they need are cheques to meet their end-of-the-month payments and lay-off papers-that kind of practical documents. Has the Minister forgotten the realities of living out there just because he made it to Cabinet?
Here is my question to the Minister: Is he prepared to do something for the laid-off workers and for the operators who lost their contracts? What concrete measure is he prepared to take instead of simply waiting for court documents and what else? The court will go after these people if they fail to make their monthly payments.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if there were official lay-off notices, and if on the part of...


Jean-C. Lapierre: There were no lay-off notices!


Benoît Bouchard: Well yes, but my colleague says there were no lay-off notices. Of course, Mr. Speaker, as the Liberals are wont to do, they say anything without checking the facts. We know what happened after the Liberals intervened in 1982 when they gave Maislin $34 million. A year later the company closed shop, so the Government must have lost the $34 million. Is that what you want?


EMPLOYEES' PENSION FUND
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, last week in answers given by the Minister of State for Finance about the losses alleged by some of the people working for this company in respect to their pension benefits, the Minister stated that the company had paid the money which it was obligated to pay into the pension fund.
We were told today that a cheque for $600,000 to cover its obligations that was sent to the Ontario Teamsters' Pension Fund by Route Canada bounced.
I want to ask the Minister what he is prepared to do to see that the pension money, which these employees paid into their pension fund, will in fact be protected.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, and also in answer to the question put by the Hon. Member for Oshawa who mentioned that the pensions may be, to use his word, "skewered", whatever that means-


John Edward Broadbent: I will send you a dictionary.


Thomas Hockin: No. I will be happy to tell the Hon. Member what the situation is, because he is asking for the answer, and
Oral Questions
it is very important that we know where everybody's situation is with regard to pensions, and that is what the question was.
The payments for pension arrears up to the end of July have been submitted by the employer via the Royal Bank, and 90 per cent of the cheques have cleared. The contributions for August have to be in by the end of September. Therefore, there are a few days yet to know what the contributions will be for August. However, 90 per cent of the contributions have been made for July.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Better check that.


Thomas Hockin: I might take this opportunity to tell the Hon. Member that, with regard to payroll, and that is a very great concern for Route Canada, it is in place up to September 24. The bank that is handling this matter will clear the payroll to ensure that those employees are paid. That has been cleared with the creditors as well as Revenue Canada.


COSTS INCURRED BY TRUCK OWNERS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the information given by the Minister does not square with the information that we were given this morning. I can assure the Minister that we will check into it.


Jack Wendele Shields: You can't always rely on Shirley Carr.


Mr. Nystrom:: Shut up, Jack.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Give Jack another hand-out for the oil companies.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister a question about insurance. The truckers were obligated by the company to pay 4.8 cents a mile to cover insurance on their trucks. The company decided that it would carry the insurance itself. Now many of the truckers whose trucks are in service stations and garages being overhauled or tuned up find that they cannot get their trucks because the company will not pay the bills. The Superintendent of Insurance says the plan Route Canada had is not covered by our insurance laws and regulations.
Will the Minister look into what has happened and see what can be done to let these people get their trucks so they can begin earning a living?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be reminded that the trucking company is in receivership and the Receiver is dealing with that and all other matters.


SALE PRICE OF CN ROUTE
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, the House is witnessing an incredible spectacle today. We have 2,300 Route Canada employees out of work. We have

September 20, 1988
Oral Questions
300 truckers who no longer have running rights even if they were able to work. We have $3 million worth of trucking equipment here today as part of a protest. People have come here at their own expense to make a point. We have an application for bankruptcy before a Quebec court. Then we have a Minister who says: "Where is the evidence of a problem?"
I want to ask the Minister a question he has so far not answered. Flow is it that the Cabinet, according to the Deputy Prime Minister a moment ago, approved the sale of Route Canada, or CN Route as it was then called, for $29 million, when I have in my hand a certificate of title which shows that the new owners of Route Canada in the fall of 1987 raised some $80 million through a mortgage on the assets of that company?
I repeat the question. Is the Minister telling the House that the banks overvalued the assets by $50 million? Or is he admitting for the first time that the Government undervalued the assets by $50 million in selling that company, fully aware that the intention was to split off the real estate and abandon the 2,300 Canadian employees?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will be very short because the answer will interest everyone here. We would like to save 2,700 jobs.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET TRUCKERS' REPRESENTATIVES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that the Government knew these 2,300 people would be out of work but the game plan was to have these people laid off not by a Crown corporation but by a private sector corporation. Hopefully it would be after an election, but unfortunately it happened before. The reward for doing the dirty work was a $50 million windfall. That is what happened here.
The truckers are here today. They are in our gallery. They have questions to which they have not got answers. They want to know that someone cares and is willing to listen. Will the Minister commit himself right now to meeting the truckers and their representatives immediately after Question Period this day and answer their questions so he can find out, yes, there is a human face called misery and there is a problem?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister said I will be available to meet those workers just after Question Period and I will.
I will just remind the House of the consistency of the policy of the Liberal Party. In 1986 they proposed that we could close the shop. We could lose 2,700 jobs. Look at the policy of the Liberal Party. In 1986 they wanted CN to close the shop. They had two options. One was to close the shop, or sell the company to Route Canada.
I said before in French that is the same kind of policy they used in 1982 with Maislin. They put $34 million into that
company to save jobs. One year afterwards everything was in bankruptcy and the Government lost $34 million.


REQUEST THAT WORKERS HAVE FIRST CALL ON COMPANY ASSETS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my leader made available the Order in Council passed by Cabinet in which the Government gave its blessing, authorization and, I suspect, orders to CNR to get rid of CN Route. It seems to me there is some responsibility on the part of the Deputy Prime Minister in charge of privatization. Will he assure this House that the employees and the for-hire truckers working for CN Route, subsequently Route Canada, will have first call on all the assets and/or cash, if any, until they have been paid what is owing to them?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member had been listening to my answer to the question from his colleague. The fact is the payroll will be met up until September 24. I am very pleased to confirm that has been arranged with the creditors and the Department of National Revenue. It is not being responsible to raise doubts about that.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ASSIST TRUCKERS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, there are truckers sitting in the gallery of this House today to whom Route Canada owes $10,000, $12,000, $15,000 or $20,000 for the freight they hauled just in the last few weeks. The Government bailed out banks, trust companies, Massey-Ferguson, which by the way disappeared, but it cannot bail out the taxpayers of Canada.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that the Government will provide the same kind of treatment to the for-hire truckers and employees of Route Canada as it provided to the banks and trust companies?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, there is an astonishing premise behind the question. It is really a request, not a question. The Hon. Member is asking for the normal orderly procedures which go on in any kind of receivership to be short-circuited or ignored. Those procedures are fair for the people of Canada, and that is what should be followed.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Canadians welcome the new PCB storage regulations but are apprehensive about the fact there was no announcement of an
September 20, 1988

increase in the number of inspectors required to ensure enforcement of these regulations.
In light of the five-year plan for reductions in the Department of the Environment, which we debated yesterday, and in light of the fact that the budget of Environment Canada cannot keep pace with inflation, will the Minister indicate how he intends to ensure the effective enforcement of the regulations on the 2,000 PCB sites across Canada?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is replete with inaccuracies and falsehoods. He says the budget of Environment Canada, supplemented as it has been by resources from other Departments, has been unable to keep up with inflation. That is a total and utter falsehood.
For example, I have been successful in getting from Cabinet 56 additional person-years to enforce the Canadian Environmental Protection Act under which we are taking action with respect to the subject of PCBs to which he made reference. Thanks to a decision rendered today by Cabinet, I will be making an announcement tomorrow on this subject which I think will be welcome news to the Hon. Member and to other Members.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is referring to 56 inspectors to enforce an Act which covers all our toxic substances. In addition, they will have the responsibility for inspecting and enforcing regulations regarding these PCB sites of which there are over 2,000. How can he do a proper job with 56 inspectors?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is rooted in the assumption that a government-wide size reduction fiat that applies fairly uniformly across the government, affecting different Departments, will not be modified as far as Environment Canada is concerned. That is false. It has been modified, I think, 492 times between 1984-85 and the current fiscal year 1988-89. In the current fiscal year, Sir-we are only five months into it-we have already had 132 modifications to that cut-back program.
In addition to the 56 person-years we have been able to get for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we were able to get 12 additional person-years in water quality monitoring and, shellfish harvesting areas, and to mention one other only-I could mention many others-we were able to get 17 additional person-years for the St. Lawrence River clean-up.
Again, Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is false, so the conclusion of the question has to be what I have stated.
Oral Questions


MUNICIPAL INCINERATION OF GARBAGE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment who will know that Canadians are very concerned that they are eating dioxins in their food, despite the fact that the presence of dioxins in food is contrary to the Food and Drug Act.
Would the Minister agree that the real solution to this problem is not to legalize dioxins but to tackle them at source. Since a major source of dioxins, if not the major source, is in municipal incineration of garbage, is it not time that we had a national strategy to work at this problem with the provinces to have recycling instead of incineration that causes dioxins, and to get rid of the dioxins in pulp and paper. In short, will the Minister get down to the tough problem of eliminating dioxins instead of moving toward legalizing them?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must know that we have been addressing the problem at source, for example, through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which, among other things, manages toxic chemicals, including dioxins, through their full life cycle-from the time they are the subject of research and development through to the time when they are brought into the marketplace as products, through to their use, transportation, and ultimate disposal as waste. It is full life cycle approach to toxic chemicals, a cradle to grave management of that very subject.
In addition to that we have greatly tightened the rules and regulations surrounding the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. To boot, we have achieved, for the first time in the history of the country, a four-jurisdiction agreement on stemming the flow of industrial chemicals into the Niagara River by 50 per cent by 1996. Those are all initiatives of the Government of Canada on the very subject which the Hon. Member has mentioned.


PRESENCE OF DIOXINS IN FOODS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Wouldn't the Minister agree that instead of legalizing dioxin in food, it would be better to get rid of them by eliminating dioxins from the environment? Or can he guarantee to Canadians that the dioxins found in food are not dangerous to our health? Could he guarantee that? Otherwise, why not work on eliminating dioxins from the environment?

September 20, 1988
Oral Questions


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member, she should probably refer back to 1980 under the Food and Drug Act whereby at that time the Government promulgated regulations that no dioxins should be in food.
In 1982 there was a change relating to fish. Subsequent to that period of time obviously there have been better methodologies relating to trace quantities of dioxins.
The Hon. Member says that we should be working toward removing dioxins. She is absolutely right. I say to her and through you, Mr. Speaker, to the House, that in 1983, for example, under the national incinerator testing evaluation program, in conjunction with the Department of the Environment changes were made in order that dioxins would not be produced. As well changes were made to reduce chlorophenyls and herbicides and to protect the wood industry. The Hon. Member knows recently that there have been questions in relation to paper products.
I want to reassure the Member and the House that the Government is not looking at changing regulations in order to fit the new requirement whereby trace amounts of dioxins are found under these sources but rather to eliminate dioxins, and that remains our purpose.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Cabinet announced it had approved a salary increase for the President of the Canada Post Corporation. My question for the Minister responsible for the Corporation is this: How can the Minister approve this increase for the President of Canada Post, who earns more than $200,000 a year, while at the same time cutting services for citizens across Canada and increasing the cost of stamps and related services? Under the Conservatives, the rich always get richer and the poor get poorer. Why does the President get a 30 per cent increase and why do the employees only get 3 per cent? How can he justify that?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, one of the carryovers that our Government inherited from the previous Government quite gladly was the existence of a private sector committee to advise on remuneration of senior officers of the Government and Crown Corporations. The committee is basically made up of the same membership today as that in existence under the Trudeau Government.
The committee has brought forward recommendations regarding remuneration. The corporation referred to is a very large corporation. The salary paid to Mr. Lander is in a range considerably less than would be paid by a private sector corporation. The increase is not 33 per cent but, in fact, 8 per cent over some 30 months, which is not unreasonable.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, it was this Government that announced at the beginning of the year it was paying bonuses to civil servants who were reducing service and firing people. It was not the Liberal Government but this Government.
According to the figures that we have, Mr. Lander received between bonus and salary increase, approved by Cabinet yesterday, over $67,000. That adds up to 33 per cent. How can the Minister justify a 33 per cent increase for the president of a Crown corporation and a 3 per cent increase for salaries of employees who have to strike three times to get 3 per cent, while at the same time it reduces service, closes post offices in rural Canada, and refuses to deliver mail door-to-door in cities across the country?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there has been no reduction in service. There has been a change in service in rural Canada and in other places and opening up of rural post offices.
A survey of the people affected indicated that 90 per cent of customers have expressed satisfaction with this change in service. Of those, 80 per cent stated they were very satisfied. We will continue with that kind of so-called diminution of service when we have 80 per cent satisfaction of the people affected.
I have already answered the question on salary. The Hon. Member ought to invest $20 in a calculator.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The Fermi II nuclear reactor which is right beside my riding has a record of continuing accidents and poor ratings from nuclear regulatory authorities. Yet Secretary of State Shultz has rejected Canada's request for a safety review by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and External Affairs officials here have said "we have to give them the benefit of the doubt".
September 20, 1988

Why is the Minister giving in on this question? Why, in fact, is the Minister not pushing as strongly as he possibly can to get a full-scale outside review of this dangerous reactor?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as is often the case the Hon. Member is overstating matters somewhat seriously, with the result, which I am sure he does not intend, of misleading Canadians and others about this situation.
He will know that I not only wrote Secretary Shultz but as recently as a week ago I discussed the matter directly with him. He will know the reason that the United States has declined at this time to seek a review by the International Energy Agency is because it is its view that to call upon that kind of review would interrupt a process of review that is already in place in the United States. Their interest is in getting conclusions and getting facts as quickly as possible. I am sorry to hear that the New Democratic Party appears to want to delay that process.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER SEEK OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister is absolutely well aware, it is quite possible to have the NRC continue its work and to have an IAEA investigation take place. It is not a question of one or the other.
Why has the Minister simply accepted this explanation from the United States? Why is he not meeting his responsibilities to Canada by pushing hard to get an outside investigation which will satisfy the deep worries of thousands of people in that part of our country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting view of sovereignty that is put forward by the New Democratic Party. I wonder how they would react if the Government of the United States were to summons in agencies to conduct investigations in matters that are within the sovereign jurisdiction of Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: That is what the agency is for, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: I understand the Leader of the New Democratic Party is operating under a short fuse, but he is wrong again today.
What we are dealing with here is a very serious concern on the United States and the Canadian sides of the border. There is a process in place in the United States that is looking into the facts and that it is conducting a review now. It is the view of the United States that that process would be delayed if there were to be a parallel investigation, another investigation, that, in their words, might interrupt the process now in place. They have not ruled out forever the possibility of an investigation by the international agency. I am continuing to press the matter and will continue to press the matter until there is some sense of satisfaction as to the safety of the facility.
Business of the House IMMIGRATION POINT SELECTION SYSTEM


Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. There were reports yesterday of an Immigration Department memo which recommended the development of a new immigration point selection system and further suggested that foreign service immigration officers should make the final determination in selecting prospective immigrants. These recommendations have caused great concern for many Canadians who believe that immigration officers already have too much discretion in processing immigration applications.
Will the Minister advise the House whether there is any truth to these reported changes to the current point selection system? Can she provide assurances that the reported discretionary powers will not be delegated to our foreign service immigration officers?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his continuing interest in immigration matters. We have no intention whatsoever of substituting discretion and arbitrariness for the point system which we now have.
I should say that when the Act was introduced in 1976 there was a long discussion about the point system which certainly has its drawbacks, but I think it was determined after much public debate that it was the most objective and the most fair system. It does, of course, get altered from time to time, as it did with changes to the assisted relative class this summer, and we can expect to see some of that in future from time to time, but there is no intention to change the basic criteria for the point system in immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid, given the time, that is the end of Question Period.
The Hon. Member for York West has a question of privilege and I will hear the Hon. Member in a moment. I will first hear the Hon. Minister of State on a point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties with respect to the business of the House. We made excellent progress on report stage of Bill C-136, the Broadcasting Act, this morning. Unfortunately, the Liberal spokesperson is unable to be in the House this afternoon or tomorrow, she is away unavoidably, and under these circumstances, we have decided to change the order of business to accommodate the Hon. Member.
This afternoon, we will proceed with third reading of Bill C-144. We will continue with third reading tomorrow, backed up

September 20, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Marchi
by Bill C-158, the variable entrance requirements Bill, and on Thursday morning, at 11.00 a.m., we will call Bill C-136 to continue report stage discussions.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we appreciate the Government's sensitivity. Indeed, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), who is our spokesperson on this Bill, has worked assiduously and very hard. Today a Jewish religious holiday, starts Yom Kippur, the Hon. Member is away doing what she should be doing, following her religion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I too want simply to echo the comments made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). There had been discussions, and I want to say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we too are appreciative of the consideration the Minister has given regarding proceeding with this business. We look forward to expediting that Bill on Thursday morning.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of privilege concerning the meeting earlier today of the legislative committee on Bill C-152. Simply to provide you with a quick overview so you can take this under advisement, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-152 is the Bill designed to create the Heritage Languages Institute, a piece of legislation that has received the consent and approval in principle of all three Parties. The Bill was first read on September 13 and today was the first organizing meeting of the legislative committee.
Rather than simply discuss some of the future business of the committee, which witnesses to call and the manner with which committee members wanted to proceed and the like, there was what I found to be a very scandalous and very shameful comportment by government Members who moved the Bill into a clause by clause study.
As I mentioned, there is approval in principle from all sides, yet by going into a clause by clause study, not only did government Members not afford any advance notice for members to provide the clerk with the necessary and approved amendments in writing, they also closed the process of consultation with the communities and the various ethnocultural organizations that had wanted to participate.
I find this an affront to parliamentary reform, making it parliamentary reform in theory only. I was quite offended by the practice of moving from a first organizing committee meeting into a clause by clause study, with a deadline of six o'clock this evening for members to provide the clerk with the necessary amendments.
I find this to be a ghettoizing approach. It was tried in the committee on the last multiculturalism legislation where witnesses were cut off. We now find again that Canadians will not be able to come before the committee.
It is not the intention of the Opposition Party to delay this Bill. At second reading, I was the only Member to speak on behalf of my Party. The New Democratic Party only put up one speaker. It was our intention to try to move the Bill into committee as quickly as possible, but I find it an affront to go to the first organizing committee and have it turned into a clause by clause review by the majority of Conservatives on that committee, thereby negating any preparatory work done by Members of Parliament and negating the possibility of witnesses aside from Members of Parliament coming to the committee to render their views of the piece of legislation in an attempt not to delay the Bill but to make it better.
I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because I find that this pattern of dealing with multiculturalism by the Government is not an isolated incident. It happened with the multiculturalism Bill, it is now happening with the heritage languages Bill, and I find it an affront for Members of Parliament simply to say that the reason they are doing this is that they are running out of parliamentary time.
If it was the intention of this Government to get this matter into legislation as quickly as possible, it should have brought it before the House a few months earlier or a year earlier. That is not a good enough reason to negate a proper dealing of this piece of legislation. It has taken advantage of the situation because it happens to be dealing with a multicultural matter. If this was a Bill on official bilingualism or on native people, it would not have tried to pass this under the rug, as it has so shoddily done in this case.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to look into this question, to protect the integrity of individual Members of Parliament and therefore to protect the integrity of Parliament, and to have a true partnership with Canadians rather than steamroll and railroad the committee and Members of Parliament into this kind of action.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I am chairman of that committee, and consequently I am the servant of the members of that committee. That committee did not go into clause by clause consideration, and I do not think the Hon. Member intended to say that. He left the impression that we had gone into clause by clause study.
The committee decided not to call witnesses, and it also decided that it would go into clause by clause at the next meeting to be called by the chair, and amendments should be presented by that time. Actually, amendments may be made to any clause during clause by clause study.
September 20, 1988

That was the decision of the committee, and I simply followed the decisions made by the majority of the members on the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell seeking the floor?


Don Boudria: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened carefully to the Hon. Member for York West and to the Hon. Member for Bow River. The complaint is clear. I know that the Hon. Member for York West will understand that it is a little difficult to take the complaint and turn it into something which affects the privilege of the Hon. Member. As Hon. Members know, the definition of privilege is some action which has hindered a Member in carrying out his or her duties.
The other difficulty is, unless there is a very clear case and a pretty obvious breach in privilege of the jurisprudence that I have to follow, that that indicates to the Speaker that one should trespass very carefully into the affairs of the committee. The Hon. Member for York West has made his point. Perhaps some consultation between himself and others may go some distance in alleviating the difficulty. I thank the Hon. Member, and I thank the Hon. Member for Bow River for his intervention.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on a point of order on another matter.


POINT OF ORDER
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise again to speak on the fact that the Government has once again failed to adhere to Standing Order 64(3)(b) of the House of Commons, which says that the Government must answer, at the request of a Member, a question on the Order Paper within 45 days. I thought, given a commitment yesterday by the Government, that at least if the question could not be answered today, a question which had been on the Order Paper for 90 days in relation to the amount of funds given to Mr. Jean Sirois of Quebec City, I would be given an oral explanation of what the status was.
Upon trying to obtain that information from the Government, a Member indicated to me that in fact no answer at all would be given orally at the appropriate time by the Government earlier today in terms of an official response. The question bears No. 289. It was placed on the Order Paper of the House of Commons on March 15.
There are other questions which have been on the Order Paper for much longer than the rules permit, but they are in the name of other Hon. Members. I only concern myself with
Point of Order-Mr. Boudria
the question that I have placed, and I do believe that I have been reasonable in terms of communicating on a personal basis with the Parliamentary Secretary. I would like, through you, Mr. Speaker, to appeal to the Deputy Government House Leader personally in order to see whether he is willing to commit the Government to answering that question tomorrow, in whole or in part, at the appropriate time after Question Period.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell has raised a matter which has been raised before in this House, although happily not too often.
Put simply, the rules are that the Government must reply within 45 days to a question on the Order Paper. In this case, for some reason the Government has not done so. There may be some explanation for it, but if the facts are as the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has put them, that the Government is in breach, I have some difficulty with that because there is no particular sanction that I could use to coax the Government along a little bit or to enforce it to meet those rules.
1 know that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary would like perhaps to assist the Chair and give some explanation of why the Hon. Member's completely legitimate request has not been followed. There may be reasons that are out of the hands of the Government.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to clarify the statement by my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), who said that I was not at all willing to answer his request. What I meant, Mr. Speaker, is that I did not have the answer today, I did not have the information to give the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell today. But at no time did I mean by that that I was unwilling to answer the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell today. There is a difference and I would like to make that clear.
As for the complexity of the question ... I referred to the complexity of the Hon. Member's question yesterday yesterday and I come back to the Order Paper and Notices where his question reads, " ... the government, its agencies or Crown corporations". That takes in a great deal, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps if the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell could specify what Crown corporation he is referring to, the answer could be given more quickly. But when he talks about "investigating all Crown corporations", you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, that it would take more than 45 days to investigate and report to the Hon. Member.
So I suggest that the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell clarify his question and in so doing, he would help the Government speed up the process of answering him or giving him the information.

Canada Child Care Act


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will just make it clear, but I do not want to dwell on it.
The Parliamentary Secretary tells me that if I were prepared to cooperate and specify for which Crown corporation I want information, there might be an answer.
Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to page 19357 of yesterday's Hansard, when I personally put the same question to the Parliamentary Secretary, as follows: "Does the Parliamentary Secretary have some of the information already available, and I would be prepared to accept it if he is prepared to tell me what part of the answer he already has on hand."
Now, Mr. Speaker, this hypocrisy is totally unacceptable!


An Hon. Member:: .. . co-operation.


Don Boudria: I already showed that I would cooperate, yesterday and previously. The Parliamentary Secretary can say what he wants, but it does not change the truth!


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to get into a debate with the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. When he asked me for some information yesterday, it was for some information on what? On which Crown corporation or government agency does he want it?
Mr. Speaker, I say to him to tell us for which Crown corporation or government agency he wants more data, comments or information and his question will be answered.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the problem well, but it is probably not possible to have an answer today. The Parliamentary Secretary has clearly indicated that he is prepared to provide an answer, hopefully soon, and perhaps a discussion between the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the Parliamentary Secretary would also be helpful in solving their problem.
But I stress that the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell is entitled to receive an answer for his question, which he has raised for the second time in the House. Nevertheless, 1 am sure that the Government will co-operate with the Hon. Member and I repeat that we hope to have a solution shortly.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that Bill C-144, an Act to authorize payments by Canada toward the provision of child care services, and to
September 20, 1988
amend the Canada Assistance Plan in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud, on behalf of the Government, to rise and speak at third reading of Bill C-144, the Canada Child Care Act. This Bill will enable the Government to implement a major element of the national strategy on child care. As all will agree, it represents a milestone in the history of social policy in Canada and establishes child care as a separate and significant human service.
We have made child care an important social priority for the Government because we know it has become a pressing problem for an increasing number of Canadian families. Over the last decade we have seen significantly larger numbers of women participating in the workforce, and we have seen substantial changes in the structure of the Canadian family with more single parent families and two-earner families than ever before.
These factors have created a very high demand for child care services that meet the standards parents require for the care of their children. Helping to meet this demand is an important national mission. No one disagrees with the need to provide quality care for our children, just as there is no one who will deny that the availability of child care services is critical if we are to improve economic and social opportunities for women in Canadian society.
The question then is how best to provide those essential services. This has been the subject of much debate across the country. Even the special parliamentary committee chaired by the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin), now the Minister of State for Transport, which was established to examine the issue and which held public hearings in 1986, was unable to reach a consensus on the best approach. The Government concluded that we must adopt a strategy that was flexible enough to support the diversity inherent in Canadian society and, above all, to be supportive of parents' rights to choose the type of care their children will receive.
The national strategy on child care represents a major step forward in the development and improvement of child care services for Canadian children. Unlike other proposals that have been raised and discussed over the past few years and which continue to be repeated today, the national strategy on child care meets this important social need in a manner that respects the rights of parents to make their own choices regarding the best means to care for their children. We must all respect that right because it is a fundamental part of our family based society.
At the same time, our strategy respects the jurisdiction of the provincial and territorial Governments when it comes to child care services. The federal Government should not, and this Government will not, dictate to the provinces the design and delivery of services that are so clearly within their own jurisdictions. Dictating to the provinces would not only be inappropriate given the jurisdictional circumstances, it would
September 20, 1988

also be counter-productive and would not meet our goal of developing a caring and workable policy.
Provinces already have a variety of child care services and programs. These services have developed over the past number of years in response to the needs of the residents of each province and in accordance with particular regional circumstances. I am pleased to be able on say that our national strategy on child care is flexible enough to build upon the system that currently exists and to adapt to the differing needs of the provinces and the families within those provinces.
Members will recall that the national strategy on child care, which I announced last December, consists of three interrelated elements: enhanced tax assistance to families with young children, a new child care initiatives fund, and a new federal-provincial cost sharing program. The first two elements of the program are already in place. The third is represented in legislation being debated for the third time today. In addition, in July I announced an additional $60 million for accredited on-reserve Indian day care services, and I am pleased with the response from Indian leadership on that issue as well.
The tax component will be of benefit to well over one million Canadian families. For parents with receipted child care expenses the maximum child care expense deduction has been raised from $2,000 to $4,000 per child for children six years old and under and for children with special needs, making child care significantly more affordable for many Canadian families.
For parents who choose to remain at home to care for their children or do not have receipted child care expenses, we have provided a supplement to the current child tax credit. The effect of this supplement will be to raise the total child tax credit to approximately $760 per year effective 1989.
The second component of the the national strategy on child care is the $100 million special initiatives fund. It will play a vital role in our goal to improve the quality and diversity of child care services across Canada. The purpose of the initiatives fund is to provide financial support to demonstration projects and applied research initiatives which meet the child care needs of special groups in society and stimulate the development of child care facilities in underserviced and remote areas of Canada.
For example, some of the priority areas which need examination include meeting the special needs of disabled children, children whose parents work part-time or in shifts during which normal child care services are not available, children from minority cultural backgrounds, and children in rural communities. Those are only some identifiable areas.
This fund has been made available since the beginning of April of this year, and the Department is already receiving and reviewing applications and awarding funding to applicants from across Canada.
The new $60 million initiative for day care for Indians on reserves will be used, among other things, to determine child
Canada Child Care Act
care requirements for on-reserve Indians, to develop and train day care workers, and to build and operate accredited day care facilities for Indian communities. Indian communities and groups from across Canada have already shown a vital interest in child care and the potential which these funds represent. By the new year I plan to announce the details of the program so that I may enter into agreements with Indian communities immediately, namely, that funds will be available on April 1, 1989.
I will now turn to the issues of debate of the last number of days, those being the key provisions of the Canada Child Care Act and the manner in which they relate to our objectives to increase the availability, affordability, accessability, and quality of child care services across Canada.
As Members of the House will know, at report stage I addressed a number of issues which were raised within the legislative committee. I would also like to take this opportunity to focus on some of the more major issues including that of establishing national standards within the framework of the Canada Child Care Act.
Passage of Bill C-144 will authorize the federal Government to enter into agreements with provincial and territorial Governments to share in the costs of the provision of child care services. The Bill will authorize the federal Government to commit some $4 billion as its share of the program over the next seven years. When the national strategy on child care was announced last December, we estimated that meeting the goal of an additional 200,000 new subsidized spaces would require a federal commitment of some $3 billion.
However, on the basis of plans submitted by provincial Governments over the last six months, it became clear that extra financial assistance would be required if we were to achieve the growth in spaces we wanted as well as ensure that the quality of the system as a whole, including existing spaces, salaries, and subsidies, continue to improve.
That is why we announced in July that the Government was committing a further $1 billion for seven years to the program. We are not prepared to sacrifice quality for quantity. Both are equally important to parents whose children will be utilizing the child care system.
During the seven-year period, what we are calling the boost period, we intend to support the creation of 200,000 additional subsidized child care spaces. In effect, this will more than double the size of the current subsidized system in Canada.
To assist provinces to meet that national goal, we will provide 75 per cent of their capital costs involved in the development of new spaces in not for profit child care agencies for the seven-year boost period, as well as 50 per cent of ongoing operating costs for non-profit and commercial agencies funded by the provincial Government.

September 20, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
We made this decision to permit federal cost sharing of provincial support for commercial agencies under the terms of the legislation because we recognize that we cannot afford to ignore the basic fact that 40 per cent of Canada's child care spaces presently are in the commercial sector. As I said earlier, the reason our national strategy on child care is a workable policy is that it works upon the system that currently exists and adapts to the regional diversity of our country.
This legislation will also permit the Government to enhance the effective rate of federal cost sharing for certain provinces through a top up provision. We have included this provision to assist parents and children who reside in provinces which are attempting to catch up to other parts of Canada in what they spend on child care.
This is the national strategy. We believe that child care facilities and services should become more equally available in all regions of the country.
Beyond year seven, the top up will continue. In addition, there will be a provision which will allow, over time, for the reduction of differences among provinces with respect to federal per child contributions.
Let me emphasize the point that what this legislation proposes is to reimburse the provinces for the costs they incur for these purposes. They must spend the money on their child care systems to be eligible for the federal funds. There cannot be a diversion despite the fact that Members opposite have said that could be the case. We are not handing over money to the provinces to spend as they see fit on services, other than those spelled out in this Bill.
Clause 4 of the legislation sets out the various terms and conditions that will form part of the negotiated agreement between the federal Government and each province. They will include the annual federal commitment to each province, the number of spaces to be created during the seven-year period, and the basis for subsequent cost sharing arrangements with respect to child care services.
Clause 4 also requires provincial authorities to specify the standards established for child care services within the provinces, the methods of enforcing these standards, and the means by which both standards and enforcement procedures will be publicized within each jurisdiction. Provincial Governments will also be required to provide evidence of the fact that they are enforcing their standards.
The standards that we are asking provinces to develop and enforce will include: child-staff ratios; the qualifications of child care staff; group sizes, both by age and by type of care; health and safety measures; and the nature of parental involvement. Some provinces will already have all or some of these standards in place. For those that do not, there will be a negotiated time period for them to put them in place.
Under the terms of these federal-provincial agreements the federal Government will not be enforcing a rigid set of national
program delivery standards across the country. The agreements may in fact result in such standards if all provincial Governments were to agree on a common set of standards. However, I am personally unconvinced that national standards are the right way to proceed. Apart from being an unprecedented direct intrusion in an area of provincial jurisdiction, rigid national standards do not meet our goal of flexibility, nor are they responsive to community values and needs that vary considerably from one end of the country to the other.
We believe that parents, caregivers, and community and professional groups are the best judges of the standards which are important to their communities and their children. They are surely in the best position to work with provincial authorities to develop and ensure the enforcement of the standards appropriate to their circumstances. This is one reason we are asking the provinces to publicize their standards so that parents can participate in the quality control of the care given to their children.
The federal Government has provided leadership in specifying areas where standards are required and in ensuring that they will be publicized and enforced. The responsibility then rests with the provinces to proclaim those standards. After all, in this matter the provincial Governments are directly accountable to the residents of each province even more so than the federal Government, due to the jurisdictional requirements within our country.
Provinces remain free to negotiate an agreement with the federal Government under the terms of this legislation or to continue to cost share child care expenditures under the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan. CAP, however, only provides operating funding. It does not provide capital assistance. Further, CAP provides only limited funding to the commercial sector, thereby excluding many of the spaces that provinces are subsidizing in commercial child care centres.
On balance, the Canada Child Care Act provides provincial Governments with significantly greater benefits over both the short term and the long term. When a province has signed an agreement with the federal Government, it will no longer be able to access the Canada Assistance Plan for the support of its child care system. Once all provinces have signed agreements, under the terms of this Act the Canada Assistance Plan will be amended to exclude references to day care. The Canada Child Care Act over the longer term is intended to replace the day care provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan. Many have said that they wanted to move from a welfare based system to a service based system. Those who vote against this Bill are voting in favour of retaining welfare for the purposes of child care.
While there are a number of features common to those two programs, the Canada Child Care Act holds significant advantages for the provinces, advantages that many provinces viewed as important and necessary to enable them to continue their efforts to expand child care. For example, according to Clause 3(2) of the Bill, provinces can negotiate and sign
September 20, 1988

agreements at any time. If, however, provinces sign prior to April 1, 1990, that agreement may be retroactive to April 1, 1988.
As I said, we have designed this program to be as flexible as possible and to accommodate all provincial requirements consistent with meeting our objectives. Where possible, we have continued to offer improved flexibility to provinces. For example, provinces made representation to us that they could not always control the pace at which new spaces would be created since in most instances the spaces would not be created by the province but by individuals or by groups. Therefore we have introduced a new provision into the agreements which will help provinces with their funding requirements by allowing for some carryover of unused federal funds from one year to the next.
I am pleased that Members opposite approved that plan. On the one hand, they argued about flexibility and no jurisdictional encroachment into the provincial area, while on other areas they seemed quite pleased to do just that.
The federal Government has made a major commitment to provisions of child care services in co-operation with the provinces. The seven-year program represents a federal expenditure of approximately $4 billion to add 200,000 new subsidized spaces, doubling and maintaining the current supply while supporting and expanding parental choices. That does not include the financial commitment of the provinces or expenditures following the seven-year period to finance child care services at their new expanded level. That ongoing commitment will provide approximately $800 million per year to the provinces to maintain their expanded systems. If we compare that $800 million to our current investment federal per year of about $106 million, it is a fivefold increase.
The strategy is a significant step forward and one within the capacity of all levels of government to afford. In fact, I think all Members of the House owe my colleagues, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), a vote of thanks in this regard. Under their direction our Government has managed the economy well. We have gained the financial flexibility necessary to embark on this major new social programming.
We now have before us this Bill which represents an historic milestone in Canadian history. It is a product of broad consultation with interest groups and citizens across the country, through not only the recent legislative committee but other forums as well such as the special parliamentary committee. It involves support to the formal day care sector and to parents using informal child care arrangements. It involves support to the family. It extends flexibility to the provinces and territories so they can develop a system best suited to their situation. It addresses the issues of availability, affordability, and quality.
Canada Child Care Act
The Bill also offers special attention and recognition to the needs of lower income families, as well as families of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Providing for the needs of their children is the most important priority of all parents in this country. Providing choice to parents, improving the quality of child care, and increasing the number of quality subsidized spaces available to parents is what this caring policy is all about. It is a flexible policy that is fair to all regions. It meets the needs of parents and children across our country.
I would like to thank Members of the House who worked through the past few weeks to complete the review of the child care legislation. Some have worked at it for years. I believe their efforts and deliberations have helped to shape the over-all effectiveness and understanding of this new child care legislation.
Thank you for your time and patience, Mr. Speaker. I would ask all Members not only to approve Bill C-144 in the next number of hours but also to celebrate the obvious success that it will be.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, in Canada the day-care concept is nothing new. Formerly, working parents sought help from relatives or neighbours while wealthy families would hire nurses, governesses and tutors.
The first day-care centres appeared 135 years ago in Montreal and Toronto as a result of the industrial revolution.
During World War II the federal Government, which needed women in the labour force, entered into cost-sharing agreements with provinces that were willing to set up day-care centres. At the end of the war, the cost-sharing agreement and the day-care centres thus financed disappeared, and many women returned to their homes.
Since then, a number of studies have pointed out the need for setting up a better day-care system. Since 1970, when we had the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Status of Women, it was no longer acceptable to refuse to provide daycare, in the hope of discouraging women from seeking employment. However, the Government's present policy fails to reflect the double role played by most parents and most mothers with pre-school children who work outside the home and on whom our economy depends today.
Although fiscal measures were introduced to alleviate the burden on parents, there has never been a national program to promote the creation of day-care services. In 1986, when 52 per cent of Canadian women with children under the age of 3 were working outside the home and nearly two million children under 13 needed full-time or part-time day-care, there were fewer than 172,000 spaces in quality day-care.
The Government's hesitation cannot be attributed to a reluctance to set a precedent in the area of federal-provincial agreements, since social programs initiated by the federal

September 20, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
Government are nothing new, Mr. Speaker. In the past, programs of this kind have been introduced to respond to other social needs, and more specifically, established programs financing in the areas of post-secondary education, universal health care, old age security, spouse's allowance and unemployment insurance.
Canadians have long accepted the principle of paying the cost of training and developing new generations. The first step was creating our education system. Today, most Canadians believe that a national day-care program, properly planned, is a logical extension of universal public education that would lend itself well to a federal-provincial agreement. Nor can we say that the reluctance of the present Government to show some initiative in this respect is due to a lack of information on programs that exist elsewhere.
The Scandinavian countries, Germany, France and Italy all have publicly-financed programs for pre-school children, more specifically, children between the ages of 3 and 6. In France, for instance, day-care centres were established at the beginning of the nineteenth century for the children of factory workers. In 1975, more than 30 per cent of children are outside the home and two-thirds of these are in day-care that is financed, licensed and supervised.
Furthermore, children between the ages of 3 and 6 have practically universal access to day-care. In France, 95 per cent of these children have access to a network of day-care centres and public nursery schools.
It has also been recognized that quality day-care is especially worthwhile for children from low and middle-income families. Six studies carried out over a long period in the United States revealed striking differences among children raised in poor families, depending on whether or not they had access to quality pre-school programs. Among those who did, a much higher percentage finished high school, college, professional training, while the number of teenage pregnancies dropped. They were also more likely to find jobs. They were less likely to live on welfare and the crime rate was lower.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to promoting earlier reading, the program made it possible to detect and treat far more quickly all kinds of problems and disabilities. These programs enhance the child's development without the pressure of school marks which comes into play as soon as the child enters primary school.
In the case of disabled children, the day-care system may be particularly useful for learning social skills, including tolerance and awareness of others.
The Prime Minister says he wants to set up a program to help young people shake off their drug habit, but I think if we set up a program for pre-school children and do it properly, we would have an excellent drug prevention system right there. I have said this many times. However, Canada has no comprehensive policy in this respect. In fact, in 1970 the lack of quality day-care was said to have reached crisis proportions
when the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the Status of Women prepared its report. Fifteen years later, more than
7,000	parent groups and 200 organizations that came to make presentations before Katie Cooke's group showed that lack of day-care is a recurrent source of problems for many Canadian families.
Today, the federal Government helps day-care in Canada in two ways: by granting a deduction for day-care costs and by administering a federal-provincial cost-sharing program, the CAP. This assistance for low-income families is provided on a cost-sharing basis under the CAP, but less than 20 per cent of the children below the age of six who meet the criteria have actually received a full or partial allowance. Furthermore, the contribution made by parents who raise their children full-time is not sufficiently recognized by society.
Add to this the fact that measures intended to help parents raise their children, such as family allowance, income tax deduction for children and the child tax credit, have all been revised downward and de-indexed by the present Government, to the extent that all families, even those receiving welfare, will be worse off after 1995.
Funding for day-care seems rather meager when we look at what it costs to raise children today. To the Liberals it is clear that we urgently need a genuine national childcare program. To achieve this, we must have a policy that reflects current trends, Mr. Speaker. When we look at what those trends are, we see how the Canadian family has evolved and how it is structured, the rapid increase in the number of mothers working outside the home, the regular decline in jobs in traditional manufacturing sectors where the jobs were previously held by men, and the regular increase in underpaid employment in the services sector where the majority of workers have customarily been women.
Canadians are increasingly in favour of universal day-care whose cost would be shared by the Government, the private sector and parents. The public favours various types of daycare, including home day-care, school day-care, day-care in the work place and stop-over centres. There also seems to a broad consensus on a number of initiatives that would be politically feasible, such as providing more time for family life. There have been discussions about the need for providing more parental leave under the Unemployment Insurance Act and to make more frequent use of flexible hours, job-sharing and extended leave or sabbaticals to enable one family member to spend more time with the family. All this has yet to gain recognition.
There must also be a choice, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the location of day-care centres and their facilities. I think it is extremely important to offer a choice of locations and facilities in order to meet the needs of each family. The main criteria are quality of service, parent participation and providing a choice of day-care, depending on the kind of care involved. The needs of infants, pre-school children and children between the ages of 6 and 12 are not all the same. We also have to offer a
September 20, 1988

choice of schedules. We know that parents who work outside the home and who work evenings and at night must have access to flexible hours or weekend schedules. When setting up a network of day-care services, we must consider these needs which vary from one community to the next.
We also have to set up the infrastructures. Although there is general agreement on the need to provide a universal, affordable and top quality day care system, there is no consensus on the way to achieve this. The major problem relates to the shortage of quality spaces, yet we cannot set up the infrastructure of a national program unless we promote the rapid growth of first quality and affordable facilities. Quality must be guaranteed. Mr. Speaker, practically all people agree that if we want quality we have to increase staff salaries and improve the training and qualifications of those who are made responsible for our children. Standards also have to be similar from one province to the next. And we should discuss the issue and give financial assistance. We know that most observers agree that top priority should be given to low income or single parent families. Employers ought to be given incentives to provide child care facilities at work. But with all that. . .
What has the Government done? It has produced legislation limiting subsidies, legislation limiting growth, and legislation without national guidelines. Interestingly enough, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), pointed out on Friday that even in the preamble of the legislation there is a contradiction. There the Government, thanks to an amendment put forth by the Liberals, undertook to create at least 200,000 spaces. Later, however, it says that it will make payment not exceeding $4 billion. Thus the very preamble of the Bill is confusing.
What if 200,000 spaces cost more than $4 billion? Before we even explore how the spaces are to be created, we do not know how many spaces the Government intends to create. Mr. Speaker, 200,000 spaces are not enough. The House had heard many Members this last week speak on the necessity of child care. It should now be known by all Members that one in five children in Canada is poor, and that 50 per cent of children aged six through thirteen years old are left alone after school. We have the figures showing that 1.8 million children in Canada have parents who work or study for more than 20 hours per week. That 1.8 million is the core need group.
There are approximately 200,000 spaces in Canada. The Government intends to create another 200,000 spaces over seven years. Therefore by 1995, should the Government manage to create its 200,000 spaces, 70 per cent of the children in Canada who need child care spaces will be left without them; and we call this a national strategy.
During the last weeks we also heard about the importance of adequate care in early child development. I will not go into elaborating on the head start program again. However, I will
Canada Child Care Act
point out an interesting fact that emerged recently from an American study. Committee members were all told two weeks ago that the best indicator for the successful completion of Grade 12 was not the neighbourhood, the socio-economic background, or any other factor but the child's mark in the first grade.
Before we applaud the Government for meeting a paltry 15 per cent of the child care needs over a seven-year period, let us at least recognize the social investment child care provides. Let us recognize that caring for our children before Grade 1, permitting our children to enter Grade 1 and successfully completing it, gives those children phenomenally better chances to perform as fully productive members of society. Imagine the social costs saved by society, not only in lower crime rates, lower rates of toxic abuse, and teenage pregnancy. It will also lower the rate of failed academic or professional carriers and increase the productivity of our workforce.
It is also important to note that while the Conservative Government now proposes to recognize Canada's multicultur-alism in the preamble pursuant to an amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), the Minister found himself unable even to mention the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Multiculturalism Act in the preamble. That is interesting, is it not? Is the Government hoping that a mention will quell the anxiety of our multicultural community by protecting them in the preamble without protecting them legally in the body of the Act? There definitely were witnesses before the committee who did not feel protected.
Then there is the issue of standards or objectives. There has been a lot of talk about federal and provincial jurisdiction, about the inability to mention standards in the Bill, and about Meech Lake. The Opposition, along with every child care advocacy association across this country, has had enormous trouble with the lack of standards set out in the Act. My colleague from Vancouver East pointed out that this might even be the first great failure of Meech Lake.
The Liberal Party strongly believes in a national child care strategy, which is why we support the idea of national standards. These would be established with the provinces and specialists in the field in order that all interested parties have a say and agree once the standards are defined. They will then be included in the legislation in order to ensure that Canadian children from Newfoundland to Vancouver, from southern Ontario to the Northwest Territories, are assured of adequate day care. Provincial child care agencies with no previously high standards would not be hampered or prejudiced in any way because they would be meeting these standards.
The Government is using $2.3 billion, it says, to encourage development of child care through the tax system. The child care expense deduction is regressive, benefiting the wealthiest taxpayer more than the middle class. Not only is this measure

September 20, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
regressive, but it assumes that all parents who must pay for child care can produce receipts which will qualify them for a deduction. In fact, the majority of parents use informal care arrangements such as babysitters, from which receipts are generally unavailable. Informal caregivers are often reluctant to issue receipts for their services because they would then have to declare all their child care income for tax purposes. Thus, the families benefiting from this provision are the wealthiest with the highest taxable income and the ability to pay for formal, licensed care.
For parents who take care of their children at home, the Conservatives propose to increase the child tax credit. This credit is refundable and, unlike the child care expense deduction, it benefits all taxpayers equally. However, the miniscule amounts of money involved would hardly compensate a mother for income while she stayed at home to care for her children. Instead of enriching the tax break for parents, giving every family a few dollars which will hardly make a dent in their child care costs, the Conservatives should have invested the entire S6.4 billion, at the very least, in the construction and renovation of new spaces, improvement of existing centres, and upgrading of salaries for child care workers.
The Liberal Party will effectively place all of its child care funds into the creation of child care spaces. There will be no resort to regressive fiscal measures. The federal Government claims that the infusion of funds over a seven-year period is a boost to the child care structure. Once such a structure is in place, after the seventh year it will continue to fund the child care system but only according to a minimum formula which will be not less than "the contribution payable to the province in respect of the year ending March 31, 1995, less a reduction in respect of the cost of capital assets, the difference being adjusted for the national rate of general inflation as determined by the Minister of Finance, with a top up fund for lesser developed provinces".
It seems to me the Government is failing completely to acknowledge the fact that we need a child care structure in this country. It deems a seven-year boost period to be enough. It deems the creation of 200,000 spaces to be enough. As I said, that meets only 15 per cent of the need. That means after the seven-year period, after the Government has finished its boost, 1.4 million children will not have places in child care spaces. There will be no program in place to encourage the creation of new places. I think the Government has to own up to the fact that this is not a national child care strategy. It is a feeble attempt to quell the demand for child care. The timing, after all, is interesting.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised to introduce a national program in the 1984 election campaign. Four years later, on the eve of an election, his Government comes up with what it calls a national child care strategy. It then, upon meeting with the provinces that in turn feel gypped by the program, adds another $1 billion to the strategy. This, however, is only to meet the need of creating the original
200,000	spaces the Government promised in its original strategy. I have spoken to the Ministers responsible for child care in many of the provinces. Ontario has had to cut back its proposed expansion by 12,000 spaces.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with these additional funds is that they left people with the impression that the Government was again adding new money while in fact it had to provide these funds to launch the program it had already unveiled in December. This was a false impression and we must set the record straight: the money recently provided by the Government was simply the money required to begin the program which had already been announced.
Nor are the provinces altogether satisfied. Quebec does not know what to expect, what with all its places in the school system. We happen to know there are now 30,000 places for school children throughout the Province of Quebec. It is made quite clear in clause 2 of the Bill under consideration that all services relating wholly or substantially to education will be cut off.
So the current program is woefully inadequate and most of our children aged 6 to 14 are still left without any supervision, without any of the services they so badly need.
The Liberal Party will develop twice the number of spaces the Conservatives promise. What about native Canadians, Mr. Speaker? We heard representatives from the Assembly of First Nations and the Inuit Women's Association, both of whom eloquently pointed out that their children were also in need of child care services. The AFN is in no way comforted by the fact that the Government has put aside $60 million for on-reserve child care because it deems that its children should have their rights entrenched in legislation and not left to the discretionary whims of the Governor in Council.
The Inuit population, not specifically mentioned in the legislation, will probably not be covered by it because it does not have on-reserve communities. It will, of course, fall under a cost sharing agreement should a province sign one, but nothing is there to guarantee that once a province signs such an agreement a culturally sensitive child care program will be provided to the Inuit populations.
When amendments were introduced at committee to modify the legislation to meet the needs of our native peoples, they were "deemed beyond the scope of the Act". It is a sorry state, Mr. Speaker, when a Bill is structured such that certain needs are so fully excluded that they cannot even be placed on the table for discussion.
Let us look at the scope of the Bill. It does not include mention of parental leave, for example. However, every committee dealing with issues pertaining to child care suggested that UIC parental leave should be increased from 15
September 20, 1988

weeks to 26 weeks. The Liberal Party would address this issue and place it within the scope of child care legislation where it belongs. The scope of the Bill might have included different types of child care settings. However, amendments were proposed to encourage child care in the workplace and child care in an after-school setting, but they were defeated by a Government that purports to encourage choices.
Perhaps the Government fails to see the link between child care in the workplace and choices. The Government will have to answer to the parents working in fishing canneries on one coast, of this country and lumber mills on the other coast, as well as to all clerks and business persons in every city of the nation. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that a Liberal Government will offer a tax write-off in excess of 100 per cent to employers creating an employer subsidized child care service.
Two of my amendments were adopted at committee, two which I hold particularly dear. One according priority to low to modest income children and one according special protection to the French or English minority of a province and to its multi-ethnic communities. On the first and foremost point, low to modest income children, we must mention the Canada Assistance Plan, CAP, which has been used to reimburse provinces which provide child care services to children of low-income families. Though CAP failed to meet the child care needs of this country, by its very nature it accorded special assistance to the neediest children first. Prior to our amendment, now Clause 4(b) of the Bill, Bill C-144 failed even to mention the needs of low to modest income children. It was this original abomination which caused witnesses from across Canada as well as the Liberal Party to plead for the maintenance of CAP in conjunction with the new legislation. This would ensure that the needs of the poorest of our children would continue to be met systematically.
I will tell you why this is important, Mr. Speaker. First, only
200,000	spaces will be created leaving very, very heavy needs unmet. As was pointed out by a witness for Ontario in the committee hearings before the Senate, the limited funds being accorded to meet child care needs will leave the provinces with hard choices to make, including choices of the types of child care to provide, the cost of user fees and, in effect, the income bracket to be served. This is unacceptable in so far as it will cause children from rich families to be in competition with children from poor families. It is essential that CAP be maintained. If the $4 billion the Government intends to pour into its alleged child care program is new money, then there should be no problem in at least maintaining CAP at its present level.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, the child care legislation is completely inadequate. I can only hope that the Government now takes heed of what the witnesses have clearly stated and reconsiders the action to be taken.
The Liberal Party policy on child care recognizing that there is a greater need will create at least 400,000 spaces over
Canada Child care Act
the next seven years. It will, after discussion with the provinces, reach a consensus with them to establish minimum standards. It will encourage the development of child care in the school setting. It will encourage the development of employer subsidized child care through a tax write-off in excess of 100 per cent cost. A Liberal Government will meet the needs of Canadian children. It will be a priority.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this day care legislation falls far short. Under a Liberal Government we would indeed make it a priority, and one of our immediate objectives would certainly be to create child care spaces at the workplace as well as establish after school day care facilities for our children.
Again I urge the Government to reconsider this totally inadequate Bill which we are debating today.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi)-Housing-Situation in Toronto/Surplus federal lands; the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Public Service-Wages of Halifax naval dockyard workers; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Red way)-National Parole Board-Violent offenders-Retention in prison.


CANADA CHILD CARE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-144, an Act to authorize payments by Canada toward the provision of child care services, and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, during World War II when women were needed to man the factories and maintain the economy in Canada, Governments recognized that child care was an essential service. So we had government funding for free day care nurseries near many workplaces. However, after the War women's work was no longer considered to be essential and subsequently child care was not a government priority. For the past more than 20 years now since the royal commission on the status of women, women have been saying that licensed day care is a basic

September 20, 1988
Canada Child care Act
requirement for women to achieve equality. It must be developed as an essential community service.
During the past 20 years society has changed dramatically. Over 60 per cent of mothers of young children are now in the workplace, either part time or full time. This trend will be maintained and indeed will increase in the future. Most mothers work because they have to. Their incomes are essential to maintaining their families, and particularly to help pay the high costs of housing.
The great increase in single parent families usually headed by females has significance for planning policies for child care. Increasing numbers of women with young children are left alone to raise children on their own, usually with very low incomes. We know that about 61 per cent of children of these mothers are poor.
It continues to be an absolutely deplorable fact that one in six Canadian children are being raised in poverty. Their mothers need child care as do average parents. Certainly teenage mothers, who have been on the increase, do as well. They need child care if they are to work, to study, or to train for the future so they will have an alternative to life on welfare.
Families have changed over the past 20 years. Relatives are not as available as they used to be to provide babysitting on short notice. Grandmothers often live far away or they themselves are working.
As my colleague who spoke previously said, we were very moved by the presentations of First Nations groups and also Inuit women about the needs of children in their communities. For native families, their children are their future. They want to be able to control and develop their own child care programs, programs that are relevant to their traditions and their communities. However, they must have adequate direct funding for this, funding that is guaranteed. As my colleague said, that funding is not guaranteed under this Bill.
Mothers or fathers who remain at home to care for children full time also need part-time child care services. This is not just for working parents. They need it for relief, for occasional recreation, for parent support programs, and for training. Many also want their children to develop socially and to be better prepared to enter kindergarten so they want half-day pre-school programs which are also child care programs.
Study after study under first Liberal and then Conservative regimes has documented again and again the need for a comprehensive system of quality, affordable services. These studies have also documented the crisis we are facing with children because of the neglect and inaction of provincial and federal Governments.
There is ample evidence of inadequate standards for child care and of the high fees which must be charged because there is not adequate funding for child care services. There is ample
evidence of the long waiting lists of children who need child care and of the inadequate training that is provided for caregivers because of the lack of capital or operating grants that exists in most regions of Canada. Child care is in a very critical situation and it has become worse in the four years of delay by this Conservative Government.
What is happening to our kids as a result of this neglect? The parents of close to two million children are working either part time or full time or are studying, yet only about 240,000 licensed day care spaces exist to accommodate them. Most of these children are cared for in very risky, informal kinds of babysitting arrangements. Fees are usually unaffordable, close to $4,000 or $5,000 a year for one child, so that average families, particularly those with more than one child, certainly cannot afford the child care that is available now.
As our committee travelled across Canada, we heard repeatedly of parents who could not get their children into day care so they often had to use babysitters they did not know or who probably had no training or they had to use family day care homes that were unlicensed. We heard of children in informal care arrangements who were entertained all day by sitting in front of television sets and of some who were neglected or abused. Parents told us they worried all day at work and often missed work when these child care arrangements broke down.
There is a high incidence of school-age children who go home to empty homes. Latchkey children form another group of kids being neglected in every province of Canada, perhaps with the exception of Quebec which has quite a comprehensive program for school age children. However, this program will probably not be covered under this Bill. This was also of great concern to the people to whom we talked across Canada and to the witnesses who appeared before the legislative committee.
Witnesses, studies, and parents have told us over and over again that a comprehensive national child care program must be developed, that it must have a full range of supports for parents, And that it must have services for children under the age of 12. New Democrats believe this must start with prenatal and post-natal care and education for parents. Family allowances must be reindexed and child tax credits must be increased to help parents with the costs of rearing their children.
Parents should have the opportunity to stay home, particularly during the period of their children's infancy, this very, very critical period in a child's life. It is very regrettable that this Government has refused to introduce amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to extend and enrich parental leave for fathers as well as for mothers so that they can have this choice when their children are young.
The NDP goal is a national child care program which should assist provinces and communities to develop a comprehensive range of affordable services. Most communities, for example, need family drop-in centres for parents and kids where there are parenting classes as well as many positive
September 20, 1988

support programs available. We need Mom and Tot programs such as the ones the YM-YWCAs offer, for recreation, relief, and informal education with good child care.
We need licensed family day care homes that take up to five children of mixed age groups. There are not nearly enough licensed, good quality day care homes across Canada. We certainly need good quality, licensed day care centres that operate with flexible hours and have separate facilities and staff for infants and toddlers. There is a great lack of care given to those age groups. We need expanded out of school care and summer programs with hot meals for school age children whose parents are working.
Facilities for child care must be accessible. The Government has completely ignored this in its legislation. Child care centres must have adequate staff to accommodate disabled children and children with special needs. There must be training programs and resources for caregivers, whether they be in family day care operations or in group care.
Some communities also need head start programs which offer enriched programs for disadvantaged children to help prepare them for school. These have been very, very successful in the United States and have reduced later problems in adolescence. Indeed, they have more than paid for themselves because of the prevention they offer.
Native child programs are needed, but they must be controlled and developed by native communities with adequate funding. Rural communities need direct funding so that they can develop their own kinds of innovative arrangements. Traditional day care centres are often relevant in rural communities. Farm families need to have a say in what is important for them. Multicultural child care programs with language training are also needed, and these are surely a federal responsibility.
In 1984, women succeeded in eliciting promises from all three political leaders to make a national child care program a federal priority. This was a political issue for women then. I can tell you that it will be an even greater political issue for women and indeed for most citizens in the coming election. It is now a public issue, and I think that most voters are aware of how society has changed and how important it is to have good child care available.
Despite repeated promises of this Conservative Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) over the last four years, where he has said that he would develop accessible, quality, affordable child care, the Government has delayed over and over again, until the very last minute, until a kind of death knell of this Parliament, before it introduced the Canada Child Care Act. What kind of priority is this?


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is no priority at all.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That is true. It shows how little this Government really cares and how all it cares about are the polls and
Canada Child care Act
trying to have a token gesture for women who are not going to be fooled when they go to the polls to vote. Canadians are tired of cynical policies on the eve of federal elections.
The government child care strategy introduced some time ago the tax measures which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has put in this year's income tax. They allocated some $2.3 billion for what we considered to be very regressive tax measures, doubling the deductions for wealthier families who could afford to pay for child care for their children, ignoring poorer families who do not pay taxes, and offering a token $200 a year to mothers in the home and those who use informal care.
We felt that this $2.3 billion was not only regressive in the way that it was used but that it should have been used for the greatest priority, which is to have affordable, quality child care available in order for mothers and families to have a choice of good care for their children.
The Government also allowed only two days of debate in our legislative committee. They rushed this again and it was after introducing an extremely inadequate Bill C-144, the Canada Child Care Act. There was no time or funds to bring in representatives from the various regions of the country and the territories. I think that this was again an insult to Canadians.
Despite this rush, however, the 40 expert witnesses who appeared were unanimous in their condemnation of Bill C-144. There was not one representative or speaker who spoke in favour of this Bill. Even the Government, you would think, could have found one supporter. That is not the case, though.
It is a restrictive piece of legislation that immediately removes child care from the Canada Assistance Plan, offers capital funds for only seven years, makes no attempt to assess or meet real needs for spaces, and provides for only about
30,000	new subsidized spaces per province or territory per year. Future growth is terminated by the end of seven years. Child care will not go away at the end of seven years. This plan to allocate $4 billion for 200,000 spaces is only a start, and a very meagre start at that. Along with the present spaces it will not even meet a quarter of the needs of children across Canada. We believe that it is very short-sighted, indeed.
I would like to mention the five worst points of the Tory Child Care Act and elaborate on them. First, it offers funding for too few spaces. Second, it establishes no national objectives for the first new major social programs since medicare. Third, it entrenches the present system of poor quality and unaffordable child care services, leaving it up to provinces to determine how they will use federal child care funds rather than requiring that these funds be used to improve the quality and to develop new kinds of child care services. Fourth, it caps funding and restricts growth at the end of seven years. All indicators show that the needs for child care will have expanded from what we now have, not diminished. Poorer provinces will not have a top up at the end of seven years, and there is no way that they can continue their services without it. We also have the whole question of funding for new spaces.

September 20, 1988
Canada Child care Act
Instead of assessing the real need for child care services in Canada and developing a rational plan, phase by phase, as we have done, for gradually meeting these needs, the Government has arbitrarily chosen 200,000 new spaces as its goal and slapped this on as the subsidy for the next seven years. As I said earlier, this only doubles the amount of spaces that we have now. It is far, far from adequate.
We know that we cannot do everything during the first few years, but certainly we could do a lot more. As my Leader said in Vancouver, we would have increased this number within four years under our program while retaining the Canada Assistance Plan. It would have cost $2.3 billion. There should certainly have been a much greater increase in the number of spaces.
We have also said before that the growth rate under the Canada Assistance Plan is now 15 per cent, and under this new program it will be reduced to a 10 per cent growth in spaces. What kind of progress is that?
Our New Democrat plan would offer direct grants during the first phase of development while maintaining the Canada Assistance Plan. As I said, it would have presented 200,000 subsidized spaces at the end of four years. We would have progressively developed it from there, with adequate shared funding over the years, into the next century.
We believe that any national plan must be based on real needs and must plan for the future. We criticize this policy of the federal Government, and we wish that it had put the tax money into increasing spaces as well.
There are no national objectives, and this is the first major national social program since medicare. Medicare spells out national objectives. We have the five principles of medicare. It has been a fine program, and we are very proud of it.
Unfortunately we cannot be proud of this child care program. It should be a landmark in the development of good social policy. It has not even conformed to the requirements the Conservative Government made under its own Meech Lake Constitutional Accord, where federal spending for social programs was to be based on the national objectives. It ignores the Canada Health Act.
The Minister refused repeatedly to accept any of our amendments in committee which would have inserted objectives into the body of the Act, even his own objectives which were pretty limited. He deliberately confuses national objectives with provincial standards, which of course are under provincial jurisdiction. The federal Government has an obligation to ensure that families and children across Canada have adequate access to programs.
Just before I move to the closing of my remarks, I would like to move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word
"That" and substituting the following therefor:
That Bill C-144, an Act to authorize payments by Canada toward the
provision of child care services, and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in
consequence thereof, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the
legislative committee for the purpose of reconsidering Clauses 3, 4, and 5."
I outlined earlier the other concerns that we have with this Act. It entrenches the present inadequate system of child care which is different in different regions. It should be encouraging provinces to improve the quality of care. Instead, it allows them to continue with untrained workers in some programs and it allows some provinces to use the money just for subsidies while not putting any into operating grants. There is no assurance at all that programs will be developed for children over five and under three, for disabled children, and for family day care homes.
The Canada Child Care Act is very restrictive in that it grandfathers the capital funding at the end of seven years. I have said how inadequate it is that this is a seven-year program. It is a seven-year fiasco. It really restricts child care programs rather than developes national child care for the future.
Finally, the Act requires provinces to give up share funding under the Canada Assistance Plan for children in need and those likely to be in need. This concerned many witnesses and it concerned us. We tried to get this amended because we do not feel that poor children are protected under this new plan. There will be great competition for very few spaces, and funds are not guaranteed for children in need who must have some priority.
Our Party, in our minority report "Caring For Canada's Children", put forward a national child care program with seven national objectives. It is a three-stage plan that is cost effective and allows the system to grow into the year 2,000 and beyond. I want to stress once again that New Democrats want a comprehensive range of child care programs so that parents will have choices to meet their special needs.
We are not advocating compulsory, institutionalized care for every child in Canada as other Parties, in particular the Government, like to claim that we are advocating. We want a practical, phased-in plan that will develop realistically with the ultimate goal of achieving child care that is accessible in all communities, that will give parents choices, and that is an essential available service, as it is in most western European countries, in the same way as education is.
I call on the Conservative Government to resist the political games it is playing in order to respond to the gender gap in the polls and to resist the token pre-election gesture it is offering in the child care field. After waiting four years it is forcing this completely inadequate program through the House after two days in committee and very few more in open debate.
This program is not going to please women voters. They know how inadequate it is and what a disappointment it is. The Prime Minister, once again, has let Canadians down on a very important promise. Surely children are more important than nuclear subs. This country has the kind of caring citizens
September 20, 1988

who put children first and will not tolerate the neglect of our children that we are experiencing under this Government.
It is time we had a comprehensive child care program which is positive, which stresses quality, which is non-profit in nature-because that is the best kind of quality care-which will have well trained workers paid good wages, and which will offer a range of services in every community: north, south, east or west; rural or urban. Let us do it right. Our children deserve the best.
I call on the Government to withdraw Bill C-144. Through this motion we have asked that it be referred back to the legislative committee for reconsideration. Better still, call an election immediately. Let us have a new Government to put forward a New Democrat child care policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has heard the amendment of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East and finds it to be in order.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. My daughter is like many young wives who have young children but also have to work in order to help meet the mortgage payments. I have, therefore, watched my two grandchildren spend a considerable time in day care centres. I have been impressed by the hard work and devotion of the people working in day care centres, but I have also been impressed with the necessity for them, in these non-profit day care centres, to work for very low wages, not much over the minimum wage in the Province of Manitoba.
I am puzzled about why the Conservative Government's proposal and the proposals of the Liberal Party, both here in Ottawa nationally and the Liberal Party in Manitoba, would permit the funding by Governments, federal and provincial, of day care centres run for a profit.
I cannot blame the operators of privately owned and operated day care centres for wanting to make a profit. After all, that is the legitimate objective of every private business. If they have to make a profit, is it not axiomatic that the wages of the people working in those privately owned and operated day care centres will have to be much lower than those working in non profit day care centres?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very important question. I want to join him in acknowledging the devotion of child care workers across this country. It is the most important job in Canada, I would say, yet they probably are the least recognized. In fact, one witness said that it was the poor helping the poor, poor mothers helping poor mothers very often, because their wages are so atrocious.
I would like to remind the House that in order to qualify caregivers need at least two years of post-secondary education. In many provinces, and I must mention the Province of Alberta in particular, they do not require training. They
Canada Child care Act
require only that caregivers be 18 years of age. This is not good enough from a standards point of view.
Of course, the best paid caregivers are those who are unionized, but even unionized centres do not pay high enough wages because they simply do not have sufficient money coming in from fees or subsidies to improve that.
The Member was talking about commercial day care. I agree with him completely. It is not just our own political bias about the commercialization of services for children. Objective research studies have been done, and I can think of at least three, which showed that on average the quality of child care in commercial day care centres is lower. There are some very good private centres, but by and large the only way to make a profit is to pay lower wages to the people working there and to charge higher fees to parents. But you can only go so far in that direction or you will not have any children.
In addition, caregivers tend to burn out more quickly as a result of carrying heavier work-loads and there is a higher turnover of caregivers. Children need continuity, particularly when they are away from their own parents. They need to have a loving person who is their constant and is there to give them attention every day.
One of the things that was lacking in this Bill, and we tried to get it amended, was a conversion clause. Many private operators that we heard from, particularly in the Atlantic region, are mom and pop operations that are not making a profit. In fact, they are using their own homes and probably taking a great loss. They are doing it because they love children, because there is a need, and because they need a job.
They have told us that they would be far happier if they were able to convert to non-profit child care, if there was an agency that would help them to get proper equipment, that would help them to get capital funding for a decent building, and that would help them organize a parent body. They then, rather than getting hardly any take-home pay, would have a decent, fair wage.
I think that most of the smaller operators of profit-making day care across the country would be persuaded, with proper incentives, to convert to non-profit care. They would have the advantage of training programs offered by parent organizations, of creative toys, and of enrichment programs. It is also important for those family operated day care homes to be licensed and affiliated with a non-profit agency. It is another area where the care is very sporadic and where I am sure parents who take children in the home would like to be connected with some kind of outside agency in order to provide better service and have better pay.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) raised the policy of the Liberal Party in Manitoba because I believe it points out one of the basic differences between Liberals and New

September 20, 1988
Canada Child care Act
Democrats with respect to child care. We have a difference with the Government as well, obviously, but some Canadians might be under the impression that because we both oppose the child care Bill there are no significant differences between the Liberals and the New Democrats. We have come to see what those differences are just recently in Manitoba, for example, where the Liberal Party of Manitoba has not criticized or opposed the decision of the Conservative Government there to extend public funding to profit making day care centres. I believe that should be on the record.
We know that many Conservative back-benchers often seem to regret the way in which society has developed, and the way in which many families now have both parents in the job market. They suggest that it detracts from the traditional family situation where most often the mother was at home looking after the children.
This points out to me a problem with Conservative philosophy. Certainly one of the main reasons so many families need two incomes is to pay the mortgage. I recall when I first became interested in politics in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the NDP called for measures to reduce land speculation to prevent the incredible inflation of housing prices that occurred then and which is occurring again, particularly in Toronto. Yet any time one would move to curb the free enterprise market that creates the economic situation in which families feel both parents and even the kids sometimes must work to pay a $435,000 mortgage that was only $135,000 five years previously, Conservatives say it cannot be done because it interferes with the market-place. Conservatives should make up their minds. What do they value, the family or the marketplace?
For the last 20 years their real priority, their idol, has been the market-place. If the market-place happens to drive families on to the streets or make it impossible for people to stay at home, then they just have to live with that. Conservatives can get up to make speeches regretting the passing of the traditional family, but do not do anything about it because they do not want to interfere with free enterprise.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague who is indeed a philosopher in his own right, has pointed out the weaknesses in both the Liberal and Tory philosophies on child care.
He is quite right that the Liberal Party in Manitoba, as well as nationally, is quite in favour of commercial child care. It has said that the funding should go to for profit child care.
The situation is the same with respect to care for the elderly. Operations that function primarily as businesses to make a profit are really not consistent with good quality care. We challenge the Liberals on that point.
The Hon. Member is quite right that the Conservatives face a real dilemma with their philosophy. On the one hand they would like to send all women back into the home, I am sure. That was the dilemma they faced in trying to come forward with a child are program. While they profess to recognize the family, it is that Party which deindexed family allowance, deindexed the child tax credit, and imposed more taxes on families than on taxpayers without children or on corporations. One must question the conflicting philosophies of the Conservatives.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to conclude. The time for questions and comments has expired.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I believe the child care Bill is an example of how the Conservatives are not committed to sound child care policy but are trying to do as little as possible in as negative a way as possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Regina West. Since it is three minutes before five o'clock, would it be the wish of the Hon. Member to call it five o'clock?


John R. Rodriguez: We want to hear him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Members of the House want to hear the Hon. Member.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, let me begin my third reading speech by suggesting that there were many people in this country, and at least one political Party of which I am aware, who for many years promoted the participation of the public through Governments at all three levels in the caring of children as a responsibility not only of parents but of the nation because of the requirement of parents to earn a living.
Over a period of some 40 years it became an issue like motherhood. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is all for motherhood. The Tories support motherhood, yet they introduced legislation that would erect all the handicaps possible to prevent motherhood and mothering.
I know that there are some Tories who still say that the mother should stay at home and look after the kids. The problem is that her husband has been laid off or his company has gone bankrupt, but she can get a job, even a part-time job, to help support the household and the family. May I call it five o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
September 20, 1988


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE MEDIA ROYAL COMMISSION ON NEWSPAPERS (1981)
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel) moved:: That a special committee of the House be established to consider what action has been taken by the government and former governments with respect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Newspapers (1981), and that the committee be empowered to consider which of the recommendations should be implemented and, in particular, the recommendations made by the Commission with reference to Thomson Newspapers Limited.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since there might be those in the House who are perhaps unfamiliar with the Royal Commission on Newspapers which brought in its report on July 1, 1981, I felt I should begin my remarks by reminding Hon. Members that this was a commission on which Tom Kent was chairperson, Gordon Spears was a commissioner, as was Laurent Picard. If I could summarize it briefly, the thrust of the commission report was that it was felt that there was an undue concentration of newspapers in the country and that perhaps this resulted in a less than favourable freedom of the press. There were certain questions raised about ownership of not only newspapers as far as chains were concerned but the fact that certain instances were cited wherein chain ownerships were also linked to conglomerates.
Based on that type of analysis, the report came up with various recommendations which I hope to deal with today. Even if one does not believe in all the recommendations-and certainly I do not believe in them all-or if one believes in none of them or, in fact, if one believes only in some of them, it is important that we as legislators, and the most senior House in the country, at least consider the evidence and the information that this commission put before the country linked, if you like, Mr. Speaker, with its recommendations.
One other matter which I should perhaps clarify is that the actual report was triggered by the closing down The Winnipeg Tribune and The Ottawa Journal. In the forward to the report it is stated:
The Winnipeg Tribune and The Ottawa Journal closed their doors on August 27, 1980. This commission in direct response to that event was created six days later.
In short, it was conceded that there was a certain anxiety at the time that an already concentrated situation was perhaps becoming that much more concentrated.
In a map that the commission includes on page 10 of its report it points out that chains at that time controlled 94.6 per cent of the total circulation in British Columbia; 96.2 per cent in Alberta; 100 per cent in Saskatchewan; 87.1 per cent in Manitoba; 60.6 per cent in Ontario; 95.9 per cent in Quebec; and throughout the Maritimes it was generally the same,
Newspapers
although Nova Scotia was just 26.6 per cent controlled by chains. I think that a compelling case is made in the report which demonstrates the concentration that existed as far as chains in the daily newspaper field were concerned.
What I mainly want to deal with today is what happened after the report. Were any of the recommendations implemented? To the best of my knowledge, none were implemented. I will come back to one instance wherein there was temporary implementation of one, only to be withdrawn later. Also, was there ever any further study given to the questions that were raised in the report?
First, I would like to touch on what some of these recommendations were all about. On page 237 the commission had this comment to make:
The ownership and control of most newspapers is today highly concentrated under interests whose business concerns extend far beyond the particular newspaper. Much of our press, consequently, is not itself dedicated exclusively to the purposes of the press, to the discharge of its public responsibility. Extraneous interests, operating internally, are the chains that today limit the freedom of the press.
The chain you will note, Mr. Speaker, that is referred to there is the chain in a binding sense. That is what the commission stated is limiting the freedom of the press.
In answer, then, what can be done about it? It suggests, for example, that there is room for a Canada newspaper Act and that it would provide for a resistance at least to a further concentration of newspaper power in the country.
Many of the recommendations, and I should be frank about this, I feel contemplate the possibility at least of undue government intervention. The commission tried to be very guarded in its comments that that was not its intention. Anything that we say today I think we should weigh in the context that I am certainly not speaking for direct government intervention. I am speaking in the context of asking this. Is there not something worth considering in what the royal commission reported on back in 1981 and, specifically, what has happened?
The only instance that I know of anything coming out of this study was a directive which was given to the CRTC by the Government of the day asking that it refrain from granting TV licences or radio licences in communities where the applicant was, for example, the local daily newspaper. I do not know whether that directive was ever acted upon by the CRTC. It was subsequently withdrawn. To the best of my knowledge there has been no direct implementation of these recommendations.
Let me first deal with the suggestion of the Canada newspaper Act. The report states that while the local monopoly of a newspaper is a problem in itself, often reflected in profit maximization by an impoverishment of editorial comment, the worst feature of concentration is not the ownership of several newspapers by one company, it is their ownership by a conglomerate, a company having or associated with extensive

September 20, 1988
Newspapers
other interests. As an example of this type of conglomerate Thomson Newspapers is cited.
I think most Elon. Members are familiar with the Thomson empire. For those who are not, I recommend that they take a look at the 1988 summer issue of The Financial Post wherein the trees of various conglomerates of Canada are shown. Under the title: "Ken Thomson-Read all about him" the various concerns that Lord Thomson controls are listed. Of course that includes Thomson Newspapers which is 61 per cent owned by a private company owned by the Thomsons; 74 per cent of Hudson's Bay; 100 per cent of The Bay, 100 per cent of Simpsons; 100 per cent of Zeller's; and 100 per cent of a real estate company called Markborough Properties. On the international Thomson organization side there are various other interests such as oil and gas and book publishing and that type of thing.
I would simply like to summarize the Thomson situation as one in which when the royal commission looked at the situation it found that Thomson had 40 newspapers in Canada. That is the same number that it has today. I am referring to daily newspapers here. The Globe and Mail is of course one of the newspapers that it has. Its growth since the 1981 report has been mainly in the United States. When I speak of growth, it is truly sensational.
The Thomson organization-and when I refer to these figures I am referring to Thomson Newspapers Limited-are running at roughly a 40 per cent pre-tax profit margin on revenues. In smaller communities it is even higher than that. The net result is that in 1987, on earnings of $1.95 billion it was able to have a net pre-tax income of $379 million. Royal Securities, RBC Dominion Securities, has indicated that it believes that profit will get up to over $.5 billion by 1990.
Let us make one thing clear. There is nothing wrong with a business concern making a profit. The bottom line is what insures the solvency and the continual prosperity of that organization. What we have to ask ourselves is whether the tremendous concentration that Thomson is showing in a business sense of developing what it calls "cash cows" is in the best interests of a free responsible press in this country.
The formula is very simple. If one maximizes revenue and minimizes costs, the net result is editorial staffs are shortchanged as far as remuneration is concerned. As a result of the underpaying of many of the personnel, it is very difficult for those papers in the Thomson chain to get the type of seasoned, well-educated employee that one would normally expect to handle what is one of the crucial jobs in any democracy, and that is the reporting of the news.
I am not talking about so-called interpretive reporting. I would suggest that what we need, as much as anything in this country, are responsible journalists reporting what actually is the news, and hopefully conveying it through their newspapers to their reader who can judge accordingly as to what action he
or she should take on whatever topic may be relevant at the time.
I would like to touch very briefly on some of the recommendations that the commission has come up with in the context of what it feels is an over concentration. It points out there should be a divestiture of either the The Globe and Mail with Thomson retaining the other 40 newspapers that it owns, or it should retain the The Globe and Mail and sell off the other 40 newspapers. We know that has not occurred. What indeed has happened, and if you are interested, Mr. Speaker, I could give the specific profits, is that those Canadian newspapers have generated an income that, in 1980, the year that the royal commission was looking at, had Canadian revenue of $284 million. By the end of December, 1987, that had gone up to an even $.5 billion. That is a nice increase during the 1980s. As far as the income is concerned it is even more dramatic. One finds that the segmented operating income in Canada has jumped from $62 million to $157 million, as far as Thomson Newspapers is concerned.
Where was that money used? Was it used to ensure that there was a high calibre reporting staff, that the editorial content that appears in what is generally called the news hall of a newspaper was of a high calibre? No. It was substantially used to give the cash flow needed to make further acquisitions in the United States. That is where the growth has been; in short, the funelling off of those profits out of the Canadian newspaper empire, short-changing the production of the newspapers in this country, so that there could be further acquisitions made in the United States. Today the chain has 160 newspapers; 103 daily and 5 weekly newspapers are in the United States. The remaining are 40 daily in Canada, and 12 weekly newspapers.
The first comment I would make is that the Royal Commission I have referred to asked that Government consider the desirability of a divestiture of this empire. Is it worth revisiting to determine if that divestiture would have been wise? There is a five year time given for the divestiture, or has the inaction been the appropriate course to take?
I would then mention that there is a rather novel approach of a taxation nature to try to get more competition into the newspaper field in Canada. The recommendation had two parts. It was suggested that there may be room to give an added tax write-off to those who would like to invest in new newspapers, the concept being something similar to what one could obtain by going into the film business in Canada. For example, if somebody wanted to raise $1 million, the royal commission asked: "Would it be possible to give a tax credit so that somebody who is raising $1 million to get into the newspaper field in Canada would at least have that incentive?" Again there was a formula for the adjustment of taxes within a newspaper in accordance with how much editorial content was put into the newspaper and what the expenditure was in generating satisfactory editorial content in the newspaper. It was a surtax, and tax credit approach. Again, I would recommend that Hon. Members who may be interested in this
September 20, 1988

subject take a look at the report and see the nature of that recommendation.
Another recommendation was the role of the editor in the newspaper. They suggested that if one has this highly concentrated ownership such as Southams, The Toronto Star, or the Thomsons, perhaps there had to be something done to ensure an independence at the editorial level. The suggestion was that editors-in-chief be asked to sign a contract that would be binding on the owner to ensure that he would have certain security of tenure during his employment, and that if he had to make some tough decisions that might be embarassing to the owner or somebody else connected to the newspaper, he would not feel that his job was at stake as a result of making that decision.
The commission pointed out, and perhaps I should quote page 246 which states:
Overall, the structure is most certainly not one that can give any confidence-
That is the present industry structure:
-that newspapers in Canadian communities are edited independently of the other business interests of their chain or conglomerate proprietors. The structure is, in other words, incompatible with the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association's own declaration, in its 1977 Statement of Principles on this point.
It then quotes what the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publisher's Association stated should be the principle:
The newspaper must hold itself free of any obligation save that of fidelity to the public good ... Conflicts of interest, and the appearance of conflicts of interest, must be avoided. Outside interests that could affect, or appear to affect, the newspaper's freedom to report the news impartially should be avoided.
In short, the association pinpoints what appears to be an inherent defect in the system that the commission found.
I know my time is quickly running out. I would like to simply conclude by saying that I believe Hon. Members should revisit the Royal Commission, look at the evidence that it mustered, look at the recommendations that it proposed, and ask themselves: "Are you indeed happy with the way the freedom of the press is functioning in the country at the present time, and in particular can it be bettered?" Democracy at any time needs a truly free, objective, responsible press, and that is what I am hoping measures in future will attempt to attain.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate with respect to a special committee of the House being formed to decide which of the recommendations of the Kent Commission report will be implemented by the Government.
I must say that in listening to the Hon. Member, a former champion of free enterprise and the free market system, I was a little bit puzzled about his defence of government intervention in such an important matter as concentration of ownership. I recall myself and my friend, the Hon. Member for
Newspapers
Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), advocating that the Government intervene or examine closely the excessively high profits of multinational drug companies. We also recommended that certain foreign takeovers of Canadian operations be examined in detail as they were under FIRA. The Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) would obviously argue the Government's side and say you have to let the free market take its course. We now find our efforts have been rewarded. We now have before us in the House a conversion. The Hon. Member now agrees with and understands fully the importance of the Government of Canada taking its public responsibility very seriously.
I found the subject matter of this motion very interesting because I do not believe the Hon. Member talked about a fundamental underpinning of that sector of our economy, namely freedom of the press. He may have alluded to it but I cannot recall him mentioning it in his remarks. That issue has to be first and foremost as we proceed down this long path. Quite frankly, there is nothing inherently wrong with what the Hon. Member is asking for. I would hope that the House would concur with this motion, although it only deals with one particular industry.
The Hon. Member took great pains to point out many things about the Thomson chain of newspapers. Perhaps as we proceed along in this debate, this particular Parliament, and even into subsequent Parliaments, we will discover the real reason why he wishes to do that. However, corporate concentration and control is not a problem just for the newspaper industry in this country. It is part and parcel of a growing problem for Canadians everywhere.
I had to be careful because I did not want to laugh while the Hon. Member was speaking, but when you have the major mergers that are taking place in this country, increasing corporate concentration in the retail sector, and then hear the former Minister say the Government now has to look at a particular sector, one has to ask, rightly so, as no doubt my friend from Nickel Belt will, why all of a sudden this concern about corporate concentration in the newspaper industry?
I do not want to take all the credit. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt will want to share the credit with me for finally convincing the Hon. Member to see the correctness of our suggestions regarding government intervention and the public interest.
I, too, would want to examine some of the recommendations contained in the Kent Commission report. However, it is important to note that there is both provincial and federal jurisdiction involved with respect to how the recommendations would be implemented. It does not necessarily follow, either, that with corporate concentration you are automatically going to see editorial writers or particular newspapers slanting their views in a particular way. I think the best example of that was the K. C. Irving case when it was alleged that K. C. Irving acquired a complete monopoly of English language newspapers in New Brunswick to complement other media and diverse

September 20, 1988
Newspapers
industrial holdings in the province by purchasing the remaining independent newspaper. The Supreme Court of Canada acquitted Irving in that case by holding that no presumption of detriment to the public arises merely from the fact of a monopoly.
However, I would want to go back, not necessarily to argue that case again, but as the Hon. Member suggested, to review some of the recommendations and some of the cases which have followed that particular case. We would re-examine whether or not that ruling of the Supreme Court at that point is really relevant in 1988 and beyond.
It should also be noted that although there was not much action subsequent to the Kent Commission, Bill C-226, the Daily Newspaper Act, sponsored by the Hon. James Fleming, formerly the Minister responsible for implementation of the Kent Commission report, received first reading in the House on March 12, 1984, as a Private Members' Bill. Under that legislation no one would be able to control newspapers with an aggregate of more than 20 per cent of all daily circulation. That provision would not have any retroactive application.
I bring that to the attention of Members who might be under the false impression that no activity whatsoever followed the recommendations of the Kent Commission. In fact, that Bill would require any non-media company acquiring or establishing a newspaper to demonstrate to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission that any such newspaper would be managed independently of the non-media company's other interests.
I repeat that an issue which the Government of Canada should be intricately involved in is the issue of corporate concentration and the effect it is having on the Canadian economy. It is absolutely essential. The Hon. Member raises the issue of the newspaper industry, but there are many other industries and sectors of our economy where we have a high degree of corporate concentration, and the Government of which he is a part has refused to take any concrete and specific action to address those important concerns.
In conclusion, I find nothing inherently wrong with the suggestion of the Hon. Member. I would hope that the conversion we have seen here today will continue beyond the imminent election and that we will go into the 1990s secure in his support for measures affecting other sectors of the economy which we deem to be important.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate. I too, when I saw this motion on the Order Paper, could not believe my eyes. I looked once, I looked twice, and there it is, a motion dated-this is very important-September 11, 1987, by the Hon. Member for York Peel (Mr. Stevens), the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.


David Charles Dingwall: And Privatization.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, and Privatization. That Minister brought down this motion on September 11, 1987 in which he calls upon Parliament "to establish a special committee of the House to consider what action has been taken by the Government and former Governments with respect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Newspapers (1981)"- the Kent Commission-''and that the committee be empowered to consider which of the recommendations should be implemented and, in particular, the recommendations made by the Commission with reference to Thomson Newspapers Limited."
I became intrigued, Mr. Speaker. I was not going to speak on this motion, to be honest, but I became intrigued with the whole process. Here is a free-enterpriser, a rocking and rolling free-enterpriser, the modern day 21st century baron of free enterprise who sits around, we know, on weekends with his wife discussing new ways to make money. They invented the original game "Let's Make a Deal". It plays on TV these days.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: That intrigued me as to why this gentleman would bring forward this motion. I have an inherent dislike for monopolies. Whenever I see them I want to break them up, but I could not figure out why this Member from York Peel would want to do that. I had to go back and dig up the Kent Commission recommendations and look at what was specifically said about the newspaper business in this country, particularly the Thomson chain. Basically it said:
It would prohibit significant further concentration of the ownership and control of daily newspapers and of the common ownership of these newspapers and other media.
It would correct the very worst cases of concentration that now exist.
It would provide an incentive to the wider ownership of newspapers that change hands, and of new newspapers and magazines.
It would raise the status and enhance the freedom of journalists by protecting their rights, if a newspaper is under an ownership that has major interests outside the newspaper, and provide an opportunity for the voice of the community whose citizens have a particular stake in the quality of the local newspaper, to be heard.
The recommendation continued:
Therefore the Newspaper Act should prohibit the purchase of a newspaper business by a company or person, or any association of persons or companies not at arm's length, if the total net value of the assets employed in nonnewspaper business by the company, person, and any associated companies or persons, exceeds the net asset value of the newspaper which is to be purchased.
While the Commission thinks that large chains, and chains which are geographically concentrated, should never have been allowed to develop-
And it goes on and on.
With respect to the Thomson chain, the Kent Commission was very clear. It wrote:
It is in our judgment an entirely unacceptable concentration of power that this paper-
Referring to the Globe and Mail.
-should be owned by the Thomson organization which also owns a third of the other daily newspapers in Canada .. .
September 20, 1988

Thomson would thus be required to divest itself, within five years, either of the Globe and Mail or of its other papers.
I had this question nagging: Why would this Member put this motion with which I have no problem? I always look for reasons why things get done. When I dug up the clipping files of the Library of Parliament something rang a bell in my mind because I remembered the Ottawa Herald. I have in my hand a clipping from The Globe and Mail which reads:
Herald first of many, ex-minister says.
Stevens launches career as press baron.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you have to read some of these choice quotes. This blew my mind. Now it started to click. I put two and two together and I came up with five. I knew there was a fox in the hen house. I knew it right off the bat. Here is a man who wants to break up monopolies but that was September,
1987.	Remember I said the motion was September, 1987 but this quote from The Globe and Mail is dated May 12, 1988. It continued:
Mr. Stevens said yesterday that turning the Ottawa Herald into a daily will be only the first of a string of newspaper ventures.
Do you get it, Mr. Speaker? There is going to be a chain. The article goes on to say:
"One of the most attractive investments is newspapers, especially newspaper chains," Mr. Stevens said. He spoke of building a network of community and daily newspapers throughout Canada and the United States.
He now wants to replace the Thomsons. That is what he wants to do.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Competition.


John R. Rodriguez: Here is the guy who in 1987 was talking about breaking up monopolies. Then he quoted Tom Kent who headed the royal commission into Canadian newspapers. The article continues:
-Mr. Stevens said: "The profit is only the beer, the power is the champagne."
When he opened up this Herald he was just drinking the beer and was looking to the champagne. I cannot believe it, Mr. Speaker. This other paper carried the same story but with a different twist. This is from The Ottawa Citizen from May 12, 1988 and we read:
Stevens deal heralds new presses, building.
Sinclair Stevens, who was formerly industry minister, said his company has big plans for its newspaper division, including expansion in Canada and into the United States.
The newspaper business is extremely profitable and new publishing technology has made the business even more attractive as an investment, Stevens said at a news conference.
The Minister talked about avoiding conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest. Here is a Member of Parliament owning a newspaper. Can you see it now? He would dictate the editorial page. He would be the greatest MP, he would dictate the cartoons. Can you just see it now? "Sine Stevens conquers Ottawa." "Sine Stevens makes a big speech in Parliament."
Newspapers


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I ask the Hon. Member to refer to the Member as the Hon. Member for York Peel, please?


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, the Hon. Member for York Peel. Is there any greater askance about conflict of interest than a Member of Parliament owning a newspaper, a newspaper that relates and conveys to the public the business of this House, the business of the country? It boggles the mind.
While I do not have a problem with setting up a special committee to look at the Thomson chain and how to break up its monopoly-God knows, we have one of them in Sudbury- I want to say that I have to raise in my own mind the propriety of a man who proposes this motion while he himself starts out to establish his own dynasty. He wants, as he says, to revisit the royal commission. I want to say with deja vu while this committee might be looking at the Thomson paper monopoly today, down the road we might be looking at the Sine Stevens' newspaper monopoly.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Good idea.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister Responsible for Multicultur-alism):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate because I come from the riding of Duvernay and the City of Laval where we have several very important weeklies.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian publishing industry is thriving in my riding, to the extent that every week we almost have a war of weeklies. I simply cannot understand how these people manage to put out such quality papers with such limited financial resources and without any tax incentives or postal rate discounts, yet most of these weeklies are delivered right to our doors free of charge.
The newspaper publishing industry has always been the subject of particular consideration on the part of Governments because of its dual characteristic, either commercial or cultural. Given their vast land expanses and living next door to a giant, Canadians have long since acknowledged the significance of a way of expressing themselves which makes up for their regional differences and strengthens this original and diversified human fabric which is the source of unequalled pride for all of them from coast to coast.
Aware of this problem and concerned over their role in the establishment and expansion of a genuinely Canadian publishing industry, in recent years the various Governments have taken steps to help Canadian publishers, first and foremost through the publication distribution assistance program and Bill C-58. With the program to assist the distribution of publications, in January 1987, the Government announced a thorough review of the postal subsidy program for publishers, which allows eligible publishers to mail their publications to readers at preferential rates that are much lower than the commercial rates of Canada Post. This review

September 20, 1988
Newspapers
was pursuant to the recommendations of the Nielsen Task Force, in 1986, to the effect that publishers of dailies and periodicals be consulted as soon as possible in order to agree on an acceptable timetable for the phased reduction of the postal subsidy.
Reacting to economic constraints to reduce the federal deficit and wishing to maintain a strong, original publishing industry, the Government tried and succeeded in reconciling its financial objectives with the needs of Canadian publishers and readers. In April 1988, speaking to an audience mainly made up of distinguished representatives of the Canadian press, the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) announced that the postal subsidy program would be maintained at approximately the same level of funding as it then was, namely $225 million a year, for the next five years. The program will from now on be called the Publication Distribution Assistance Program, which better expresses the Government's intentions to support the press and the objectives of the program itself.
The postal subsidy program for publishers predates Confederation and is directly derived from our European cultural heritage. In 1710, the British Postal Act gave back control over postal systems in the colonies. In 1851, the British Post Office transferred to the English colonies control over their own postal services, which until then had come under the British Postmaster, and stipulated that they could set postal rates as they saw fit within their territory. By 1855, the territories that were to join the Canadian Confederation, strongly influenced by the colonial traditions advocating the circulation of information and ideas, had abolished the postal tariffs on newspapers. In 1867, an Act of the first Canadian Parliament established a Canadian postal service for citizens throughout the country.
The then Postmaster attempted to impose high postal rates on newspapers. That attempt was met with strong opposition from the industry. They asked the then Government to roll that decision back and establish free postal distribution for newspapers. Faced with that opposition, the Postmaster amended his proposal and introduced a low postal rate for newspaper distribution in Canada.
Since 1867, successive governments continued to apply that de facto policy of low rates to newspapers, and later on to other periodicals, under what is now called the second class mail or the publications distribution assistance program. Mindful of the basic goals of the program, they all wanted to ensure easy and widespread dissemination of information to every possible destination across the land, for both educational and democratic purposes. The postal program seemed the best way to meet this objective.
As the Canadian publishing industry developed, the objectives of the program changed as well, so that today, we can define the three main objectives of the policy governing it as follows:
A)	encourage communication: i.e., promote the spread of the printed word at an affordable cost everywhere in the country that Canadians live;
B)	encourage culture: i.e., promote the dissemination of printed matter from Canada in order to strengthen our cultural identity;
C)	encourage industrial development: promote the development of an ever more prosperous publishing industry in our country, in spite of keen foreign competition.
Today, 144 daily newspapers, which means practically the entire daily press in Canada, and over 600 Canadian weeklies-half the total number in Canada-benefit under the program. Generally speaking, national daily newspapers mail only a small percentage of their total circulation. However, 45 per cent of these mailings go to rural subscribers who otherwise would have trouble obtaining these papers. There are forty regional dailies that distribute more than 10 per cent of their circulation by mail, while 15 small daily newspapers depend to a large extent on the assistance they receive under this program to serve their subscribers by mail, for instance the Guardian and Patriot in Charlottetown and the Shebrooke Record in Quebec. Today, 466 local weeklies may deliver free of charge the first 2,500 copies of each issue in rural communities with a population of 10,000 or less. Without the program, these weeklies would probably be unable to survive. Other weeklies enrolled in the program pay reduced postage rates which help them continue their publishing activities.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be correct to say that the present Government has not only fought in favour of the Canadian publishing industry but has also won many battles on its behalf. Whether we are talking about the postal subsidy or Bill C-58 or free trade, the Canadian publishing industry has come out a winner. Like its predecessors, the present Government has recognized the vulnerability, the uniqueness and the importance of this sector of our economy and has agreed to make available all the necessary resources, financial or otherwise, to maintain a publishing industry that is representative of Canadian society and the communities across this country.
My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that they have so much to do and so little money to do it with, and if they could continue to have these benefits, it would enhance the quality of newspapers in our small communities.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: commission was created with good reason, I think, as a result of events that took place on August 27, 1980, when, on that day, the two largest newspaper chains were involved in the closure of two major newspapers, one in Winnipeg and The Journal here in Ottawa. Where there was a joint interest of those two chains in Vancouver and Montreal, the Southam interests bought out the Thomson interests.
The commission presented a report, including a number of regulations and recommendations, directed to both Government and industry. These recommendations flowed from the commission's conclusions on the state of competition within the industry. It found that the trend to chain ownership in the newspaper industry compromised the freedom and independence of the press, Canadians' access to diverse sources of news and opinion, and press quality. It felt that action by the Government was needed to protect Canadians' political rights with regard to which the press plays a major and central role.
The commission urged that the Government strengthen the then existing competition legislation. "Break up the chains", they said, so that there would be one newspaper with one owner. Prevent cross-media ownership, that is newspapers owning radio stations. Create a publicly-owned newspaper or a chain of newspapers, something on the model of the CBC. On and on it went.
A review of the Government's response to that commission report shows that action was taken, not to the degree that some might have wished, and it might not have been as wide ranging as the recommendations of the commission itself, but with respect to the subject of cross-media ownership.
The Cabinet of the day accepted that media ownership patterns did present problems which Government should address. Direction to the CRTC was issued by the Governor in Council in July of 1982. It prohibited the granting of broadcasting licences or the renewal of such licences to applicants who were proprietors of daily newspapers and whose major circulation area substantially encompassed the same market as that of the broadcasting undertaking. Exceptions were allowed, of course.
In every case but one the CRTC renewed the licences of the applicant. In the one case, involving the New Brunswick Broadcasting Corporation, the licence was renewed on a conditional basis and for a shorter period of time. It should be noted that the New Brunswick Broadcasting Corporation took its case to the Federal Court of Appeal and successfully appealed the authoritative direction. In other cases, the direction resulted in a number of structural ownership rearrangements and arms-length standstills to create agreement within the industry.
With respect to the issues arising from the Kent Commission regarding the business operations of newspapers, the Government of the day released legislation of a draft daily newspaper Act in July, 1983. It proposed the following: To
Newspapers
limit further concentration of ownerships by barring acquisitions which would raise any individual or chain's share of national daily newspaper circulation above 20 per cent; to protect and promote editorial independence it would require non-media companies to give notice to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission of its intent to acquire a daily newspaper and to demonstrate that such acquisition was in the public interest. Further, to promote editorial quality and public accountability in the operation of the daily press, it required the establishment of a national press council independent of Government, and by offering incentives through matching grants for the establishment by Canadian newspapers of new inter-regional or international news bureaus.
The general reaction of the critics to this proposed daily newspaper Act was that even if the actual legislation was benign with regard to governmental involvement, an Act which addressed the daily press would be on the books and would make it easier to introduce substantive amendments in the future, and would lower the threshold of public concern about governmental involvement in the news media or in the freedom of the press.
In the view of the critics, the problems attributed to the highly concentrated ownership suggested that this concentration should be dealt with instead within the context of other concentration of markets. In this regard, they supported the proposal that amendments should be made in the Combines Investigation Act rather than in a single legislative common Bill.
While the proposed daily newspaper Act was never really introduced into the House, as mentioned earlier this evening, a Private Member's Bill was introduced by Mr. Fleming in May of 1984. It was based very heavily on that proposed legislation.
Responsibility for the Government's legislation was assigned to the Honourable Judy Erola. In November of 1984, an article appeared in The Globe and Mail to the effect that she felt strongly that concentration of newspaper ownerships and other issues raised by the Kent Commission should be dealt with in a revised Competitions Act.
With respect to the issue of a national press council, she is quoted as saying that the industry "was on a path that was a very healthy one" and that the "threat of the newspaper Act was basically the reason why they decided to move on press councils and doing a bit of self-government, self-policing, which was more effective than otherwise".
Since that time, this Government has introduced amendments to the then Combines Investigation Act, now the Competition Act. It is widely felt that this general law of general application is an appropriate means to address concerns of corporate concentration primarily through news mergers and abuse of dominant positions and provisions. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, there is not a great deal of time left, but I want to speak against this

Adjournment Debate
Private Member's motion, basically because I do not believe that the Government should get any more involved than it has in the past in this industry.
I think that what caused the beginning of this whole process was a case that took place in New Brunswick that was referred to by some of my colleagues in their speeches, and it involved a case before the Combines Investigation Act with regard to the Irving connections and their newspaper holdings.
They went on to the Federal Court of Canada and were found not to be in contravention of that particular piece of legislation, and so they should have been. As a result, we saw, subsequent to the Kent Commission, a report showing some effort by the CRTC to not grant a licence to public broadcasting. That, too, was taken along the line and I guess it finally ended with a cabinet agreement of no further action to be taken regarding that.
In each of those cases they assumed that some abuse was evident. Certainly, as a resident of New Brunswick and somebody who has followed all of the newspapers that are involved, I would find it very difficult for the Government to get further into this.
With time running out, I would certainly not be supportive of this. I think that the Government has meddled in the past, and in those cases it, too, showed discrimination in this particular regard. I do not think that the interests of the newspaper industry or the public at large would be served by continuing the witch hunt that we saw in the late 1970s and early 1980s.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity tonight to pursue a question I asked of the Government on September 16 of this year. In fact, it is a question that I, as a Toronto Member of Parliament, have been on my feet about on a fairly regular basis. I have been trying to press the Government to do something about its responsibility in the area of housing.
It is sad to note, in the dying moments of a dying administration, that in the last four years the administration of the
September 20, 1988
Conservative Party has clearly abdicated its responsibilities in the area of housing. More and more the Government has cut back on and slashed various programs that were in place from previous administrations and has passed the political buck for housing to the municipalities and the provincial governments.
It has cut back on the social housing subsidies for non-profit and co-operative housing by $9.6 million. It cut the RRAP funding by 25 per cent. It terminated the RHOSP program which helped first time home buyers to own their first home. It cut non-profit housing in 1986 from 25,000 units to 17,500 units. Total CMHC subsidies fell by almost 20 per cent in 1984. Between 1984 and 1986 capital funding was cut by 61 per cent from $439 million to $267 million. In addition, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program was cut by almost 51 per cent. These are only a few examples that I have the time to outline in the short time I have available to me. In these four years there has been a regression in the federal role in housing.
I take offence to the fact that on the eve of a national campaign, rather than dealing with the substance of the federal housing issue, rather than addressing the housing crisis of affordability in Metropolitan Toronto and other urban centres where there has been a housing malaise in terms of affordability, the Government has preferred to deal with cosmetic surgery and perceptions. It has announced, in the few days remaining of this Parliament, a Minister of Housing. That was somehow supposed to give the perception that the Government was interested in the housing issue. I am not sure that Canadians, particularly in the urban centres, in my own municipality of North York and in the Metro Toronto area, are going to be taken by this late conversion, if you will, on the question of housing.
That is the first part of the question that I raised on September 16 and on other days in the House of Commons with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). The other aspect I raised was the announcement last Friday of the provision of some 50 hectares or 123 acres of Downsview air force lands for what was deemed to be affordable housing. As I mentioned in the House on a number of occasions, I was pleased that at least there was a step in the right direction in using some of the surplus lands for federal housing projects.
However, I was distressed to learn that there was no commitment on behalf of the federal Government to provide the sewer lines that are necessary to put up the kind of subdivisions they are talking about. The federal Government knew about this two months ago when it met with North York city officials. The President of CMHC, Robert Jarvis, and his chief engineers, went to North York and were told, in clear terms, that the sewer capacity was absolutely nil in that area. The feds not only put out a news release to say that they were going create this housing, but there was obviously the expectation that they would come across with a price tag of upwards of $200 million for the sewer infrastructure, both local and metro.
September 20, 1988

In addition to that, I found it amazing that they would call it affordable housing when 75 per cent of the homes would be built by private developers at existing market rates. I asked the Government to up the 25 per cent to at least 35 per cent of the entire project to meet the provincial standard and, in addition, to encourage the private developers, as the provincial government in Ontario does, to have the private housing development include 25 per cent for affordable units. Otherwise, we would only be putting up on Downsview air force lands homes that are selling in Metropolitan Toronto for an average of about $225,000 to $230,000.
In closing, I say that the Government should not only get involved in cosmetic surgery but should get involved in the substance. Let us talk about an affordable housing scheme on Downsview air force base. Let us come through with the sewer commitments that would make it a reality. Otherwise, it will only be a fairy tale project simply in time for an election call.


Mr. William C. Winegard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, may I assure the Hon. Member that the federal Government and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation are fully aware of the Toronto housing situation and are monitoring the market very closely.
The federal Government is promoting access to the security of home ownership in a number of ways: Through the provision of public mortgage insurance, mortgage backed securities, policies to promote moderate and stable interest rates, and more generally, good economic management. Low interest rates have produced record housing starts.
In 1987, net migration to Toronto totalled 61,200. That is triple the average per year reported for the 1976 to 1982 period.
This high level of migration has significantly increased the demand for housing. This resulted in 46,518 housing starts in 1987, an all-time record. In 1988, starts are forecast to reach over 40,000. Demand has outpaced the ability of the construction industry to supply sufficient number of houses.
The federal funds that are provided under the federal-provincial social housing programs are targeted to needy households. A great deal has been accomplished in the Toronto area. The social housing portfolio is now 100,657 units of federal and provincial subsidized housing.
As mentioned in responses to previous questions, the Government spent about $250 million in social housing expenditures in the Toronto area in 1987. This figure is approximately 18 per cent of the total federal social housing budget. In 1987, the federal and provincial governments added, under the terms of the federal-provincial agreements, an additional 2,150 units.
The recent announcement by the federal Government that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation would develop
Adjournment Debate
lands for approximately 10,000 to 12,000 people in North York is a clear demonstration that this Government does care about affordable housing in the Toronto market area.


PUBLIC SERVICE-WAGES OF HALIFAX NAVAL DOCKYARD WORKERS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address the issue of wage parity in the Public Service of Canada. On August 31, 1988, I questioned the Minister of State for the Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis) respecting the wages paid to workers in the ship repair unit at CFB Halifax.
Briefly stated, this raises the long-standing issue of wage parity between ship repair trades on the East Coast and the West Coast of Canada that requires some explanation.
First, let me describe the ship repair unit at CFB Halifax, commonly known as the dockyard. This ship repair unit provides support to Maritime Command, Canada's Navy, with repairs to the fleet and maintenance of the fleet as well as refit and repair of equipment. This means establishing the facilities, skills, trades and talents necessary to perform these functions in normal times and in times of crisis.
Let us simplify the whole matter and say that what is really required is a competent and capable workforce. Meeting that requirement necessitates adequate compensation. What we have to do is find a method for adequately compensating our workers, not only in the ship repair unit but across the Public Service.
I believe the workforce at the dockyard has every right to reasonable compensation and every right to complain that reasonable compensation is not being paid, particularly when we look at their brothers on the West Coast. We must recognize the comparability of wages in regions and across Canada. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the workers at the dockyard are represented by the Government Dockyard Trades and Labour Council-East. I have had occasion to speak to them. I believe they fairly represent the views of the 1,800 workers in the ship repair unit.
Let me deal with the question of wage parity, with particular reference to the ship repair workers on the East and West Coasts. It is not a new problem. It goes back to the early 1970s when a distinction was first made between the wages paid to workers on the East Coast and the West Coast. I will update it to 1985 when 1 had occasion to ask the Minister to review the policies with respect to payment of wages. That is to say equal pay for work of equal value.
I received a response in 1985 from the then President of the Treasury Board who referred to a problem on pay parity between home economists and occupational therapists and wrote this to me in a letter:
-resolution of the complaint demonstrates the joint union-management approach to be a responsive vehicle to satisfactorily address issues of longstanding concern regarding equal pay for work of equal value.

September 20, 1988
Adjournment Debate
I would be the first to agree that that is an appropriate method to address these differences. It is union and management, workers' representatives and government representatives getting together to resolve this dispute. But it has not worked in this case.
In June of 1988 when I met with representatives of the Government Dockyard Trades and Labour Council to discuss this matter I undertook to address the President of the Treasury Board, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), and deal with the matter of wage parity. I received a response from the Minister shortly thereafter in July of 1988. The problem was a very specific one. The Minister indicated that in order to comply with the request for wage parity it would require over a 32 month period a wage increase of 36.1 per cent, as opposed to the offer that had been made of 11.5 per cent. One can see that it is a very substantial problem.
The Minister also pointed out, and I would like to read from the letter:
Regional differences in rates of pay do exist in the private sector and the Public Service endeavours to reflect these differences. Currently, about one-fifth of all federal public servants are paid on some form of regional pay basis.
In July of 1988 the Minister indicated that in her opinion the regional pay differences were justified. However, that requires us to look at the principles involved in pay for Public Servants.
I know that in 1977 the Government's position was very clear. It was stated in the policy paper:
The approach that the Government intends to pursue in compensating Federal public servants is one of average comparability of total compensation with a representative sample of private sector employers.
It was very clear that there were three principles involved in settling wages of public sector employees, our public servants. First, the public sector compensation must be fair to both the employee and the taxpayer. Second, the public sector compensation should be related in a reasonable and an acceptable way to the private sector. We more or less concede that government wages should trail the private sector. Third, there has to be proper collective bargaining, responsible collective bargaining to arrive at the actual dollars and cents. Nobody disputes those principles. What is in dispute is what has happened.
The dockyard council makes a very clear case that in 1975 the differences were not too great. In fact, the ship repair unit received 93.4 per cent of what was considered a comparable base wage. By 1987 it had dropped to 77 per cent of comparable wages in comparison to other areas. For example, the ship repair unit wages in comparison to municipal employees had dropped from 113 per cent to 91.29 per cent. I do not want to dazzle anybody with statistics. I simply want to say that there has been a dramatic change over this almost 10 year period. Today the East Coast workers are paid less than 85 per cent of what West Coast workers receive. That amounts to more than $3 an hour.
I am sure that everybody in the House of Commons would agree that that is not fair and that something has to be done. The hope for the future is a mediation process which the President of the Treasury Board has mentioned, and which I understand is now taking place.
My message is the following: In this mediation the proper officers have to consider the principle of wage parity. They have to move to reduce the discrepancy that has arisen over the years. The workers on the East Coast require and demand fair treatment, and they are entitled to fair treatment. On behalf of my constituents at the CFB Halifax dockyard, I ask for fairness.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to this very important subject that has been brought to our attention by the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby). He has a great interest in his constituents and the workers on the East Coast, particularly in the Halifax area. As the Hon. Member is aware, the issue of wage parity between the East and West Coast ship repair employees is at this moment the subject of mediation between the parties. In view of the fact that today it was mutually agreed that neither party would comment publicly on that dispute while this mediation effort is under way, I am not prepared to comment on the specific outstanding issues between the parties in that labour dispute, and I am sure that the Hon. Member would not wish me to do so.
Recently there has been much discussion with regard to the issue of wage parity within the Public Service, and in particular over the practice of successive governments' long-standing policy of paying regional rates of pay to certain groups of Public Service employees.
The Treasury Board as employer has traditionally attempted to negotiate regional rates for groups in which employees are located in two or more regions where outside data indicates significant variations in rates of pay among various regions in Canada, and where the mobility and the area of recruitment of the employees are limited.
There are presently approximately 43,000 unionized employees in 11 occupational groups in the federal Public Service who receive regional rates of pay. Regional rates have been in effect for some groups for many decades, and this policy has been embraced by many previous Governments.
Both the Pay Research Bureau and the Conference Board of Canada have surveyed the practice of regional rates prevailing in the private sector. Employers with operations in more than one region apply this practice in varying degrees, based upon the type of occupational groups that they employ. The practice is most prevalent for operational, administrative, and technical support positions. In its soon to be published report, the Conference Board of Canada, based on preliminary data received to date, has identified that 47 per cent of the respondents paid regional rates to their clerical and support positions.
September 20, 1988

The Hon. Member can see that this practice is quite common for many private sector employees in Canada.
It is for those reasons that the Treasury Board as employer continues to embrace the concept of paying rates of pay for certain occupational groups that are based on regional labour market conditions prevailing in the private sector.
I thank the Hon. Member for Halifax West for bringing this important point to the attention of the House of Commons.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD-VIOLENT OFFENDERS-RETENTION IN PRISON
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, where were you on July 24, 1986? Think back, carefully, Mr. Speaker. Where were you that day? Were you out on the golf course? I know that you like playing golf. Were you at the lake? I know you enjoy a little recreation. Were you in your constituency office working hard? This date was two years ago this summer, Mr. Speaker. Think very hard.
You do not have to scratch your head, Mr. Speaker, because you and I were both here in the House. We were called back for one or two days to deal, on an emergency basis, with Bill C-67. You remember that debate. The Bill was supposed to ensure that federal prisoners incarcerated in our penitentiaries who were considered violent would not automatically be released from prison after serving only two-thirds of their term, the way the previous legislation read. They could be kept in prison until the end of their term and not released on this ridiculous business called mandatory supervision.
I do not know about you, but I was rather pleased to be here at that time and take part in that debate and see that legislation passed into law. I felt the Bill was going to help restore the faith and confidence of Canadians, what perhaps might be called the silent majority of Canadians, in our criminal justice and parole systems, and in the National Parole Board itself.
Here we are two years down the road and what has happened? Did Bill C-67 do what it was supposed to do? Did it restore the confidence of Canadians in the system? Did it make sure that violent offenders were kept in prison to the end of their term rather than being released early? If it did, why is it that in Toronto earlier this year one Melvin Glenn Stanton, described by police as a dangerous sexual offender, after being convicted of bludgeoning to death a 14-year-old girl, was released to a halfway house in Toronto? He then went missing from that halfway house and, as you know, was subsequently convicted of the stabbing death of one Tempa Conter in Toronto.
If the Bill had worked the way it was supposed to work, why was it that again earlier this year in Toronto one Herbert Ray Smith, described by police as violent and mentally unstable and sexually aggressive toward women, was released on mandatory supervision? Again, he walked away from a halfway house. Why was it that earlier this year, again in
Adjournment Debate
Toronto, one Kevin Paul Mott, considered dangerous by police, was allowed out on a two-day pass and again walked away from the halfway house even though he had previously been convicted and had a record which included five robberies and assaults with dangerous weapons? If that Bill C-67 which you and I came back here to deal with had been effective, why was it that again earlier this year in Toronto one Lawrence James Munro, who was charged, convicted and imprisoned for rape and assault and was considered violent, was out in a halfway house and again walked away?
It is no wonder, with that sort of record, that Canadians continue to have anything but confidence in our criminal justice and parole systems. Recently, as you know, a poll was released which showed something like 68 per cent to 70 per cent of Canadians said they had absolutely no confidence whatsoever in the criminal justice system.
You know that this message has got across to the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kelleher), apparently, and he says he is going to do something about it. In June of this year he announced that he was going to make changes in the parole system. You will remember he said that he was going to abolish the system of earned remission. He was going to replace it with a short statutory period not to exceed 12 months. He was going to reduce the time in which prisoners were eligible for full parole from one-third to one-half their sentence, and he was going to limit day parole eligibility to six months prior to full parole eligibility. That is not going quite as far as the Sentencing Commission wanted in their recent report. They said we should abolish parole altogether. However, it would seem to be moving somewhat in the right direction.
That was announced in June. We have been sitting all summer on an emergency basis. We have not seen any Bill. We have seen nothing other than a draft Bill that was submitted to the House. The Solicitor General has gone on to say, as you know, that in granting parole the risk to the public should be the only criteria for that. In fact, when he defines that he says that parole will be granted if an offender does not present "undue risk of re-offending while on parole".
What has been happening all this time? Surely that is what has happened. We have had an undue risk of re-offending because all these people have been re-offending while on parole. Words are not enough any more. The public has had enough words and wants some action. When are we going to get some action, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to respond to the penetrating analysis supplied by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway).
In the summer, 1986, as the Member has said, this Government acted to close one loophole in the process of releasing violent offenders, that being the passage of Bill C-67. As

September 20, 1988
Adjournment Debate
Members will recall, its purpose was to ensure better protection of the public from dangerous offenders by authorizing the Parole Board to keep such offenders in custody until the last hour of their court-imposed sentence if necessary, even if they had earned remission in the penitentiary.
Not only did the Government act responsibly in promoting Bill C-67, and not only is it working generally as intended, but we know that we must and we are prepared to go further as was promised at that time.
In July of this year as you have just heard, Sir, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) announced major new proposals to reform the parole system in Canada. On August 25, these proposals were tabled in the form of draft legislation in this House.
I might go on to point out that the Parliamentary Committee on Justice and Solicitor General's Review of Sentencing and Parole has resoundingly endorsed these proposals, as has a sizeable portion of the public. Under these reforms, inmates who have committed violent crimes will be required to serve one-half of their sentences or 10 years, whichever is less, before being eligible for full parole. Currently all federal inmates are eligible after serving one-third or seven years.
This new measure has been introduced to ensure that there is more balance between sentences imposed by the court and the decisions made by the parole system. To replace mandatory supervision, the Solicitor General has proposed a short
statutory period, never to exceed 12 months, for transition to the community prior to the end of every sentence, but always subject to the detention provisions of Bill C-67.
The actions of the Government are intended both to protect the public better and to support the efforts of very dedicated and professionally responsible correctional workers trying to do their best to protect the public within the limits of the law. I believe we owe a debt of gratitude to these professionals and the community agencies for their dedication to this thankless task on our behalf. The Government is committed to ensuring better the safety of the Canadian public. The Solicitor General has acted on this commitment and continues to act on it. With the support and encouragement of all Members of the House, particularly those with the understanding of the Member for York East we can make this country a safer place for everyone.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member will table and introduce first reading of that Bill, I will give my unanimous consent tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately we cannot do that.
The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, September 21, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers