1988-09-14

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a tragedy of colossal proportions is unfolding on the Island of Jamaica as Hurricane Gilbert sweeps across the Caribbean. Early reports on television and what we have heard on the news indicate widespread destruction on the island, including houses, hospitals, schools, and places of employment. Indeed, I heard last night that the airport in Kingston which was built by Canadian engineering and partly by Canadian resources is totally destroyed.
We have to be conscious of Jamaica's problem as a fellow member of the Commonwealth and because the historic homeland of thousands and thousands of Canadian citizens is Jamaica.
So far, perhaps understandably, the Government has taken no action and made no gesture, waiting, I understand, to hear from the Minister's office exactly what type of assistance is required.
As soon as the dimensions of the tragedy are known, and as soon as it is possible to make any offer or any indication, I urge the Government to do so. Canadians will broadly support generosity toward Jamaica in this terrible hour of need.


COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, the Court Challenges Program is a federal program that funds human rights cases, and is comprised of a government appointed committee that operates at arm's length from government.
The committee, in its wisdom, has stated that it has money to offer to two homosexual lovers who wish to prove that homosexuals are discriminated against and deserve special protection under the Charter. The committee also awarded $25,000 to an Ottawa-based homosexual rights group, EGAL, to research five areas in the Immigration Act that would lead to other court challenges on gay rights.
The Court Challenges Program recently gave LEAF, a feminist action group, $35,000 to defray its expenses as interventionists in the Borowski trial on fetal rights, yet denied REAL Women the same amount to defray their expenses as interventionists in the same trial. This is not democracy in action, but a clear case of discrimination. I urge the Minister of State to cancel these committee appointments and appoint a new board that will operate in a fair and equitable fashion.


HOUSING
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, a document published yesterday by the Association des constructeurs d'habitations du Quebec and the Canadian Home Builders' Association explains that because of the hidden agenda of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and especially to his federal sales tax, the average cost of a house in Canada would increase by $8,000.
Mr. Speaker, this measure is a direct contradiction of the right to adequate housing, and if we analyse the Minister's proposal in greater detail, we find as well that monthly rents will increase by an estimated $65.
Mr. Speaker, tax reform would have the effect of denying thousands of Canadians the right to accommodation, and it would also deny thousands of young couples the right to own property.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Finance will have the courage to do what he did in the case of the tax on food and give us the assurance that this tax which puts an extra $8,000 on houses and $65 per month more on rental accommodation will not be implemented and that there will be a special exemption for the housing sector.

September 14, 1988


WINE INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
There are generations growing up under-educated, and they deserve the best.

Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, some people still do not believe that Canadian wines are first-class. They suffer from a wine inferiority complex. If you do not believe me, Mr. Speaker, read the September issue of En Route, a first-class corporate magazine put out by a first-class airline, which contains an article written by a first-class author. He states in that article that Canada does produce world-class wines, and when they are served in downtown Paris that wine inferiority complex might just relax a bit.
If you are still not convinced, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to the Niagara Grape and Wine Festival in St. Catharines, September 23 to October 2, where and when you will have the opportunity to learn first-hand that there is no taste better than the Niagara taste.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Sandy Lake are today despondent over the closure of their school because of a suspected leak of oil possibly contaminated with PCBs. It is not the first time that that school has had to be closed. Problems with the sewage system and the roof have led to it being closed before. In many communities it would have been closed in any case because of its condition.
The students of Sandy Lake face overcrowding, with 500 plus students in a school designed for 300, 32 classrooms in a space designed for 24, no resource rooms, no shop room, no home economics, a library that is crammed into half a classroom, and a gym that is drastically undersized for the size of the student population.
These substandard facilities are a disgrace, particularly when the Minister has recently published national standards for school space and facilities.
Meanwhile, 25 and 35 miles away, two communities of the Kee-way-win Band suffer even worse problems. They have no school, they have no program, and some of their students are now in their third school year without education.
The Government is failing in its responsibilities and, ironically, if it addressed the problem of no school in Kee-way-win, it could solve some of the pressure on Sandy Lake.


REDUCED TELEVISION COVERAGE
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 10 years since Canadians first saw parliamentary proceedings on television. Unfortunately, since some cable companies across the country have added new specialty services, the House of Commons proceedings have been bumped from basic channels to converter channels.
It has become more difficult for Canadians to watch the House of Commons proceedings without obtaining costly new converter equipment. This directly affects senior citizens who make up a large part of the television audience.
This week the CRTC hears applicants for the Commons broadcast licence. It should require cable companies to put the service on channels that all Canadians can watch without extra cost.
Parliament belongs to Canadians. Let them have access to it.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, the reign of terror of the macoutes has come back to Haiti with the help of the military. On Sunday, Saint-Jean Bosco in Port-au-Prince was burnt down. Yesterday, another church in the capital met the same fate. The CNTU is actively looking at the situation. Mr. Jean-Claude Icart, of the Bureau de la Communuate chretienne des Haitiens de Montreal is looking at the situation. Mr. Pierre Bain of I'Echo politique des regions d'Ha'iti au Canada and Mr. Serge Bouchereau of the Canadian Comite de coordination de la solidarity avec le peuple ha'itien are also analysing the situation.
Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come for Canada to call a meeting of the Club des amis d'Haiti, which includes France and West Germany, and to raise the matter most vigourously at the next session of the United Nations. This evening, together with my colleague from Papineau-Saint-Michel, we will be in my native parish of Saint-Edouard, where the Haitian community of Montreal will be gathered to discuss, pray and meditate on these terrible events.
September 14, 1988


FREE TRADE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, in a few days, Liberals and Socialists will be dithering away against free trade during the election campaign. They will be dithering away against the Province of Quebec, and I would like to remind them of the official position taken by Quebec. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement has been analysed from the Quebec perspective, and here is the conclusion. The analysis looks at the main points of the agreement from a Quebec perspective. This is not a macroeconomic analysis or a sectorial study of the impact of the agreement on each industry. Some people feel it is too technical. Others think it is not detailed enough. To me, the important thing is that we can conclude from an analysis of the text of the agreement that the document signed on January 2, 1988 by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States, Mr. Ronald Reagan, is definitely a step forward for Quebec, according to the Minister of External Trade and Technological Development, Mr. Pierre MacDonald.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, this morning at eleven o'clock, members of the Association des retraites sans assurance-chomage occupied the office of the Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) (Mrs. Vezina), and they are still there. Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State and Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Bouchard) promised during his campaign that he would deal with the problems of 2, 000 older workers across the country who are being penalized on unemployment insurance. The Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) had led them to believe that she, as the Minister, could solve their problems. Recently she did an about-face when she said it could not be done.
Mr. Speaker, as we draw nearer to an election, Canadians and especially older Canadians remember how the Prime Minister lied to them. Older workers will remember that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) deceived them. Canadians who are ill will remember the tax on drugs ... I would urge the Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) to correct the injustice being done to older workers.


CANADIAN THERMOS PRODUCTS-EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Thermos Products is one of the oldest industries in Scarborough, but in August of this year Canadian Thermos entered a new era. It is now producing for the United States market all its thermos glass vacuum bottles, coffee carafes and workers' lunch kits. This has meant an increase in the workforce of about 60 per cent.
One of the factors is the anticipation of free trade. It is argued that when free trade comes and the 9 per cent tariff is eliminated, this company will have an even greater share of market possibilities around the world.
Something that leads to the closing of a U.S. plant and the expansion of a Canadian plant cannot be all bad.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians oppose the Government's planned purchase of nuclear submarines for many reasons such as the cost to our social programs, but not the least of the reasons is the effect on the environment, yet the Government never had any environmental impact studies done before making the decision and the Government has recently reaffirmed that.
When I raised the question in the House previously, the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) came up with the astonishing reply that because nuclear wastes can be put in a swimming pool for storage, and there is no bigger swimming pool than the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, obviously it would be just fine to spew out the radio-active wastes into our oceans as a means of disposal.
This is a contemptible approach to the environment. I hope that Canadians will see through this. I hope when they look at this Government's record on the environment and think particularly about the effect of the nuclear submarine decision on the environment, they will see that this Government does not deserve to be supported. They will see through the Government's attempt to use the environment for public relations purposes.

September 14, 1988
Oral Questions POLITICAL PARTIES


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the question persists as to whether or not the Liberal Party can be trusted in its opposition to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. It took the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) a couple of years to make up his mind on the agreement. He was then going to tear it up. Now he is going to renegotiate it. He is now playing to high-powered Liberals in Quebec. We have Gerald Regan taking Donald Macdonald's place in heading up the lobby group which is promoting the free trade agreement. We have other Liberal Senators who are in favour of the agreement.
When the Leader of the Opposition said he did not want the Senate to deal with it, what he did not want to be exposed was that he could not muster a majority in the Senate to oppose this agreement. Now we see the shameful act of the Senate actually approving this agreement in principle.
Any Canadian who is against this agreement has only one Party to vote for, and that is the NDP.


SENIOR CITIZENS
Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, our senior citizens find active retirement increasingly attractive. Dynamic Canadian retirees represent a major social group which exerts considerable influence in Canada generally and in LaSalle- Emard in particular.
The innate and confirmed wisdom of these robust workers of yesteryears who have chosen either to start new careers or devote their time to more humanitarian than profit-making activities remains a national wealth which the Government will have to take into account from now one when developing its policies.
I want to say how impressed and greatful we all are to these fine people who have already done so much for our society and who have now chosen to dedicate their time and efforts to improving the lot of their less fortunate fellow citizens and this, in the interest of the many generations which will follow us in this great country Canada!
[DOT] (M20)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On May 4, 1987, his Environment Minister said that eight million Canadians live in cities that do not treat their sewage. He added, and I quote, "They now expect the federal Government to help them out. The federal Government has no intention to revive purification projects that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The answer is no."
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, during the recent provincial election in Nova Scotia and the by-election in Lac-Saint-Jean, the Government announced such projects. Can the Prime Minister tell us why his Government is dealing with this issue on an ad hoc policy basis? Why are all Canadian cities not treated the same way, regardless of how they vote or of whether provincial elections or federal by-elections are being held?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that I have just heard, albeit by implication, a new position taken by the Liberal Leader. Is he telling us today that he is against the measures taken to clean up Halifax harbour?

If the new position of the Liberal Party is that it is opposed to the Halifax Harbour clean-up-that is what he said-then this is going to be bad news for the Liberal Party, I think, in Nova Scotia.

We did everything we had to with respect to cleaning up Halifax harbour in a timely way and according to appropriate objective criteria. We also applied the same criteria for cleaning up the St. Lawrence. We have taken other initiatives in the area of environmental protection, Mr. Speaker, and we will do more to protect the environment. We have acted quickly in a host of areas to protect Canada's environment, be it in South Moresby, British Columbia, or in cleaning up the St. Lawrence or Halifax harbour. And if the Liberal Leader is against these projects, let him say so today!


John Napier Turner: I think the cynicism of the Prime Minister is absolutely disgusting.


MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this Party has been on record, in responding to the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, for a one-
September 14, 1988

third, one-third, one-third split of all infrastructure costs, including anti-pollution costs for our cities and towns. We are on record firmly for that, and my question really addresses why Halifax when there was a provincial election, why Lac-Saint-Jean when there was a by-election? Why not Vancouver, why not Windsor, why not Winnipeg, why not Victoria, why not Laval?
Does it take a provincial election? Does it take a political event to sponsor this kind of intervention? Why is every city in this country not entitled to help in cleaning up pollution?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, clearly it takes a pending federal election to instil in the bosom of the Leader of the Opposition an interest in environmental matters.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: I have been Minister of the Environment for three years. This is the first question I have ever had from the Leader of the Opposition on pollution.


Ms. Copps:: Nonsense.


Mr. Axworthy:: That's because you're never here.


Thomas Michael McMillan: He was not asking about the Halifax Harbour or the St. Lawrence River two or three years ago.
In his first question he referred to the St. Lawrence River clean-up, wrongly, I might add, as a sewage treatment program. It has nothing to do with sewage treatment. It has everything to do with stemming the flow of industrial wastes from point sources in an international waterway for which we have international jurisdiction under the Constitution.


RADON GAS-NON-INCLUSION IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have been on record since 1986 at a convention in Hamilton of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities supporting this program to clean up our cities across the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The blow-dried Minister is not demonstrating much response in dealing with this particular issue.
Since we are not getting serious answers on pollution, let me turn to another subject.
Yesterday the United States announced that most homes in that country should be tested for radon gas, the second leading cause of lung cancer. Will the Prime Minister explain why he refused to allow radon and other radioactive substances to be covered under the Environmental Protection Act despite
Oral Questions
requests from government experts to do just that? As well, does the Government now intend to reassess that policy on radon in light of the very disturbing announcement by environmental authorities in the U.S. yesterday?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I would much prefer to be blow-dried than a blow-hard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I caused to have appointed a very distinguished environmentalist, an academic and scientist, who was asked to head a blue-ribbon panel to advise the Government of Canada on all substances that, in the panel's judgment, should be scheduled and regulated under the Environmental Protection Act. The Minister does not unilaterally pick this chemical or that substance for that purpose. I rely on the advice of scientists, in this case a very important panel that was established for the purpose. If in their judgment the relevant substance should be scheduled and regulated under the Act, I will view their advice very seriously and with favour.


PRESENCE OF RADON GAS IN WINNIPEG HOMES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question on the same subject to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In releasing a report yesterday, the U.S. Surgeon General indicated that the highest levels of radon were found in the States of Minnesota and North Dakota. He went on to say the same conditions would prevail in those parts of Canada just north of those states, particularly in Manitoba, in the Red River Valley and the city of Winnipeg. He went on to suggest that it might be wise for us to undertake comprehensive testing of all homes in that area.
I ask the Minister why it is that since 1986 we have known that 40 per cent of the homes in Winnipeg have been way above even the highest levels reported in the U.S. study, yet we have undertaken no public education, no comprehensive testing, and no establishing of national standards to deal with a serious health problem, not just for the residents of Winnipeg but for the entire country?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is referring to the report from the Environmental Protection Agency respecting radon gas, and the report released in the U.S. yesterday. I take those reports seriously and I would indicate to him that I have further checked with departmental officials today to further establish the regulations that would be needed respecting

September 14, 1988
Oral Questions
radon. I should point out as well that work has been done. When he says that possibly the highest levels of radon exist in homes in Winnipeg and the Red River Valley, that is correct, and that is the reason why this scientific survey has been going on, both as to the extent of the gas and the recommendations that should come from that type of study.
Additionally, on October 12 a federal-provincial meeting on occupational health and safety is taking place. This has been put on the agenda and I have indicated to my officials that I want recommendations as to what position should be taken.
I would also say to the Hon. Member that when the EPA comes forward with the study it did yesterday, it has to have State support for radon work. Additionally, I should point out that there are in fact four standards relating to picocuries which the U.S. uses.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ISSUE HEALTH ADVISORY WARNING
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the Minister of National Health and Welfare takes the matter seriously. However, I point out to him that the study into a correlation between lung cancer and radon in the city of Winnipeg will not be completed for another two years. In the meantime the conditions described in the U.S. Surgeon General's report will prevail and there may be a serious health risk right across the country.
In light of the findings by the U.S. Surgeon General would it not be proper for the Minister's Department to issue a health advisory, similar to that which U.S. officials issued yesterday, warning all provincial and municipal officials about the dangers and indicating that comprehensive testing should be a requirement in all areas across the country which might have a potential for the kind of serious high level radon pollution which is affecting the city of Winnipeg? We share the same province, and I think it would be advisable to issue that advisory particularly for the city of Winnipeg.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am obviously going to take that recommendation seriously. It is for that reason that I said that after the October 12 meeting I want a very clear recommendation from scientists and officials as to what the approach should be.
I am not trying to deprecate the work of either the EPA or the report. The Government has previously done studies through CMHC. While there is a question about the linkage between radon gas and lung cancer, that is not the point of contention for this Minister of Health. I am interested in the best position to take with regard to whether testing should take place and a health advisory should be issued. That must be based on scientific fact.
The Member says that there should be information provided to the public. I have further instructed the Department, under
what we refer to as issues papers, that information regarding radon and its control is to be published and released to the public by the Department in very short order.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for either the Prime Minister or the Minister of the Environment. The Prime Minister recently expressed concern about a national vision on the environment. At present no federal Department is legislatively required to have an environmental impact study done in terms of the consequences of major decisions.
The Federal Environment Review Office, an agency of the federal Government, earlier this year recommended to the Government that it act to change the Canadian law and make it mandatory that environmental impact studies be done automatically according to law.
Given this expressed concern about the environment, why was this legislative requirement not included in the Environmental Protection Act when it was drafted and put into place in June?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP is obviously not speaking to the environment critic for the NDP. When I appeared before the legislative committee on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, although I do acknowledge that she was rarely there, I made the point that I thought it vital that we have two different but parallel consultation processes; one leading up to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act itself, focusing on a major reform of chemicals legislation in the country, and a separate one on FEARO, the process having to do with federal environmental assessments and reviews.
The public consultation on FEARO has now been completed. I have in my office the report of the broadly-based group. The group recommended that the federal environmental assessment review process be legislated. I am on record as favouring that principle. The issue is now before the Cabinet and is being discussed and resolved. I think that, in very short order, there will an announcement one way or the other. It would be premature for me to say what the decision of Cabinet will be on the substantive question, but I am personally on record as favouring a legislative approach.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the people of Canada will find it very reassuring that the Minister is on record. They want to see law passed by the Parliament of Canada, not another promise.
September 14, 1988


GOVERNMENT RECORD
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Prime Minister will actually answer the question. He made the commitment to a new environmental vision being needed for Canada, with which most Canadians would agree. His Government has cut more than 400 people from the Department since he was elected. It has cut back on research on PCBs and ignored the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission to put environmental matters into the Criminal Code. It ignored another commission which the Minister has just acknowledged today.
Considering all of that, why should the people of Canada believe the Government is serious and is not just indulging in pre-election posturing?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the Leader of the NDP used some rhetoric to justify the conclusion at which he arrived, perhaps he would also be interested in some matters of which he has personal knowledge as a Member of this House.
In less than four years the Government and the House have created the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the strongest piece of environmental protection legislation passed by the federal Parliament. The International Protocol on Ozone, the Montreal Protocol, was ratified. We have advanced by two years the regulations for phasing out lead in gasoline.
We updated the National Parks Act for the first time in a decade. We have created parks on Ellesmere Island, the Bruce Peninsula, the Pacific Rim, and South Moresby. We are going to create a marine park on the Saguenay River. We have moved to begin implementing the Canada-U.S. Agreement on the North American Water-Fowl Management Plan. We have taken action with the provincial Governments, to which the Leader of the Opposition is apparently opposed, to clean up areas such as the St. Lawrence River and Halifax Harbour.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party asks why we plan to do more on the environment. Because we already have a record of very substantial accomplishment to protect the environment in Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there is not a serious environmental group in the country who will believe what the Prime Minister says.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DESTRUCTION OF PCBS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister or the Minister a question.
The provincial and federal Ministers discussed the problem of PCBs last week, but they did not decide on a date for the elimination of PCBs in Canada. At the same time, although
Oral Questions
they mentioned costs of $500 million to solve this problem, the federal Government did not offer any money.
The question is very simple: Why not set a date for the destruction of all PCBs in Canada and why not offer federal money to solve this problem?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister answered this question quite specifically yesterday, and today we have provided some answers to serious environmental protection questions.
But right at the beginning, the Leader of the New Democratic Party told us, perhaps in jest, but he said in passing:

-that there is not an environmental group that would take the Government seriously on that. I point out to my hon. friend that the Minister of the Environment was honoured by the Sierra Club as the most outstanding public official on the protection of the environment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Did they pay him $10,000?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday the Minister stated that he is having his officials look into the closure of Transportation Route Canada to assure that there are no abuses of the Canada Labour Code. Yet on December 16, last year, I wrote to the Minister and stated that I believed he was in violation of the Canada Labour Code with respect to lay-offs by Route Canada the month before, last November, and that the workers across Canada, including those my constituency, were unemployed because of the arbitrary acts of the Government and Canadian National. The Minister did nothing then. How can we believe now that he will do something to help these laid-off workers?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, obviously I will look at that letter again because I do not have it with me today. I will be able, I am sure, to let my hon. colleague know that my officials most probably looked it up and there were probably no difficulties at that time.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Right. Several thousand people out of work.


Pierre H. Cadieux: With respect to the situation today, if the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is at all interested in this

September 14, 1988
Oral Questions
serious problem, as I indicated yesterday Labour Canada officials are looking into the books of the company and will make an audit and make sure that all provisions of the Canada Labour Code have been respected.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I have a copy of the letter that I can give to the Minister today, as well as a copy of the 10-page memo I sent him to back up the allegations 1 made.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ASSIST LAID-OFF WORKERS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is obviously stalling until after the election. That will not wash. The workers are unemployed. What will the Government do to help these laid-off workers? After all, it has given millions of dollars to its friends in big business. It is time now to help these laid-off workers.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I think we are dealing with a very serious situation. It is not because my colleague sends me a 10-page memo or 20-page memo that makes the facts contained in it true or accurate. I will respond on that particular situation to my hon. colleague.
With respect to the situation today, we have not yet received any group termination notices, but our officials are doing an audit in order to make sure that the Canada Labour Code provisions are respected.


ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question which deals with the same topic is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Government not feel it has a moral obligation to the laid-off workers and the private contractors who are losing their jobs as a result of the privatization move of the Government? It has allowed all that asset stripping of CN Route to take place. The company that is doing it is making a profit and there is no protection for those workers or those private contractors. What is the role of the Government?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, when Canadian National sold CN Route in 1986, there were two possible options. Canadian National was losing $70 million. One option was to close down the business; the other was to sell it, which CN did. What my colleague seems to be suggesting is that CN should then have shut down the business and laid off 2,700 workers.


REQUESTS FOR MEETINGS WITH MINISTRY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Government has known for months that there was asset stripping. The Minister of Labour received letters in August asking for an immediate meeting about this situation. The Prime Minister has received letters asking for meetings about this. Why did the Government not meet with the people concerned and try to
protect their interests? Why has there been a complete failure to represent the many as it protects the few?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I must remind my colleague that Routes Canada is a private company that was sold in a proper, legal way by Canadian National and for this reason, the present operations of the company . . .


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows the sympathy New Democrats have for workers and we understand why!
So I would simply say this: The company was sold properly. Routes Canada is a private company and until further notice, to my knowledge, based on the published documents, no liquidation or bankruptcy notice was issued. I would ask my colleague to wait and see what happens before making assumptions, probably for purely electoral purposes again!


TAX REFORM
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance or, in his absence, to the Prime Minister or another Minister. This morning we heard that the Association provinciale des constructeurs d'habita-tions du Quebec had prepared a study of the impact of Phase II of the Government's tax reform and that it had reached the conclusion that after Phase II, a new home would cost the prospective home owner $8,000 more.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance or his substitute a question: Is this the kind of surprise the Minister has for us in Phase II of his tax reform, and why isn't the Government honest enough to stop this exercise in hypocrisy that will cost every couple that wants to buy a new home $8,000 more, once the tax reform has been implemented?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the impact of sales tax reform is impossible to calculate at the present time because we have yet to determine the base and the rate. This means the concerns expressed by the Association provinciale des construteurs d'habitations du Quebec are premature to say the least.


TAX ON HOUSES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said the same thing when we started to talk about the tax on food, and he finally had to reverse his decision. We know that this particular tax will also have an impact on tenants, because according to the Canadian association and
September 14, 1988

also according to Clayton Research, once Phase II of the tax reform is implemented, it will cost tenants $65 more per month per unit. What I want to ask the Minister of Finance is this: could he give the House the assurance that there are no plans for a tax that would have the effect of restricting the right to housing or the right to own property? And will the Government ensure that there will be no tax on homes for couples and families?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat what the Minister of Finance said in Regina on September 6. When the details of the new system are worked out, and there are still many details to be dealt with, we will see whether there is any danger that the system will stand in the way of affordable housing. If that is the case, we will do what is necessary to deal with the problem, either by providing direct assistance to private citizens and to families, or by changing the way the tax is implemented in this important sector. These measures will be taken in the spirit of consultation I just described.


ALLEGED VIOLATION OF FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BY AMERICANS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade. The Secretary knows perfectly well that the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have just passed a bill that violates the trade agreement. The bill restricts imports of textiles, clothing and shoes, without the promised exemptions for Canada. Has the Government sent a protest note to the U.S. Government, since this measure calls into question U.S. support for the trade agreement with the United States? If so, what answer did it get? If not, why has the Government failed to do anything?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. The Canadian Government made very strong representations on the proposed legislation.
Suggestions that they are on the point of enacting this Bill are a little misleading and alarmist. Let me inform the Hon. Member that the Senate and the House of Representatives have not settled their differences on the Bill. In any event, if he looks at the votes that were taken there they cannot override a veto and the President has made the commitment that he would veto that particular Bill.


CANADIAN TEXTILE FIRMS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary not consider that the fact that the
Oral Questions
majority of the American Congress voting in plain defiance of the so-called free trade agreement adds to the pressure on Canadian textile firms to shut down in Canada and relocate in the American south?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, just the opposite. Canadian textile firms and Canadian garment workers are going to expand and grow because of the free trade agreement. We feel the textile Bill in the United States is in opposition to the free trade agreement. That is why the administration has made a commitment. Mr. Yeutter has made it clear, and the President has stated that he will veto this Bill. The Senate and the Congress will not have the votes to defeat that veto.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MANITOBA MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to Members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Clayton Manness, Minister of Finance for the Province of Manitoba.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for housing I address my question to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister surely knows that Metro Toronto is in the middle of an unprecedented housing crisis in part because his Government has betrayed the traditional federal role in a national housing policy. During the last four years we have had to endure a reduction in federal non-profit housing; CMHC subsidies have fallen dramatically; federal capital funding has been cut by 61 per cent; federal grants for rehabilitation of residences has been cut by 51 per cent; and the home ownership program for first-time home buyers has been completely eliminated.
Why has the federal Government completely abdicated its responsibilities in the area of housing? Will it now, without waiting for an election call, re-establish an active federal presence in housing so that this dangerous trend in Metro Toronto, where the average home price is approaching $230,000, can be quickly reversed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear my hon. friend with a litany of

September 14, 1988
Oral Questions
complaints like that when he has forgotten that the key impulsion to new housing starts in Canada is precisely what this Government has delivered, namely, lower interest rates. Lower interest rates have resulted in a record number of housing starts in the last year. The exact number is somewhere in the neighbourhood of some 200,000, which is the highest it has been in about a decade.
1 think that while there is clearly overheating in the housing market because of the powerful prosperity in southern Ontario, in particular in Toronto-something about which we are concerned and very conscious of-the Government will be working with the Government of Ontario to alleviate that concern to the extent humanly possible. I think my hon. friend would agree that in terms of housing in Canada there has been enormous progress under this Government in the last four years.


FEDERAL LAND HOLDINGS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister ever visits Toronto-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sergio Marchi: -he will understand that there is not a crisis in housing starts, there is a crisis in affordable units. Toronto is becoming a playground for the well-to-do.
I ask the Prime Minister again, given that the federal Government can also ease this crisis of affordability by utilizing its surplus land holdings in Metro, which are extensive, for the purpose of affordable housing construction, why has the Government refused to commit surplus federal real estate for constructing affordable housing rather than fuelling land speculation by selling these lands that are already owned by the taxpayers to the highest bidder?
Will the Prime Minister make the undertaking now that such federal lands will be made available immediately for some badly needed housing for working and middle-income Canadians on a first priority basis, rather than simply building luxury homes?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I give this information to my hon. friend for his consideration. Housing starts in July, 1988, were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 209,000, up 48 per cent since the election of 1984.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He said affordable housing.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Housing starts last year were at their highest level in Canada since 1977.


Sergio Marchi: So are the prices.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have already discussed the concern of the Government in regard to affordable housing and our intention to co-operate very fully with the Government of Ontario, the City of Toronto, and the authorities of Metropolitan Toronto
in regard to that. This has been the object of strong discussions between us. Hopefully, some important progress will be made.
My hon. friend asks me to take note of this when I visit Toronto. I was in Toronto only a few days ago. However, I was also in Toronto a few years ago when interest rates were at 24 per cent and no houses were being built. We can now see the prosperity in Toronto.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment. I have in my possession a document entitled: "Final Draft Agreement Between the United States of America and Canada for Water-Supply and Flood Control in the Souris River Basin". This agreement is for 100 years whereas the Minister of the Environment has signed an agreement and a licence with the Province of Saskatchewan for only 50 years. More disturbing, the agreement talks about water quality objectives as being unbinding.
My question to the Minister is this. Who is responsible for setting the standards of water quality? Who will enforce those standards?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, it would take an entire Question Period to deal with the falsehoods surrounding the premises of the question.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the House that I have in hand the 13 conditions, the stringent environmental conditions, that were associated with the permit under the International River Improvements Act in connection with the Rafferty Dam. The Director General for Inland Waters told me at noon hour-and he is the foremost hydrologist in the Government of Canada-that the stringency of these environmental conditions connected with the permit is the toughest in the history of Canada.


SCHEDULED AMOUNT OF DAMAGE PAYMENT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a supplementary question. The fact remains that in this draft agreement which the Minister has not repudiated or disowned all that is talked about is non-binding standards.
Is the Minister also aware that in Article 8 of this draft agreement with respect to compensation for the Province of Manitoba it states that the Department of the Army shall pay the Province of Manitoba the sum of $204,000 as full and complete compensation for any and all damages that might
September 14, 1988

occur in Manitoba? I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the Minister, is he willing to say here and now that he will not have anything to do with that agreement that stipulates a paltry sum of $204,000 for any and all damages for a dam that is supposed to last for 100 years, and a 50-year permit that he signed?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the unbinding-is that the word he used?


Some Hon. Members:: Non-binding.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, the licence with the 13 conditions states that the licencee shall not divert water from outside the Souris River drainage basin if such diverted waters would increase the annual flow of the Souris River at the international boundary above that which would have occurred in a state of nature.
That is one of the 13 very stringent conditions attached to the permit. The Minister of the Environment, under the International River Improvements Act, has the full authority to revoke the permit if any one of those conditions is not met, and to bring the project itself to a sudden end in that eventuality.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Gabriel Fontaine: My question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation. For a few days now some people in my riding have been claiming that Canada Post officials have decided to close certain post offices, including one on Commerciale Street in Levis and one on Belair Street. I want to know if Canada Post did decide to close post offices in my riding.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that no change nor any closing is planned which would lead to reduced services or fewer post offices in his community.
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In early July, after a meeting of the federal-provincial Agriculture Ministers, the Minister of Agriculture promised that he would be providing assistance to Ontario agriculture producers who suffered from the drought in the early spring months and during the summer, on an equitable and fair basis similar to what had been provided in western Canada, which amounted to some $150 million from the two levels of government.
Can the Minister say when that promise will be kept? The Ontario producers estimate their losses at over $750 million. When will that promise to give immediate and urgent aid to those producers be kept?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 can tell the Hon. Member that, as we said this summer, we are following the situation very closely, not only in the West but in Ontario and in Quebec. We will not know the result of the situation until after the harvest but we are following it very closely. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and I will be able to announce our position in a few weeks.


CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Minister that those producers have bank commitments to meet. In some cases their crops are 60 per cent lost. I think it is urgent that the Minister act.
Two weeks ago representatives of 12 farm organizations, representing 60,000 producers, called on the Minister to bring in amendments to the Crop Insurance Program so that when disasters such as this occur in the future there will be adequate coverage from the Crop Insurance Program.
Can the Minister advise when those changes and amendments will be made to the Crop Insurance Program in order that there can be adequate coverage in the future?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that we have been working on the crop insurance situation for a while. We are negotiating with all the provinces, and that is very important. We do not always receive collaboration from all our counterparts at the provincial level.
I wish to assure the Hon. Member that we are taking the situation under consideration. For those farmers, particularly in Ontario, who have some problems with their crops this year, we will follow what we said at the end of July. We will stand

September 14, 1988
Oral Questions
up for the farmers, as we have done for the last four years. That was never done before for the farmers.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL WELFARE
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does the Minister know that, since August 11, the New Brunswick Government considers that student loans are an income? This is why the New Brunswick Government has reduced social welfare payments to men and women attending university because this is required under regulations concerning the Canada Assistance Plan. Does the Minister agree with that?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be aware that under the Canada Assistance Plan the federal Government pays 50 per cent on an expended cost basis for costs eligible under the Canada Assistance Plan. The rates are subject to provincial determination.
I wish to remind the Hon. Member that when changes were made here to the Canada Pension Plan, and particularly the disability provisions of that plan, this Government put it on the record very clearly that it wanted to see a pass-through for those types of increases that came through here in a legislative form and that the disabled, for example, would have those benefits.
I would suggest to the Hon. Member that the principle, just as we applied it to Bill C-116 from a federal point of view, is that if a province increases those rates the federal Government will pay its share of the 50 per cent under the CAP.


FEDERAL POLICY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a misapprehension on the part of the Minister. The question has to do with the fact that mothers and single parents wishing to go to university and who have Canada Student Loans are having those student loans counted as income for the purpose of eligibility for welfare assistance, and welfare assistance payments are being cut.
Does the Government approve of a situation where the very people we would like to see get off welfare are being denied, by the action of the provincial Government, an opportunity to do so by attending university through the help of Canada Student Loans?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not labouring under any misconception. The point I wanted to make to the Member was exactly the position that we held with respect to pass-through. I am saying to the Hon. Member that it is for the province to determine what is used for the purposes of calculation of social benefits.
I also suggest to the Hon. Member that what he should keep in mind is that it was this Government and this Minister, after 13 years of discussion prior to the Government coming into office, that wanted to have a change in the Canada Assistance Plan relating both to payments that were made to people who were eligible for upgrading, for example, under UIC, and under CIC, as well as social benefits that they were receiving, and that if they got partial or part-time work as they improved themselves they would not immediately lose dollar for dollar assistance through welfare.
That principle has been one that has guided us for four years. If the provinces want to make changes as to the rates, obviously we will pay our 50 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question in Question Period.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the Minister is no doubt aware, recently there has been a lot of concern in northern Ontario over the progress of the settlement of the Temagami land claim, especially among the local residents whose jobs, future, and livelihood are wrapped up in the Temagami wilderness controversy.
Could the Minister inform the House whether the federal Government has played any part in the settlement process? Could the Minister also indicate whether the federal Government has been informed by provincial counterparts as to progress on settlement of this claim?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Minister of Western Diversification):: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Hon. Member is aware, for over 100 years the Temagami Band has been attempting to make a treaty with the Government of Ontario.
The Government of Canada is not directly involved in the band's claim. We have been supportive of the band's appeal to the Supreme Court of Ontario by providing $400,000 in costs for the band to make the appeal, but the Government of Canada is not directly involved.
September 14, 1988

As to whether we have had any discussions with my provincial counterparts, Mr. Speaker, not in recent months have I had any contact whatsoever with any of my colleagues in the Government of Ontario.


POINT OF ORDER
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Recently there have been rumours that there has been some confusion within the ranks of the Liberal Party. I have in front of me the new seating plan for the House of Commons. It indicates by the line between the Liberal and the Conservative Party Members that the Members for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), Davenport (Mr. Caccia), Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), and Saint-Leonard- Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), have joined the Conservative Party. I wonder if there has been any communication to the Speaker that would justify this new seating plan.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), and other Hon. Members, that I see no distinction at all.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats have their own copies of everything. 1 have a copy of the seating plan of this House, which indicates very clearly that the Members that they just referred to, Mr. Allmand, Mr. Rossi, and all these other people, are indeed members of this caucus and are seated in their appropriate places.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to confirm what we have heard from our colleague from the Official Opposition. The seating plan on the Conservative side does have the distinction between the Conservatives and the Liberals. What bothers us on this side of the House is that there is a line between the NDP and the Liberals. That probably does not belong.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour
Statements by Ministers
of tabling, in both official languages, the 1987 Annual Report of Canarctic Shipping Company Limited.


PETITIONS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), 1 have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to seven petitions numbered as follows: 332-5297 to 332-5299 inclusive, 332-5355, 332-5356, 332-5363 and 3325419.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



EXTERNAL AID


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada and on my own behalf and also on behalf of the Canadian people, I would like to express our heartfelt sympathy with the suffering caused by Hurricane Gilbert in the Caribbean, and especially in Jamaica.
1 want to apologize to my colleagues and opposition critics for not having distributed the text of my statement earlier, but until the very last minute I expected to receive additional information for my statement and that is what caused the delay.
Hon. Members and Canadians have been able to ascertain from initial reports the devastation caused by this hurricane in Jamaica as well as in several other countries and territories in the Caribbean. The Government, through the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and the people of Canada have already indicated they are prepared to play an active and effective role in helping to meet the basic needs of the people of Jamaica, and responding to the future priorities of the Government of that country for recovery and reconstruction.

However, Mr. Speaker, there is a serious lack of detailed information about the status of Canadians in Jamaica; the extent and nature of damage and Jamaica's needs; and about the friends and relatives of Canadians living on the island. In these circumstances we have decided on a phased approach to enable the people and Government of Canada to make an appropriate, prompt, and effective response to this tragedy.

September 14, 1988
Statements by Ministers
Canada and Jamaica have shared a special relationship for many years. The Canadian response to the present tragedy takes this multi-faceted relationship into account.
Phase one consists of the following humanitarian, consular and administrative elements. The first task is to reactivate the Canadian High Commission in Kingston, Jamaica, to enable it to serve as our eyes and ears in Jamaica. As Members may have heard, the High Commission was seriously damaged by the hurricane, and we still have no direct communication links with it. This will involve dispatch of a satellite telecommunication unit and communications personnel. This will be done in co-operation with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty), who has agreed to send a DND aircraft, which will also include additional consular personnel to be able to provide consular services to Canadians in Jamaica and to help respond to queries of concerned friends and relatives in Canada.

Our second task will be to provide emergency humanitarian aid in order to meet the most pressing needs of the people of Jamaica. Our country will raise the Canada fund to one million dollars, an increase of $600,000. This fund, which is supposed to help meet the socio-economic needs of the people of Jamaica, is administered by the Office of the High Commissioner in Kingston.
1 am also pleased to announce that Canada will give international humanitarian aid organizations a cash contribution of one million dollars that will be used immediately to meet the needs of the Jamaican people. An additional one million dollars will be allocated to the relief fund set up by the Office of the High Commissioner of Jamaica in Canada, subject to matching. In fact, Canada will match contributions made by Jamaican and Canadian communities in Canada and credited to the High Commissioner's relief fund.

The third element in Canada's humanitarian response will be our readiness to send a team of Canadians to Jamaica to work closely with the Jamaican Government and to assist in meeting emergency needs and to help assess additional short term needs and Canada's capacity to respond.

Phase II of Canada's response will also consist in close cooperation with the government of Jamaica in order to assess long-term requirements for reconstruction and recovery. During the current financial year, Canada is prepared to reallocate $4 million in the form of government-to-government assistance, as soon as it has further information on Jamaica's priority development needs. Canada will of course see to it that its contribution will, to every possible extent, be coordinated with that of other industrialized and developing countries.

As an initial step in this longer term phase I have asked the Vice President of CIDA's America's Branch to visit Jamaica
as soon as possible for discussions with senior Jamaican officials. His visit will be followed up by other planning missions as appropriate.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would again like to express my heartfelt sympathy to the people and the government of Jamaica after the disastrous impact of Hurricane Gilbert. Canadians from all walks of life have responded consistently and with understanding to the serious problems caused by this disaster. Together, with our Commonwealth partners and other nations, we will help Jamaica recover from this tragedy.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my appreciation to the Minister for having sent to me a copy of her statement. I was happy both to read and to see her commitment to bringing additional financial aid to the people of Jamaica.
The most recent information that I have is that the population of Jamaica, which numbers, I understand, some 2.8 million, has suffered a tremendous amount of damage in terms of the fact that some .5 million people are homeless. This means that one out of six or even one out of five people in Jamaica is without a home. This means that there was tremendous destruction of some 100,000 homes, which we understand are badly damaged. These are the most recent reports that have come to my attention.
I have also learned that Mr. Edward Seaga, the Prime Minister of Jamaica, has indicated that the situation is very grave, that there are no telephones, in effect, operating, that 95 per cent of the people are living without electricity, that the sugar cane, banana and citrus crops have been totally devastated, and that they have declared in the United States-and we have, too, I trust-that that area is a disaster area.
I also understand that there are some 500 Canadians who are living and working there, some at the Bauxite Mining Plant and some at the Alcan Aluminum Plant, and I trust efforts are being made by the Government to assess their situation urgently.
We must address this issue of emergency as our first priority. But it is too human and too common for us to forget the ongoing needs of the people, after the disastrous storm moves on and media coverage stops, and other problems and other disasters in other parts of the world occur.
We must make sure that we keep this issue of Jamaica alive while showing concern for others in the Cayman Islands and in other islands in the Caribbean area, including Mexico, which is about to suffer devastation as well. What other human tragedies occur, of course, must receive our attention, but a special command post, I suggest, should be set up by our Government for aid to Jamaica in order to deal on an ongoing basis with the long-range economic and human disaster. Some of the steps announced by the Minister indicate a desire to be
September 14, 1988

helpful. I hope that a special command post will be established to deal with this specific crisis and this ongoing tragedy.
On a personal note, there are hundreds of people from Jamaica in my congregation of St. Hilda's Church in Toronto, thousands of people in my riding and hundreds of thousands in Toronto, who are of Jamaican origin. They are no doubt pleased to know that Canada and Canadians join them in wishing to help in this urgent and tragic situation. The Government and the people of Jamaica have already declared their own intention to face and meet this challenge alone, if necessary, but they are calling on their friends to join them.
We call upon our Government to carry on, after the attention moves away, extra long-range assistance and to provide regular reports from the Department of External Affairs on the problems in Jamaica and the efforts Canada is making on its behalf. It should not be just a passing matter. What is happening there should be reported from time to time in a regular way.
I am sure I reflect not only the sentiments of the Liberal caucus but the feeling of all Canadians when I express our anguish and sympathy and concern for the people of Jamaica, wherever they are, and to the anxious relatives and friends of Jamaican extraction, especially to our Canadian population of Jamaican origin.
What I have said about Jamaica, I feel should also apply to the Cayman Islands and to other areas which have been devastated and which have received less publicity. I trust our Department of External Affairs will commit itself to monitoring those problems and needs with the same dedication.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, and Canadians generally, I want to join the Minister in expressing our sympathy and concern for the peoples of the Caribbean, particularly those people of Jamaica who have been devastated by Hurricane Gilbert. As has been pointed out, Hurricane Gilbert is the most devastating storm we have seen in this century. The losses are incalculable. We do not yet know the extent of loss in terms of life or in terms of goods and property. As the Minister noted, that problem extends even to our own High Commission in Jamaica.
We need to reflect on what this means for ordinary people in Jamaica who have seen the loss of everything for which they have worked.
We need to remember that Jamaica has not only been buffeted by Hurricane Gilbert but it has been at the centre of the storm on world's debt. It has been buffeted in recent years by the International Monetary Fund and by its policies. We are talking about a Government and a people who have very little latitude to deal with their own problems. They have very
Statements by Ministers
little in the way of resources because in effect that country has been bled dry by the policies of the IMF. We need to keep that in mind as we think of this generous response of the Canadian people. This response of the Canadian people to a crisis such as a hurricane is generous, but we also have to remember that Canadians, as part of the IMF, have been part of the problem for a country like Jamaica.
I am sure that all Canadians will welcome the initiative of the Canadian Government to help the people who are most affected in sending money and in attempts to trace the relatives of Canadian immigrants who still live in Jamaica and, indeed, visitors, because there are many Canadians who visit Jamaica on a regular basis.
I think the Government's decision to send a task force to assess the damage is very important because, as the Minister pointed out, this is an emergency that has come upon us suddenly. We have not had time to prepare. The Minister pointed out that she did not even have time to give the kind of notice to opposition Members she would have liked to have given with respect to her statement, and we can understand that. There was a need for emergency action in response to something no one could have foreseen.
I am very pleased the Government is taking the initiative to match the contributions individual Canadians and Canadian organizations will be making. I hope it will also play some kind of co-ordinating role to help encourage Canadians to give. I was pleased to see there is no ceiling placed on this matching limit. I hope the Government is not going to impose a ceiling later on as it did with the matching contributions to relief in Ethiopia three years ago.
The Minister and my colleague in the Liberal Party have pointed out that there is a long and historic tie between our two nations. This has been deepened by extensive immigration from Jamaica to Canada in the last few decades. I think that indicates that this Government must continue to give the Jamaican situation very high priority. Jamaica is this week's news. Hurricane Gilbert is this week's news. But all of us know that this week's news has a way of passing into yesterday's rather dry history. What we need to emphasize in this House today is the need for the Canadian Government, CIDA and the Department of External Affairs, to continue to watch over this situation and ensure our response in terms of personnel and money is commensurate with the situation. We do not yet know what the total situation is, but as the facts become more available, Canadians want to be sure that the Government will be responding in a way that is appropriate to the real needs of the Jamaican people, and to ensure also that the money goes where it is most needed, to the poorest of the poor.
Again, I want to express our sympathy and support for the people of Jamaica and our support for every effort the Canadian Government will be making to help.

September 14, 1988
Committee Reports



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the seventy-first Report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADA-ALASKA INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY ACT MEASURE TO ENACT

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-320, an Act respecting the international boundary between Canada and the United States of Alaska.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put a few brief remarks on the record with respect to the introduction of the Act respecting the international boundary between Canada and the State of Alaska. What this Bill does is to settle once, finally, and for all, the boundary between Canada and the United States, what is known as Dixon entrance, the A-B line or 54-40. This, of course, is entrenched in the 1825 treaty. The 1867 treaty of purchase of the State of Alaska by the United States from Imperial Russia was finally settled in 1903 by an international tribunal in a unanimous vote of the British delegation, the Canadian delegation and the American delegation, and it is perhaps timely that it is being introduced today in that our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is meeting with George Shultz in Washington at this very moment.
This is one of the agenda items being discussed between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and Mr. Shultz. I think perhaps Hon. Members might want to send good wishes in the hopes that the Secretary of State for External Affairs keeps a strong spine and does not allow any consideration of negotiations on the boundary to be undertaken, as Mr. Shultz is requesting the appointment of Mr. Derwinski from the United States-


Marcel Prud'homme: A great friend of mine.


James Ross Fulton: -and a Canadian to negotiate the reduction of the size of Canada in relation to the A-B line.


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


Robert Phillip Kaplan: for leave to introduce Bill C-321, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (Social Insurance Number).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, when the social insurance number was first introduced, there was a fear that it was the thin edge of the wedge and that eventually every Canadian would be identified by a number for all purposes. I discovered some time ago that when one applies for a library card in one of the municipalities around Toronto, one has to give the library one's social insurance number. This is going much too far, and I have introduced an amendment to the Criminal Code that prohibits the requirement of a person to give his or her social insurance number except for the original purpose for which social insurance numbers were introduced. I commend this measure to the House.


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


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-322, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (staff of Members of the House of Commons).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to provide equitable treatment to the staff of Members of the House of Commons, including the staff of the Speaker of the House of Commons, when employment is lost as a result of Members ceasing to be Members, by according them the same priority to be appointed to the Public Service that employees in the following offices now enjoy: the office of a Minister, the office of the Leader of the Opposition, the office of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and the office of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
September 14, 1988


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


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne) asked for leave to introduce Bill C-323, "An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (food irradiation)".
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to grant the Hon. Member leave to present the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Toupin:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill to amend the Food and Drugs Act which I am tabling in this House is to forbid the sale of irradiated food unless it bears a label stating that the food was irradiated.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



FRUIT, VEGETABLES AND HONEY ACT MEASURE TO AMEND

James Douglas Manly: for leave to introduce Bill C-324, an Act to amend the Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act (Country of Origin).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, Canadians who are concerned about apartheid in South Africa would not want unwittingly to support the economy of South Africa by buying oranges from that country. Canadians who are concerned about human rights would not want to buy fruit or vegetables from Chile. Canadians who are concerned about the environment or about
Petitions
labour conditions would not want to purchase California grapes. Therefore, the purpose of this Bill is to require that fruit and vegetables sold in Canada shall be clearly marked or have close to them a sign indicating the country of origin of those fruits and vegetables.


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


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-325, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (attachment and assignment of wages).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to introduce this Private Members' Bill to repeal Section 205 of the Canada Shipping Act, a section that exempts seamen's wages from court attachments. A constituent brought to my attention this section of the Act in connection with a single mother who was unable to collect custody and child support payments from her ex-husband because his employment was as a cook on a merchant ship. Section 205 of the Canada Shipping Act conveniently sheltered the ex-husband from court-enforced alimony and child support payments.
I find it intolerable that this section of the Act has been in place since 1873 when the Act was known as the Seamen's Act. It was overlooked when statutes were revised in 1906, 1927 and 1934. It is clearly time that we stopped exempting seamen from their legal family obligations and brought the Canada Shipping Act into line with other Acts.


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

Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present to the House of Commons a petition entitled "Help Save the Rouge". There are two petitions here signed by residents of Scarborough, Metro Toronto and surrounding regions. The petitioners state that the Rouge River Valley in Scarborough, a part of Metro Toronto, is a unique and precious natural area and that protecting the endangered wildlife and wilderness

September 14, 1988
Petitions
areas is in the national interest. They join with the Scarborough City Council, the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), the Save the Rouge Valley System, which consists of thousands of volunteers, and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations in support of saving the Rouge Valley as a park. This petition calls on Parliament to work with the Government of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley as a Canadian heritage land or a provincial park.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Elon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin), I am pleased to present in this House a petition signed by several thousand people from the St. Maurice Valley who, in cooperation with the Mouvement Vert Inc., ask Parliament to pass legislation on the use and recycling of harmful gases.
The petitioners intend to boycott such products as halon fire extinguishers, meat packaging and fast food containers, styrofoam plates and cups, styrofoam egg boxes, air conditioners and blue and pink S.M. styrofoam panels for home insulation.
Mr. Speaker, 1 have thousands of signatures from petitioners who want the House and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to understand that this question is most important and that the environment must be protected.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, in 1983-84, I succeeded in having the supermailboxes removed from the Marcelin-Wilson district in Bois-de-Boulogne, thanks to citizen support. But now, Mr. Speaker, it has started again and today I have several petitions, including two that I shall present right away to help you from one of the best construction districts in Montreal, from Vittorio Musto of the Alice-Nolin district and Emilio di Fiori from the Villas di Fiori.
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely incredible that we are still talking about supermailboxes now. These community letter boxes are really horrible in every way and they prevent our seniors and handicapped people from enjoying the same service as their neighbours. That is why I have the honour to table today two well prepared petitions that were collected very quickly and several others will follow in the days and weeks to come from the Marcelin-Wilson district and Arthur Lismer Street in Bois-de-Boulogne, in the riding of Saint-Denis.
These people, Mr. Speaker, according to the hallowed usage, call for home delivery for all residents of Bois-de-Boulogne. They want everyone without discrimination to have the same service as their neighbours and they want an end as soon as possible to this aberration whereby some people have home delivery, while their next-door neighbours on the same street have to go and get their own mail. So I have the honour to
present these two petitions to Parliament, if someone wants to come and get them.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present from residents of Windsor, Ontario, represented by my colleague. The petition concerns the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Order!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There is nothing the matter with saying that. It is called the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Order!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Whereas the trade agreement threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government effectively to control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians and not Americans, and to equalize opportunities between the regions, for example, in British Columbia, southwestern Ontario and other regions of the country, the petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve to allow the people of Canada an opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal through a national general election. I am pleased to table this petition on behalf of those citizens.


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition signed by residents of Brockville, Ontario, in the riding of Leeds- Grenville. The petition of some 107 signators is certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 106. However, there are some 321 signatures that were certified incorrect under Standing Order 106(2)(d) and Standing Order 106(2)(f).
The petitioners object to the fact that a company known as Brockville Cable of Brockville, Ontario, is imposing extra channels and additional costs without the consent of its subscribers. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to investigate whether this company was or was not given permission by the CRTC to do this.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 from a number of constituents who believe that the trade deal with the U.S. threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty. They believe that the trade deal denies Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermines our ability as Canadians to build a society distinct from that of the U.S. Therefore, they ask the Government of Canada to dissolve Parliament to allow
September 14, 1988

the people of Canada an opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of submitting a petition, again from Windsor, thus adding to the thousands of names of those who have signed petitions of this sort. It has been approved by the Clerk of Petitions pursuant to Standing Order 106 and is consistent with the almost universal opposition to the deal in Windsor.
The petitioners observe that whereas the trade deal negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government effectively to control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interest of Canadians, or to equalize opportunities between the regions, and would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election. They suggest that this be on Friday.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and responsibility of presenting this petition from citizens in that very active community of Windsor. The petition says that whereas the trade agreement negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control foreign ownership effectively, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, and to equalize opportunities between the regions, therefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I also have the pleasure to table in the House a petition certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 106 by a large number of petitioners who are concerned that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. and they humbly pray that a general election be called prior to any such agreement coming into force.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Broadcasting Act MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 16 minutes.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the 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.
Mr. Speaker:: It may be that more than one Hon. Member might want to address the Chair briefly with respect to Bill C-136, but I would ask Hon. Members to wait until I make my preliminary ruling on the amendments. I do not think any Hon. Member will be in any difficulty because what I will be announcing here is what I feel I can deal with at this time. I have some other matters which I am considering and I want to say that I received two letters from two Hon. Members, one from the Official Opposition and one from the NDP, on this issue.
I want to thank both Hon. Members for the very kind expressions of appreciation contained in those letters with respect to the negotiation and consultation process which we have had working, very well I think, for many months now. I just want to say to Hon. Members that when the Chair receives letters in which there is a clear recognition of the attitude and co-operation between Members and the Table Officers, it makes this place a lot easier to function. I just wanted to say to both Hon. Members that I appreciate it.
[ Translation]
The Order Paper and Notices contains 91 notices of motions for amendments to the report stage of Bill C-136, an Act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication.

At this time I am prepared to give the House a preliminary ruling in order that the debate can commence. I shall

September 14, 1988
Broadcasting Act
endeavour to return to the House with a more comprehensive ruling as soon as possible.
Motions Nos. 1, 1 A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 12 are in order and will be grouped for debate, and a vote on Motion No. 1 will also apply to the other motions.

Motion Nos. 7 and 8 are acceptable and will be debated separately and voted upon separately.

I will now call Motions Nos. 1, 1 A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 12 ... [English]
I will hear the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).


Mrs. Finestone:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to personally thank the Table Officers, the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and the Journals and Distribution branches. They have been very vital to the process, as you mentioned before. My office and I, in particular, are very appreciative of the role they have played. The spirit of Parliament has been well served.
I wrote following the consultations precisely because you were going to be ruling with respect to how the amendments were to be grouped. My major concern was that we had received so many, shall I say, complaints or shall I say disappointments, from very many interested parties which will be affected by a new broadcasting policy.
The Government commissioned an excellent study by Caplan-Sauvageau which took 1985 and 1986 to complete. In 1987 and 1988 the standing committee addressed itself to those issues and held good, sound hearings which were well received. The Minister took a great number of these issues into consideration and brought forward a Bill, which was not easy for her to do. I commend her for that.
The Bill is very complex and there have been very many changes over the 20-year period. Since the Bill was brought in during the summer months when many people, particularly in the big associations and institutions that will be affected, were on holidays. They wrote to say that they were most uncomfortable with it and that they had not been able to address the draft language in the two months available.
My concern, Mr. Speaker, was that you would regroup, particularly under Clause 3, that section which deals most specifically with the broadcast policy. Are you dealing strictly with the definition section in your decision? If so, I will be most pleased to accept the rulings. However, the amendments that relate to Clause 3 deal with the Canadian broadcasting system and the programming mandate for that system, particularly for the CBC and for the educational broadcasters,
introduce a new alternative programming service, and look at special requirements for private sector networks for programming undertakings and for the provision of special requirements for distribution undertakings. It is a very serious part, Mr. Speaker, and I hope they will be split in a way which will allow us more than 10 minutes per clause. I thank you very much for your kindness.


Mr. Speaker:: I have perhaps been somewhat more generous than I might be at other times. I have listened to the Hon. Member. I think I understand the point that she is making. The Chair will, of course, always try to do what is appropriate. If some of the Member's concerns can be accommodated the Chair will, of course, try to do so.
I want to say to the Minister, who has been very patient, that my decision must, nonetheless, be based on sound procedural grounds.
1 know that the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has some concern. I will hear him, but very briefly.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief. I wrote you a letter on this aspect and I concur with what my colleague from the Liberal Party has said.
Clause 3 of the Bill is entitled "Broadcasting policy for Canada". It contains about a dozen major policy thrusts. If we debate all of the 27 amendments on it in 10 minutes we will not come close to doing justice to such a serious and important debate. In my letter I suggested somewhat of a compromise, that we break it down into four debate areas.
The first would be general programming provisions, policy which applies to all broadcasters. The second would be provisions which deal with this new alternative television network and educational broadcasters. The third would be provisions that deal with the CBC, which is defined in here. The mandate of the CBC is in this clause and you can see how large that is. The last would be provisions dealing with distribution undertakings, that is, undertakings which private networks would make and private broadcasters and so on.
I think that that is reasonable. I suppose that you have difficulty, Mr. Speaker, with the technical rules in doing this. I hope that you can find a way of giving a little more room for debate on these amendments.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway. Being an experienced Member here, I think he realizes that I am bound by certain rules. However, I will say to both Hon. Members that the Chair is considering with considerable care the very courteous and helpful letters which I received. Again, I thank both Hon. Members for their generosity in referring to the co-operation of the Table Officers. I will return as soon as I can and give what guidance is appropriate with respect to the matters which have been raised.
September 14, 1988

Again, I want to say to the Hon. Minister that I appreciate the fact that she has been generous in not raising any objection to the comments which have been made.
I want to say one other thing as well, that is, that the system of consultation under which we have been operating has been working extremely well. I know that neither Hon. Member, on rising on this particular matter, would wish the general approach which we are taking not to continue. I know all Hon. Members would want to support that.
I will now put to the House all of the motions which were the subject of my ruling to the House.
Mir. Neil Young (Beaches) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 12 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
""distribution undertaking" means any commercial under-".


Mr. Alan Redway (York East) moved:: Motion No. 1 A.
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 13 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"taking, other than a boarding house, for the reception of broadcasting". Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 13 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"taking, other than a senior citizens' home, for the reception of broadcasting".
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 13 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"taking operated on a profit basis for the reception of broadcasting".
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 13 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"taking, other than an undertaking operated by students or youth organizations on a non-profit basis, for the reception of broadcasting".
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 17 and 18 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"porary residence or to more than the total residences in a multiple housing complex;"


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 3 the following:
"(3) For the purpose of this Act, a multiple dwelling unit grouped as a condominium complex is deemed to be one permanent residence, on such terms and conditions as the Commission deems appropriate."


Sheila Finestone: Broadcasting Act
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 13 at page 3 the following:
"(4) For the purposes of this Act, persons who occupy apartments, hotel rooms or dwelling units situated in the same building are part of the public and a transmission intended to be received exclusively by such persons is a transmission for reception by the public."
She said: Mr. Speaker-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the first motion is the motion of the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), would it not be normal that he speak to his motion?


Mr. Speaker:: The motions are grouped together. I am in the hands of the House.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to defer to the Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) if he would like to start the debate. It would be my pleasure to do so.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the critic for the Liberal Party and to my colleague, the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), for allowing me to say a few words first on this portion of the debate.
The reason 1 moved this amendment to the Bill was due to the great concern of condominium owners that this Bill changes their status from what it was previously.
Mr. Ernie Loader from York Condominium Corporation No. 76 appeared before the committee on behalf of the Canadian Condominium Institute to express those concerns to the committee. He did an excellent job in doing so.
Prior to Mr. Loader's appearance before the committee 1 was informed that the Minister told the committee that the concerns of condominium owners were not real concerns and that the status of condominium owners would not change under this Bill.
I read the minutes of the meeting where the Minister said this, and she was clear in what she said. However, I became concerned when I looked at what some of the officials began to say after the Minister had given these assurances to condominium owners. When one reads what the Minister's officials said in response to questioning at that committee, one can understand why Mr. Loader and his colleagues remained concerned.
Their concern is that while the Minister's assurances are accepted by me and by others, they do not mean too much when one considers that at some subsequent point the CRTC may very well make a ruling that condominium owners do indeed have their status changed under the new legislation. I share that concern.
1 can understand the argument made in the legislation about signals being used for commercial and profit purposes, but not as it relates to condominium owners who have a satellite dish

September 14, 1988
Broadcasting Act
on the roof and are sending a signal to the people who share that condominium and do not make a profit from the operation.
The Elon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) asked in the committee how Conrad Black would be treated under this legislation if he had a 50-room mansion with a satellite dish on top which sent a signal to each one of those 50 bedrooms. Apparently that situation would not be considered any differently from how a condominium was considered previously. Elowever, the second question asked what would happen if one of these signals ran into a chauffeur's room in the same mansion. The answer was that it could very well be considered a commercial operation. That did not make sense to me and it is a concern to condominium owners.
The Minister has given them the assurance that they will not be treated any differently today than they were last year. They are asking why this cannot simply be put in the legislation. Why not just put what the Minister means in the legislation?
We all know that governments come and go, and that Ministers come and go. In the future, somebody that may not have been a part of this process, or may come under a different administration, will look at this situation in isolation. One can only assume it will only look at what the Government meant by a certain policy because it will not have any clear legislation to guide it.
I ask the Minister, when she says that things will not be any different, whether that cannot be written into the legislation to address the concerns of those individuals? As I pointed out, the concern I do not have now is the word of the Minister. I accept her word, as I said at committee. I told Mr. Loader and other representatives that if the Minister says they will not be affected in the future any differently from how they were in the past, they can accept that. Elowever, that concern still exists on the part of condominium owners, which is understandable when one reads the transcript of the committee hearings on August 30, specifically if one reads pages 10:49; 10:50, and 10:15 of the transcripts of that committee hearing.
I will not spend too much time on this because I know other Members want to say a few words about it as well, particularly the Member for York East who also had discussions with the condominium owners in this particular location.
I only want to stress to the Minister that if she says they have nothing to fear and wants to give them real assurances that they have nothing to fear in the future, let her write that in the legislation. Her officials do not seem to agree with the assurances that the Minister has given to these condominium owners. The Minister is saying one thing and her officials seem to be saying that as another body may interpret this Act, it could have an effect on these condominium owners. At the very least, they are entitled to have the Government say what it means in the legislation rather than simply give words of comfort to these people, which is of no comfort to them at all.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the amendment that I introduced dealing with the rights of condominium owners. The Minister and most Members will recognize that being in a condominium is a preferred choice for perhaps hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It is a relatively new form of accommodation in terms of the kind of property holding or tenure that exists.
Unfortunately, in the last few years various initiatives by different levels of Government have tended to put condominium owners in the status of second-class citizens. In my City of Winnipeg, an assessment decision was made that gave a higher mill rate to condominium owners than to those who were single family property owners. Yet there is no difference. The form of tenure is the same. There is a clear form of ownership. It just happens that the units are either stacked or attached in some way. They do not even have to be that. What they do is to share certain services in common. In terms of rights of accommodation and tenure there is no difference. However, there is clearly a real apprehension that this Bill, by its redefinition of undertaking and distribution, will create that kind of position or potential by which future discrimination may take place.
If I might, Mr. Speaker, I would just give an example of some correspondence I have received. I wish to mention to the House that as late as last week I attended a meeting of several hundred people in my constituency who are condominium owners. They were not there for any other purpose than, they felt, to defend their basic rights as citizens to be treated equally and fairly. The following letter is a reflection of one of the owners from 55 Nassau, which is a condominium in the downtown part of Winnipeg. It states:
This Bill, if passed will be a flagrant act of discrimination against everyone who chooses to live in a condominium. In its present form the authors of this act do not consider that condominiums are homes. In fact, Bill C-136 would only licence, regulate or penalize those Canadians who do not live in single residences.
I will not read the whole letter, I think that the tone is there. I do not believe that any Government would want to create the feeling or sense of discrimination in the minds of so many Canadians that they are being singled out for special treatment.
I have read from the proceedings of the committee meeting at which the Minister gave assurances. I think that that is a legitimate exercise. We appreciate that. But an assurance is very different from any law. Something being written into legislation is very different from a guarantee. Conditions can change. Ministers can change. Governments can change. Regulatory agencies can change. Courts can interpret matters differently. While I accept the good intentions of the Minister, I think that the means of securing that intention should be to agree to the amendment that would clarify very clearly in the legislation what the Minister herself has said, recognizing as
September 14, 1988

she does, since she is a veteran of this House and of political wars-


Miss MacDonald:: Come on!


Lloyd Axworthy: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I use that phrase in the generic sense. The Minister is someone who has experience, wisdom and judgment in these matters. I think that her statement recognizes that there is a concern being expressed. Her attempt in committee to meet that concern has not succeeded because of other representations, other testimony and other witnesses who leave open the possibility or potential that this may not be a guarantee and assurance that will exist in perpetuity, or at least for the life of this Act.
I say to the Minister that the purpose of my amendment, and I think she will understand, is not for political or other advantage but simply to respond to a very strongly felt need on the part of a large number of Canadians. I think that it would be very easy to satisfy that concern by accepting the amendment, either my amendment or another, which would clarify in the law what it is that we all agree on, that is, that we do not want condominium owners to feel that they are being treated in a second-class way.
I took some pains in my amendment not only to ensure that condominiums would be seen as a permanent residence but that they would still be subject to the general terms and conditions of CRTC actions as they relate to broadcasting policy, whether it relates to content or otherwise. I know that from the people I met with they have no interest in using this as a way of skirting the intention to deal with these problems. They are saying that if the Government wants them to pay royalties because of free transmission to other areas, then that is a condition to which they are subject. Under my amendment they would still be required to do so if that is a CRTC ruling.
What the CRTC could not take away from them is the opportunity in a condominium complex to use a satellite as a means of receiving a signal and distributing it throughout the building. The conditions under which it is received is something that can be set as part of the policy. But the right to do so would not be compromised by accepting this amendment.
I would ask Hon. Members, and in particular the Minister, to recognize that there is a real need in the legislation for clarification. It should be a matter of law and not a matter of discretion, hope, expectation or assurance. Those are far too general and subject to the vagaries of time and circumstance. I think that the Minister could quickly solve the problem, either by agreeing to the amendment or substituting another for it.
I do not say that my amendment has to be accepted word for word. But there have been sufficient representations from both sides of the House about this problem that the Government, I think, would be wise either to accept the amendment or another one that would be responsive to a felt need of thousands of Canadians. It is one which I think would substantially strengthen the Bill that the Government has introduced in this respect.
Broadcasting Act
I am sure we will have many other things to say about other parts of the Bill. But in terms of this particular question, it should be resolved. Because it is a new Bill, the situation created by the Lount decision and other court decisions in the past should be clarified to ensure that it is now recognized as part of broadcasting law and not subject to regulatory or policy change.
I conclude by saying that I was given a copy of the letter the Minister sent to members of a condominium corporation which indicated that she herself had no reason for not doing such a thing. She said that this was a matter of government policy. I would like to quote the letter written to Mr. Wheeler, Secretary Treasurer of the Satellite Communications Association, in March of 1988, which states: "I might point out that this Government has not discouraged the direct subscription to U.S. services by individual dish owners. Nor is it government policy to discourage subscription to U.S. services by enacting punitive legislation".
It goes on to state: "I would like to assure you that there is no government or regulatory impediment to Canadian dish owners obtaining access to satellite or other services lawfully marketed in Canada provided they do not redistribute the signals to others".
In this case the Minister herself is giving those assurances but has not followed through with the obvious requirement that it be put into the Bill or the law. I ask the Minister to take into account not only the words quoted to her in these assurances but to recognize that where she has spoken to a need to look at questions of content, availability and so on, obviously those judgments would be made by the CRTC under the terms of the amendment I have proposed. They would not impair in any way the fundamental right of condominium owners to have the same rights as those who occupy single family dwellings.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak to this series of amendments dealing basically with an amendment to the definition of distribution undertaking in the Act. I have put forward some four separate amendments in this group of amendments. The main thrust is to exclude condominium corporations from the tentacles of this particular Act. This is a matter of long-standing concern for condominium owners. It is part of a wider problem, a wider concern of condominium owners, which is a matter of very high principle of condominium owners, that they are home owners. They feel that they should be treated exactly the same as home owners, whether they live in semi-detached homes or whatever. A condominium home owner is a home owner just like anybody else.
Back in my time in municipal Government I dealt with many other aspects of this same problem, particularly the garbage collection aspect and, as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) indicated, problems relating to assessments and municipal taxation. Each time the issue was raised with me it was raised as a matter of principle.

September 14, 1988
Broadcasting Act
It is not that condominium owners are looking for any special treatment. It is not that they are looking to be treated in a different way from anybody else. They say that what they want is exactly the same treatment as other home owners receive. If other homeowners are to have their garbage picked up, there is no reason why a condominium homeowner should not have his garbage picked up. If other homeowners are assessed on a certain basis, there is no reason why a condominium homeowner should not be assessed on the same basis. If all other homeowners are going to be excluded from regulation, licensing, and control under the Broadcasting Act, then there is no reason why a condominium homeowner should not also be excluded. To me that makes an awful lot of sense.
In this particular case, if what is being suggested here is examined, it is being suggested by the definition now in the Bill that a single family homeowner with a satellite television receiver in his backyard or on top of his home would not be subject to licensing, regulation, payment of fees, or anything else, but a condominium homeowner would be subject to all of those things.
I am one who has a good many condominium corporations in my constituency. In the present boundaries of my constituency I have the largest condominium corporation in the country, York Condominium Corporation No. 76 in the Crescent Town area. In the next election the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) will be running in the riding of the Crescent Town area, and York Condominium Corporation No. 76 will be transferred into the boundaries of his new riding. The Hon. Member pointed out quite clearly that Mr. Ernie Loader of York Condominium Corporation No. 76, and many others, have put to him, have put to me, and have put to the committee their position. In fact Mr. Ernie Loader appeared before the legislative committee on this Bill and put the position of York Condominium Corporation No. 76, and the position of all condominium owners across the country, very forcibly and very clearly that it was a matter of principle, and that is all it is. However, it is a very important principle and a principle that obviously, if we pass the Bill in its present form, we will be violating and discriminating against the condominium owner as a homeowner.
As I indicated, I do have a great many condominium corporations in my present constituency and also in the boundaries of my new constituency. I have been contacted by a great many of those people. When this Bill became public knowledge in July of this year I received more telephone calls in my office in one week than I received last summer with respect to the landing of the Sikh refugee claimants in Nova Scotia, and more telephone calls than I received with respect to the landing of the Tamil refugee claimants on the East Coast the summer before. It was a very, very hot issue as far as condominium owners were concerned. I was deluged with phone calls.
I was subsequently deluged with letters, not only from the Crescent Town, York Condominium Corporation No. 76, but also from the Flemingdon Park condominiums, including the Vicora Linkway condominiums, the Windy Golfway condominiums, and further to the north near Highway 401 and Don Mills Road, the Graydon Hall condominiums. They have all been in touch with me on this matter of principle. They have been in the process of contacting condominium corporations across the country. As they point out, 5 per cent of Canadians live in condominiums. When one calculates how many people we are talking about here, it is over 1 million Canadians who live in condominiums and who will be affected by the terms of this particular piece of legislation, and that is why they are upset and concerned, that is why they are looking for the Government not to discriminate but to deal with this on a fair and equitable basis.
This is an issue with which I have been concerned and involved as a result of representations made by condominium owners from the very first moment that I indicated that I was going to stand for federal office back in 1982. Some of the first people who came to me at that time were representatives of York Condominium Corporation No. 76. Mr. Loader came to me at that time and pointed out the great concerns that he had with the legislation of the former Government, and the great concerns that all condominium corporations had with the legislation of the former Government in this respect.
He asked me, and he implored me to ensure that, if the Progressive Conservative Party formed the next Government, it would certainly not make the same mistake and would ensure that in broadcasting legislation condominium owners were dealt with in the same manner as other single family dwelling owners.
He asked me to bring that to the attention of the Leader of our Party (Mr. Mulroney). I did. I have written to the Prime Minister on numerous occasions since that time, and have raised representations, both privately and publicly, on numerous occasions since that time. I have met with various Ministers of Communications on numerous occasions since that time. I have met with their staff on numerous occasions since that time. I have found that a great many people on all sides of the House shared the concerns with respect to condominium corporations.
Back in 1985 a government Bill was put forward which was then known as Bill C-20. It contained similar provisions which caused great concern with condominium owners. Quite frankly, it led to the establishment of something that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has subsequently come to refer to as the dinosaurs. It led to the establishment of the back-bench committee of the Progressive Conservative Party. It was Bill C-20 that created it. As a result of that, a great many people who were concerned banded together to try to deal with it in some logical, civilized and reasonable way, and to persuade the Government to make some changes in that Bill. The result of it was that the Bill was not proceeded with when the first session of this Parliament came to an end. In
September 14, 1988

fact, the Bill died on the Order Paper, never having been passed into law.
At that time condominium owners across the country applauded and said that it was wonderful that the Government had finally seen the light. They were sure, when any other legislation came forward, that it would not contain this type of provision. Much to their shock, and much to my shock, Bill C-136 came forth with the same provision.
The Minister has assured me, and the Minister has assured condominium owners, that they will be exempted under these regulations. However, as has been so eloquently put by other Members so far, there is no assurance whatsoever that the Minister will be in her job 50 years from now, and the next Minister may very well do something differently.
In fairness to all of us, to 5 per cent of Canadians, over 1 million Canadian condominium owners, I implore the Minister and the Government to put forth an amendment acceptable to treat condominium owners exactly the same as all other homeowners.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the last week, I have received over 100 letters and telephone calls. Since the beginning of this week, my assistant in Winnipeg tells me that they are coming in at the rate of 25 a day or more. This is a difficult problem. Those of us who believe in a Canadian radio and television system which gives the people of Canada the ability to watch and listen to Canadian programming have been concerned and have to be concerned about the problems which have been created and are being intensified by the development of new technologies. Cable and satellite give people the opportunity to watch a vast number of programs, most of which are not Canadian.
I and all members of the NDP are sympathetic with the efforts of the Government to foster and promote the ability of the Canadian people to watch Canadian programming on television or to listen to Canadian programming on radio. It is for that reason that we have laws and agencies such as the CRTC. It has always been accepted by Governments-the former Liberal Government and the present Conservative Government, that individual homeowners in Canada have the right to have a television dish which they can use to pick up programs from any part of the world, as long as those are not passed on and sold to others and so on.
I think that the people who live in condominiums have the right to say: "We are just as much individual homeowners as are people who live in single dwelling homes or in attached dwelling homes. Because we are homeowners, we should have the same rights as the people who live in their own homes". They have said that in the letters I received. I will quote part of one such letter which reads:
This Bill, if passed, will be a flagrant act of discrimination against everyone who chooses to live in a condominium. In its present form, the authors of this Act (the CRTC) do not consider that condominiums are homes. In fact,
Broadcasting Act
Bill C-136 would only licence, regulate or penalize those Canadians who do not live in single residences.
And it goes on.
I listened with interest to the comments of a number of Members. I found it interesting that the last three speakers each represented different political Parties. In other words, the speeches were made by Members from each of the political Parties represented in this Parliament.
We respect the present Minister. We accept her assurances, that in her view the Bill as drafted does not infringe on the rights of condominium owners. As it has been pointed out, this Minister will not always be the Minister of Communications. There will be other Ministers. The CRTC board may not rule against the right of condominium residents to participate in the programs which come from the satellite on their building. The CRTC may not rule that way, and a future CRTC board may rule to the contrary.
I am not a lawyer, but I remember that when the parliamentary committee was dealing with the proposed Constitution and the Charter, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), proposed an amendment which he said would spell out the rights of labour unions to operate as they have up until now. The then Minister of Justice rejected that proposed amendment, saying that it was not necessary, because no court would rule in a way which would be contrary to the spirit of the proposal that my colleague was making.
What happened? In reality, a case was taken to a court in Ontario, sponsored by that great organization, the National Citizens' Coalition. The judge hearing the case ruled in precisely the way the then Minister of Justice said that no court would rule. What the judge was really saying was that it did not matter what the Minister who introduced the Bill said it would mean; what matters was what the Bill actually said.
Despite the assurances given by the present Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), for whom I have a great deal of respect, I do not think that that is enough. I think that the Bill, if we are going to be fair to condominium residents, has to make it very clear, without any doubts, that they have the rights that individual homeowners have, to benefit from the use of a satellite dish.
I have not spent a sufficient amount of time in order to say that I prefer the amendment moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), or the amendment moved by my friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). However, I would urge the Minister to accept an amendment to the Bill which would spell out quite clearly the rights of condominium residents to continue to be able to benefit from the programs which can be picked up by the satellite dish.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal and then I will recognize the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

September 14, 1988
Broadcasting Act


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in seeing the number of Members of the Elouse who were interested in standing and talking to this particular grouping of amendments. The amendments came from a number of people and covered not one but two particular areas of concern. The first related to condominiums and apartment buildings, and the second related to a definition of the term "public" under the Bill, as neither public nor private are clearly defined under the Bill, and there is a change from the old Act.
In legal parlance, one knows that if there is a change in terminology in a Bill there is a reason to make that change. You just do not lightly change words which have a legal history under the law. If you look at Motion No. 12 first, I would like to point out that there was a change in the original Act. The definition of "broadcasting" under the 1968 Act indicated that broadcasting meant any radio communication in which the transmissions were intended for direct reception by the general public. The general public has had, over the course of history in the last 20 years, its mechanism of identification of that terminology. The Minister has changed the terminology in this new Bill, which states:
-any transmission of programs, whether or not encrypted, by radio waves or other means of telecommunications for reception by the public-
Not the general public. It continues:
-by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus, but does not include any such transmission of programs-
The Bill goes on to state the concern that has been expressed, both my concern and that brought to our attention by the Canadian Bar Association, indicating that we need some refinement on the term "public". I therefore have proposed an amendment that Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 13 at page 3 a definition of "public". It would say:
"(4) For the purposes of this Act, persons who occupy apartments, hotel rooms or dwelling units situated in the same building are part of the public and a transmission intended to be received exclusively by such persons is a transmission for reception by the public."
If we do not do that, there is a number of questions which go unanswered. If programming is sent only to tenants of a particular apartment building, would they qualify as reception by the public? If programming is directed only to persons in an institution, such as schools, universities, hospitals and the like, would that be considered reception by the public? If a service is directed only toward a particular group of users, the brokerage industry or people who signed up for an educational class, would that be considered reception by the public? What would be the size of that group? In a single household where there is a series of sets, would that also become the public?
Because it is not defined, I would strongly recommend positive consideration on the part of the Minister to clarify that. I would sincerely hope that that clarification is the same wording that is found in the copyright Bill, under Bill C-130, the free trade legislation of this House. We would at least have wording that means the same thing in more than on place so
we do not have legal interpretation and a jumping around. I would like to recommend that the motion I placed on the table with respect to the definition of "public" be given favourable consideration and be accepted by the Minister.
With respect to condominiums, I must say that it was an interesting experience to have members on the government side of the House calling me on a constant basis asking if I would bring this amendment forward in their interest.
Outside one or two members of the government Party, there did not seem to be comfort in arguing with the Minister. The Minister was forthright and in a sense spoke to the issue quite clearly in the legislative committee. She told us not to worry, that we did not have to be concerned. She says that the rules of the game are that we have always been exempted and we are in no changed position, that our circumstances before the new Bill and our circumstances now will allow for exemption. She pointed out that nothing in Bill C-136 would change the situation of U.S. condominiums which install a roof-top antenna. There are no provisions that would cause the CRTC to make its exemption criteria more rigid. Indeed, the Bill expands the commission's ability to use its exemption power. Condominiums which are presently exempted from licensing should expect that they will continue to be exempted.
That caused me to have additional concern. That is why I was pleased that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and other Members of this House have suggested the Minister put into law the things she has said in public, in the legislative committee, that there need not be a worry on the part of these people.
Clause 9(2) of this Bill would allow the CRTC at some point in the future, perhaps, to change its mind with respect to condominiums and apartment buildings. We know about the Lount decision. We know the federal courts have already looked at this and I think there should be clarity in the law. I believe a Bill at all times should state clearly the Government's intent. The Minister said this was her intent. She should be very comforted that this is what she would install and put in place in the law.
I would like to ask the Minister to accept the amendment which reads:
For the purpose of this Act, a multiple dwelling unit grouped as a condominium complex is deemed to be one permanent residence, such terms and conditions as the commission deems appropriate.
Those last lines are key because the commission can essentially order the priority, ensure there is compliance with the will being expressed through broadcast policy in this Act, that there is no allowance for going outside the principles of this Bill and allowing the kinds of supposed misdemeanours that are occurring in many of these condominiums. That would give the kind of latitude that is required. I sometimes wonder if we are going to have enough police force in place actually to
September 14, 1988

apply this clause, but I believe the principles should be there so that if there is infringement we have the ability to act.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps a sign of how wedded people in our country have become to their televisions in this stage of our cultural evolution that an issue like this should generate the concern it does. The prospect of some interference with the amount of programming or the conditions under which programming can be received is something which now seems to register very high on the level of concern of a great many citizens.
Before I make my specific comments on this Bill, I would like to say to the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) that I think the legislation itself, Bill C-136, is a major legislative initiative which deals in a very constructive and positive way with the shape of this country, a country which from its inception has depended upon communications. I think the direction that is being set down by this Bill is of fundamental importance for the country and reflects very sound principles.
The issue we now have before us is, in that broad context, a very narrow and specific one. Yet to those individuals who are concerned by it, it is no less important by virtue of its narrowness. For them, it is fundamental. I think it can be stated that there are two principles here. The first principle is different legal treatment of that which is the same, a result which some would describe as discriminatory, where homeowners who live in single dwellings are being treated one way and homeowners who live in condominiums are being treated in a different way.
The second principle, I believe, is one which pertains to the rule of law, the concept of open government, which is certainly something I believe our Progressive Conservative Party stands for. It is on record as favouring government by statute rather than government by regulation. A principle ought to apply here. It is one I am committed to, at least. It is that that which can be done by statute ought to be and only that which requires to be done by regulation made pursuant to the statute ought to be done in that fashion.
What is the issue? What is it that caused the Minister of Communications to send a clarifying letter to all who are concerned and who are in a state of agitation about this issue? What is it that has caused representatives from three different Parties to bring motions on the floor of the House seeking amendments? The issue is that condominium owners are being told that the new Broadcasting Act will result in condominiums being regulated as to the television stations they receive. The result would be that they would lose U.S. pay-TV signals they now pick up for free. Individuals who own satellite dishes would not be regulated by the new Bill. Thus, the Government is discriminating between condominium owners and individual homeowners. I think that is a fair statement of the issue that has brought these eight different motions before the House.
I have looked carefully at Bill C-136 and I see that the Government is seeking to ensure that the distribution of TV
Broadcasting Act
signals to condominiums and groups of homes will continue to be subject to regulation in the new Bill just as they are subject to the existing Broadcasting Act of 1968. There is no change in this respect. Second, I see that private cable systems in condominiums and apartment buildings will continue to be exempt from licensing under certain conditions, just as they are now. At present, multi-unit dwellings must carry only those channels which are offered by the cable company that serves the same area.
A third feature of this Bill is that condominiums which descramble HBO, ESPN, and other U.S. pay-television signals without permission may, under certain conditions, become subject to legal proceedings for theft of signals brought by people who own the distribution rights of those signals.
That is fundamental and important to protect the intellectual property of those who create those signals, and that is the way the situation is at the moment. The indication I have been able to receive, both from the Minister's office and from CRTC officials, is that the Government does not intend to become involved in any such prosecutions in that area, leaving it in essence to a matter of private law between the creators of the intellectual property and those who are infringing it to be remedied in the courts.
The owners of rights and scrambled signals must make them readily available to all kinds of subscribers before they can sue for any form of damages. We come then to the fact that individual homes with satellite dishes will not be subject to the new Act but that group homes linked by a cable system, whether houses or multiple unit dwellings, will be subject to the new Act. Again, I think that brings us to the point at issue.
First, I would return to the principle that I mentioned at the outset regarding what is being called discrimination, but what I would refer to as different legal treatment, different treatment in the statute, of that which is essentially the same, homeowners who live in single dwellings compared to homeowners living in condominiums. I think all of us recognize that the development of condominiums over the past decade or so represents a major point of departure in concepts of property ownership.
It is not easy, in many instances, and the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) referred to his municipal experience, to provide for everything from garbage collection to the receipt of broadcasting signals in this unusual form of private property ownership that has developed in our system with its more traditional concepts of home ownership. However, the reality is that the condominiums are there and those who dwell in them are individual homeowners.
Now, the ironic result, and the one that I think we should look at to test the way this legislation, if amended, would work, is that if a condominium building association with its, say, 350 owners, decided to put 350 satellite dishes on the ground and link each to each home or unit in that building, then the dishes

September 14, 1988
Broadcasting Act
would be legal under this Act. In other words, we could see a situation in which, on a technical level, people would use unusual methods to do that which they feel is their right as homeowners to do. It would be much like some provisions in the Income Tax Act in which the tail ends up wagging the dog and we get anomalous results simply because people are trying to live within the law.
The fact is that the SMATV exemption rules which the CRTC has already promulgated set out quite clearly the circumstances under which exemptions will be permitted for condominium owners. It is a matter of record what those conditions and criteria are. The point that I make, and I join with Members of all other Parties who have spoken in the House on this, is that if it can be done in regulation as it now is, then let us include that in the Bill. That is why any of these eight motions or a blending of them would achieve that purpose.
I sincerely urge the Minister to consider this possibility. I know the amount of effort that she has put into bringing this Bill to its present state. Yet Parliament exists for the purpose not of making laws but of making good laws. If we who represent the people here are to have any role in this process, then it is to come forward with suggestions to improve some detail of a statute.
I earnestly exhort the Minister to consider taking the concerns that she has herself recognized in the letter she sent to condominium owners and the motions suggested by Members of the House in seeing that this one small corner of a very large Bill be improved to that further extent. I think a sense of fairness to all Canadians requires it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I would like to speak in support of this group of motions, and especially the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), which aims to restore a measure of equity and justice for owners of condominiums.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, appearances are often very important in politics, and how people perceive things is something we politicians have to consider and deal with as well as we can.
However, condominium owners are concerned about Bill C-136. We would like to see the Bill clarified so it does not discriminate against them.
The motion presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg

 Fort Garry reads as follows:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 3 the following:
"(3) For the purpose of this Act, a multiple dwelling unit grouped as a condominium complex is deemed to be one permanent residence, on such terms and conditions as the Commission deems appropriate."
I think that makes eminently good sense. I think it is clear and that it is a step in the right direction. It does not mean that the owners of these buildings or condominium units can get special privileges or purchase illegal instruments or decoders. It simply means that condominiums will be treated no differently than single-family units or other types of property where Canadians have access to a community antenna or to a more advanced system, the so-called dish.

I think the eloquence of the debate this afternoon and the fact that it has been a non-partisan approach to attempting to get this Bill amended to clarify the situation appears to me to suggest that the will of parliamentarians is to make sure that there is fairness toward condominium owners in the Bill. We have argued that they have a right to know where they stand regarding this issue, and we believe that this amendment clearly provides that assurance, while allowing the CRTC to impose terms and conditions to ensure fairness to local licensed cable television systems.
Evidently some people in my riding have said that these cable systems which have a type of monopoly over distribution systems would not like to see any amendment to Bill C-136 which would give condominium owners the right to have satellite dishes on their buildings. I find that a little negative, and I do not think it would be in favour of the cable companies to support that kind of argument.
The modification for which we are asking seems to be quite reasonable. I would certainly want to support that amendment put by my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry. I do not think I can add anything further to what was said this afternoon.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in response to the comments that have been made this afternoon. Very briefly, all these motions, if adopted, would remove from the purview of the legislation certain kinds of distribution undertakings. That is what has been talked about this afternoon, whether it is condominiums or other suggestions which have been put forward in the various amendments before the House.
I would like to make it very clear that the Broadcasting Act of 1968 provides that condominiums which install a roof-top antenna or satellite dish are regarded as cable systems and as such are subject to CRTC regulation. The CRTC could exempt them under certain conditions. It in fact has exempted them provided they meet certain criteria, and that is what this is all about.
The CRTC was able to do that in 1968 under the legislation the way it was written. It will continue to be able to do exactly the same thing. However, to begin writing into legislation that you accept this kind of distribution undertaking or that kind of distribution undertaking so that it does not have to meet the requirements of the regulations is to begin to say, all right,
September 14, 1988

these people do not have to meet the major requirements, i.e., inclusion of Canadian channels. That is really what we are talking about.
At the present time every distribution undertaking must by regulation meet certain minimum requirements, and those are that there is a certain amount of Canadian content carried on those distribution undertakings. If it is seen by the CRTC that they will indeed meet those requirements, then they can be exempted and they will continue to be exempted in future provided they meet those regulatory requirements. However, under the legislation, if they do not carry that minimum Canadian content, then there are remedies which can be applied against them.
I heard this afternoon the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) present the case that he was arguing, along with Members of the NDP. They have stood in this place day after day and railed against me or whomever about the lack of Canadian content. For them to come here this afternoon and turn the argument completely around is absolutely hypocritical. I want to assure you that the basis of this provision in the Bill is to ensure that, yes, condominium systems, as with any other broadcasting undertaking, are subject to regulation. They will be regulated by the CRTC. The CRTC will have the same power it has had in the past to exempt them, provided they meet certain criteria. Those criteria are the bottom line for us, and those criteria are Canadian content.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: May I just comment, pursuant to the Speaker's ruling this afternoon, that Motions Nos. 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 12 are acceptable and will be debated together, with a vote on Motion No. 1 being applied to the other motions.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Beaches. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
Broadcasting Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 7 and 8 are acceptable and will be debated separately and voted on separately.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 35 to 38 at
page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"entertain".
She said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the methodology used in writing this clause with respect to programs. I agree that the definition of the word "program" as sounds or visual images or combinations of sounds or visual images intended to inform, enlighten, or entertain is what a program is all about. However, this definition goes on to say that it does not include visual images whether or not combined with sounds that consist predominantly of alphanumeric text.
If you look further on in the Bill you will see that Clause 82, the old Clause 83, is an amendment to the Railway Act requiring telecommunication type regulation of non-programming. It then becomes clear that the intent of this legislation is to split undertakings into both programming and nonprogramming undertakings. If you follow this logically, you have a serious conundrum, I would suggest.
The CRTC, in its brief to the legislative committee, stated that it had been advised by engineering experts concerning intellectual matter contained in the vertical blanking interval of the television signal. It all sounds very detailed and technical, but it means that a television signal can be considered separate and apart from the main transmission. It is this vertical blanking interval which is used by broadcasters to supply closed captioning. That is, alphanumeric material for use by the hearing impaired. This definition will mean that the commission may lose jurisdiction over this most important aspect of broadcasting. The Minister has put a very specific emphasis on help to the handicapped, and we have serious concerns that closed captioning will be jeopardized given the way this definition is written.
As well, with all due respect, our own Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, in its all-Party sixth report, addressed the term "program" and was quite firm in what it had to say. The report said that in its view his term should be defined broadly in the Act to cover all forms of audio-video content, including entertainment, information, and advertising disseminated to the public over broadcasting undertakings. While the terms "program" and "programming" are not defined in the 1968 Act, the CRTC defined the term "programming" in its 1986 regulations so as to exclude alphanumeric services with music and still images. In the committee's view, the distinction between these kinds of services and full video services has and will become increasingly blurred. It is essential that the Act clearly categorize all such services as

September 14, 1988
Broadcasting Act
programming so that the providers of such services will be properly licensed as networks and made subject to the appropriate regulatory scrutiny. Under this approach the commission will be able to exercise jurisdiction over such services. In the committee's view, they may not be excluded from scrutiny by an artificial definition of the term "program".
I suggest to the Minister that the proposed amendment would strike out all references to non-programming by removing the references to alphanumeric text. This would ensure that both programming and non-programming carried on under a broadcast undertaking would fall under the Broadcasting Act rather than telecommunications, and that the jurisdiction would be that of the CRTC. I think that would be quite consistent with what we have had to say and I suggest that this is a very important amendment.
We could have a situation where the commission would be in a position of trying to define or to direct what would be a program under a programming undertaking. In their particular brief they state that the court could decide that the commission only had jurisdiction over the operation of a distribution program, that it could find that the physical apparatus constituted two undertakings, one a program undertaking and one a non-program undertaking. There would then be confusion as to who has the right under the law to make certain decisions or to try to indicate the kind of programming that should be carried on in this undertaking.
The courts could decide that it would be unwise to create two undertakings and look to the predominant characteristic, programming versus non-programming of the operation, to determine exactly what they are dealing with. That test could be applied in any way the court saw fit and we would be in a very serious jurisdictional dispute because non-programming services could fall under provincial jurisdiction. We are then into a battle between the federal and provincial jurisdictions.
As well, it would be seriously unfair to the regulated broadcasters who would have to meet the objectives set out in Clause 3 with all the attendant costs. The commission would not be able to ensure that it is a level playing field and that similar operations are regulated in a similar way.
I suggest to the Minister as well that when a broadcaster has the right to use the services of the public airwaves and is using that service partly for alphanumeric advertising and partly for programming it becomes a blurred situation. If you are running an 18 or 20-hour service, what percentage of that service will be alphanumeric, what percentage would be a pay service or speciality service, and who would determine at what point that percentage falls under the CRTC's right to dictate? What percentage would fall under alphanumeric and nonregulated and would, therefore, not be a contributing factor to the broadcasting policies of the country?
The Minister wants Canadian content. There is also the potential that if it is more than 50 or 60 per cent it could be owned by other than Canadians. By reinforcing the meaning of what a program is in the Broadcasting Act, that is, that it is intended to inform, enlighten, or entertain, one would be in a position to ensure that everyone who uses our airwaves for gain and to entertain is using a public facility and would, therefore, fall under the regulations of the CRTC.
The CRTC was very firm in its concerns in this matter. It believes there is a potential for a jurisdictional battle between the federal and provincial interests. I suggest that the Minister reconsider her definition of program. She should leave no question marks with respect to what a program is in the eyes of this very important industry. She should recognize that the standing committee gave this issue very serious concern and found that excluding alphanumerics would not be in the best interests of the broadcasting policies of Canada. I recommend that the Minister reconsider her definition of "program" as found in Clause 2 of the Bill.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this particular motion. I will speak on the motion first and then broaden it out to some general comments on the Bill itself. As I understand Motion No. 7 of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), it simplifies the definition of programming. It responds to the concern expressed by the Canadian Radio and Television Telecommunications Commission and others with the splitting of the undertaking between programming and non-programming parts. This could have highly negative effects for the CRTC's jurisdiction over closed captioning, for example, as the Hon. Member for Mount Royal mentioned.
The commission told us that engineering experts have advised that intellectual matter contained in the vertical blanking interval of a television signal can be considered to be separate and apart from the main transmission. It is this vertical blanking interval which is used by broadcasters to supply closed captions, that is, alphanumeric material for use by the hearing impaired. The current definition of "program" may mean that we lose control over this important area of broadcasting, and that is why we in the NDP would support the amendment of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.
While I am up I would like to tie this amendment in to the general position on the Bill. When the broadcasting Bill first came forward no one thought that it would ever get this far. We thought that we were going to have a general election before then. We have not yet had the election. We may have it and we may not have it. Everyone on the Hill is expecting it, but today less than yesterday. So here we are debating the Bill.
I think it is important that we give the Bill the utmost consideration. There has not been a Broadcasting Act in 20 years, not since 1968. This is an important Bill in a vitally important area about which Canadians are concerned.
September 14, 1988

I just paid my cable fee last week. It went up quite dramatically. We are all concerned about this subject, whether it is paying cable fees, the kind of programming we get, the CBC, or whatever. Everybody has an opinion on it and they are important opinions.


Mr. Mayer:: When do you have time to watch TV?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member asks when I have time to watch TV. That is a good question. I watch it diligently when I can.
When this Bill first came forward it was widely criticized by almost every group except the cable industry which benefits from this Bill. It was especially criticized by the CRTC and the CBC.
The Minister has made some changes in the Bill and I congratulate her for that. The Minister and I have had our differences. We debate hard in this House but, as I have said many times, I have always had a great deal of respect for her and sometimes she has respect for me.
However, with respect to this Bill I feel that instead of getting hit with a two-by-four we are now getting hit by a little stick. In my view the Minister still has some way to go in order to make this a Bill that we, at least on this side of the House, could support. We have moved a number of amendments to this Bill and we will see what happens as the amendments are introduced. It is not our intention to delay this Bill abnormally or to prolong it, but to give it the proper debate and to work through the amendments.
I have concerns in a number of areas. I do not have time to mention them now, but I will return to them when we get the ruling on Clause 3 of the Bill. Some of the concerns that we will be approaching in the debate are the North Americanization, as I see it, of our broadcasting system and what, if anything, this Bill does to stop that. Another is the increased role of cable operators, which I have called the big winners under this Bill, and whether or not they should have the ability to broadcast as well as to transmit, and whether that is too much of a conflict and too much of a monopoly.
The other matters are, of course, the regulations with respect to private television to legislate, so far as that is possible, some quality programming from Canadian private broadcasters who are making progress in that area but in the past have been lax, I think, in producing good quality Canadian programming.
We also have concerns about educational broadcasters and other definitions in the Bill, as well as the role of the CBC. While that is not specifically in the Bill, it refers to the matters of cut-backs in Canadian broadcasting.
Finally, we have a concern about how the Bill fits into the free trade deal. I have told the Minister in the House before that there has been a retreat in terms of film policy and
Broadcasting Act
publishing policy because that is what the Americans wanted. That was part of the trade-off for the Free Trade Agreement.
In conclusion, let me indicate to the Minister that we are making real progress with the Bill and hope that we can make further progress in achieving a stronger Bill which will protect Canadian content and ensure that our air waves are for Canadians.
I think all Members will agree that our objective in the condominium debate and other debates about this Bill is to give Canadians a choice. However, part of that choice is to see high quality Canadian programming. That is essential for the survival of this country. We will be going through the clauses of the Bill with that in mind.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call for the question on Motion No. 7, I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) that he is unable to move his motion during the hour of Private Members' Business on Thursday, September 15, 1988.
This is a motion designated "votable" by the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, so requires consent of the House for it to be moved to the bottom of the order of precedence for debate. Is there consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Accordingly, I am directing the table Officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Since notice will be removed, and it has not been possible to arrange for other Private Members' Business to take place tomorrow, the hour for Private Members' Business will be cancelled and, pursuant to Standing Order 39, the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour.


BROADCASTING ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 (p. 19253).
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on this motion. The alphanumeric

September 14, 1988
Broadcasting Act
concept as it is applied to closed captioning for the hearing impaired is something very important for that community in this country. I think it is very important that we make sure that the ability of the CRTC to have jurisdiction over alphanumeric programming is not weakened or diluted by this Bill.
There are those who have argued that the definition of programming in this Bill will weaken or dilute the ability of the CRTC to deal with both alphanumeric programming and programming involving pictures. The definition of programming in the Bill could well mean that the commission may lose jurisdiction over this important aspect of broadcasting represented by the alphanumeric technology.
Furthermore, the CRTC said in its brief: "If the Commission's jurisdiction becomes the subject of litigation, the courts will be faced with the problem of when the commission has jurisdiction over an undertaking".
Let me illustrate this point by taking the following example: a television station, at certain periods of the day, broadcasts only alphanumeric texts. This may be from midnight to 6 a.m., as now frequently happens, or it may be for substantially longer portions of time. The question then arises: Does the commission have jurisdiction over this undertaking? If so, when?
We were told at the committee that a court would have at least two options open to it. The court could decide that the commission only has jurisdiction over the operation while it is distributing programming, that is to say, it could find that the physical apparatus constitutes two undertakings, one a program undertaking and one a non-programming undertaking. Thus, at times the operation would be answerable to the commission, for programming, and at other times it would not be, for non-programming.
Questions then arise. Could the commission force the operator to increase its programming activity? If it did, it would be increasing the undertaking.
Would the commission have the power to force one undertaking, programming, to encroach on another undertaking, non-programming, when it had no jurisdiction over the other? What happens when, during programming periods, nonprogramming occurs? For example, could a broadcaster circumvent the commercial content limits during programming periods by airing so-called non-programming commercials?
Profits made from non-programming enterprises could not be channelled to the production of Canadian programs unless the commission had jurisdiction over the entire undertaking. That is why the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in an all-Party report, its sixth report, addressed the term "programming" and in effect recommended against splitting programming and non-programming on the basis of whether it would be alphanumeric or pictures.
The House should adopt the recommendation of the Standing Committee which said that in its view the term "programming" should be defined broadly in the Act to cover
all forms of audio and video content, including entertainment, information, and advertising, disseminated to the public over broadcasting undertakings.
The recommendation goes on to say:
While the terms "program" and "programming" are not defined in the 1968 Act, the CRTC defined the term "programming" in the Cable Television Regulations, 1986, so as to exclude alphanumeric services with music and still images. In the Committee's view the distinction between these kinds of services and full video services has and will become increasingly blurred.
The committee goes on to say:
It is essential that the Act clearly categorize all such services as "programming"-
I hope the House will accept the point of view I have expressed. It is based on a careful study of the matter as recommended by our very distinguished critic, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).
I want to commend the Member for the outstanding work she has done in the study of this Bill and for the development of very constructive amendments. In her work she has taken a broad constructive view of broadcasting in this country, a view that now appears to have the support of all those concerned with broadcasting in Canada.
These groups have now come to the point where they unanimously support the point of view expressed by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal, speaking in her capacity as critic for the Liberal Party. I believe the Minister and the Government should pay serious attention to the views expressed by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal, reflecting now, as they do, the almost unanimous viewpoint of all those connected with broadcasting in Canada.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to say with respect to this particular amendment that obviously there is a difference between what the opposition critic considers as programming and what the Government considers as programming. We have a different definition.
Let me make it clear that the comments made in applying this to closed captioning are totally wrong. It does not apply to closed captioning. I also want to underline the fact that in our broadcast policy we have stated very clearly our commitment to closed captioning and to the needs of other disabled groups in our society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 7, 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:: Agreed.
September 14, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next motion to be considered is Motion No. 8.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 3 the following:
"(3) For greater certainty, subsection 2(2) of this Act applies to closed-circuit transmissions carried on a distribution undertaking."
She said: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that just having arrived from our Jewish New Year celebrations and finding that a new Bill has been printed, it is taking me a few minutes to find the numbers that go together.


Mr. Edwards:: Happy New Year.


Sheila Finestone: I thank the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker.
This amendment deals with closed-circuit transmissions. The concern here is with respect to the definition of closed caption, the closed caption system under the Broadcast Act. One matter with which we have been concerned, which also relates to the amendment to Clause 7 which was just defeated, something which I hope the Government will reconsider, is that the CRTC brings its concerns to our attention from long periods of experience. It is as a result of this experience that it is able to highlight the concerns that it has as a regulatory body. This quasi-judicial body is made up of very knowledgeable people who bring to our attention some errors that have occurred in its view and from its experience. This is another one of those concerns which it has brought to our attention as have TV Ontario and McCarthy and McCarthy, legal counsel to the Agency for Tele Education in Canada.
One matter I have tried to bring to the attention of the Minister with this motion is that one element of Bill C-136 is the new definition of "broadcasting" which includes distribution not only by radio waves-and we have evolved technologically speaking since, and the Minister has talked about being
Broadcasting Act
technologically neutral in these Bills-but by other means of telecommunication. The implication upon federal-provincial jurisdiction is uncertain. I have mentioned to the Minister many times the concern for this lack of clarity between federal and provincial jurisdiction.
Here again, other means of telecommunications defined further in Clause 2 brings closed-circuit operations and systems under the Act. I do not think that that was the Minister's intention. It is quite likely that closed-circuit transmission on hybrid systems would be constitutionally under federal jurisdiction. Such systems involve the distribution of closed-circuit services through systems which would also distribute broadcast signals, that is, a cable television system or a MATV system. I do not believe that that is what the Minister wanted to do.
While the constitutional authority of the federal Government over closed-circuit services of hybrid systems has not been specifically addressed by the courts, most of the precedents point to federal jurisdiction. The legislative committee was advised that the situation deals with purely closed-circuit systems, for example, systems used to monitor the safety and security of one's apartment building. It is a system which might monitor a play-yard outside of one's place of residence where one's child might be playing. It is a system which monitors a swimming pool in which one takes one's daily constitutional. All these are on closed-circuit television systems that are not in the true and traditional sense of the word "television" programming. It is a different form that offers a service that is outside what I believe were the concepts of broadcasting which the Minister has considered. These are systems which are not used for retransmission of conventional off-air broadcast signals. They are under provincial jurisdiction.
McCarthy and McCarthy stated that under Bill C-136 while purporting to apply to such operations, it would probably be held to be inoperative by the courts on the basis of the federal-provincial division of powers in the Constitution. The law firm went on to state that so long as a purely closed-circuit system did not cross provincial boundaries it would not appear to be subject to federal jurisdiction. As well, the CRTC has expressed concern regarding closed-circuit systems being subject to CRTC jurisdiction. In order to prevent the reopening of old legal issues I have made this amendment to bring clarity to the place of the closed-circuit system within our television broadcasting system, that which can legally fall under the federal jurisdiction and that which is purely provincial in matter and should not in any way, shape, or form be trapped in the over-all broad definition of broadcasting as we presently see it under the Bill. This motion is in the interests of clarity only. It is to ensure that we do not fall into an unnecessary legal harangue. I bring this amendment to the attention of the Minister for serious consideration and approval.

September 14, 1988
Broadcasting Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 8, 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:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next grouping of motions is Motions Nos. 31, 42, 72, and 77. They will be debated together but voted on separately.
Since the Hon. Member for York East is not in the House, do I have unanimous consent to allow another Hon. Member to move his motion?


William Lesick: I will, Mr. Speaker.


William Lesick: Motion No. 31
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line
37 at page 5 the following:
"(m) programming that reflects the multicultural and multilingual nature of Canada should be provided within the broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose;".
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 8 at page 7 and
substituting the following therefor:
"subsection, and in particular provide access for underserved linguistic and cultural minority communities."


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to interrupt to say that I am prepared to accept Motion No. 42.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next motion is Motion No. 72.


William Lesick: Motion No. 72
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 34 by adding immediately after line 29 at page 24 the following:
"(3) At least one director shall be representative of the interests of the ethnic and visible minorities and the appointment of that director subject to the consultation by the Minister of the groups and organizations that he deems representative of such minorities."
Motion No. 77
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 74 by adding immediately after line 26 at page 45, the following:
"(3) At least one member of the Commission shall be representative of the interests of the ethnic and visible minorities and the appointment of that member is subject to the consultation by the Minister of the groups and organizations that he deems representative of such minorities."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On debate, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to speak on the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). My Motion No. 31A was quite similar. I do not believe that mine was in order, but the amendment of the Hon. Member for York East was accepted. Basically they are both attempting to do the same thing. The amendment of the Hon. Member for York East is to change page 5, line 37, of Clause 3 which is the broadcasting policy for Canada. The Bill sets out some general policies: "It is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that" and a series of things follows. At page 5, line 37, it states that "programming that reflects the aboriginal cultures of Canada should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available".
The Hon. Member for York East seeks to put in "programming that reflects the multicultural and multilingual nature of Canada should be provided". My motion stated: "programming that reflects the multicultural and multilingual nature of Canada should be provided within the system". The motion of the Hon. Member states: "as resources become available". I am a little more in a hurry. I say let's do it. The phrase "as resources become available" is a good excuse for some bureaucrat to state that it cannot be done because resources could never be available.
The main thrust of this amendment and of the other amendments, Motions Nos. 42, 72, and 77, is to deal with the multicultural nature of Canada. This came out during the hearings where multicultural groups appeared before the legislative committee and stated: "Look, you have not put us in there. We want to be put in and recognized as a separate group in Canada, as an interest or a group that demands some attention, some consideration, and has to take a place within the other groups of Canada". There is legitimacy to this view.
The best thing to do is go back to the time when Canada repatriated the Constitution in 1981. In that, what I could call the "Trudeau repatriation", there was a recognition in that Constitution, simply put, that Canada was like a cake. In that
September 14, 1988

cake was the aboriginal peoples at the base, and they are recognized in this Bill. Beside the aboriginal peoples were the French and the English, the two founding language peoples of the country from the European civilization. On top was the multicultural nature of Canada.
After much debate, many changes, and many constitutional fights, we did get a Constitution that reflected what I would call the modern nature of Canada. We have much to do with respect to the aboriginal peoples; we are incomplete. Aboriginal self-government is one area. Better aboriginal broadcasting is another area. Much has been done in terms of French and English educational rights. Of course, our multicultural people are on top of that as a recognition of the new part of the country. For example, in my present riding of Vancouver- Kingsway a majority of people do not speak English as their first language. As a matter of fact, 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the people are Asian Canadians. They have particular needs in the broadcasting system.
This amendment seeks to give a recognition in broadcasting policy, and put very simply, that we have to pay attention to the multicultural nature of Canada. Shortly, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) will speak as the multicultural critic in much greater depth and with better knowledge than I have.
In committee we made real progress on the human rights section, Clause 3(1 )(c)(iii). The Minister put forward a good amendment, and then made it even better by accepting my subamendment dealing with equal rights. I appreciate that. It has been greeted with satisfaction by many multicultural and women's groups, and others.
In addition, we greatly improved the alternative section to alleviate the fears of many that the alternative service would relieve other broadcasters from multicultural responsibilities. Sometimes the language of this broadcasting policy is so complicated that people do not understand what you are talking about. There is provision in this Bill for an alternate television service. Concern was expressed that that would be where things are stuck and ghettoized. Multiculturalism is stuck in there, some science shows, and the intellectual shows. We did not want to do that. We were very open to the notion, and I believe everyone was, of an alternate service. We did want to ensure that that was not a ghettoized service. For example, we wanted to ensure that the CBC would not forget its mandate to produce Canadian programs and programs to which Canadian women have equality and access to that reflect their interest. That is in the Bill. The same with multiculturalism.
We would like amendments to recognize the multicultural nature of Canada as a new Canadian reality to be reflected in the broadcast system, but we do not want to hive it off to one little ghettoized part of the system. That is why we wanted it included in the general part of the system. Far be it from me to speak for the Hon. Member for York East who is older and
Broadcasting Act
much more experienced than I am. He has a lot more experience in municipal politics, and he is from the huge City of Toronto which believes it has a monopoly on all knowledge. Far be it from me, a little lawyer from Vancouver, to take away from what the Hon. Member for York East would say. However, had he proposed the amendment, I think he would probably have said: "Let's recognize the multicultural and multilingual aspect of Canada".
I would like to end my speech in Chinese. During the last election campaign I would go around door to door and say: Chi chi wy do, that is, vote for me in Chinese. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you understood that. Now that I am running in another riding I am speaking English and French more often.
We should recognize that there is a multilingual nature to this country and that there is a multicultural nature to this country. This is not to take away from the fact that the two founding language groups of this country are French and English. I do not want it to be confused that by recognizing the multilingual heritage we take away from the basic languages. French and English have a different status in this country than the other languages or cultures. However, that does not mean that they cannot be recognized and made part of the Canadian mosaic. That is what I think the Hon. Member would have said. If he does not like what I have said, he could come back to the House and say something different.


Sheila Finestone: I am sorry that the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) has not been able to stay with us and to carry on the support for his particular amendments. The amendments of the Member for York East are of interest. They reflect the ongoing concern that we have had. In both Motions Nos. 72 and 77 he is directing his concerns to the multi-ethnic character of Canada. He is talking about the need for the visible minorities and the ethnic groups to be represented on the board of directors of the CBC in the one case and in the CRTC and its establishment in the other case.
I would like to suggest that Mr. Redway reflects an ongoing concern that I and members of our committee have had-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is the Hon. Member for York East. Now that I have told you what riding he is in, I would appreciate it if you would address him as the Hon. Member for York East. Thank you.


Sheila Finestone: I would be happy to address him as the Hon. Member for York East and also as Mr. Redway and, I am sure, as a good Member of the House of Commons.
What I was trying to get to, with respect to the principle and the philosophy behind the thought being expressed by this Hon. Member, was the fact that we wanted the multicultural aspect of Canada to be represented in every aspect of our society. It is not, I think, in the placing of amendments of this nature on the Order Paper or in a Bill. It is in the fullness of

September 14, 1988
Broadcasting Act
one's heart and in the logic of one's undertaking that the recognition of one-third of Canada is made up of people from a variety of ethnic groups and from many multicultural backgrounds. Only through including both the visible and the invisible minorities will we truly reflect the thinking of who and what we are as Canadians.
I do not think that we want to see any Canadian sidelined or isolated. We would like to see them mainstreamed in everything we do. They should be mainstreamed in terms of representation, on boards, on agencies, in commissions, as judges, in the courts, at the decision-making level as we are talking about broadcasting, as to the news that goes on our news broadcasts, as to the literature that we use to turn into a television program, and in any and every aspect of those matters which affect us as Canadians, because they are Canadians. I cannot see the importance of isolating in law that aspect of the responsibility of the CBC board or the commission. Those are the responsibility of nominations by Order in Council, by a Minister, and through the Government, and the sensitivity lies at that level.
I would presume that the Minister has made good appointments. She will continue to do so. I hope that subsequent Ministers will do the same thing. The boards of directors and the tribunal members of the commission will certainly and hopefully reflect the kinds of persons who make up the fabric of Canada.
It is a fundamental characteristic of Canada both in terms of our aboriginal peoples and of the multicultural peoples from over 100 nations across this world who have come to enrich the tapestry that forms the background and therefore reflect the personality that is Canada.
I would suggest that if the Minister feels that we need this kind of directive to sensitize the Minister and the Government of the day to the realities of Canada, so be it. I am of the view that that should be part and parcel of the mentality that one brings to the office and certainly to the position of a Minister, and certainly anyone with much sensitivity to Canada would do so.
Although the principle and the philosophy is an excellent one, I do not think that that should be implied in law.


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in favour of the amendments as originally proposed by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) because the multicultural-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Red Deer on a point of order.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) is away out of necessity. He wanted to be here. He asked me if I would take his place in the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is a point of clarification. The Hon. Member for Edmonton East has the floor.


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, the recommendations and motions that we are discussing at this time are very necessary because of the 38 per cent multicultural nature of Canada. Thirty-eight per cent of the people are neither French-speaking nor of French origin or of English origin. They should be reflected in policies and in governing bodies in Canada. This has also been a feature of the multicultural thrust our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
The Prime Minister has spoken about the fact that multicul-turalism is a fact of life in Canada and that more boards should reflect that fact. In speaking on Motion No. 31, this is a direct recommendation of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. This is its recommendation, and it has been given much thought. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council is composed of all ethnic origins within Canada. In its brief to the legislative committee on broadcasting for Bill C-136, it made a very strong plea that this recommendation be included.
Programming that reflects the multicultural-multilingual nature of Canada should be provided within the broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose. Of course that makes good, common sense. Our Government is committed to it. It is a very normal and natural way to proceed rather than dogmatically proceeding with it in another manner.
Motion No. 72 indicates: "At least one director shall be representative of the interests of the ethnic and visible minorities and the appointment of that director subject to the consultation by the Minister of the groups and organizations that he deems representative of such minorities".
This is directly from the Canadian Ethnocultural Council recommendation. It is one that again reflects the Government's commitment toward multiculturalism and, in broadcasting, it is an area which has not been covered before. We must proceed with these recommendations. Motion No. 77, of course, goes on to talk about a commission. In speaking in favour of these several motions, I would suggest that it is essential that they be accepted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am going to recognize the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon. We are sitting until 6.16 p.m., so I hope the rest of the time could be split up between the Parliamentary Secretary and the Hon. Member.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for confirming the length of time available. I will be governed accordingly. I appreciate the opportunity to say a little about these several motions proposed originally by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), who is unavoidably away at the moment as others have been noting. The
September 14, 1988

motions endeavour to strengthen the broadcasting Bill in its recognition of the multicultural nature of our society.
Perhaps I may take a few moments, Mr. Speaker, to remind all of us that the Canadian Parliament adopted almost 17 years ago a statement of multicultural policy for the Government of Canada. It was a statement put forward at the time by the former Liberal Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, and was responded warmly to by Leaders of all three opposition Parties in the House of Commons. It was, then, with the approbation of all Parties that the Government of Canada launched this country on a broader policy than had prevailed before. The Official Languages Act had recognized the officially bilingual character but it was obviously inadequate to say the country was bicultural, so the statement of 1971 expanded on that.
As I have said before in another context, I think we would all have to concede, if we faced up to the matter, that the Government has honoured those principles more commonly in the breach of them than in the practice. I think the breach of them was never more obvious than in the area of broadcasting. It is one thing to assert that the Government of Canada should recognize no single official culture as prevalent but should endeavour to enhance all.
However, if at the same time broadcasting is given an enlarged lease on life with Canadian content being particularly important in broadcasting, whether it is in English or French, and the Department of Communications taking on larger functions-it was established as a Department with peculiar responsibilities to press these policies-I think we would have to recognize fairly quickly that the Government did very little to ensure that the 1971 policy of multiculturalism was a reality in broadcasting. Our concern now with these amendments, and in consideration of various parts of Clause 3, is to ensure that the Broadcasting Act of 1988-1989, whatever its date may prove to be, is actually more responsive to a policy which is now legislated in a Bill which has been given Royal Assent and is in fact an Act of the current Parliament.
I am not convinced that that is yet the case. There have been some improvements but it does not appear this afternoon, in the first response from the Minister to these several resolutions from her own caucus colleague, that acceptance of one of them will give us enough recognition in broadcasting, enough response in broadcasting, to the multicultural nature of the country. In looking over Clause 3 again in preparation for my speech and I noted, of course, that it suggests under subsection (c) that programming shall be responsive to the multicultural nature of Canadian society. However, the sections dealing with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to which these amendments do not apply, I recognize, have not been changed. There is only that general responsibility laid on the entire system to be responsive that binds the CBC in any way if this Bill becomes law.
There are inadequacies and those are the ones responded to by the Hon. Member for York East, as well as by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), whose
Broadcasting Act
motion was not found in order because it attempted to put some pressure behind all of this. But the Member for York East is permissive, in the way these Bills all too often are, in allowing Government not to follow through, to lack the will to refuse to provide the resources so that statements of principle remain only that. Those questions, then, are being left academic for the moment, actually because the Minister does not appear prepared to accept Motion No. 31 which would add a new paragraph, following on very shortly after the sections relating to the CBC, that would add that the programming should reflect the multicultural and multilingual nature of Canada.
This particular motion, even in the weaker form proposed by the Hon. Member for York East, would do a good deal to add to the obligation which is not specifically in the Bill on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and would be a useful addition. It is disappointing to have the Minister only accept Motion No. 42 in which some obligation is laid on distribution undertakings that brings us, of course, down to the community cable service. What is the community cable service going to be asked to do now? In particular, it will provide access for underserved linguistic and cultural minority communities. We know perfectly well from our experience in many communities what will happen. Certainly, I know from my experience in Thunder Bay with Maclean-Hunter Cable Television. I expect similar things have happened in Vancouver and Edmonton. I do not know whether they happen in Kingston, but I am sure they happen in Toronto. The fact is that the services are poorly financed. It is a matter of community broadcasting sometimes achieving a reasonably high level, but very often carried on on a shoestring with volunteers doing their best but not producing broadcasting that will attract many viewers.
With all the concern that others have expressed far more than I have about ghettoizing in this area, that seems to me to be a perfect example in a broadcasting Bill of ghettoizing this, leaving it to the desperate volunteers, those who will do it in any community, those who want to produce something but have so little in the way of resources, receiving only as much support as the cable service will provide. That is going to be the provision for the underserved multicultural, multilingual communities of the country, and that from a Government that says fine words about the multicultural Act is really quite shameful. I call on the Minister who recognizes the needs of the country to be responsive to Motion No. 31 as well as to Motion No. 42.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I will intervene very briefly in this debate to deal with Motion Nos. 31 and 72 in particular. I listened with care to my colleague from Edmonton East and to my colleague from Thunder Bay, and I admire the contribution they have made in the field of multiculturalism. I would, however, wish to point out that what we have here in Motion No. 31 is a motion

September 14, 1988
Broadcasting Act
which would declare Canada to be a country which is multilingual by nature. It may well be desirable to enhance multilingual programming, but to change the nature of Canada by implication through such an amendment is not appropriate. We are a multicultural and bilingual nation.
I would further point out that there is ample avenue provided for multicultural service, not ghettoed, ample avenue provided for multicultural programming in the new alternative programming service which, indeed, will become a stimulus to other broadcasters to recognize further the multicultural nature of our country.
Motion No. 72 would call upon the legislation to insist that one director of the corporation be designated as the advocate for multicultural and ethnic organizations. I would submit that that is inappropriate since, as my colleague from Thunder Bay pointed out, Bill C-93 is now the law of the land. Every Minister of the Crown, every officer of an agency of the Crown, now has a duty to see that that advocacy role is carried out. To single out one individual to do it is inappropriate and demeaning.
I would further suggest, Sir, that a member of such a board who might fit that designation would be offended to think that he or she had his or her role limited to such a function. We do not subscribe to tokenism in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish some guidance from the Chair. We have Motion No. 31, and I proposed Motion No. 31A which is on page ix of the Order Paper and Notices. I am a little concerned about this. If the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) were to withdraw his motion before there was a vote on it, I gather that would mean that my motion would not be considered at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member would just give the Chair a minute to review the Speaker's notes, I will inform him of that.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway did submit his motion, but it came in late. There was unanimous consent to accept the motion of the Hon. Member for York East which was very similar to the Hon. Member's motion, and that is the reason Motion No. 31A is not being dealt with now.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, suppose we now put this on for a vote and the Hon. Member for York East comes into the House next week or whenever this vote is taken and says that he wants to withdraw it. Then we could not vote on it. Is that what would happen?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway knows, because he has been around here for a long time, that he would have to have unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the motion.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 31, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York East.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114 (11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 42, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York East. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 42 (Mr. Redway) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 72 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York East. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will
please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 
Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion negatived.
Motion No. 72 (Mr. Redway) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 77, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York East. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Broadcasting Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion negatived.
Motion No. 77 (Mr. Redway) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.16 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, September 15, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers