1988-09-27

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to two petitions numbered as follows: 332-5372 and 332-5379.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 I have the honour and privilege to table a petition which has been certified correct as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions. The petition is signed by a number of residents of northwestern Ontario in Thunder Bay, Marillo, Kaministiquia, South Gillies, Nolalu, and Kakabeka Falls.
These people petition the Parliament of Canada with regard to child care services. They point out that families throughout Canada need high quality, available, affordable child care services. They believe that the child care Bill which is currently before the other place is not in the best interests of young children, women, or families in Canada. The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to withdraw the child care Bill forthwith.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour and the privilege of tabling a number of petitions, including several from the residents of St-Louis-de Kent, Jardineville, Rexton, Acadieville, St-Ignace, Tweedy Brook, Pointe-Sapin, Newcastle, St-Charles, Grande-Digue and Notre-Dame.
I have another petition from residents of Sackville, Dorchester, Upper Sackville, West Sackville and Jolicure.
Mr. Speaker, your petitioners deplore the Government's failure to act on the issue of unemployment insurance in New Brunswick. As you know, the eligible period was extended from 10 to 16 weeks. The situation is gradually getting worse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray and ask Parliament to correct this situation and reinstate the 10-week eligible period for unemployment insurance.


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 I have the honour and pleasure to present a petition on behalf of 44 petitioners of Edmonton. The petitioners, the undersigned residents of Canada, avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that this honourable House will provide a remedy.
They say that Canada is a nation of many cultures gathered and living in freedom and that in Eastern Europe there are still many nations of people dominated against their wills by oppressive Communist regimes. These nations are continually struggling against their oppressor to regain their rightful democratic freedoms.
Therefore, the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to recognize the struggle of these oppressed people and actively pursue a policy to alleviate their oppression through helpful programs and representations to the oppressive Soviet regime.
This petition is certified correct as to form.


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have is also addressed to the Government of

September 27, 1988
Order Paper Questions
Canada. The petitioners urge the Government to exert immediate pressure on the Polish Government to begin a dialogue on the authentic representative of the Polish workers, Solidarity, and not to use force in the current wave of strikes in Poland as an effort by the Polish people led by Solidarity to solve the country's problems without violence.
This petition is signed by 184 residents of Edmonton. This petition was not certified correct.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Last Tuesday at this time I rose in the House in response to an article in The Ottawa Citizen dated September 20, 1988.
In that article a former employee alleged that during her brief term of employment from October, 1987 to February, 1988, she had been coerced into falsifying travel expenses. I indicated to the House that my staff and I were satisfied that there were no irregularities because we had conducted our own investigation when the matter was first brought to our attention on or about September 8, 1988.
Nevertheless, as a result of the newspaper article I immediately requested a full investigation of the allegations by the Privy Council Office. That investigation has been completed. Today I have been advised in a letter by the Privy Council Office that the travel expenditures during this period complied fully with the relevant regulations and guidelines and no irregularities were discovered.
This week has been most difficult for myself, my staff, and my family. On our behalf I want to thank those friend and foe who offered support and encouragement. I table herewith a copy of the letter received from the Privy Council Office.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Doug Lewis, for the Minister of Communications, moved that Bill C-136, an Act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication be read the third time and do pass.
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to rise in the House and speak to Bill C-136, which this Government sees as being vitally important to all Canadians.
Madam Speaker, over the years, and even more so in recent years, radio and televison have become an essential component, indeed the very framework of a society's cultural development. The latest figures indicate that in just one week, a typical Canadian listens to eighteen hours of radio and spends 24 hours watching tv. This shows how much these media have become a part of our lives. They provide a direct window on the world and affect and reflect our choices and our values.
The television landscape has become more complex in recent years, Madam Speaker. Before, it consisted basically of stations that transmitted signals and antennae that received them. Since then, both communications technology and the very nature of our society have changed significantly. Today, 78 per cent of Canadian homes are served by cable TV and can receive as many as 60 or 70 different channels. The possibilities in this area seem endless.

We know we will be unable to resist these changes, so it is important that we retain our jurisdiction in these areas and that the social and cultural objectives we have set are reaffirmed and protected.
The Caplan-Sauvageau task force spent several months looking for better ways to address these concerns. It travelled throughout Canada meeting with people who work in communications and with other Canadians who have an interest in this subject. The findings and recommendations of the task force were then closely reviewed by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, which also engaged in extensive consultation with individuals and groups involved in radio and television.
The Bill we are considering today reflects many of the concerns raised during this three-year process.

The reason our communication policy is so important, may I remind you, Madam Speaker, is that it lies at the very heart of the concept of sovereignty. We think it is so fundamental that from the outset, we excluded our cultural industries and our
September 27, 1988

communications sector from the Free Trade Agreement with the United States.
This key aspect of our commitment is clearly written into Clause 3 of the Bill, which states:
The Canadian broadcasting system, operating primarily in the English and
French languages... provides, through its programming, a public service
essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural
sovereignty;
The connection that we make, Madam Speaker, between our broadcasting policy and our Canadian identity attests to the particular situation in which we find ourselves and which I mentioned earlier, that of a country that must continually strive to assert its national identity in a specific geographic and demographic context.

That identity is a dynamic thing. Since 1968, when the present Broadcasting Act was passed, much has happened which impacts on broadcasting. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the changing role of women, a greater recognition of the particular contributions made by the French and English speaking communities, the richness of our multicultural diversity, and the recognition of the special place of aboriginal people in Canadian society are all changing how we approach broadcasting and what is expected of the medium. The pressure for legislation which recognizes this changed reality grows every day.
Canada is a much different country today, and Bill C-136 governing the broadcasting system reflects these changes. The existence of two official languages is more than just a constitutional reality. It pervades the entire broadcasting system. Bill C-136 specifically recognizes the existence of the two official languages and insists that they be reflected throughout the broadcasting system.
The CBC has particular responsibilities, as does the CRTC, in the application of its regulations.
[ Translation]
For this requirement that we have embodied into the law is not ideological but pragmatic. It is based on economic imperatives, on market realities, and the differences are glaringly obvious, Madam Speaker.
The first difference is that English television in this country suffers essentially from a lack of Canadian dramatic programming, especially in prime time.
The second is that although Canadian content standards are generally respected on French television, there is a problem of program quality related to budgets and production costs.
These different realities of English and French broadcasting, which are related to the very nature of Canada, had to be recognized, Madam Speaker. And I am particularly pleased that the Government of which I am part took the initiative. For the first time in a cultural Bill, these obvious realities are admitted; this is a tribute to the cultural reconciliation
Broadcasting Act
between Quebec and English Canada. I believe that we all have reasons to be proud of this.
Now, how will we deal with these two types of problems that I mentioned earlier? How will we encourage more Canadian content on English television and the development of French television? We have chosen several approaches that I would like to tell you about now, Madam Speaker.

I should make it clear at the outset that the Government never even considered limiting the access of Canadians to American programs. What we really want to ensure through a culturally active policy is that television interviewers have a Canadian alternative. We want foreign services introduced in Canada only in such a way that it strengthens existing and new Canadian services. This act gives the CRTC, for the first time, explicit powers to ensure that this will happen.
A common observation about English television in Canada is that Canadian content is particularly low in dramatic productions even though drama accounts for 70 per cent of television air time. This is due to the high costs of producing dramas and the attractiveness of American programs which are usually available to Canadian broadcasters at very low prices.
The strongest argument in favour of increasing the number of Canadian dramas on English language television in this country is that viewers prefer dramatic programs. However, popular shows of this type also help define a society by reflecting its choices and values and are probably the best way of getting people to think about who they are.
This legislation offers two methods of increasing the quantity and quality of Canadian programming, particularly dramatic programming in English. The first is by redefining the mandate of the CBC to make it clear that its function henceforth is to be the provision of distinctively Canadian programming in all program categories.

The Bill provides another incentive to increase the Canadian content of programming. English-language private broadcasters will have to meet certain objectives, depending on their size, situation and of course their resources. If they exceed these objectives, they will receive financial assistance from Telefilm. If they fail to meet the objectives, they will have to contribute to a development fund for the production of Telefilm's Canadian programs.

We realize that some private broadcasters have reservations about this matter. Our response has been and will continue to be that things cannot go on as they are. Broadcasting has always been one of the most prosperous industries in this country, but it has not contributed enough to the development of television that is truly Canadian. Broadcasters must realize that they have a responsibility to Canadians, a social and

September 27, 1988
Broadcasting Act
cultural responsibility that they cannot ignore. Granted, the prosperity I just mentioned is not always evenly distributed among broadcasting companies but we have taken this into account, establishing a system of contributions that is defined in terms of the revenue of each broadcaster.

I found the criticism of this provision of the Bill as voiced by Quebec broadcasters quite unreasonable. As I pointed out earlier, French-language television has always been remarkable for its responsible attitude to Canadian content, and therefore its artisans should not in any way feel threatened by the contribution proposal.
Madam Speaker, I would now like to touch on the double relationship to be established, under the proposed legislation, between Parliament and the institutions involved in broadcasting policy and Canadian telecommunications, namely the CRTC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
As you know, Madam Speaker, the CRTC has always enjoyed enormous autonomy in carrying out its mandate, thus guaranteeing Canadians that their broadcasting system is not subject to unnecessary pressure.
However, a number of former presidents of the organization have deplored the absence of clear direction in the general orientation of our broadcasting policy. The Government wanted to correct this situation while at the same time leaving the CRTC the greatest possible leeway in the decision-making process. The approach was approved in the Sauvageau-Caplan Report and was also supported by the Standing Committee of this House.
Bill C-136 provides that the Government may give the CRTC general instructions regarding the objectives of the broadcasting policy. As for the Government's review authority, we have decided to restrict it to situations where these broad objectives were not met.
After examining the representations that were made, the Government also decided to relinquish its proposed authority to exempt certain categories of broadcasters from the legislation.
Madam Speaker, I firmly believe that we have here every possible guarantee that in future, the CRTC will be able to continue to carry out its mandate, undisturbed and fully autonomous, in the best interests of Canadians.

The commission itself, as well as certain other witnesses before the legislative committee, raised concerns that the new decision-making process, he who hears decides, and the greater emphasis on regional concerns, will lead to inconsistencies in CRTC decisions. It is the Government's belief that the legislation, including an amendment made at committee requiring panels to consult with the commission as a whole, provides the commission with ample means to avoid inconsistency. Any additional effort in this regard is more than
compensated for by greater responsibilities to regional concerns.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has always been the spearhead of broadcasting policy, in that it has paved the way, so to speak, for other broadcasters in the pursuit of certain objectives. Furthermore, it is the most important cultural instrument and the largest employer of Canadian artists. This perception of the CBC's role is not questioned, Madam Speaker. But for the first time, it is now backed up by a very clear provision concerning its independence. In this regard, I refer you, Madam Speaker, to Clause 45 of the Bill, which states:
The Corporation shall, in the pursuit of its objects and in the exercise of its powers, enjoy freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence.
Madam Speaker, I know that the President of the CBC expressed serious reservations about the structural reform proposed in the Bill. In particular, he feels that the decision to create a two-headed board of directors is likely to compromise the CBC's independence. With all due respect to him, I believe that the president's criticisms do not stand up to analysis.
The Government proposed the appointment of a chairman of the board and of a chief executive officer in order to rationalize the corporation's operations. This structural reform is accompanied by mechanisms to provide better control of the Corporation's financial operations.
What you must understand in this proposal, Madam Speaker, is that with nearly a billion dollars of public money invested in the corporation, it is essential for the trustees of these funds, namely the Government and Parliament, to be able to know exactly how this money is spent.
This does not show a desire to reduce the CBC's autonomy-the corporation's independence is very well guaranteed-but the need to ensure that the taxpayers' money is administered in the public interest.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the provisions of the Bill concerning the rapid evolution of broadcasting technology. The frequent technological changes of recent years have led to jurisdictional conflicts and quarrels that have cost a great deal of energy and have been detrimental to the public interest.
We must be glad that the legislation before us remains neutral in defining technology. Broadcasting is no longer defined in terms of the vehicle as such but of the content.
In addition to avoiding unnecessary and costly conflicts, this neutrality will allow distribution systems to develop at their own rate, in terms of the use of broadcasting technology, while the law still remains in effect.
So in summary, Madam Speaker, this is a piece of legislation that, besides being pragmatic, very clearly establishes a
September 27, 1988

set of essential principles that are in keeping with the nature of this country itself.
I see this legislation as a fundamental reform in the approach it proposes to our Canadian situation. Of course, Madam Speaker, the consultation process did not end when the Bill was tabled. Inevitably, with a Bill of this scope and complexity, which affects practically all Canadians, starting with our broadcasters, but also all those who see it as a tool that is indispensable to maintaining and enhancing their culture, we had a right to expect the legislative committee to do a very thorough job. We were not disappointed.
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) was admirable in that she managed to table a bill that would be able to meet the aspirations of Canadians in broadcasting, especially since the Bill has taken into account the constraints and challenges attendant on the expectations of the various social groups within our society, and this in the context of a rapidly expanding technology. That the Minister of Communications was able to achieve this in the past few weeks, through her own amendments and the amendments she approved among those suggested by Members of all Parties in this Elouse, clearly shows how intent she was on giving Canadians broadcasting legislation that would respond to their needs and expectations for many years to come.
Where the dangers of Government intervention loomed too large, the Minister did not hesitate to reduce that risk. Where measures might have been judged too weak to respond to the aspirations of a given group in our society, she made sure the text of the Bill was amended so as to remove any ambiguity about the Government's intentions in this respect.
In some cases, as with the provisions for educational broadcasting, for example, the complexity and jurisdictional delicacy of the subject matter have dictated that the substance of the measures be contained in the more flexible instrument of an Order in Council, with only brief mention in the legislation proper.

As a result of these amendments to a Bill that had already received wide-spread support, we now have a bill that represents a consensus reached among practically all groups and individuals, including those who spent an enormous amount of time and effort studying this question during the last few years. I am thinking more specifically, Madam Speaker, of Florian Sauvageau and Gerald Caplan.
This Bill increasingly represents a consensus, and if it is not passed and enacted very shortly, many Canadians, and I am thinking of ethnic and language minorities, Native people, the disabled and many other groups, would lose this opportunity to take their rightful place in an area that is very important to them the broadcasting sector.
Broadcasting Act

Before I conclude, I would like to note the contribution to this legislation of those in the Department of Communications, especially the Director General of Broadcasting and Cultural Industries, Christopher D. Burke, who passed away just a few days after this Bill was introduced in the House by his Minister.
On behalf of the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) and the Government of Canada, I would like to thank his wife, Debbie and son, Andrew who are in the gallery to mark this achievement, for Mr. Burke's outstanding service. In some important ways this Bill is his legacy.

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind all Members in this House who may intend to oppose the passage of this Bill that they will have to justify their actions before the Canadian public which is in favour of this legislation.
Finally, I believe we cannot afford to deprive Canadians of this modern and generous broadcasting policy we have before us today, and I am convinced, Madam Speaker, that what we know now will indeed be confirmed very shortly.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, I consider the closing remarks of the Minister to be more or less a threat and really inappropriate at this particular moment, and I regret that those words have been said.
The occasion of this debate on final reading of this Broadcasting Act of Bill C-136, an Act respecting broadcasting and radiocommunications, is a very important one. This Broadcasting Act translated into legislative language is about Canada. It is about what Canadians will see and hear when they turn on their radios and push the television buttons on their TV sets. It is about how opinions are formed and how our society will respond, politically and socially, to our Canadian way of life over time. It is fundamental to Canadian sovereignty.
On the other hand, I had presented earlier, both in legislative committee and here in the House during report stage, on behalf of our Liberal Party, a substantial range of amendments which we believe necessary to make this Bill the legislative instrument required to meet Canada's TV and radio needs here and into the future. A number of amendments that we proposed have been accepted, and I appreciate the Minister's and the Government's openness in this regard. Nevertheless, the changes which have been accepted do not address some of the fundamental concerns we have raised throughout this debate, namely, that the cultural identity of our nation is to be preserved and strengthened.
I simply want to review the major policy areas where Bill C-136, as proposed, remains clearly inadequate. In choosing to focus on a limited number of key policy issues, however, I would not want anyone to think that Bill C-136 is otherwise acceptable. In fact, the Bill is seriously flawed, continues to be

September 27, 1988
Broadcasting Act
seriously flawed, and continues to reflect, as almost all witnesses who appeared before a legislative committee argued, the extreme haste with which this legislation has been rammed through the legislative process.
Major industry associations were forced to appear in midsummer before they had had proper opportunity to assess this very complex Bill, and to arrive at conclusions by their boards of directors concerning its implications.

Madam Speaker, Members who sat on the committee did not even have the opportunity to review the testimony and develop an enlightened opinion about the necessary amendments. The proceedings had precious little in common with the spirit of recent parliamentary reforms, especially the fact that the public hearings fell far short of the democratic process. The net result is a badly structured Bill which could not be properly amended to eliminate the obvious shortcomings.

I intend to indicate some of those very serious errors.
As concrete examples of this observation, I would like to indicate to this House and to the listening public that native peoples, aboriginal peoples, disabled peoples, and regional groups were not even heard when the legislative language translating the wishes of these task forces and standing committees were put before us. Multicultural groups got a hurried and last minute invitation to respond to extremely complex legislation.
Let me remind you, Madam Speaker, the concerns that we have about this Bill include many important matters, in addition to those that I wish to concentrate specifically on today. Among them are the following. First, that new concept of the definition of "program" in the Act. It is of serious concern, for it would split undertakings into two parts-a programming part and a non-programming part, creating a constitutional issue with the possible loss of federal jurisdiction over part of the undertaking. As well, their placement on the carriage priorities of our cable system is not clearly defined, and therefore could replace a channel even in the lower first 1 to 13 channel options that are available.
Second, the need to make provisions for broadcast programming in representative native languages is certainly not in this Bill.
When I hear the Minister's advocate talking about how this Bill is so vital and so important, it does not even bring in the major concern that the native constituencies brought to our attention in legislative hearings. They never were invited to present their view or an amendment during the legislative process related to the language of the Bill.
Third, the need to retain a seven-year term of office for the Chairman of the CRTC and the President of the CBC in order to protect the ability of both agencies to operate at arm's
length from the Government, just like that of the Bank of Canada, indicates the fundamental role and place of this essential service to Canadians and for Canadians. That has been overlooked and ignored. The potential for political interference is flagrant in this Bill. Much was improved, but this is one area that indicates a serious lack of concern on the part of the Government, or its desire to make some decisions with respect to how the whole system ought to operate beyond that which is totally acceptable.
Fourth, the need to define more clearly the roles of the CBC chairman and president in order to reduce the potential under the new Bill for conflict within the corporation. The question of who is the boss has been raised by many. We have had to live through some serious problems in Telefilm Canada because of lack of clarity and definition as to the roles of the chairman and the president. We are running into the same problem here. The Minister stubbornly did not wish to hear, nor did she appreciate, the very carefully thought through presentation made by the President of the CBC, Mr. Juneau who, knowing that he was leaving, left an excellent legacy for study and for an understanding of the role and the functions of chief executive officers and who has to make the final decision-where the ball stops.
Fifth, the Bill fails to provide priority for the carriage on cable of public sector broadcasting services, including those provided by both federal and provincial public broadcasters. It has not clearly defined cable priorities-carriage priorities to programming services and leaves all kinds of gaps and holes.
The most serious of those has been effectively spoken to by the listening public which is very angry about where the House of Commons channel appears, as an example, and I think with just right. In fact the pressure has been so much that Skyline has decided to move the House of Commons channel from out in space on channel 50 back down to channel 18. Approximately 70 per cent of Canadians have converters, so they can at least get channel 18, but perhaps it should even be down in the first 1 to 13 which is off air.
Apropos that, Madam Speaker, perhaps you take a look at what could be considered to be a definition of a public sector service. We talk about public elements and private elements. In the public element we would have our national broadcaster, the CBC, which the Government would like to define as the "mass audience appeal". Notwithstanding, there is the CBC, the provincial broadcasters, and also a new area where the Government has put in very significant funding. I am referring to TV 5.

The federal Government's $1.79 million contribution-18 per cent of the TV5 network budget and three times the amount put up by Quebec-and all the money invested by France make TV5 a public network which unfortunately does not reach beyond the borders of Quebec. This public network paid for by the public-you, me, all Canadian taxpayers- ought to be on the air from coast to coast in this country.
September 27, 1988



I have said from the first of our public hearings from the West Coast, through the prairie provinces, in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, and in Manitoba, that if we believe the fundamental characteristic of Canada is its bilingual nature, the public rule of law for the broadcasting system should include options and choices for both English and French from coast to coast. That stamp should be there. Certainly, if we are putting millions of dollars annually into a program such as TV 5, such as Radio Canada, such as CBC, there should be no options. That has been a standard undertaking on my part, expressed both in committee hearings across this land and in legislative hearings, and it has not been acted upon. It is a major hole in this Bill.
This shows a lack of application of the philosophy of official languages, of multiculturalism, of the whole concept of the fundamental characteristic of Canada, and it belies the reality of those laws.
The sixth point I would like to make is about the urgent requirement to avoid unfair competition and conflicts of interest by incorporating in law provisions limiting the role of cable TV systems to providing programming other than that which is complementary to that offered by licensed Canadian stations and networks. There has certainly been recognition that cable is a hybrid system. I have no objection to that. However, I have objection to unfair competition, and this would be unfair competition. I have been a strong proponent of available options and choices, but I think within reason and within the concepts of an economically viable broadcasting system for Canadians and by Canadians.
The Minister may say that is this is all very partisan, as she alluded to in her speech. Any one of us who objects to her point of view, just like any one who objects to the point of view of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), is not considered to have a valuable or valued point of view. It is not only me and this Party, but let me bring to Your Honour's attention what I would consider to be a rather informed, enlightened, and nonpartisan group that had something valuable to add to this whole process. I am talking about the Canadian Bar Association. I think it could be considered non-partisan. May I suggest that the Canadian Bar Association had some very constructive observations to make. It was able to appear before us on August 26.
I bring to the attention of the House and the general public that we only started hearings on August 10. We only advised the public that we would start these hearings in the middle of July. We now have before us some very valued advice. The following is what the Canadian Bar Association had to say: "The Media and Communications Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association brings together lawyers who practise in the communications field of law across Canada." I would say that is an enlightened group. It said: "This submission has been put together by a representative group of these lawyers based on their experiences in the broadcasting and communications law field. Given the importance of the new
Broadcasting Act
legislation, we are concerned that very little time has been given to interested groups to review the draft language of Bill C-136. In 1985 and 1986 many of the policy issues addressed in the Bill were given a full and comprehensive review as part of the work of the Caplan-Sauvageau task force on broadcast policy. In 1987 and 1988 many of these policy issues were reviewed again by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture which commented on these issues in its fourth, fifth, sixth, and fifteenth reports."
They were rather extensive reports, and I can remember that the Minister's answers to a few of them were totally unacceptable. In one instance, I think it was two pages. It continued: "However, the actual draft language of Bill C-136 has been available for review by the public for barely two months. It is apparent from just a cursory review that Bill C-136 raises numerous legal questions which require interpretation and clarification. This is hardly surprising since the Bill represents the first thorough going revision of the Broadcasting Act in 20 years." I interrupt my citation to say en passant that it is true that it is 20 years. It did need review, but it needed time in its legislative language.
The Canadian Bar Association goes on to state that given the all-encompassing nature of the changes to the Act, however, and the likelihood that once enacted the new Broadcasting Act will be in place for a considerable period of time, it is essential in its view that Parliament provide a full opportunity for each clause to be carefully reviewed.
In making these comments, the interest of the Canadian Bar Association is not with policy issues as such. As noted above these have already been extensively debated. Rather its concern is with the legal language of the Bill.
In that connection it is particularly interested in ensuring that the Bill meets three tests: first, that the language should be clear, unambiguous, and readily understandable; second, that the Act should be sensitive to questions of fairness and due process in the administrative law context; third, that the Bill should be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In all these respects its review to date indicates that the wording of Bill C-136 gives rise to a number of concerns. Many of them are of a technical nature, but others have a more substantive character.
I really should read into the record the 29 pages of amendments that follow its comments but I will not. I will, however, bring to Your Honour's attention that 44 amendments were presented in committee and 12 at report stage, for a total of 56. That indicates how flawed the Bill was in the first place.
The association has indicated problems with the definition of broadcasting, the programming undertaking and distribution undertaking definitions and technical matters, definition of the term "public", applicability of regulations to exempted persons, responsibility for programs, overlaps in Section 5(2) and Section 3(1), and clarification of the word "element".

September 27, 1988
Broadcasting Act
These are all amendments I brought to the House and suggested we look at them in legislative committees. Certainly not all of them were considered favourably by the Government.
The second thing it looked at was CRTC powers and procedures. It has very serious concerns around who decides, the seriousness of the due process, and the increase in CRTC powers. The last area it deals with rather extensively is freedom of expression and charter concerns. Not only did the CBA have serious concerns, every single group that came before us did as well. There were at least 40 recommendations for amendments of substance and an additional 30 linguistic corrections, and that suggests there is much cause for concern.
With respect to the linguistic corrections I was quite fascinated with an observation they made. This should give us pause. They say that this is undoubtedly the first time in the legislative history of Canada that the French version of a statute has been longer than its English equivalent. While the emergence of a new style of legislative drafting is to be applauded, there is a general loss of accuracy and consistency, which leads to some serious problems in the equal application of the law across this land.
There is another point of equal importance that was not seriously addressed satisfactorily, and that is the light weight given to educational and community broadcasting, which have now been moved jointly into a subparagraph. This certainly does not reflect the attention given by either the task force or the standing committee recommendations in this regard.
I heard what the Minister said in her speech about educational broadcasters. I certainly recall what she had to say about memorandums of understanding and so on. I suggest that the effect of the proposed legislation on educational broadcasters and the people we serve cannot be underestimated. This is not just some piece of legislation. The Broadcasting Act covers one of the largest industries in Canada whose products touch the lives of every man, woman, and child in this country. What the Criminal Code is to the administration of justice, the Broadcasting Act is to the lives of these people.
We believe the new legislation sends the wrong signals. I recommended that we restore educational broadcasting to at least its former position in the 1968 Act where it is described as integral to the Canadian broadcasting system. With respect-
[ Translation]
... to community programming, Canada generally and Quebec especially have played a pioneer role in the world in the area of radio broadcasting. Such stations as CINQ and CBBL in Montreal are models in the area of community programming and have many copied emulators in Canada, especially in Quebec. It is therefore somewhat suprising to discover that a clear definition of community programming is
not found in this Bill. It is not a local project. Local programming is not a sufficient definition.
It might be considered as coming under clause 3.(l)(j)(ii) dealing with local broadcasting. But again, would it matter to determine what are the responsible parties? How will community programming be financed and by whom? Who would have access to it, so that such global policies as those mentioned in the Standing Committee report may be developed and implemented?

This was brought to our attention very forcefully by the ethnocultural communities, as the educational concern was brought to our attention by the spokespeople for the educational sector. I think there was something to learn from that but the Minister obviously did not hear.
I would now like to address a major point contained in the Bill before the House. Historically it has always been recognized that broadcasting is not just another industry. Instead, it is the central vehicle through which Canadians communicate with one another. It is a major instrument for Canadian expression in the arts and entertainment, and an essential means for providing a Canadian perspective in news and information programming.
As a result, there has historically been a concern that the industry should provide programs which are genuinely Canadian in nature, and the decision making in the industry should clearly be in the hands of Canadians.
Of the amendments which the Government has accepted, the most important is the proposal presented by my Party in Motion No. 14 which resulted in a revision of Clause 3, the heart of the Bill, to include the statement that the broadcasting system should "encourage the development of Canadian expression providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity, displaying Canadian talent in entertainment programming, and offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view". It seems hard to believe that would have been left out of the Bill, but it was.
With the acceptance of this change the Bill now makes it clear that we as Canadians will continue to require, as we have for decades, that broadcasting stations and networks both provide programming that is Canadian in its character and that they be owned and controlled by Canadians. These are important and fundamental principles for a new Bill and, like most Canadians, I am pleased that the Government has included them by accepting this amendment.
However, these are not the only fundamental issues which a new broadcasting Bill must address if it is to prove effective in the future. As the Minister has quite properly pointed out time and time again, broadcasting has been changed enormously by evolving technology since the 1968 Broadcasting Act was passed. It will continue to change. This policy must be
September 27, 1988

technology neutral, and among those technologies are satellites and cable distribution systems.
In addressing the issue of the present and the future, the crucial test will not be just the extent to which the provisions of the 1968 Act are retained. The key test will be the extent to which, in a more complex situation, we as Canadians continue to retain control over the system and provide a reasonable balance between Canadian and foreign programming. One issue which is central to the legislation is its provisions regarding the balance that should exist between Canadian and foreign programming.
There are two quite separate aspects to this issue. First, what proportion of the programming offered by individual stations or networks should be Canadian? I ask you to think about that, Madam Speaker. Second, what proportion of the programming offered by distribution undertakings such as cable systems should be Canadian? We are talking about Canadian culture, Canadian sovereignty, and Canadian identity. What proportion should we be allowed? What space should we leave for ourselves?
The question of how Canadian the programming offered should be was much simpler in the past. I would like to suggest-

. .. that after long public hearings, the Standing Committee adopted an approach established on the two basic elements recommended by the task force. First of all, to avoid any trouble, the legislation should include a provision protecting the broadcasting of foreign stations already available. That is the grand-fathering clause!
Also, it should allow any additional foreign service only in cases where such service brings something significant to the whole Canadian programming. More specifically, it had been suggested that the service should offer programs complementary to those already made available by licensed Canadian broadcasters.

I think it becomes quite clear that there has been some uncertainty about the technical interpretation of the "predominantly Canadian" provision. It is also seen as an impractical requirement for specialized minority intraservices such as those providing programming in ethnic languages or those which were available on a discretionary or user-pay basis.
In the light of the lack of clarity in the law and the difficulty for some services of providing predominantly Canadian programming, the CRTC has allowed a number of such services to operate with more limited levels of Canadian programming. In response to this situation, the standing committee proposed two changes. The first change would clarify the meaning of "predominantly Canadian" so it would be obvious that it meant that most of the programming
Broadcasting Act
provided should indeed be Canadian. The second proposed change would permit the CRTC to exempt from this requirement specialized limited audience services for which such a requirement was not practical. I think we were being very responsible, very realistic, reacting to what is and looking at what we should perhaps change. "If it's not broken, don't fix it", was the motto in many areas.
When Bill C-136 was first introduced this recommendation was rejected. Subsequently, in response to extensive criticism from many quarters, including the CRTC, the Government amended Clause 3(1 )(e) to reintroduce the concept of "predominantly Canadian". Flowever it seems incredible that we had to reintroduce concepts and protections for Canadian content and "predominantly Canadian". However, the redrafting has been done so badly that it remains unclear whether the intent is that the programming provided by Canadian broadcasters should, unless subject to the exemption provisions, be predominantly Canadian. I would like to point out that in trying to bring clarity to this whole issue and to assure ourselves that we are not talking about Canadian resources such as trucks, lighting or the crews who go out to do the photography, although they are important, it is not predominantly Canadian content in terms of artistic thought and ability to have us function as the Minister has said in her speech-

... at the very heart of our sovereignty.

Therefore, if it is a service that is essential and- [Translation]
... at the very heart of our sovereignty.

-I do not think the trucks and the lighting equipment is what brings-

... at its very heart.

I would like to suggest that we studied the thinking of many of the groups that made recommendations for change to us. We decided in our clear non-partisan way that each broadcasting undertaking should provide programming that is predominantly Canadian, using predominantly Canadian creativity- that would be first-and other resources-those would be the other things that are also important-in the creation and presentation of programming unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking, such as specialized content, format, or use of languages other than French and English renders that impracticable, in which case the undertaking shall make the greatest practical use of those resources.
It just seems to me that if we are looking for a Canadian system, that only makes good sense, practical Canadian

September 27, 1988
Broadcasting Act
common sense, perhaps not bottom line black dollar common sense all the time but certainly good Canadian common sense. That is what we were looking for in this Bill.
Given the importance of this provision, the Bill should not be passed without further amendment. If it is not amended to require that programming be predominantly Canadian, there will be no legislative basis for the CRTC to maintain such requirements. This is a very straightforward drafting issue and if the Government does indeed agree that such a requirement is justified, it should have amended the Bill to make this clear.
There is little point, however, in maintaining a requirement that most programming provided by individual Canadian stations and networks should be Canadian, if at the same time the programming offered by the cable systems is not to be overwhelmingly and increasingly Canadian but continues to become overwhelmingly and increasingly foreign in content.
In part, at least, because the 1968 Act was silent on the role of cable, the content offered by cable systems has become more and more foreign over the past 20 years. There was lack of clarity in the law. We are asking that clarity be there and that direction be there. Quite properly, the expanded choices now offered by cable television have been viewed as positive. I see this mixed system as a positive system-but it has its limits-to the extent that it actually made available to Canadians a wider range of programming than they had previously been able to receive from off air sources.
Many of us can remember the rabbit ears that sat on our television sets and how we wiggled and turned them as we tried to catch off air American programming. Cable came in and helped us to get a clear picture on our screens and also extended the reception as the cable system extended north. Otherwise, those Canadians in our northern regions would not have been able to receive the same fair access as we living along the border had.
I think it was a good initiative, a positive initiative, but there is a place where it should stop. It has actually made available to Canadians a wider range of programming than they had previously been able to receive with the rabbit ears. Genuine increases in programming variety are clearly a good thing. At the same time, however, to the extent that cable systems were simply bringing in programming already available from Canadian sources and undermining Canadian broadcasters, the way cable has functioned, was and is of concern. There has virtually been unanimous agreement by our committees and by everyone we heard that a new Act must at long last provide the CRTC with a proper legislative base for regulating cable television.
Indeed, the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) emphasized again and again that a major inadequacy in the 1968 Act was its failure to deal adequately with cable. Yet the Government has failed, against the unanimous advice of both the 1986 Caplan-Sauvageau task force on broadcasting policy
and the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, to provide an effective legislative basis for the operation of cable systems in the future. That deficiency in the legislation has the potential to undermine all the other provisions in this important legislation completely. It is in fact the Achilles heel of the Conservatives' proposed new broadcasting law.
When we made a suggested amendment with respect to cable priority carriage, we said that it is essential that distribution undertakings should accord priority to the carriage of Canadian programming services in French and English, both public and private, with priority given to the Canadian public element programming services, and that they may carry foreign originated programming services only where the programming they provide is substantially different from that already offered by a licensed Canadian broadcasting undertaking, or where those foreign programming services were already carried by distribution undertakings. We also suggested that it should be regulated in a manner that reflects a reasonable recognition of the exclusive rights acquired by Canadian broadcasting undertakings.
Nothing could have been more fundamental or more germane to the issue of a renewed Canadian Broadcasting Act. If these fundamentals are not to be included in this Bill, then there really was not much purpose in going through what could have been a very exciting exercise in an advance for the broadcasting industry and a new look for Canada that would have been in many ways technology neutral.
This issue is so fundamental that I want to review its background. After 18 months of extensive research and consultations with the public and the broadcasting industry, the Government's $3 million task force on broadcasting policy reached the following conclusions:
The task force believes that the role of the Canadian radio and television services, both public and private... To the extent that foreign broadcasting signals are carried, they should complement programming from Canadian sources. We recognize that an exception must be made for foreign television signals that are already an established part of the system ... The presence of a particular foreign signal in the system should never be allowed to preclude the development of new Canadian services. Priority must always be given to the development of our own broadcasting services.
We believe it is evidence that Canada's own broadcasting industry, both the public and private sectors, can do most of the job of providing programming that is varied and comprehensive, including both foreign and Canadian programs. If the rights to show American programs in Canada were retained and exploited by American broadcasters, rather than being sold to Canadian broadcasters, it would be destructive of Canada's broadcasting system, particularly of private broadcasting. More important, it would create an even greater imbalance between foreign and Canadian programs and reduce Canada's ability to produce programs. The carriage rules that apply to cable television will have a powerful influence on the degree to which Canadian broadcasting services develop and the revenues that they earn.
In the public hearings which the Standing Committee held, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the CBC, and the Canadian producers expressed strong support for the approach the task force had proposed.
After exhaustive public hearings, the approach the standing committee adopted had the same two basic elements that were
September 27, 1988

recommended by the task force. First, to avoid disruption, the Bill should make provisions for those foreign channels now carried to continue to be offered. Second, the test in the future of whether to permit the importation of any additional foreign service should be that it actually adds something significant to the mix of programming available to Canadians.
Specifically, the test proposed was that the service should offer programming complementary to that already available from licensed Canadian broadcasters. Otherwise, the system will become more and more fragmented. The potential for earning decent incomes for Canadian broadcasters, whether public or private, actors or actresses, songwriters or scriptwriters, will be constrained by the way this Bill has been written and by the fact that its concept of Canadian content, whether in the production end or the carriage end, has not been applied in a way that is in Canada's interests.
In response to those particular recommendations, the CRTC has stated that it agrees generally with the recommendation, while the Canadian Television Association said that it agreed in principle. To the extent that they expressed concerns, these were related only to the carriage of stations already available off air. In the case of the CRTC, concern was also expressed about including in the new Act any provisions at all related to carriage of foreign television signals in the Canadian broadcasting system.
More recently, in a letter to the editor published in The Globe and Mail on September 19, 1988, Mr. Michael Hind-smith, President of the Canadian Cable Television Association, noted that the new Act would allow the CRTC to refuse to permit cable systems to carry directly competing American signals. Commenting on the wisdom of granting the CRTC these powers, he made the following statement, I presume on behalf of his association:
These powers effectively deprive Canadian cable TV subscribers of direct access to such U.S. services as Home Box Office, Showtime, ESPN, the Disney Channel or MTV. Instead access is achieved by licensed Canadian specialty services which purchase for a fee Canadian rights to incorporate U.S. programs in Canadian-originated services. The resulting blend provides access and ultimately a better product tailored to meet Canadian needs. The Canadian cable television industry, as an integral part of the broadcasting system, supports that approach.
While this makes it clear that the cable industry itself, like the broadcasters, is supportive of prohibiting carriage of directly competing U.S. broadcasting services, the essential issue for Parliament is whether this fundamental policy issue ought to be left to the CRTC or dealt with in the Bill. In our judgment, this issue is at least as important as any other that has been addressed in this draft Act and, as legislators, it is an issue we must now address. Surely the carriage regulations for cable are at least as important as requirements for Canadian content quotas for undertakings in maintaining any reasonable balance between Canadian and foreign programs in our system.
I want to emphasize, however, that unlike the CCTA, the Government is not assuming that the CRTC will implement
Broadcasting Act
this reasonable and necessary policy of protecting our own broadcasting system. Instead, astonishing as it may seem, and it has been repeated again this morning, the Government of Canada has categorically rejected these policy recommendations, although they were widely perceived to be both moderate and essential to the maintenance of a strong and separate Canadian broadcasting system.
Instead, the position the Government has taken is that any restrictions whatsoever on the entry into Canada of American stations and networks is in principle unacceptable. Does anybody smell free trade around here?
This position, which is inconsistent with over 50 years of broadcasting policy, is clearly stated in the Government's June 1988 response to the fifth, sixth, and fifteenth reports of the standing committee. The Minister said that again this morning.
In responding to this recommendation the Government has stated that the prohibition of foreign radio and television services other than those whose programming is complementary to that available from Canadian sources has not been included in the legislation since it would unduly restrict the access of Canadians to a new range of international broadcasting services.
Elsewhere the response states that the Government's policy is not to restrict access to foreign services. That is on page 28 of the response. The Government has explicitly rejected proposed amendments which would have implemented the unanimous recommendation of a standing committee, the task force, and lots of other interested and concerned Canadian citizens.
What will this position mean in the future? It will lay the basis in Canadian law for allowing all American broadcasters who desire it to extend their reach into Canada. The result will be to make it far more difficult for Canadian broadcasters to acquire the right to show the best U.S. programs in Canada. Even when they are able to do so, it will reduce their ability to earn revenue as a result. Revenues from showing foreign programs are now crucial to the successful operation of Canada's private broadcasters. The resulting loss of revenue will in turn undermine the ability of Canadian broadcasters to finance Canadian programming.
Yet in Clause 2 of this Bill, unclearly defined and poorly worded, is a carrot and stick approach to insist that Canadian broadcasters put in more programming. The vision is right, but the process is wrong. Adding this aspect of complete access by Americans into our system is an unbelievable and unacceptable situation.
This Americanization or continental approach to one of the greatest information medium of our time is the crucial issue. When appearing before the legislative committee Dr. Bernard

September 27, 1988
Broadcasting Act
Ostry, President and Chief Executive Office of TV Ontario, said:
We in Canada are far from being culturally sovereign in the cultural context, because of our exposure to non-Canadian products, particularly American programs and technology. Some 80 per cent of our publishing industry is in foreign hands; 97 per cent of films shown in Canada are foreign; 85 per cent of records and tapes are based on imported master tapes. In broadcasting, 71 per cent of all programs are viewed by English-speaking Canadians on television are American.
The Minister went even further in outlining very carefully in her book, Vital Links, the serious aspects of non-Canadian control of cultural sovereignty. There are serious implications from such a scenario. Our creative screenwriters, songwriters, singers, dancers, and authors cannot tell our story as freely as they should be able to. Many of these people have proven their world-class quality and have won all kinds of awards. If they do not have the space or the medium to deliver the message, we are in trouble. We must keep our broadcasting window, while mixed with foreign material, open enough for ourselves or we will be like Pogo who, in that famous comic strip, looked across the hills and said: "I see the enemy, Sir, and it is us".
This is not what Canadians want. Our broadcasting policy is to be kept as Canadian as possible. The implications of creating a single Canada-U.S. market are obvious already in the theatrical film industry. In that sector there has been a continental market for decades. The result is that most of the revenues earned in the Canadian market flow south to finance more American films, while Canada's own film companies lack the resources to contribute substantially to financing Canadian films and the ability to distribute and market them effectively. The same thing will happen in the future if the Government carries out its plans to give U.S. broadcasters unrestricted access to this Canadian market.
Why this radical and far-reaching departure from a tradition of building a separate Canadian broadcasting system, a tradition begun in the 1930s by a Conservative Government? Why the refusal to provide a sure legislative basis for maintaining and strengthening Canada's own off air broadcasting services and developing a strong and separate system of Canadian pay and specialty services? The only answer that can explain this-


Mr. Waddell:: Free trade.


Sheila Finestone: I thank my colleague. He is right, free trade. My Party believes that the only answer that can explain this decision by the Government is that it knows that any new provisions which restrict the entry of American broadcasters into Canada would contravene the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and would certainly bring the full weight of American anger against the negative economic impact. Clause 2005(2) would reach its zenith in application. It could be a wonderful tool for the Americans.
We have, of course, already seen evidence in the areas of cultural policy of the way the Government is acting since the signing of the trade agreement. We saw the gutting of the
original film importation Bill of the Minister of Communications. We have Simon Reisman's public assurances that the revised and eviscerated Bill has at least been made consistent with the free trade agreement. That, of course, is why the draft legislation would do nothing effective to protect Canadian interests.
We know that the Government suppressed the Donner Report, an independent consultant's study of the sound recording industry which, in its leaked form, warned of serious consequences for Canada's songwriters and performers and the Canadian record industry under the trade agreement. The consequences of a weakened Canadian record industry for Canadian content quotas on radio are obvious, to say nothing of our own performers.
We have seen the Government reject as well the central proposals of its own 1985 task force on film policy related to the use of the Investment Canada Act to strengthen Canadian ownership and control over film distribution. Indeed, in the book industry where the Government had already established a strong policy in 1985 to strengthen Canadian participation in this vitally important industry, we saw in the 1988 New American Library decision the abandoning of the essential Baie Comeau policy.
At present the Government seems to be avoiding making decisions on a number of Investment Canada cases which will again test the 1985 Baie Comeau policy. Will those decisions now wait until after the election in order to avoid the embarrassment of further withdrawal from protecting Canada's cultural sovereignty and identity?
There is the fact that we have about 10 per cent of the theatrical film market, which is a problem. There are a number of areas in which the fact that Canadian culture was protected under the free trade agreement could be challenged.
There is further evidence for this interpretation of the Government's actions since other new legislative initiatives which might have contravened the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement have also been rejected. For example, the Government refused to include in the draft Bill any requirement that foreign pay-television or specialty services carrying on business through affiliates in Canada should do so through a Canadian entity licensed by the CRTC. I remind Members of the House that this unanimous, all-Party recommendation of the standing committee was endorsed by the Canadian Cable Television Association.
Failure to act on this recommendation will result in two classes of broadcasting networks carrying on business here in Canada-those which require a licence and must contribute to achieving Canadian programming objectives, and those which can extract money from the Canadian market without a licence and with no obligation to contribute to Canadian programming. The result will be a growing sense of unfairness and a resulting undermining of the legitimacy of the regulations applied to the Canadian services. The result will also be a reduced ability to meet Canadian programming objectives.
September 27, 1988

The Government said that it cannot do this, but that is not the case.
In a response to recommendation 17 of the standing committee's sixth report, it said it cannot do this because "most of the foreign services do not have a business presence in Canada and operate under American law". That is based on a misconception of fact and an error in law. I have consulted broadly on this particularly matter. The legal counsel with whom I drafted the amendment made it very clear that he and his colleagues would support the view that this is a misconception of fact and an error in law.
The misconception is that the recommendation would apply to off-air U.S. border stations. These stations do not contract to deliver their services to members of the public in Canada. The principal focus of the recommendation is on U.S. specialty networks like Arts and Entertainment and CNN, which enter into contracts with Canadian cable systems in Canada to deliver their service to Canadian homes. This activity is clearly capable of falling under Canadian law if legislators wish this to be the case. Obviously that is not the wish of the Government.
The term "undertaking" does not require actual physical assets to be present in Canada and in a number of cases have held that the presence of a signal in Canada can give rise to tortious, or copyright liability here. I have recommended that the Minister or her staff check landmark cases such as Jenner v Sun Oil, 1952, or CAPAC v International Good Music, 1963. Obviously there was no interest in following through on those recommendations.
In commenting on Bill C-136, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters summarized the problem well by stating that "the proposed Act fails to clearly establish the structure of the Canadian Broadcasting system and principles that will keep it Canadian". That is what it said during the legislative committee on Bill C-136.
CAB went on to note: "A post-free trade environment will undoubtedly generate increased pressure for access to the Canadian market for a wide variety of U.S. broadcast and programming services". It went on to express concern that "the Bill provides no certain defence against that kind of pressure".
The combination of increasing pressure from U.S. broadcasters for access to Canada and an absolute refusal by the Government to include in Bill C-136 any legislative basis whatsoever for limiting their access to Canada is a sure recipe for the rapid erosion of Canada's own broadcasting system.
Our concerns with this Bill are rendered more acute because the Government has even refused to provide a basis in law for the CRTC to protect those exclusive rights which Canadian broadcasters acquire to exhibit programs in Canada. I do not know any business person who would find these principles acceptable. Elere too there was an all-Party recommendation
Broadcasting Act
from the standing committee and a subsequent amendment which I proposed earlier in the Elouse. Yet the Government refuses to provide a legislative basis for the CRTC to take reasonable measures to protect the exclusive program rights acquired by Canadian broadcasters.
These points can be quickly summarized. First, the Bill does not clearly require that licensed Canadian broadcasters should, with appropriate but limited exceptions, provide programming that is predominantly Canadian. Second, this legislation fails to provide an adequate basis for regulating the carriage of foreign channels on cable television systems.
Third, the Bill fails to capture all satellite to cable networks carrying on business in Canada although technological change has made such networks an increasingly important part of the broadcasting system. It has failed to define clearly the carriage rules for public and private elements. Finally, the Bill provides no basis for the CRTC to protect the exclusive rights purchased by Canadian broadcasters.
The result is that the legislation as drafted creates the potential for further substantial Americanization of our broadcasting system. Since the Government has stated explicitly that it is opposed in principle to any limits at all on the entry of foreign broadcasting signals into Canada, it seems fair to assume that such signals will increasingly be allowed in even if they compete directly with and undermine our own broadcasters.
What the Government proposes to do in 1988 is reverse the decisions made in 1932 in the original Broadcasting Act. At that time the Government of R. B. Bennett moved decisively to limit the flood of American broadcasting and American programs which had come across the border, to provide a basis for developing a strong Canadian broadcasting system able to meet the needs of Canadians for both foreign and Canadian programs, and to do so in both French and English.
Now, 56 years later, the Government seems intent on giving U.S. networks and stations the unrestricted access to the Canadian market they were originally denied. If the Government carries through on its stated intention to create a wide open market, the result will be to undermine Canada's own broadcasting system and sharply reduce our ability to meet our own programming requirements. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is what Canadians want to see happen. Indeed, all recent research on the attitudes of Canadians tell us that precisely the opposite is true. Canadians want, appreciate, and recognize Canada's programs and they want them on their screens. They do not want them pushed out by unnecessary choices. A mixed system is acceptable, but this is outrageous.
In light of these fundamental deficiencies in Bill C-136, clearly it would be irresponsible of our Party to vote in favour of this legislation. Although we recognize the legislation contains a number of necessary and important provisions to bring the law up to date, the essential requirement for a new law, however, must be that it provides a solid basis for building a stronger and more Canadian broadcasting system.

September 27, 1988
Broadcasting Act
The essential requirement for a new law must be that it provide a solid basis for building a stronger, more Canadian broadcasting system in the future. This law does not meet that test.
In deciding that we must oppose this Bill we recognize that this marks the first time since 1932 that it has not been possible to reach all-Party agreement on broadcasting legislation. We regret that. In fact, I find this a very difficult moment. As a member of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, I am particularly sorry that this has occurred. The members of that committee, including every government member, set aside partisan feelings and, as a result, were able to reach unanimous agreement on almost every issue, including all the major issues I referred to earlier.
This decision has not been taken easily. All efforts were made to amend the Bill constructively and to ensure a Canadian system by and for Canadians. Making the acceptance of a new broadcasting Bill unanimous was the goal. I believe that the Minister tried very hard. I acknowledge this with a full heart. However, not so with her Government and certainly not so at the cabinet table.
Regrettably, government philosophy is being guided by principles that we believe are not in the best interest of Canada. The reality is that in choosing to depart from over 50 years of non-partisan support for a strong broadcasting system of our own, the Government has rejected the unanimous advice of government members on its own committee. It has ignored the Caplan-Sauvageau report. The result is legislation that betrays one of Canada's most basic needs and interests.
I believe that when Canadians understand the fundamental flaws that exist in Bill C-136 under a veneer of pro-Canadian rhetoric, under a veneer of trying to defend itself by calling others guilty, they will reject it as an unacceptable and unsound basis for the future of Canadian broadcasting.
Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That all the words after the word "That" be deleted and that the following
be substituted therefor:
Bill C-136 be not now read a third time but be referred back to the
legislative committee for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 3.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party and debate this very important Bill, Bill C-136, the Canadian broadcasting Bill at third reading, the final stages of the Bill. There has been an amendment introduced. I will speak to the amendment later.
In the limited time that I have I would like to address some of the remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) who spoke for the Government today. I got a note from the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) who is in a
meeting of the Priorities and Planning Committee, a committee of Cabinet. She could not be here. I appreciate getting a note from her. No doubt she will read my remarks.
After dealing with the Minister's speech in debate style, I want then to address my own criticisms of the Bill. Finally, I want to wind up stating what are the alternatives. I want to speak specifically about the electoral process that seems to be upon us and what this could mean.
First, the one thing I do agree with the Minister on is when he said that Canadians listen to 18 hours of radio and 24 hours of television. I assume that is per week and not per day. That shows us how important broadcasting is. In a way I regret that the press, with some limited exceptions, and some honourable exceptions, and the public have not paid more attention to this particular Bill, the first revision to the Broadcasting Act in 20 years.
The Minister quoted the Caplan-Sauvageau report, en franqais, c'est le rapport sauvageau-caplan. He also made reference to the sixth report of the standing committee of the house of commons, what he did not tell us was that in the essential, in the really important parts of those reports, the government did not follow the recommendations of those allparty reports. I regret that the hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) has not had the courage to get up and speak in this debate to outline what that committee recommended. he was chairman of that committee. I will say something further about that in my speech because it becomes key when we talk about the North Americanization of the Canadian broadcasting system which we are seeing now and which this Bill does not affect-in fact, it does not take any steps to stop; rather, it encourages.
The Minister mentioned the free trade agreement. He said that culture is exempted from the free trade agreement. I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, that that is not true. It is not so. It is not exempted from the agreement. Let me explain very briefly in layman's language why. The free trade agreement states-and I would like the Minister to listen to this if he might-that culture is excluded from the agreement. But then one has to read it carefully. There is another clause that states that actions of equivalent commercial effect can be taken.
I will give an example. Say that a Canadian Minister of Culture wants to take action to protect the Canadian airwaves, perhaps to restrict American signals that come into Canada. What would happen would be Americans could take action of equivalent commercial effect. They could restrict B.C. fish or B.C. lumber, and then the poor Minister would have all the workers, businessmen, employers, and so on from British Columbia who would come to say: "You cannot do this to us. Retreat on your broadcasting policy". In fact that is what would happen.
That is the insidious way that the Free Trade Agreement affects this deal and affects cultural policy. In fact, it restricts the Government from taking nationalistic measures. That is why this Bill is flawed in the fundamental ways that my
September 27, 1988

colleague, the critic from the Official Opposition, said it was flawed, that is to say, its failure to establish a Canadian market and the encouragement of a North American market. The Government now has to do everything in the context of North Americanization, having sold Canada out in the free trade agreement. It affects cultural policies. It affects every policy.
The Minister said that they never considered limiting access of Canadians to American programming. Instead, he said that we wanted to encourage the Canadian alternative. But I say to him: How is this encouraging Canadian alternatives? In fact, the Government will be allowing American superchannels to come into Canada to knock out Canadian channels which cannot compete with them. Second, the Government is not funding adequately the Canadian public sector, the CBC, which has had to cut back on programming. It is flawed there.
The question is: Why has the Government not considered limiting Canadians access to these American channels? The answer is because of the free trade deal.
The Minister mentioned that there was a scheme to force private broadcasters to produce Canadian programs; but it is an unworkable scheme, as all the evidence in front of the legislative committee has shown. The Government should have considered other measures, tougher measures. If Canadian private broadcasters do not produce the quality Canadian programming after some encouragement and some help, and they still do not do it, then there is a licensing procedure. Some licences could actually be taken away and other broadcasters could be got who would do it. But the Government is afraid to do that.
The Minister spoke about CBC's independence. I ask from whom? He would say independence from the Government, and we have ensured that in this Bill. I say to him, and later in my speech I will give him the facts on this, the CBC has become a slave to ads now. It is in fact being privatized because its money is being cut back. It is having to put more money into commercials. In fact, it is a very subtle way of privatizing the CBC. The CBC will soon be just like any other private network, certainly on television. It is practically that now.
The Minister says that the Bill meets the hopes and aspirations of Canadians, and in fact amendments were granted. It is true that amendments were granted. I am pleased that a number of amendments were accepted. We worked hard together in committee with the Minister on this matter, but we did not get the big amendments to this Bill.
The Minister said that we have constraints. We know what the constraints are. The constraints are the free trade deal with the United States. We have a nationalistic Minister who cannot get those big ticket items through Cabinet. In my speech I will speak about those items in some detail. He says that the Canadian public is in favour of this Bill. Where? Show me where the Canadian public is in favour of it. I think that the Canadian public would be in favour of a nationalistic
________________________________19683
Broadcasting Act
Bill that would protect Canadian culture. Why not try the Canadian public on that? The Government has not done this.
Let me deal in more detail with what the Bill does and where the flaws are in the Bill. I said in my second reading speech on this Bill that the problem with Canadian broadcasting was that the public sector was under funded and that the private sector was not doing its job in producing Canadian programs. I do not think that this Bill is going to change that, fundamentally.
This Bill, when it came in, was worse than the 1968 Act. It has been amended. I would say that it is marginally better now, but that is not saying very much because the 1968 law is 20 years old. We had this great opportunity to put a really great Act in here, and I do not think that we have done that.
In the past 18 months, we have seen a government policy. Just look at what has happened in cultural policy. First, we have seen the reduction of the capital cost allowance for Canadian films and television programs, and that had encouraged production of Canadian films and television programs. That action is going to discourage it. We are going to have less production of Canadian films and television programs as a result of that government action.
We saw the revision of the film products importation Act, which now substitutes grants instead of structural changes. The Government had to retreat in the face of pressure from the Reagan administration. Jack Valenti got what he wanted on this. That retreat was a shame, a blot on the Canadian Government. We saw the Minister's old film Bill, and then we got the new Bill which was clearly a retreat, and we can document that.
Third, we got the rejection of the Investment Canada guidelines for film distribution proposed by the 1985 film industry task force, recommendations that would ensure the orderly transfer of ownership and film distribution to Canadians. They were ignored. We then got the failure to apply the 1985 Baie Comeau book publishing policy, which promised to see the transfer of ownership in book publishing to Canadians; in other words, to protect Canadians in takeovers and apply a tough rule so that we could have Canadian ownership of publishers.
Finally, we see in this Bill the rejection of key recommendations of the broadcasting committee. These proposed measures would have significantly enhanced the production of Canadian programs for a Canadian market and have a significant beneficial effect on the recording sector.
The Cultural Industries Alliance; the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television, and Radio Artists; Association des Producteurs de Films et Video du Qutbec\ Association of Canadian Film and Television Producers; Association of Canadian Film Craftspeople; Association of Canadian Publishers; Canadian Actors' Equity Association; Canadian

September 27, 1988
Association of Motion Picture and Electronic Recording Artists; Canadian Conference of the Arts; Canadian Film and Television Association; Canadian Independent Record Production Association; Canadian Periodical Publishers Association; Directors Guild of Canada; National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians; Periodical Writers Association of Canada; and The Writers Union of Canada, all raised these issues. They said this:
It seems clear that the Free Trade Agreement will alter not only the course of our economy, but by inhibiting our freedom to strengthen vulnerable yet essential cultural industries, it will also alter the course of how we define ourselves as Canadians. The Agreement recognizes a North American reality, but it leaves little room for a Canadian vision.
You have to see this Broadcast Act in that context, in the retreat of Canadian cultural policy initiatives, because of the free trade deal.
I had a number of motions to amend the Bill which I described as key amendments. I draw Your Honour's attention to Motions Nos. 36 and 39. In Motion No. 36 I suggested that we should put in the words "deliver only duly licensed services". In other words, we would have to license all programs coming into Canada. In Section 39,1 said:
"(ii) should ensure that foreign services, with the exception of conventional off-air broadcasters, are complementary to Canadian services."
I took recommendation 58 of the broadcasting committee of the House of Commons, an all-Party committee, and I really adapted that. Let me just quote that recommendation. In referring to the Broadcasting Act, it says:
The act should be drafted so as to define the essential role of distribution undertakings as that of distributing Canadian radio and television services in French and in English, both public and private, with first priority given to public-sector Canadian services, followed by private Canadian services. With the exception of the "three-plus-one" services already carried, the act should make provision for the carriage of foreign radio and television services only when the programming they provide is complementary to that available from licensed Canadian broadcasters and network operators.
The act should also provide for priority to be given to the carriage of services in French in distribution undertakings that serve primarily francophone subscribers.
What does that mean? It means that we have American superchannels that will now start coming into our country. They are Canadian channels. If a Canadian channel starts up, something like Arts and Entertainment, it will not be able to compete with the Americans. It will be knocked off the air. Our news channel, like CNN News, will be involved. We will get American news, American entertainment. There is nothing wrong with American news and American entertainment, providing we do not have the Canadian equivalent. What we and the committee are saying is that they can only come in if there is no Canadian equivalent. If there is a Canadian equivalent, keep them out. In other words, they have to be complementary to the Canadians. That is the key.
We would not interfere with NBC, ABC, CBS or the Public Broadcasting System of the United States. They are well established in the Canadian market. We also would not interfere with the border stations. These new channels, if they
come in, will swamp the private Canadian channels, that cannot compete with them. That is the key to this Bill and that is what the all-Party committee was recommending, but the Government did not act on it.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) dealt with the reasons the Minister gave-I do not have to repeat them-why they could not license them and so on. She had legal argument and authorities to back that up. The Government backed off from this because of the free trade deal. It is a fundamental flaw in this Bill and one of the reasons we cannot support it.
I will just quote what the sixth report said:
We note that even in the large U.S. market, where service is provided entirely in English, there is only one available service in most programming categories. In Canada it is beyond question that a Canadian service could not co-exist with a non-Canadian service, especially if the Canadian service is expected to provide a meaningful contribution to Canadian programming.
The Canadian Broadcasting League said:
If this country had adopted such an approach 60 years ago this country would never have developed a separate Canadian broadcasting system except in the public sector.
That is the first fundamental flaw in the Bill. I believe we are approaching one o'clock, but perhaps I could get started now and deal with the second flaw in the bill, the use of cable systems. They are the big winners here. They seem to have a lot of influence in the Conservative Party these days. What a gift they got in this Bill! They got the right to import almost anything into Canada, that is, there are no express limitations on what they could take. This is part of continentalization.
Second, they got the right to originate programming, not just local community programming to which no one objects, but to originate all kinds of broadcasting programs. They are not treated as a distribution undertaking now but as a broadcasting undertaking. I predict that the result will be that we will not be able to regulate any more, or even in the future, their tariffs and their fees properly.
Canadians in the last few weeks have seen cable fees go up on September 1. This Bill gives a great gift to the cable companies in that it allows them to broadcast, and it will make it more difficult in the end for us to regulate their prices.
This afternoon I want to come back to the CBC and to the role of the public sector, and then to wrap up my speech.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
September 27, 1988

Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, after an inspiring beginning, the Ben Johnson story appears to have had a brutal and disappointing end.
While drugs should not and cannot have any place in athletic competition, and while there can be no alternative but to bring the full weight of our own sporting regulations against Ben if he knowingly consumed the illegal substance, I was dismayed at the performance of our Canadian officials during last night's press conference in Seoul, Korea. They seemed to trip over each other in their rush to accept the guilty verdict, without attempting to defend the possible innocence of our own champion and Canadian citizen.
Given the tampering allegations, and the repeated denials of Ben and his coach, it would not have been too much to ask our officials not to render a guilty verdict until a thorough investigation was conducted into all the allegations and circumstances, and the roles of all the other people who were involved.
To accept the IOC ruling is one thing; not to defend the possible innocence and honour of one of our own, is quite another. If it had been Carl Lewis, one can rest assured that the Americans would have raised proper hell. I am puzzled and disappointed at why our Canadian officials were so anxious to drop Ben Johnson in front of the entire world.


ELECTIONS
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, as most Canadians are aware, we are very close to another general election. Yet there is a bit of a flaw in the process inasmuch as when the enumeration lists are posted, the names of all those people eligible to vote are available to the general public. Because of this exposure, senior citizens who live alone, and single women who live alone, become very vulnerable to those who would take advantage.
As we look to another election down the road it is very important that everything that can be done should be done to protect those people from becoming victims of people who would want to take advantage of them.


SHIPBUILDING
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, recently the last remaining shipyard in the city of Vancouver closed down, and 150 more workers lost their jobs. For over 50 years shipbuilding had been a major west coast industry. The Conservative Government, through lack of any comprehensive shipbuilding policy, and inadequate subsidies, is directly responsible for the demise of this important industry.
The delay in building the promised world-class Polar 8 icebreaker has also contributed to this tragedy. In 1985 the Government approved this major project to be built jointly in Vancouver and in Victoria, but apparently promises are to remain on paper. Vancouver, which initiated the Polar 8 coalition, has been dealt out of the deal.
Thanks to Tory neglect, highly skilled tradespeople who should be building vessels for the longest coastline in the world, have been put out of work. Unemployment in Vancouver East remains at over 20 per cent.


OLYMPIC GAMES-BEN JOHNSON, DISQUALIFIED 100 METRE WINNER
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I praised Ben Johnson's triumph at the Olympics, and noted that his example had inspired hundreds of young people at a rally in the Jane-Finch area of my riding. The rally was organized by a caring community under the title "Say No to Drugs".
The sad developments overnight are a tragedy for Ben and for Canada, but there is still a lesson there for young people whom Ben inspired. Saying no to drugs is worth it.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is quoted as agreeing that Johnson's actions were improper and wrong, especially because he is a role model. I am not yet ready to agree with the Prime Minister. Ben is entitled to the benefit of every doubt. There needs to be an inquiry to determine whether Ben's drug use is something that he knew about and condoned, or whether he is the victim of actions by others. Ben deserves this investigation.

September 27, 1988


FREE TRADE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you about something ridiculous. A common front of ecologists is afraid that the Free Trade Agreement might undermine the powers of the Canadian and provincial Governments with respect to the environment. These people claim that the FTA would have a catastrophic impact on Canada's ecology and resources.
That, Mr. Speaker, is utterly false and tantamount to misleading the Canadian public. The Free Trade Agreement takes due account of the fact that, in January 1986, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Environment, widely known for its independent approach, set three conditions: our ability to manage our renewable and non-renewable resources, control pollution and waste disposal, and protect our ecology.
A concrete example would be the maple bush fertilization program which is being developed, Mr. Speaker. Besides, FTA Article 603 confirms the right of Canada and the United States to pass regulations aimed at protecting human, animal and vegetal life as well as the environment. That happens to be a sovereign attribute of each country. They should stop their scaring tactics.


MINES AND MINING
[Stage Direction]
Rod Murphy (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, since 1984 there has been a cease trading order against Gold Lake Mines Incorporated. This company owes many Manitobans thousands and thousands of dollars. It owes up to $75,000 to one retired couple in the Bissett area.
Unfortunately, through our federal and provincial laws we are unable to protect these people. I call upon the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) to check into this case, find out why this American-based firm is still operating through a different name in Manitoba, still filing mining claims in Manitoba, and is not being responsible to those people to whom it owes so many thousands of dollars.

Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend on television the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) stated that Canada has sold out its energy in the Free Trade Agreement.
That is incorrect, and it is wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We do not have to sell our energy to anyone. The control of all our resources remains in Canada. Each province has under its jurisdiction the right to control the exploration, development, and the sale of its oil and gas. Pricing is based on international prices, not U.S. prices.
We moved to deregulate the oil and gas industry in 1985. That removed that disastrous Liberal National Energy Program that robbed western Canada of billions of dollars. Our energy policy is now and will always be made in Canada, by Canadians, for Canadians. The Free Trade Agreement secures access to the U.S. market for our energy products and that will lead to future development and security of supply for all Canadians.

[ Translation]


LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, two years of planning and studies have gone into the establishment of the TV5 international network which includes five francophone broadcasters from five different countries: Canada and Quebec, France, Belgium, Switzerland, and French Africa.
This undertaking flows from the francophone summit held in this country, and Canadian taxpayers have invested $1.8 million in this project. Unfortunately 1.5 million francophones outside Quebec will find it impossible to tune in to TV5. Again this Government imposes a double standard, according to where one lives in Canada. That is unfair!
This Government keeps forgetting all about francophones outside Quebec. We have to fight to command respect for their rights. Remember what happened before the Olympic Games-we had to fight this Government for a year and a half so that francophones outside Quebec would be able to watch the Olympic Games in their own language.
Mr. Speaker, TVS is important to us. I urge the Government to get the lead out and see to it that all Canadians are able to
September 27, 1988

tune in to the international signal of French-speaking countries.


BENEFITS OF FREE TRADE FOR QUEBEC
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, in Ontario 840,000 people, in other words, one-third of the workforce in Quebec, are working in a complete free trade situation in the automobile industry.
The situation has been like this since the Auto Pact was signed in 1965. The Pact could be cancelled on six months' notice. Workers in the industry are among the best paid workers with the best working conditions. Many have indexed pension plans.
Did free trade make them poorer? Today in Ontario, the unemployment rate is only 3.1 per cent with free trade. Today in Quebec, the unemployment rate is 9 per cent, without free trade. In British Columbia, the unemployment rate is 12 per cent, without free trade. In Newfoundland, they have 17 per cent unemployment without free trade.
Mr. Speaker, with free trade my Government wants to improve the economies of all the provinces. That is why we in Quebec are in favour of free trade.


COMMUNICATIONS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, Call-Net Telecommunications has again appealed to the federal Cabinet to grant a further extension to plainly illegal telecommunications services. Because of Cabinet interference in this case, Call-Net has received extensions totalling 330 days, and the Conservative Cabinet has allowed it to expand during this period. Indeed, the Department of Communications, as we detailed last January in the House, has intervened repeatedly and has advised Call-Net how to get around CRTC regulations.
The Call-Net affair is not an isolated case. It is part of the Mulroney Government's efforts to transform our telephone system. The Government is attempting to introduce an American-style system through the back door as part of its efforts to harmonize Canadian and American policies.
We in Canada believe differently. We think that universal access to a regulated phone system should remain our top
priority. I have here petitions signed by over 1,000 telecommunication workers who want the Minister to stop interfering in this case, and 1 do as well.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) appeared on CTV's Question Period. When asked how he would cut the deficit, he replied: "One way is to slash the 10 billion to 12 billion or 16 billion that these nuclear submarines are going to put us in debt for in the next four to five years".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Dermott Crofton: The right hon. gentleman's response reveals his profound ignorance on two counts. First, had he actually read the White Paper he would know that the projected cost is $8 billion over 27 years. Second, instead of nuclear powered submarines the Liberal defence policy calls for at least six additional patrol frigates plus a fleet of diesel submarines at a minimum cost of $8 billion.
Our Navy and most Canadians are astonished and dismayed to learn of this sudden new twist in Liberal policy to reduce by 50 per cent the badly needed and overdue naval construction. The true Liberal colours are thus revealed: a return to their unilateral disarmament policies of the 1970s. This from a Liberal Party that dares to talk about sovereignty and security. Shame!


OLYMPIC GAMES-BEN JOHNSON, DISQUALIFIED 100 METRE WINNER
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked and disappointed about the news that our premier athlete, Ben Johnson, allegedly tested positive for drug use after having smashed the world record for the 100 metres at the Seoul Olympics. There is certainly a great deal of sadness today across Canada stemming from this incident. Although the tests appear to be definitive, a lot of people have jumped to some very harsh conclusions very quickly.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was fast off the mark to muscle in on Ben's moment of glory and to congratulate him when he crossed the finish line last Friday night. He and his junior Minister of Sports (Mr. Charest) also acted with

September 27, 1988
Oral Questions
lightning speed in unfairly condemning Johnson when the results of the drug test became known.
Johnson's Sport Canada funding has been cut off and he is suspended for life from participating in Canada's national team. Ben Johnson deserves better from the Government of Canada. Ele made all Canadians proud when he set the world record at Rome last year in the 100 metres without drugs. At the very least, we owe him and his trainer Charlie Francis the opportunity to explain their side of the story. As well, the federal Government should initiate a full inquiry into the entire affair. Disturbing questions remain unanswered, especially whether or not the Government of Canada acted appropriately in the circumstances.


Mr. Beatty:: Only the Liberals would try to exploit that for partisan purposes.

Wilson) supporting environmentally sound development and his willingness to promote this concept at the meeting of the World Bank Governors in Berlin. Elowever, we hope he will turn his new found enthusiasm for environmentally sound development to the home front, too. While he makes the right noises in Berlin, his Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) gives $4 billion to the OSLO oil sands project.
This project poses a major threat to the McKenzie River ecology because the method of removing the heavy oil from the tar sand leaves huge toxic tailings ponds that will kill fish and wildlife. No environmental impact assessments have been conducted. This is at odds with the environmental posture that the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance have taken.
The Government is inconsistent in its approach to the environment, saying one thing and doing something totally opposite. If the Prime Minister expects to be taken seriously he has to live up to his own rhetoric.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that we learned yesterday that our colleague and friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), will not be seeking re-election. On behalf of all Members of this House, particularly my B.C. colleagues, I want to recognize the tremendous contribution she made to the public life of this country since she was first elected in 1980.
We all remember well her outstanding performance as Minister of Energy in revitalizing the energy sector in western Canada, hence her being named Oil Man of the Year. We also remember her role as mother of the Free Trade Agreement when she worked tirelessly to conclude the negotiations successfully.
The first Canadian woman in federal political life to hold such high profile economic portfolios, including President of the Treasury Board, she has been a trail blazer and role model for all of us who follow. However, it is the human side that the residents of Vancouver Centre will remember-and their Member's fight for AIDS research, the Vancouver Symphony, and quality of life for seniors.
Pat, we are really going to miss you. Thank you. We wish you good health and happiness. Keep on making waves, right from the Pacific Rim, which you love so dearly, across this land, because we will be listening.


THE LATE IRWIN MCINTOSH
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform Members of the death over the weekend of the Hon. Irwin McIntosh, fifteenth Lieutenant Governor of Saskatchewan.
In North Battleford Mr. McIntosh distinguished himself as a newspaper publisher. As Lieutenant Governor from 1978 to 1983 he was outspoken and passionate in promoting the role of the Crown. He always displayed a great love of our country and its people. His dedication to wildlife conservation, skiing, literature, and local history will be sadly missed.
I carry with me the warm memory of many hours in my own youth spent at the McIntosh supper table discussing and debating issues of the day; a young Conservative learning from a proud life-long Liberal the values of honour, community service, and a love of Canada. Saskatchewan and Canada have lost a great citizen.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House applaud the Minister of Finance (Mr. BANNING OF OLYMPIC ATHLETE FROM NATIONAL TEAM
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Last night the Minister said that Ben Johnson would be banned for life from our national team although he had not yet exhausted all his appeals and there had not yet been a full and fair inquiry into
September 27, 1988

all aspects of this sorry matter. There are many things that should be investigated.
I would like to ask him under what authority he said that Ben Johnson should be banned from the national team for life? How did he say that at this time before any hearing? Should the man not get a fair hearing before he gets a life sentence?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that yesterday was a very sad day for a lot of Canadians. I do not think anyone, when they enter public life, anticipates being faced with this type of situation.
What I informed the media of yesterday, and what we also informed them of through a press release, is what our rules provide for now and have provided for some time. Canada has some of the strictest rules in the world in the area of sanctions for doping, and we say that with some pride. In the case of the use of steroids, because of the danger to the health of athletes it is a life suspension if they are found guilty.
If the Hon. Member takes the time to read the press release we issued yesterday, in the second paragraph he will find the words "pending possible appeal", because of course we do expect that due process of law will take its course and Mr. Johnson has an appeal open to him. If he receives redress through the appeal, then the sanction will not apply. However, as is usually the case in matters of this or other types, the sanction will apply until the appeal is heard and the decision either confirmed or overturned.
[ Translation]


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Last night, the Minister responsible for Amateur Sport admitted he had received information several months ago that steroids were being used in this case, but he decided not to do anything about it. The Minister could have prevented this sad turn of events if he had taken the appropriate action at the time, and he would have saved Ben Johnson and Canada this terrible humiliation.
Mr. Speaker, why didn't the Minister take action at the time, and shouldn't the Minister, because of his failure to act responsibly, tender his resignation immediately? Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to ask for his resignation?
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear about the information that was being circulated about Ben Johnson. This type of information has been going around since his brillant victory and the world record he won
Oral Questions
in Rome. At the time, one of his opponents, Carl Lewis, made a public allegation.
Mr. Speaker, since that time, neither myself nor any member of my Department nor any person in authority have made allegations or presented evidence to support allegations about rumours being spread by other people.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, since then, Mr. Johnson was tested several times. In fact he was tested eight times in less than two years, and every time the result was negative. The last time Mr. Johnson was tested was in August in Zurich, a month before the race in Seoul, and at the time the test was negative.


POSITION OF CANADIAN OLYMPIC OFFICIALS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Well, Mr. Speaker, in this case the Canadian officials in Seoul expressed concern about the number of unauthorized people in the dope testing room. They expressed concern about the exchange of the water bottles and expressed concern about the possibility of third-party intervention. Despite this, the Minister was quick to ban Ben Johnson for life last night without a fair hearing. Yet he could have done something months ago to prevent this whole sorry mess. Is it not now time to ask for the resignation of this Minister who has not lived up to his responsibilities as the Minister for Sport?
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, believe me, of all the people in this House of Commons today, I do not think there is anyone who would like more than myself to wish that all of this thing had just never happened. I wish it would go away.
I do not think it would be a responsible attitude on our part not to acknowledge the validity of the test. The information I have is from the Canadian Olympic Association, our officials in Seoul, and I am satisfied that the proper procedure was followed in the course of this test. I am also satisfied with the results.
With respect to the procedures, I want to be very clear. The IOC decision is without appeal. It is its decision. It is for these Games. It has suspended Mr. Johnson for the course of the Games. It now falls upon the IAAF, the governing body, international body, in the area of track and field, to impose a sanction. That sanction will be corroborated by the Canadian Track and Field Association. It is on that sanction that Mr. Johnson has a thirty-day appeal period open to him. We have acknowledged through our press release yesterday that that is very clear in the rules that are now in force at Sports Canada.

September 27, 1988
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister himself must by now be aware that in a prosecution yesterday in Saint John, New Brunswick, before Judge Taylor, conducted on behalf of the Ministry of Transport, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) sent a letter under his own hand addressed to and delivered to the presiding judge providing, I understand, extra information designed to support a conviction, which was not submitted in open court and which was not made available to the accused until hours later.
Since it is a well established tradition that such intervention is unacceptable, I call upon the Prime Minister to do the honourable thing and obtain the resignation of the Minister of Transport.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Liberal Party goes lower and lower.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table here today three documents, first, a memo from the Department of Transport from which I would like to read some lines to enlighten the House of Commons, one draft, and an official letter I sent to the judge. Here are the words in the memo of the Department of Transport:
The judge has reserved his decision pending receipt of a letter signed by the Minister of Transport stating either that he personally approved the security measures in force at the time or that he authorized J. Rodocanachi, Director General, Security and Emergency Planning, to so approve the applicable security measures.
The attached letter drafted by departmental Legal Services and submitted for your approval and signature states that Mr. Rodocanachi, in his official capacity, had the requisite authority to make the security measures which are the subject of the current prosecution.
I have the letter I wrote to the judge. It was requested by the judge himself. I answered the request given to me by the Department-


An Hon. Member:: Off with Kaplan's head!


Benoît Bouchard: -and I think I did exactly what I had to do.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That explanation doesn't square with the report-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Where is your lynch mob?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -in which counsel for the accused makes it clear that he was taken by surprise by that tactic.


JUDGE'S REQUEST TO DEPARTMENT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister, therefore, what were the circumstances of the judge's request for information from the Department? Was the request made in open court? And why wouldn't the Minister have sent his letter through a process-


Mr. Crosbie:: That's what the judge asked for.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -of the open court, so that the other side would be aware of it when it was submitted, rather than mailing it to the judge?


John Carnell Crosbie: Into the sewer again. Bob.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That's where you guys are. That's where we find you.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, in the Liberal Party's mad drive to find all sorts of non-existent problems, today I produce a memo from my Department, from the Deputy Minister Glen Shortliffe, asking for a letter at the Judge's request on the procedures for delegating authority to the director general. Mr. Speaker, I produce the documents at the Judge's request. The issue is not that I went ahead. Again, the hon. Member is searching for a non-existent victim, for non-existent problems. This has been going on for weeks. And once again, Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the documents and the Hon. Member can consult them when he likes. It's all there!


OLYMPIC GAMES-BEN JOHNSON, DISQUALIFIED 100 METRE WINNER
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. I want to say at the outset that I agree with the Minister that it is a most difficult situation and my colleagues and I share with him and all other Canadians the regret for what has happened and the events which have unfolded in Seoul over the last 24 hours.
We have had the irrefutable evidence from the IOC, which none of us can challenge. On the other hand, we have the statements attributed to Ben Johnson and to his coach. We have seen quotes from his manager, from his family, and from people who trained with him, who suggested Ben would not have knowingly, and I emphasize the word "knowingly", taken steroids.
I want to ask the Minister in all seriousness what steps the Government of Canada is going to take to try to determine
September 27, 1988

exactly what has transpired and what led to Ben Johnson having steroids in his urine after the gold medal event?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the unfolding of the events is that the first test produced positive. 1 think the Hon. Member is very aware of the mechanics around the test. Following the first positive test, there is an opportunity offered to the athlete and the Olympic Association of the country to be heard and offer an explanation, which was done.
I think the Hon. Member refers to the explanation offered by the Canadian Olympic Association on behalf of Mr. Johnson, the possibility of an inducement of steroids after the race. My understanding of the results of the test, and that was in the press conference yesterday, is that what they call the imprint in the analysis was not compatible with that scenario.
The IOC decision is without appeal. We cannot affect that. That decision being rendered, it is now up to the IAAF to act. My understanding is that it will impose a suspension for a minimum of two years. Then it is left open to Mr. Johnson to appeal that. I understand that the due process of law will be respected. He will have an opportunity to be heard and to make his case and to explain whether, as the Member points out, perhaps knowingly or unknowingly, he used the steroids or not. We expect that will happen. I have that assurance, I think, from the President of the Canadian Track and Field Association with whom I spoke yesterday and whom I know well, and I am persuaded that that opportunity will be offered to Mr. Johnson.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKE INVESTIGATION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister. I have two points. Last night on CBC, Lyle Makosky, the Assistant Deputy Minister, indicated that the Government of Canada would be pursuing some form of investigation.
The Minister stated earlier today that in fact Mr. Johnson was tested in August in Zurich, and I assume found to have no trace of steroids in his system, and I am advised that it would be unlikely that in such a short period of time, from August to the day of the event in Seoul, there would be little if any benefit from the use of anabolic steroids for an athlete in such a condition as Ben Johnson. Will the Government undertake that investigation, an independent investigation, separate from anything that the sports governing bodies in Canada or internationally may do, so that Canadians, Ben's coach, and Ben himself can find out exactly what happened?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, in the conversation I had yesterday with the President of the Canadian Track and Field Association, we agreed that we
Oral Questions
would let the games finish and let time pass to let us all catch our breath and, as we say in French-
[Translation] let the dust settle.

-and that we would discuss with them the terms of an investigation to look at what happened, not only as far as the involvement of Ben Johnson is concerned but of those who are in contact with him, because it is a matter that needs to be cleared up. There are certainly a lot of questions left to be answered and we will want to do that, but I would like to stress that I would certainly prefer to enter into these actions in a context that is not the one we have today, and let a little time pass.
I may want to draw one distinction. We did ask for an inquiry in the area of weightlifting, but the circumstances were different from the ones of today. There were other circumstances that made us act immediately.
He *	*


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, in view of the Prime Minister's extended absence.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, for several days now ...


Some Hon. Members:: The question!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, could you silence those imbeciles?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member would refrain from referring to the absence of either the Prime Minister or anybody else, and would proceed with his question.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it is very simple. I would like to know . . . Since last Thursday, questions have been raised and documents have been produced and yesterday we could see that the Minister of Public Works was incompetent, that he was not even able to assess a property. He said that it was worth $28,000. You know, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that no one would even want to let the Minister of Public Works sell their doghouse! He also showed his negligence by sitting for more than six weeks on a very embarrassing letter that cast doubt on the integrity of the contracting system. I have excerpts of the

September 27, 1988
Oral Questions
letter here, where the Minister of Public Works yesterday tried to tell the press that it was just a personal matter. Mr. Speaker, all sorts of questions are raised here concerning his own chief of staff, Conservative organizers and the contracting system that go far beyond personal matters.
So the question for the Deputy Prime Minister is: As soon as the Minister had shown his incompetence, negligence or lack of judgement, why did the Deputy Prime Minister not ask for the Minister's resignation?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of different kinds of values ascribed to property. If a property has an ongoing use such as a radar base, then it may have one value. Once the base is declared surplus, the value rapidly declines. I think the best indication of that is the type of bids that were submitted by the 19 groups, the maximum amount being $100,000.
With respect to the suggestion about other action that might have been taken on the letter, the letter did not warrant any action other than that which I took, namely, to have a grievance by the person who signed the letter investigated.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has again demonstrated his sheer lack of awareness of the facts brought to his attention in the letter of August 5. The Minister should have reacted immediately and made sure that no-one would question his department's integrity and the tendering process, particularly not the property director of his own deparment who is an expert in this field and who made very serious accusations.
Back to the Prime Minister. Do you intend to let the Minister fend for himself, or are you going to come to his rescue or ask for his resignation? Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether he sees anything wrong with the fact that the Minister is so incompetent, so lacking in judgment, and so careless in taking action about the complaint sent to his home last August 5?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the letter in question dictated a course of action. I indeed pursued the action dictated by the letter.


CONTENTS OF FORMER OFFICIAL'S LETTER
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Last week in the House, the Minister of Justice, in response to another matter, as reported in Hansard at page 19479, said that even the hint of an impropriety required that the issue be turned over to the RCMP. Given that this is the Government's policy in dealing with these matters, it boggles my mind to think that the Minister of Public Works did nothing when the
Mayor of Moisie had been complaining about political interference in the land sale for months, and in fact when the PMO was making inquiries with respect to political interference in the land deals, he did absolutely nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works.
Yesterday he said this outside the House: "I read the letter when I got it. There was nothing to indicate that it ought to be sent to the RCMP. Since it was a personal complaint I gave it to someone who works in my office."
So is the Minister saying that Mr. Hylands' letter does not even contain an allegation of impropriety? Yes or no?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is what I say.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE LETTER
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, that is what the Minister says, and that is what Members of Parliament do not know. In light of the fact that we have a four-year history of other incidents, one would have thought that the Government had learned how to handle these kinds of situations.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know where that preamble is going. I would ask the Hon. Member to keep in mind the care which must be used in these kinds of questions.


John R. Rodriguez: My question is to the same Minister. In light of the fact of what the Minister has said in his answer, if he felt that the letter was innocuous and innocent is he prepared to table in the House of Commons that letter which had been sitting in a bureaucrat's shirt drawer for over a month, so we can all see how innocuous it is?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the letter in question was the matter of a personal grievance by Mr. Hylands. As soon as other statements made in other places or on tapes indicated some impropriety and that the police should have charge of the investigation, I put the letter in their hands and that is where it will stay until they finish their investigation.


OLYMPIC ATHLETE BANNED FROM NATIONAL TEAM
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twiliingate):: Mr. Speaker, in view of all of the facts and the admitted breaches of security in the holding area for athletes at the Olympics following the race, which the highest officials have admitted took place, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question.
September 27, 1988

Does the Government not feel that the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport was a trifle hasty, to say the least, in condemning Ben Johnson to a lifetime ban when Ben Johnson said he did not take steroids, when his family said he did not take steroids, when his coach said he did not take steroids, and when every test done in the past showed that Ben Johnson did not take steroids and this Minister did not even talk to Ben Johnson to get his side of the story?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker,
I am disappointed by the attitude of Members of the Liberal Party, and I fail to see what they are seeking to accomplish with this tactic. Suffice it to say that the rules are very clear and have been clear for some time now under this Government. An athlete caught in a doping situation is suspended for life from Sport Canada funding and cannot participate in a national team that receives funding from the national Government.
There is an appeal available to the athlete. He has a 30-day appeal period and he can use it, but I want to stress one thing. There is a reason why we are so severe. It is for the athletes. The drugs, the steroids, actually kill them, and we do not think that we should enable that to happen in our sports system.


MINISTER'S POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, a man is innocent until proven guilty. No one is questioning the contents of the urine sample.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Why don't you tell Kaplan that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member.


George Baker: No one is questioning the contents of the urine sample. However, there was a general lack of security at the Olympics. Ben Johnson was there a week and a half prior to the race. Even the highest officials admit that there was a breach of security in the so-called accreditation area. There were a number of ways that Ben Johnson could have been framed.
I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Because of the possibility that Ben Johnson could have been victimized, and because he is such a superb athlete who has passed every single drug test he has taken in the past, does the Prime Minister not feel that the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport should be reprimanded for repeating what he called rumours about Ben Johnson to the entire world without giving Ben Johnson a fair hearing? Or is the Government just putting on an air of righteous indignation in an effort to impress the world?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker,
Oral Questions
I am glad to hear the member of the Liberal Party say that a man is innocent until he is proven guilty. That is another major shift in policy for the Liberals.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean J. Charest: It hasn't come too soon but we will take it.
The rules that are laid out by the IOC are very clear. I have spoken with Roger Jackson of the Canadian Olympic Association, I have spoken with my own officials in Seoul, and I have spoken with the President of the Canadian Track and Field Association. The information I have received from them is that the procedures were followed.
The opportunity of a hearing was offered to the Canadian Olympic Association, which took up the cause and made representations on behalf of Mr. Johnson and also made representations and explained what Mr. Francis said. The conclusions of the test have not been contested. That is very clear from one press release I saw this morning from Mr. Francis.
The Member says officials said something. He has not named them. That is the information I have now. Until otherwise indicated, Canada will accept the results of the test at their face value.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He has given the Government of Canada's support to the Brundtland Commission and to its international report on the environment. My question concerns the Prime Minister's speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations on Thursday.
Does the Prime Minister plan to take some of the key recommendations of the Brundtland Report to the United Nations? Specifically, will he include in his speech the urging of all members of the United Nations to include, as part of their foreign policy development, a foreign policy for the environment?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his question on such an important matter. The Brundtland Commission Report developed the concept of sustainable development and did so in a particularly impressive way. Canada has endorsed that concept through CIDA. In fact, the Minister of Finance is in Berlin today introducing new initiatives from the Government of Canada in regard to our foreign lending and investments in the future, all of which sustain the general thrust of the Brundtland Report.

September 27, 1988
Oral Questions
We are very supportive of what Prime Minister Brundtland's commission put together. I will, of course, be addressing that issue and others when I speak to the General Assembly, and I thank my hon. friend for his views.


SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT-GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, as one Canadian, to hear that the Prime Minister does intend to take the important matter of the environment to the United Nations. Picking up on what he just said about one of the recommendations of the Brundtland Report being to obtain national commitment from all nations in the UN to the notion of sustainable development, will the Prime Minister now make a commitment that this will be a sustainable policy of the Canadian Government and be applicable to all our agencies and programs as they impact on the external world?
Specifically, will he make a change in the Export Development Corporation's policy in Canada which, at the present, does not consider environmental impact at all in reaching its decisions? Will he assure the House that in applying this principle of sustainable development the Government of Canada will show a leadership role and apply it to all our external relations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the leadership role to which my hon. friend refers and seeks for Canada is one that, if I may say, was acknowledged by Prime Minister Brundtland herself in Toronto when she referred to the Government of Canada as one of the leaders, not only in foreign aid but in the marriage of foreign aid and sustainable development. This is very much an initiative of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister responsible for external relations, both of whom I think have provided important leadership in this vital area of our international life.
With regard to whether members of the United Nations such as Canada can do more, either in terms of aid or in marrying that aid to the concept of sustainable development, my hon. friend is quite right. We have not done enough as an organization. We have not done enough as a Parliament in regard to either international assistance or the harmonizing of that assistance with the concept of sustainable development. This Government and this Parliament will, I hope, do more.


CANADIAN FUNDING OF UNITED NATIONS PROGRAM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister give us a very specific commitment today before he goes to the UN? If he does intend to address the sustainable development notion in his speech, will he show that leadership by saying that the Government of Canada will apply that notion to all of our agencies and programs as they impact on the external world, beginning, for example, with the Export Development Corporation which does not now act on that basis? Would he give us the assurance that the Government of Canada will in fact be practising what it preaches?
Second, since the Brundtland Report also noted that the fund that has been established by the UN to monitor environmental issues on a global basis is seriously underfunded, that it has only about a $30 million budget at this point and Canada only gives about $1 million, will the Prime Minister use the occasion to demonstrate once again some Canadian leadership by offering a significant Canadian increase in terms of our share in the funding of that important program?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Canada is not only a very significant contributor to the United Nations, to the Commonwealth, to la Francopho-nie, and to the Third World in general, but I can remember when there was doubt in the minds of some nations as to whether they ought to contribute at all to the United Nations. They were in substantial arrears.
I instructed the Government of Canada to make sure that on the first of January, in advance of Canada's dues being exigible, the Ambassador be there to pay Canada's dues to ensure that the signal went out that Canada viewed the United Nations as a most valuable organization which deserved the support of all nations.


John Edward Broadbent: The environment fund.


Martin Brian Mulroney: With regard to the environment fund Canada has also taken, I think, an important role. We have paid our fair share, which is not to say that we cannot do more. I will be discussing that at the United Nations.
We have, in Canada, a modern and, I think, moderate foreign policy. I will be discussing that in particular. Most recent is the role of Canada in international peacekeeping. For example, Canada today supplies the largest number of members of a peacekeeping contingent which is bringing peace to Iran and Iraq where only months ago thousands of people were being killed.
This is a contribution that Canada has made in the past. It is the degree of continuity that my hon. friend would seek and encourage. These are the kinds of important issues that I will be discussing on behalf of all Members of the House at the United Nations.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the recently appointed Minister of State for Transport. First I want to tell her that all of Niagara rejoices with her in her appointment.
Will she tell the House what progress either she or her Department has made with respect to the establishment of a
September 27, 1988

second registry whereby large ocean-going bulk vessels, carriers from Canada, would not have to register under flags of convenience to remain competitive but would be competitive with a Canadian crew?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I know this is an area in which he has been very involved on behalf of his constituents. He has been following it closely.
Let me advise him that the Department has analyzed the proposal for a second registry. The discussion paper was released yesterday for input from all the parties concerned. I will be following that very closely and will keep the Hon. Member advised of the outcome.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. It concerns the sale of the Moisie radar base in the Prime Minister's riding. Yesterday, the Minister, after about 20 minutes of questioning, admitted his own negligence in failing to provide the letter signed by Mr. Hylands to the RCMP until the issue became public. Today the Minister said that the letter was one of "personal grievance".
Given that the Minister has just made that statement today, how can he explain the statement in the letter, an excerpt of which I have in front of me, which says: "Mr. Thibault, the choice of the local municipalities, increased his total offer to an amount superior to the amended Lefebvre offer. This situation resulted in Mr. Gosselin's telephone request that 1 meet with Mr. Cote on behalf of Mr. Lefebvre's interest".
Does that sound like a personal grievance, or does that not sound like interference from the office of the very same Minister?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, speaking of grievances I have one of my own. Yesterday the Hon. Member left the very distinct impression with the House that he had written to me about this matter in July and that I had indeed sent him a reply. It has been brought to my attention that the letter to which he was referring was from one Marc Laframboise, a member of the research team of the Liberal Party, directed to Mr. Jacques Roy of my Department. The reply came from him. That is not the impression that the Hon. Member left with the House.
In response to the Hon. Member's inquiry of today, there was nothing in the letter from Mr. Hylands that dictated that
Oral Questions
any other course of action should be followed than the one I took.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister fails to understand that what I have just read to him consists of a very serious allegation of political interference in the bidding process, then he should not be the Minister of Public Works.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. A senior official of Public Works sent a letter raising serious allegations, some of which I have just raised in the House. The mayor of the city expressed his concerns about the bidding process and the outcome. A government Minister has contradicted himself as to whether or not the RCMP was investigating. Another Minister today has just demonstrated his total incompetence.
Is it not about time that this issue be referred to a parliamentary committee so we can investigate it, not next year, not after the election, but this week?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, there is a committee constituted by the House of Commons that has the power to commence any investigation it wishes. If the Hon. Member has some information that is germane to this question and it warrants RCMP activity, perhaps he should give that information to the RCMP. We have given them all we know. We will await their report.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. A week ago, I put my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it was whether the Prime Minister would keep the promise he made before the United Nations that Canada would break off all economic relations with South Africa if there was no improvement in the apartheid system. In his answer, the Secretary of State for External Affairs more or less paraphrased the same promise, without satisfying anyone. My question is simply this: Will the Prime Minister keep his word on September 29?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the policy I announced, supported by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, was valid and remains the policy of the Government of Canada. In fact, last night at Laval University, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said more about the matter, introducing some new details on behalf of the Government of Canada. As far as we are concerned,

September 27, 1988
Oral Questions
apartheid in South Africa remains the greatest moral problem in the world today, and Canada together with its allies in the Commonwealth, the Francophonie, and the Group of Seven, is working very hard to break the system. I think that as a country we have taken some very important action since then, unique in some cases! We have taken further action together with various organizations and groups of nations and we are prepared to do more. Any decision as to breaking off our relations with South Africa will be made by Cabinet, if we conclude it is useless to pursue our present policy. Nevertheless, we keep hoping we are making some progress, be it ever so slight.


SEVERANCE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, circumlocution from the mouth of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the mouth of the Prime Minister seems to be the order of the day rather than the key moral question that the Prime Minister made a promise three years ago before the United Nations that, if there was no change in the situation with respect to apartheid, he would sever all economic and diplomatic relations with South Africa. If there is one thing that is clear and ought to be clear to the Prime Minister, it is that there has been no improvement. There has been a marked deterioration.
The moral question is whether the Prime Minister will keep this promise.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that my hon. friend would refer to the tremendous work of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his responses in this regard as circumlocution. It is widely recognized by the leaders of the Front Line States, the leaders of the Commonwealth, et le Sommet de la Francophonie that Canada has provided very important international moral leadership in this vital fight against apartheid. I think it is very unbecoming for my hon. friend to refer to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said as circumlocution. We view it as a most complicated, important moral issue, the most sensitive moral issue affecting nations today.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: What about moral questions, making a promise?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I regret that my hon. friend chooses to make his views known in this particular partisan fashion.


John R. Rodriguez: You made a promise.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: No. We are talking about your promise.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is an issue that goes much beyond partisanship.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It is a matter of word, honesty, promises.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am trying to answer my hon. friend, if he will allow me. I think there has been strong, unanimous support by all Parties on this issue, from all corners of the House of Commons. The Government and all Members of the House of Commons have been working to rid the world of this evil that is known as apartheid. I thought I did so and I know I do so with the full support of all Hon. Members. When I speak at the United Nations I will speak in terms of the revulsion of Canada vis-a-vis apartheid, which is a profound evil. I know that I will speak on behalf of all Canadians who view apartheid as precisely the evil that it is.


COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: My question is of importance to the East and West Kootenays and is directed to the Prime Minister.
In light of the fact that in the intervening years since the signing of the Columbia River Treaty in 1964 Canada has lost some of the people who were well-informed on the Columbia River Treaty, and since it is desirable that Canada maintain a knowledgeable group of advisers on all elements of the Columbia River Treaty, will the Prime Minister undertake to add to the number of advisers on the Treaty, perhaps by way of the Permanent Engineering Board, or the Joint Liaison Committee?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is a most important matter raised by my hon. friend. There is in point of fact a bi-national Permanent Engineering Board. There are regular consultations between provincial, federal, and U.S.A. authorities that govern our respective conduct in regard to this most important issue.
I give my hon. friend the undertaking that we will supplement the personnel and the expertise to make sure that the interests of British Columbia and Canada are fully protected in this vital area.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. More than a month ago I rose in the House on a number of occasions to make the Government aware of the disastrous nature of the
September 27, 1988

inshore fishery in certain regions of Newfoundland year. I asked the Government to provide immediate financial assistance to the fishermen who are affected.
The Minister for International Trade on behalf of the Government responded by saying: "There is no evidence, Mr. Speaker, of a disastrous inshore fishery about the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador this year. The Member cited no facts because the facts do not support that statement".
Yesterday, the same Minister announced a $3.4 million assistance program in Newfoundland to assist "hard hit fishermen and plant workers this year".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that I was amazed at this sudden conversion. My question to the Prime Minister is the following one.
Given that the program in question pays little more than the minimum wage, that specifically fishermen a month ago said that this is not the solution to the problem, given that it involves a loan component for fishermen who are already over their heads in debt and cannot repay their current loans, is the Prime Minister prepared to consider converting this program, which has already been rejected as too little, too late, into an emergency financial payment program-not a loan program and not a minimum wage-to be made available to fishermen immediately? If that is not done there is no help forthcoming for six weeks, and the help that is forthcoming has already been rejected by fishermen's spokesmen as too little, too late.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, anyone can check the Hansard of one month ago to see at which time I said that while there was not an inshore fishery disaster in Newfoundland this year, the catch being considerably greater than last year, there were areas where the fish had not struck in, as is the case in most years. This year the same thing has occurred. On parts of the south coast and the northwest coast there are areas where there are great difficulties and the fish have not come inshore.
That is why we are introducing our fifth program in the last three years, a special response program, under the Canada Employment Commission. This program is a $3.4 million program. There are no loans involved. This is a job-creation program for fishermen and fish plant workers.
The provincial Government is supplementing the program with interest-free loans for those fishermen to enable them to go back into the fishery next year, and giving them relief on loans that they had for their vessels, if they had to pay on loans. So the province is supplementing the program.
There is an additional $1.4 million to help with Section 38 programs for fishermen and fish plant workers who are receiving lower unemployment insurance payments as a result of the poor fishery this year. There are several forms of assistance.
Oral Questions
I might say that the same kind of program was occasionally introduced by our Liberal predecessors, but only after the fishing season was over. This was announced before the fishing season even closes, in a much quicker and more efficient manner than was ever done by our predecessors.
This is the best we can do in the circumstances. Fishermen are the only self-employed group of people in Canada who receive the UI program. We are ensuring that it continues to benefit them this year and next year as well.


Mr. Speaker:: A very short supplementary question.


EMERGENCY FINANCIAL RELIEF REQUEST
Brian Vincent Tobin: My
supplementary question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Many fishermen in the affected areas have only had less than $1,000 earnings-some less than $500-in all of this year. We are not talking about a program to give them an additional week or two earnings at very low wages. We are talking about fishermen who are short seven or eight weeks earnings to qualify for income supplements this winter. This year in particular it does not work.
I ask the Prime Minister again, will he take the funds that have been committed by the federal Government, $2.4 million, will he convert those funds into emergency financial relief for fishermen, giving fishermen the same kind of consideration and benefit that have been rightfully bestowed upon the nation's other primary producers, farmers?
Why must they be reduced to a loan program and to a program that pays little more than the minimum wage, which will strip them of the dignity of a decent ability to look after their families this winter and their children who have already gone back to school this year without the things they need to go back and get an education?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, both the fishermen and the farmers are primary producers. The Government is engaged in supporting both of these groups of primary producers with very substantial programs. I might say that I had the matter checked to try to see is there some equity and fairness in the situation.
The position is that net federal spending in agriculture is about equal to 29 per cent of farm incomes in Canada. The net federal spending in fishery programs is about equal to 78 per cent of the landed value of the fishery. Mr. Speaker, $223 million were paid out last year in UI fishing benefits, $80 million of that to Newfoundland fishermen. We are supplementing it with these job-creation programs.
There is no federal loan program involved here whatsoever. The fishermen and fish plant workers will be eligible next year for UI again as a result of these programs, something which is most desirable because they are the only self-employed people in Canada to have access to-

September 27, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Waddell


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the end of Question Period. I might say to the Hon. Member for Vancouver East that I will certainly consider her favourably tomorrow.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kinsgsway on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) spoke about the retirement of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney). I think it would be fitting for someone on this side of the House to add a few words to that.
God knows we disagreed many times, especially on the energy program and on the free trade deal, but I think all of us on this side of the House admired the hard work and dedication of Pat Carney to her constituents, to the people of British Columbia and to the people of Vancouver. We wish her well. I am sure that when she stops taking all those flights from B.C. her health will improve.
We knew a tough opponent when we saw one.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on behalf of the Liberal caucus and the Liberal Party in Parliament to add a few words as well about Miss Carney.
Mr. Speaker, I had occasion more than once to be on the receiving end of the Minister's answers when I put what I thought was a particularly effective question. I join with my colleague in saying that we had profound disagreements but I admired on many occasions not only the skill of the Minister but the fact that she stood her ground as a Member of this place and gave as good as anybody could.
She did it always with dignity. She did it always with class. She was a class act in this House. We admire her as a Member of Parliament, one dedicated to the job she had.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
(Mr. Boudria) indicated rather forcefully today that he had not written to me about the matter in issue today. I wish to quote from Hansard his words of September 26 as reported at page 19622. He said:
Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Public Works whose office has refused to give information on the Moisie land deal to my office since July of this year. I remind him that I wrote to him at that time.
My privileges have been breached. It is very apparent from his own words that the Hon. Member is contradicting the allegations made today. I would bring that to your attention, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister has raised a matter, which is a complaint on his part, as to what another Hon. Member may or may not have said on another day.
There may have been a disagreement as to the facts. Certainly, the Hon. Minister has taken advantage of today's Question Period to set out the facts with some care, and I think that is where the matter ends. The Hon. Minister of State.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (International Trade) and Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, with your permission, would just like to make a couple of comments about the announcement that came from Vancouver yesterday when the Hon. Pat Carney announced that she would not be a candidate in the upcoming election.
Over the last four years, the Hon. Minister and I have had a very close relationship, me being her Parliamentary Secretary, both for two years in energy and for almost two years in the trade portfolio, International Trade. Over those years I came to know Pat Carney as one of the hardest working and most diligent Members of Parliament and cabinet Ministers that we have seen here. She gave me a great number of opportunities as her Parliamentary Secretary. I know that for a number of weeks she has been wrestling with this decision. It has been very, very difficult on her. I spoke with her last night, after she finally decided not to run. She is going to miss this place very much, and I think that it is fair to say that we will miss her. I did not want this moment to go by without saying a very public thank you to this very fine and wonderful Canadian who has, I believe, made a very significant mark on the history of this country in the last four years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 27, 1988



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The Elouse resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-136, an Act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, be read the third time and passed, and the amendment of Mrs. Finestone (p. 19682).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House rose at one o'clock, there were two minutes remaining in the speech of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wonder if I might seek the consent of the House to get an extension on my time. I thought I had longer-40 minutes-and I only had 20. The Minister and the opposition critic had unlimited time. I could speak again, and if the House gives me the extension, I will not speak again on the motion. I could speak on this motion, but I would like to speak at the beginning to set things out, and I would give the House a commitment to not go more than 15 minutes at the very outside. I would seek unanimous consent.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, in that kind of spirit, I thank the Member for laying it out so clearly. Government Members would certainly have no objection to giving the Member more than the normal amount of time at this point.


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


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you very much. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary.
When I was speaking before, 1 wanted to say this. When I spoke on second reading of this Bill, I said that the problem in the Canadian broadcasting system was that the public sector was underfunded and that the private sector was not doing its job in providing quality Canadian programming. That was it in a nutshell.
This Bill was originally worse than the 1968 Bill. It has been amended. I think it is better now than the old Act, the 1968 Act, but only marginally better. I think that we can do much better after 20 years. This is the first Broadcasting Act in 20 years.
I said this morning that the Bill is flawed in numerous aspects. We have had amendments, and they have helped. We had a good legislative committee. I see the Chair here. We got some amendments.
Here are the flaws of the Bill. First, I believe that the Bill leads to a North Americanization-especially in television-of our broadcasting. The Government rejected two key NDP
Broadcasting Act
amendments that would in fact say that American superstations on television, if you like-new stations-could only come into Canada if they were complementary to Canadian stations. That is, if they added something. If Canadian stations, like an entertainment network or an all-news network, already existed, then the American stations could not come in. That would take some guts for the Government to do.
We are not talking about ABC, NBC, CBS, the American public network or the border stations. We are talking about these new superchannels that are going to run right over us and perhaps put our Canadian private broadcasters out of business because they cannot compete with them. That is one of the flaws in the Bill.
I asked this morning why the Government did not accept these amendments. The Minister has many good intentions, but the fact is that the Government is hemmed in by all the parameters of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. It cannot interfere with American investment or American industries coming into Canada, including the cultural industries.
The second flaw in the Bill is that the cable industry is being treated too well in the Bill. It is going to get the right to originate programming, in opposition to all previous reports, including the sixth standing committee report, the standing committee on broadcasting, and many witnesses who came to the legislative committee.
The problem is that we will have a potential for a monopolistic situation. We will have a vertically integrated industry that will now be able to broadcast as well as transmit. That could present some real conflict problems, because they will transmit their own programs, or they will be tempted to do that, or they will be in a potential conflict, as many witnesses stated.
The other problem is that it makes it more difficult for a regulatory agency or a government policy that really wants to hold down the prices of the cable industry, that wants to control the prices, as we control and regulate the telephone industry. We should be doing that with cable. That amendment was rejected. I see that the Liberal Party rejected my amendment on that. Canadians have seen, in the last month, cable prices go way up and different stations not available with their converter.
The third flaw in this Bill is that the CBC is seriously underfunded. If the Government wants to promote Canadian programming, it cannot do it by underfunding the CBC.
I want to quote Jamie Portman, a distinguished writer in broadcasting for Southam's, who said in an article in The Spectator of Hamilton:
The government has ignored a recent call from an all-party Commons committee that it show its commitment to better Canadian programming by increasing its support of broadcasting with up to $250 million in fresh funding annually ... in real dollar terms, the CBC's budget has shrunk by more than $150 million since the Conservatives came to power.

September 27, 1988
Broadcasting Act
I outlined in my speech on second reading that the budget has consistently gone down. Not only that, in order to make up some of that money, the CBC's budget or money that is taken in on commercials has constantly gone up. So we have a pattern of almost like a privatization of the CBC. They are relying more and more on commercials. They are more and more like a regular network. That was not the original mandate of the CBC.
I specifically point out the plight of CBC Radio, which is being underfunded. There are difficulties in the regions. There has been a cut-back of 28 per cent in regional programming. Why? Because the CBC had to take money and put it into its central dramatic program to meet its aim of 95 per cent Canadian content in drama-a good aim.
The Government cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that this is a Bill that is strengthening Canadian broadcasting and at the same time be taking money away from the CBC, because it just cannot be done.

Madam Speaker, speaking of the CBC, we must add that the French services have suffered most from the Conservative attack on the CBC. The French services produce more programs with a smaller budget than their English colleagues. As a result, we see fewer and fewer French drama series. You know that, Madam Speaker, as a former CBC actress!
Quebec's creative people, as the Coalition pour la defense des services franqais de Radio-Canada notes, almost always have to stay in their studios and cannot present their viewers with varied settings. Competing with Dallas takes money and resources.
Again, there is the same problem with French television. Resources are needed to produce those programs.
The third flaw in the Bill is that the Minister has talked about an alternate network in the Bill. It has been created with a wide mandate but there is no money for it. Therefore, we do not know when it is going to come in. We say: "Where's the beef?" If it is to be created in the Bill, where is the beef and the funding for it?
The fourth flaw in the Bill is with respect to the private sector. Through amendments we managed to get the notion of predominantly Canadian expression to apply to all the broadcasters in the broadcasting area. However, that only takes us back to the status quo that we had in the 1968 Bill. That is not acceptable to the NDP, when one considers that report after report has stated that the private broadcasters are not doing their fair share to create quality Canadian programming.
What does the Government do? In this Bill it sets out a performance incentive. That received no support in the
committee hearings. It is a strange scheme. A broadcaster receives a penalty if so many hours of Canadian programming is not produced. Canadian programming is costly to create as opposed to buying an episode of Dallas or an episode of another American program. I predict that the broadcaster will pay the penalty or the fine because it is cheaper. I do not think that we will see any major change there.
Various groups interested in broadcasting appeared before the committee. They opposed this Bill, and in a sense then yielded in their opposition; not that they accepted the Bill, but they were not quite as vocal against it. I made the following analogy, which I think is a good one. When you are being beaten by a two-by-four and someone switches and hits you with a little stick, you say that it is better than being beaten by a two-by-four. That is what has happened here. These groups are being beaten by a little stick after the Bill was amended, and not by the old two-by-four of the original Bill.
I say to these groups not to be weak-kneed, stick to your principles and keep going. There is a national Canadian vision here that could be in broadcasting. There is an election coming. I say to some of those groups that there could be an NDP government, or a minority House in which there will be a balance of power in a centre-left Government. In that case, the trade deal will be ended, and there will be an industrial strategy for Canada. Part of that strategy will be a cultural strategy. There will be a surge in cultural initiatives. There will be encouragement and much greater subsidization of Canadian programming and Canadian distribution, which will mean work for Canadian artists. It will be a Government that will not be afraid to cut back the carriage of so much American programming, and that will take some political guts. I say to those groups not to lose hope, and do not be weak-kneed and think that we have to get this Bill through or we will get nothing else.
There was an action day in which groups in Canada talked about what could be done. They stated that the need for better and more Canadian programming is now stronger than ever. Canadians have invested considerable time, energy, and money in developing Canadian programming. It would be a tremendous loss if we were now to restrict our efforts. We need to forge ahead to continue to reverse the flood of foreign programming on our air waves and in our cinemas. What could be done?
We could fund the public sector sufficiently, and have a five-year commitment to the CBC in order that it could carry out this wide mandate that it is being given under the Bill. We could restore regional service. We could support CBC Radio and stop the cut-backs. We could get the CBC to do the allnews network, and not cave in to the Conservative lobbyists with Allarcom and the group in Alberta. That is what we could do for the public sector.
We could say to the private sector that we expect a minimum of 50 per cent Canadian content in prime time between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m., and if you do not produce it, you lose your
September 27, 1988

licence. We will give some aid in a sense of helping the private sector to produce it, but we expect some results from the funding that they receive.
On the distribution side we could ensure that Canadians only receive the American specialty services when they are complementary to Canadian channels, for example, CBS, ABC, NBC, the border stations, and public American television, but not the superstations on some of those other networks, if we have the same service in Canada. If we do not have the same service in Canada, that is fine. But that cannot be done with a free trade deal, and that is why the free trade deal must go. If there is a minority Government, or anything other than a majority Conservative Government, that trade deal is gone.
Finally, on the distribution side, we must make a clear division between content and carriage. The cable industry, like other monopolies, should be regulated for the good of the people, and its rate of return should be regulated.
We can do it. When I was growing up we used to say in English Canada, and perhaps it was not the same in French Canada, do we have a Canadian culture? Of course we have a Canadian culture. We have a French Canadian culture, we have an English Canadian culture, and we have a broader culture of the two groups above that. We, especially in English Canada, and especially on television, have to take those steps now to protect that, or we will lose it. We are being inundated.
As the Minister stated when this debate opened, Canadians watch 24 hours of television a week, and young people watch more. We have to make sure that Canadians get Canadian choices of good, quality programming. This Bill will not do that. That is why we in the NDP will vote against it. That is why, if we have a say in the next Government, expect a strong, nationalistic, cultural Bill that will be unique in Canada's history. It will not exactly be unique, it will go back to 1932 when a Government had the guts to create the CBC and to create a strong public will in broadcasting. We have done it before, and we can do it again.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, the pattern of rushing Bills through Parliament this session continues with the debate on Bill C-136. It was introduced on June 23, debated for two days at second reading, and rushed through a legislative committee that met and heard witnesses for just over one week.
In August the Association of Canadian Film and Television Producers wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) asking him to slow down the deliberations of the legislative committee. The letter urged the Prime Minister to direct the committee, then acting "with undue haste", to devote "full diligence and consideration" to the Bill. That did not happen. The Bill was rushed back to the House. At report stage most of the amendments that would have made the Bill better were rejected by the Government.
Broadcasting Act
It is difficult to understand exactly what has been happening in the community. Many of the groups that spoke vehemently against this Bill in committee have now withdrawn their opposition, although they still say that the amendments should be passed. In other words, what we are hearing from the cultural industries is that it is a badly flawed Bill, but it is probably not as bad as what we may get after the next election, if the Government is returned. Therefore, let us pass it. It is only half bad and we might get something that is wholly bad. This is very difficult to understand. Why should we be asked to pass a bad Bill?
The co-chairman of the radio and TV task force, Gerald Caplan, co-author of the Caplan-Sauvageau report, having criticized the Bill for 18 months, then said: "It is better than the one we will get if this one dies and if the Tories come back after the next election with a majority". That is a strange argument for passing a poor Bill.
Indeed, the Bill is not all bad because no Bill can be all bad, but it could have been greatly improved had the Government been prepared to take seriously the committee stage and seriously examine the thoughtful amendments proposed by the Opposition. Perhaps one of the few positive things about this Bill is that it confirms the airwaves as public property to be regulated in the national interest. As well, the public network is still designated as "the principal vehicle for cultural expression in Canada". Having said that, it is difficult to find anything else that is positive in the Bill.
Let me look at the background to the Bill before returning to some specific criticisms. On June 23, 1988, the Government tabled a new Broadcasting Act and a broadcasting policy intended to replace the 1968 Broadcasting Act which provided the framework for developments in broadcasting in Canada for the last 20 years. The industry had been lobbying for many years for the Government to replace an admittedly outmoded Act, but what has been received is a Bill that does not go nearly far enough. It fails to make programming in Canada predominantly Canadian.
This is important because watching television is the number one leisure activity for Canadians, particularly young Canadians who are forming their views of their own country, of the world, and of their place in the world by watching television. This is true to a large extent. On average Canadians spend more than 24 hours per week in front of their television sets. Children watch almost 1,000 hours of television, compared to the 800 hours they spend in school. Canadians are radio listeners, too. Some 95 per cent spend 18 hours a week listening to the radio. More than 50 per cent of Canadians say that broadcasting is their principal source of news and information. Yet despite this heavy reliance on programming in Canada, most of what Canadians hear and see is not Canadian. Other world views, primarily American, are reflected.

September 27, 1988
Broadcasting Act
We need more access to Canadian cultural products because 80 per cent of our publishing industry is in foreign hands, 95 per cent of films shown in Canada are foreign, and 71 per cent of all programs viewed by English-speaking Canadians on television are American.
I think we would all agree that just any Canadian content is not what is required. The present Broadcasting Act, established by the previous Liberal Government, reflected that the goal was not just programs being made in Canada, but that they be programs reflective of Canada. Granted that fulfilling that objective was easier in the past before the predominance of cable TV, it was interpreted to mean that over half the programming provided by each station or network should be Canadian. The technical interpretation of the predominantly Canadian provision is unclear and the CRTC has allowed a number of services to operate with more limited levels of Canadian programming, particularly specialized limited audience services in ethnic languages or on pay TV.
In response to that the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, in its fifteenth report, recommended that the definition of "predominantly Canadian" be clarified so that the meaning would be obvious, that most of the programming provided would be indeed Canadian, and that the CRTC be allowed to exempt from the requirement the specialized limited audience services I just mentioned. For those services the requirement is not practical.
Originally the Government rejected that recommendation, but after much criticism from many experts a watered down provision was included in the Bill as Clause 3(l)(e). The Government accepted the standing committee's first recommendation but not the second. The redrafting is so poor that it is unclear whether the intent is the programming provided by Canadian broadcasters should indeed be predominantly Canadian. This clause is so important that the Bill should not be passed unless it is amended. Otherwise, without a clear requirement for Canadian content, the CRTC will have no legislative basis on which to maintain any such requirement.
Prior to the introduction of this Bill the Canadian broadcasting policy was based on two fundamental goals. First, to maintain a separate broadcasting system rather than simply allowing American broadcasters to extend their reach into Canada. Second, to ensure that those broadcasters provide a reasonable amount of Canadian programming. A major criticism that many people have advanced is the failure of this Bill to address carriage regulations for cable. This was seen as an urgent and important issue by the standing committee and the Caplan-Savageau task force on broadcasting which reported two years ago. The standing committee concluded "the carriage regulations for cable are at least as important as the requirements for individual broadcasters in maintaining any reasonable balance between Canadian and foreign programming in the system". Both committees concluded that the Government should define for the CRTC which channels cable systems should carry. The Bill, however, is silent on this issue.
The Liberal Party moved an amendment to define the role of distribution undertakings as that of distributing Canadian radio and television services in French and English, both public and private, with first priority given to public sector Canadian services, followed by private Canadian services. This amendment was rejected by the Government. It was modified and presented again and rejected again.
In the new Act there are also some changes in the CBC's mandate. In the 1968 Act the CBC was to provide "a balanced service of information, enlightenment and entertainment". The new Act states that the CBC should provide a wide range of information and entertainment programming. Why does the Government object to the word "enlightenment" as part of the mandate of the CBC? This has not been explained. In terms of actual practicalities, there are those who suggest that this could mean the end of programs like The Nature of Things, CBC TV, which attract large audiences.
I want to talk also about the situation with respect to condominium owners and this Bill. Owners of condominiums which have an MATV system are concerned that under Bill C-136 they will be considered a distribution undertaking and subject to licensing by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. Their concern centres around the wording of the definition of "distribution undertaking" in clause 2(1) which, when taken together with clause 4(3), would bring MATV systems under the Act to the extent they receive and redistribute broadcast signals. The Canadian Bar Association addressed this issue in its brief to the legislative committee studying Bill C-136. It stated:
There continues to be an omission in the Act, namely, the situation where an apartment or hotel distribution system, either using encrypted radio signals, or closed-circuit cable system, provides programs solely to the tenants of the apartment building or the guest rooms of a hotel. Constitutional issues aside, in that case, the new Act would not apply to the system because the signals would probably not be thought of as being intended for reception by the public.
Prior to Bill C-136, the situation was different, but the unease among condominium owners continues. The amendments which would have clarified the situation have been rejected. My Party believes that condominium owners have the right to know where they stand with respect to this issue. The amendment proposed by the Lion. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), and rejected by the Government, clearly provides that assurance while allowing the CRTC to place terms and conditions to ensure fairness to local licensed cable television systems.
I have one final comment I want to make. It concerns the provision in this Act that allows the Government to give policy directions to the CRTC. This is worrisome. There is a point where it is logical but the Bill really is too open-ended. It would allow the Cabinet sweeping powers that ought to be spelled out in the law. Lately we are seeing quite a lot of the kind of drafting which allows the Government to make any regulations it chooses. This is a bad practice. It is a practice
September 27, 1988

which has escalated with this Government. I may say that the assignment of all power to the executive is also the hallmark of the new free trade bill.
Most of the experts in the field, including members of the Task Force on Broadcasting, thought the Government should have some policy-making authority over the CRTC. However, the trouble is that this Bill as drafted would open the door to those powers being used in a Draconian sense. Whenever we look at legislation, I suppose we always have to look at it with two optics. First, one can assume the legislation is going to be administered by sensible people and people of goodwill. Therefore, if one takes that position, one does not become too worried about having things left wide open to be subject to regulation. However, I think as legislators we cannot assume that every Bill will always be administered by people of goodwill and good sense. We do have an obligation to have some things clearly specified. I would suggest that the issue of the Government giving policy directives to CRTC is one which should have been specified very much more clearly rather than left to be regulated.
The Standing Committee also wanted some real limits set on foreign, mostly U.S., broadcasting services in Canada. The Government rejects this. Again, one can look at it from both points of view. We would all say that Canadians should have as much choice and freedom in choosing what to watch as possible. But the Government also has an obligation to encourage the development of Canadian talent, Canadian expression, and while there is a balancing act here, it would appear as though the Government is choosing to go the route of continuing to let our airwaves be swamped with American content, often American content which is not of any great artistic value.
This is a Bill which is a start but which needs a great deal more work. It is regrettable that the Government has not been prepared to look seriously at amendments or to do the necessary work to give us a Bill of which we could be proud.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for a very well presented argument in the interests of a Canadian content of the Canadian system. Because she sits on the committee on Finance and Economic Affairs and because she was well aware of the changes that were to be brought through tax measures, I would like to ask her about the capital cost allowance and the kind of exchange, perhaps, or the kind of concerns that that brought to her attention. I heard the Member say it was important to find the mechanisms to develop the artistic skills and demonstrate the competence of our own Canadian talent and to develop the opportunity to see the expression of Canadian talent on our screens. As the Member pointed out, American programs are very costly to produce. We need all the kinds of internal funding here in Canada that is possible.
The Minister has enriched the Telefilm fund, that is true, that is public money, but added to that we had the potential, through the Capital Cost Allowance, of increasing the
Broadcasting Act
incentives of the private sectors in the film industry. We were able, through this House, to persuade the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to reinstate the capital cost allowance for the mining industry but we were not able to do so for the film industry. I wonder if the Hon. Member would comment on that particular aspect which is in her portfolio.


Aideen Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member that one of the traditional roles of the CBC has been to showcase Canadian talent. We have all heard many briefs from those who saw the role of CBC as hopefully expanding in the future to showcase more Canadian films. There is indeed a very direct connection between the Member's question and this Broadcasting Bill before us.
I suppose the Government, in removing the tax incentives for the film industry, has taken the Draconian approach it has taken in a number of other matters. Granted, there were some lawyers, doctors and others who were doing very well financially out of sinking money into the film industry, and there was a place to close that loophole. To close a loophole is one thing but to close off an important incentive to creativity is quite another. Indeed, the Government went too far with its sledge-hammer approach.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, it gives me some pleasure to be able to make a few further remarks on Bill C-136. I want to say how much I regret that the Government chose to defeat the amendment I put forward to this Bill as it affected the provisions for condominiums. Unfortunately, as a result of that, the anxiety of those people who happen to live in condominiums has not been satisfied at all, and their concerns will continue.
1 want to say a few words at the outset on the provisions of this Bill as it affects the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The provisions of the Bill dealing with the CBC, Canada's national broadcasting service, were greatly improved in the legislative committee. The Minister has acknowledged that the CBC is the principle vehicle for cultural expression in Canada, and in the committee, the committee members worked hard to ensure that the word "enlightenment" was returned to the mandate of the CBC. The regional programming provisions of the CBC's mandate which had been weakened in the Minister's original Bill were strengthened in committee and there were other important amendments made which have also added to the legislation.
However, the bottom line question is: "Where's the beef?" There is no use for the CBC to have a broad mandate if the network does not have the resources to fulfil it. Obviously, the specific question of funding is not a legislative matter. However, it remains fundamental that, on the question of funding and other non-legislative matters, we in the NDP have a profoundly different view from that of the Conservatives.
The fact is that the Conservatives have launched a vigorous and systematic assault on the CBC since they arrived in office

September 27, 1988
Broadcasting Act
in 1984. They took over from the Liberals who, in their last years in office, sought to solve the deficit problems on the backs of this country's cultural industries.
The CBC's parliamentary allocation has been cut enormously in real terms since 1984. In fiscal year 1984-85, it was cut by $905 million. The effect of the Government's policy, first and foremost, has been what could be called the de facto privatization of the network. More and more, the CBC has been forced to count on its own resources to stay afloat. Over the past four years, the evolution of CBC-generated revenue has also not been of great help to the CBC.
The pattern is clear. It has been to cut the CBC's public funding and to force it to increase commercial revenues and act more like a private station. As the CBC noted in its brief to the committee:
-this affects the quality and distinctiveness of the program schedule and it also means that creative risks have to be minimized or eliminated. This is not compatible with a Public Service mandate.
The damage has been most pronounced in the areas of regional programming. The standing committee set out in detail the crisis in the CBC's regional centres. In recent years, the network has been forced to cut 28 per cent of resources for regional programming in order to maintain network programming services on a national level. This has meant lost jobs and services for Vancouver, Calgary, Quebec City, Halifax and Chicoutimi, for example.
We have witnessed the forced centralization and privatization of the network itself. Peter Cochrane, a member of ACTRA, said the following in detailing the effects of the CBC cut-backs on the regions and on the quality of programming in general:
We think the emphasis that should be placed on local and regional programming must be large. Right now, with the reduction in budgets-and I am talking as I said, predominantly about radio-what has happened is that one of the finest radio systems in the world-and I think it is not arguable- has been eviscerated.
The general standard of programming, the general standard of what is made available to Canadians for the nurturing of their minds and their spirits, has become less and less and less effective. The stuff that is being reached out now and is being pumped into radios across the country is made level-a lot of it- generic pap, level pap, to which people are not required to respond.
We must remember that for the national broadcasting service to truly reflect Canada, there must be quality programming coming from all regions of the country and artists must have a variety of points of entry into the system.
The Minister has spoken of the money she has offered to the CBC in her new broadcasting policy in order for the corporation to reach the commendable aim of having 95 per cent Canadian content. In fact, the Minister is giving $20 million to the English service and only $15 million to the French service. This is great, but it does not come close to correcting the damage caused by the sledge-hammer cuts over the last four years. Even with the money, the CBC will not be able to meet the 95 per cent level unless it reallocates money, presumably from the regions, to meet this limited goal.
Thus, when we look at the substance and not the rhetoric being offered by the Minister, we find it lacking. The basic conclusion of the Caplan-Sauvageau report was that the CBC was the heart of the broadcasting system and it was seriously underfunded. It was the Conservative chairman of the communications committee who said that $250 million in new funding was needed to meet the country's broadcasting goals. This Minister has not even come close, as Dale Goldhawk, the President of ACTRA said, in responding to the Government's policy statement:
And while the CBC is expected to fulfill a wide mandate, the money to go forward simply isn't there. In short, this part of the announcement doesn't exactly make my socks roll up and down.
Pretty witty guy, he is. Gord Hunter of NABET has said the following on the Government's broadcasting policy:
The CBC has faced financial difficulty since the mid-1970s but the real assault began in 1984 when the Conservative Government took office. Each year the situation has worsened. I cannot see how the corporation could possibly be expected to increase its Canadian-content levels to 95 per cent when the funds allocated to it will not come close to paying for the service it was able to provide Canadians back in 1984.
In 1984 there was a very large budget cut at the CBC, and 1,200 jobs were lost. This reduction in funding and the subsequent reduction in staff has seriously reduced the CBC's capacity to produce and we have seen an ever-increasing reliance on advertising revenues to survive.
Two final points have to be made about the effects of the Tory cuts to the CBC and why the centrepiece of any broadcasting policy must be the restoration of CBC funding to the point that the network can adequately fulfil its mandate.
The first point is that the French services of the CBC, which produce more programs on a lesser budget, have been particularly ravaged by the Government's attack. The effect of this has been that the French network can rarely afford to produce teleromans and other programming which can have high production costs. Television series on Radio Canada can rarely go on location. Creators have stuck with simple in-studio sets with which they must compete with dubbed versions of Dallas and the like and we are committed to ensuring that the both the French and English services receive adequate funding.
Second, in the Minister's policy statement the Minister pays lip service to CBC Radio and its extraordinary success with Canadians. On a literal shoe-string these radio networks have produced an extraordinary array of fine radio programming. Every year we see it building an audience despite cut-backs that have led to more and more repeats. While the Minister throws crumbs to CBC Television, she does absolutely nothing for the suffering radio service.
I note that in the recent CRTC decision, which renewed the radio licences for only three years instead of five, the Commission said the following:
The overwhelming majority of interveners expressed strong support of CBC radio, stressing their desire to see the quality of service maintained and supported by adequate Government funding . .. Many interveners however,
September 27, 1988

expressed concern about the CBC's ability to sustain the quality of its radio services in the face of reduced federal funding.
1 do not want to take too long in this debate, but it seems to me that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is one of those structures in Canada that holds this country together much in the same fashion as a transportation system does. If the CBC were not there, many communities in Canada would not receive that kind of communication, very often because the private corporations and the private companies do not see a profit in providing that service. Canadians have recognized over the years that the only way that service can be provided is through a publicly funded corporation such as the CBC.
What we have seen over the last number of years is not so much whether or not Canadians deserve that type of service, but really an ideological approach to how Canadians receive these vital and necessary services. I want to say very clearly and very bluntly, not only to the Minister but to the Canadian public, that about the only Party which has consistently supported the kind of service provided by the CBC over the years has been this Party and the New Democratic caucus.
In conclusion, we in this Party and Canadians in general very much appreciate the tremendous amount of hard work that has been put into committee stage and all the proceedings that have gone on around this Bill by my colleague, the critic in this area, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). I sat in on several of the meetings when witnesses appeared before that committee and I was quite impressed at the way the Hon. Member handled himself and pressed forward our Party's position on this very important matter.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I would like to take advantage of the remarks which the Member has just made with respect to the work of his colleague. I would agree that it has been an extraordinary catch-up and he has done an outstanding job. I would also like to pay tribute, and I am sure he would agree with me, to the Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) who, unfortunately, cannot be here. She put about two years of her time and effort into the considerations as we travelled across this country with an excellent team of professionals and professional staff to come up with this report of our standing committee, which I think stands as a landmark view and review of the broadcasting industry.
I think we should pay our respects and particular accolades to the Chairman of the committee and the members of the committee whose names are quite well known at this point. Behind the scenes we had an outstanding Director of Research, Paul Audley; an Assistant Director of Research, Rene Lemieux; researchers from the Library of Parliament, Tony Jackson, Millie Morton, and James Robertson; and a Senior Consultant, Tim Creery. We had other consultants who I think deserve to be recognized. They include Peter Grant,
Broadcasting Act
John McKay, Jean Paquin, Robert Pilon, Mark Stiles, and Robert Storey. We had some outstanding editors and administrative assistants, secretaries, and assistants from Centralized Support and Translation Bureau.
I say this because I think it is important to acknowledge the role that was played by our staffs, both the staff to the parliamentary committee for over two and a half years and our own personal staffs behind the scenes who enable us to be effective in this House. Members are only as effective as the collegiality of the research body that helps us draw up these kinds of reports.
That being said, the Minister, who had her speech delivered by another Minister in the House early this morning, said that she felt that this Bill should go through, had to go through, that there would be very unhappy constituents out there if the Bill did not go through.
Does the Member believe that the broadcasting system of Canada would be more damaged with the new Bill than it presently is? Because the friends of public broadcasting, or because one of the authors of the task force report, Mr. Gerald Caplan, and perhaps because the NDP of Quebec region did not feel rather strongly that this Bill should go through, should we capitulate or have we, with the help we have had, done the kind of study that indicates that this is not a good Canadian Bill for Canadian broadcasting and for Canadian people?


Neil Young: I want to thank the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) for reminding me of the tremendous work that research and support staff do for Members of the House of Commons on our committee work. I agree with her that very often we do not pay as much attention or give as much praise, if you will, to those people who work so hard to make us look good very often.
In response to the Member's question, I heard my colleague, the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, set out at least six points on which he expressed his concern over the flaws in the Bill. He has also indicated that we think that the Bill, with perhaps a little more consideration from the Government, would have been much stronger for Canadian broadcasting.
Having said that, I also appreciate the problem that the Minister has because of the debate that has gone on around the CBC over the last number of years. I can only guess at her difficulties in not accepting our suggestions. My friend, the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, has clearly indicated that we do not feel that we can support the Bill in its present form. We very much regret that because we all would have wanted to make this review, the first real review of Canadian broadcasting in a number of years, a very positive one. Unfortunately, because of the flaws in the Bill, we do not think we will be able to support it.

September 27, 1988
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: At this time it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom)-Refugees-Case of Francesco Piperno sentenced for terrorism by Italian court; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-External Affairs-Estonia-Recognition of Honorary Consul General.


BROADCASTING ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-136, an Act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereto and in relation to radiocommunication, be read the third time and passed, and the amendment of Mrs. Finestone (p. 19682).
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Madam Speaker, one of the casualities of this somewhat bizarre period we are going through, where the election campaign is being fought within the confines of Parliament Hill, rather than on the streets and hustings of Canada where it probably belongs, is that we are now being faced with exorbitant demands by the Government to rush through very important pieces of legislation that reach into the very vitals of this country in a very profound way without the proper examination, judgment, or reflection that such a policies require and demand.
In saying that, I want to pay tribute to my colleague, the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), who against incredible odds has made every effort to introduce changes and amendments to the legislation that would reflect the testimony heard in the committee and draw out the concerns that so many organizations and so many Canadians have expressed.
The Bill was introduced only in late summer and Canadians have not been given the proper opportunity to engage in the debate that is required, especially when so much is at stake.
We are well aware that that some very important pressures are impinging upon the question of culture in this country. One is the explosion of a broadcasting technology that has exponential growth with the innovation and expansion of new forms of broadcasting and distribution in all varieties of communication. It simply astounds the imagination. One only needs to read recent articles that suggest the video recorder is on its way out. I went to buy a compact disc, only to discover that the salesperson told me it would be obsolete within months and a new type of tape would replace it.
Similarly in the area of broadcasting and the emergence of world-wide satellite technology and other innovations, it is absolutely imperative that we acquire a framework of public policy that is flexible enough to incorporate that change and still incorporate very specific values about what we as Canadians want to capture as part of the broadcasting spectrum so that Canadians would have a fair choice. That is one set of pressures.
The other set of pressures are applied as a result of our geographic location. It has been the touchstone of Canadian cultural policy since time immemorial. We have a neighbourhood relationship with a very powerful country that has been very successful in developing a dominating global communications empire. It is one of those areas of American industry that has dominated the world and which has developed an enormous political power within in order to protect itself.
I returned from the United States last week where I gave a series of lectures. It is fascinating to see how their view of their communication industry is, first, so different from ours, and second, so much dominated by a mixture of commercial and political forces to give it such incredible power within that country. Unfortunately, over the years that power has been exercised upon our country.
Canada is not seen as a distinct entity by the American communications industry, but simply seen as a suburb of Akron, Ohio, or some other regional variation to be addressed. There is no comprehension whatsoever on the part of that industry that it is dealing with a separate entity which has its own concerns, interests and values. We are simply treated as an appendage of its own distribution network. As a result, various Canadian governments over the years, Conservative and Liberal, have had to find ways to combat that while attempting to maintain an open communications system which offers a fair amount of choice without imposing complete isolation within national boundaries. It has been one of the most difficult balancing acts attempted by Canadian governments over time.
The Broadcasting Act has been an essential element in that policy. The American influence is not concerned about the Canadian Opera Company or the Royal Winnipeg Ballet. It is primarily concerned about popular culture, where it makes money. That is the American preoccupation. They would be quite willing to allow us to subsidize the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, but when it comes to popular culture in television, radio, film and publishing, it is a very different story and attitude.
This has been compounded very dramatically by a Bill that was also passed by the House just a few weeks ago. Bill C-130, dealing with the trade agreement, opens a whole new set of pressures and makes us even more vulnerable than we were to those commercial judgments.
Every cultural organization that appeared before the committee on Bill C-130, and others, pointed out that Article 2005 of the Agreement, the notwithstanding clause, gives the
September 27, 1988

Americans the power to retaliate on what they consider to be any future act of a Canadian government that will impinge upon their commercial interests. That is a Damocles sword over the head of Canadians when they try to deal with the expansion of new technologies and distribution networks. That will require major redefining, but Canadians will be faced with a sanction that will always be present if the agreement is ratified. Of course, that is something that we and a majority of Canadians hope will never come about. It is something still to be decided.
The debate on the Broadcasting Act must be seen in the context of that new development. It is not only a theoretical threat, it is one that has already been exercised. We have already seen the pressure applied with the kind of Valenti muscle that was exercised with respect to the radical alteration of the proposed film Bill the Minister talked about a few years ago. It has now become a pale ghostly shadow of its original self.
We have seen how that kind of American muscle has been applied in the publishing industry. The brave words of the former Minister of Communications about ensuring that takeovers and acquisitions would be carefully guarded have simply disappeared before the blind eye that has been turned toward this area.
Therefore we must question whether the Broadcasting Act will give us the ability to meet such challenges. Will it provide the ability and resources in Canada to meet the new technology and the very omnipresent and growing American demand for full and complete access and control of our popular communications systems? As has been expressed at second reading, at committee stage and during third reading by my colleague, this Bill has failed that fundamental test. It has not given any confidence that it will provide a strengthened defence in terms of retaining the capacity of Canadians to protect their popular culture systems and feel free that they will at least have an effective choice.
Part of that weakened defence has been the kind of undermining and erosion that has taken place on the CBC itself since the inception of the Government. We have seen the cutback on budgets and the informal but very clear intimidation on the public network. The limitation on its independent role severely weakens the network.
If the CBC is expected to carry the load in terms of dealing with the challenges I have outlined, then it has not been given the resources to do it. The tasks may be clear and identified but the flesh is weak. It simply does not have the necessary support and resources. The move to diffuse the role of the CBC into new channels and alternate networks without any accompanying infusion of proper resources simply dilutes its ability to meet its task.
I think that Members of Parliament should take seriously the kind of statements that were made by the President of the
Broadcasting Act
CBC in front of the committee about just how precarious a position it has been put in, just how difficult it is. It is unfortunate that that kind of ammunition was not recognized by way of changes to the Broadcasting Act, or further commitments by the Government. God knows it is not for lack of money. The Government has committed in the last three months $15 billion or $16 billion to various projects around the country. Obviously, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has found a new money tree somewhere, or the whole fiscal framework has been thrown out the window for the sake of the election. Within that $15 billion or $16 billion of new commitment, surely there might have been something more for the Canadian broadcasting network, in a substantial way.
If that is the number one requirement we have, why is it less deserving than a gas pipeline to Vancouver Island which in itself may be of some value? I am not here to judge that in this debate. But surely on the scale of priorities-and particularly the priority of what this national Government is responsible for-nothing is more precious or valuable than the communi-cation/cultural system of the country in light of the globalization and the Americanization that is taking place as part of it. Yet not one cent was provided to it.
Similarly, I want to point to the changed definitions that we apply to private broadcasters. It has been acknowledged that this is an area that has never been managed successfully. I do not think that anyone has been able to find the will or the fortitude by which to make a requirement for our private broadcasters to live up to a high level of responsibility. This is not a partisan attack. 1 include Governments of which I was a Member and which 1 supported over the last 15 or 20 years. I do not think we have ever applied the will necessary even through the CRTC or the Cabinet to make it stick. The price of a licence, being able to get on that airwave, I think, is an extraordinarily valuable entitlement, a rare one, a privileged one that we have given. Yet we have never asked for a full set of obligations in return.
There have been very powerful lobbies and very strong arguments, but the fact of the matter is that the private broadcasting system in this country has not lived up to its obligations to give Canadians real choices. You know the figures as well as I do, Madam Speaker, you have heard them in the Elouse. Some 98 per cent of our drama is foreign, most of it American. That is shameful.
If we look at the area in which we are supposed to have real competence, in news broadcasting and public affairs, something we have taken some pride in as Canadians, by comparison so little of the budgets of private broadcasters is spent in those areas-very, very little little of it. There is nothing in this Broadcasting Act which strengthens that. The very strong message that came out of the Caplan-Sauvageau report has somehow been dissipated, kind of vapourized in this Bill. In fact, I would have to say that the management of the present system gives signals of that kind, both at the level of the commission and at the level of the Department.

September 27, 1988
Broadcasting Act
I would like to give you one example, Madam Speaker. I have now received I do not know how many inquiries or demands from my own constituents about the displacement of the parliamentary channel from the cable system on to a cable system that requires a new converter. In my riding there are a lot of people who can neither afford a new converter nor a new TV set. They simply do not have the money. Yet they have found a great satisfaction-sometimes one wonders why-in watching the parliamentary channel, watching Question Period and debates. A lot of people feel that that is a very important exercise of their citizenship. As a Member of Parliament you yourself, Madam Speaker, would know how people draw to your attention when you have been saying something good, bad or whatever. That has become, in part, an ingredient in our culture over time. I guess we can say that it is certainly no worse than the soap operas with which it competes. Certainly, we have all learned how to dress more appropriately at least.
Why would we allow a system, a judgment that brings MuchMusic on to the cable systems, which is okay? I watch it. It is kind of fun at times. Or why would we allow a system that brings a new family channel or a new religious channel, both of which are valuable and have a minority interest but which displace the opportunity for Canadians to watch their own Government in action?
I have written to the Chairman of the CRTC about it. We have raised the matter in the Elouse. The fact of the matter is that it says something. There is a signal out there that no one is minding the store. No one is applying themselves to that kind of judgment. It slipped by and everybody is backing off. It is like watching those sports officials in Seoul last night who were saying: "It is not my fault". Talk about passing the buck. I am afraid that that has become too much of a pastime under this present regime. Yet here is something that is very crucial to Canadians and we have allowed it to take place.
Let me give you another example, Madam Speaker. [Translation]
I think it is very important for all Francophones in Canada and in fact the whole country to have access to Channel TV5. Especially since the Government of Canada paid most of the money for this service. There is a service for Quebec and for the "Francophonie" but not for Ontario and certainly not for the West or the Atlantic provinces.
I think the people of my riding have the right to have access to Channel TV5. But the Government of Canada isn't there to make a clear-cut decision that will get the service for the entire country.
Madam Speaker, this is one more example of the lack of direction in Canadian policy. It's fine for Senegal to receive Canadian programs, but I think people in Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Moncton should enjoy the same privilege. This is one more example of the vacuum that exists in our communications policy.

That is the problem. The Broadcasting Act is not a piece of legislation that reflects a coherent set of judgments about what Canadian communication policy must be in light of the kind of conditions. It has been kind of patched together to satisfy one interest over another. A little cloth has been cut here and something has been tailored there, but it does not represent the kind of framework of broadcasting that the future of this country will require, especially in light of what we face.
I see you are asking me to conclude, Madam Speaker. I would like to cite one small example which will just take a moment. I refer to the amendments proposed at committee concerning the question of satellites for condominium owners. The amendments which we had gave proper credibility to the right to license programming coming in, but they also gave the technology access. The amendments proposed would have created a system equal to all Canadians. But it was also rejected even though it was supported by all sides of the House-by New Democrats, Tories and Liberals. Once again, there was a kind of blankness and refusal to respond to those kinds of conditions, simply because it was already fixed in stone.
The great regret of this-and it may be a product of haste and rush-is that it is not the kind of Broadcasting Act that Canadians either need or deserve, and it will not provide the kind of important front line argument and structure that we will need to deal with the future, especially as it relates to the preservation of Canadian culture.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I want to say to my hon. colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry that I was very pleased to see him mention, first of all, TV5, as it would bring a cultural perspective of French Canada to all Canadians. Many Canadians are bilingual, and I am sure that they would be interested in watching it. It would also bring in the international aspect of France and Belgium and Senegal.
It would seem to me that when we are spending Canadian public-federal dollars there is no reason why that public-federal service should not be available, if we truly believe that the fundamental characteristic of Canada is its bilingual nature. I can remember the arguments around the French and English on the cornflakes box. I hope we are not going to go back to that silly business.
You, I know, have had an ongoing interest around condominiums, and I was glad to hear you mention that. But because you mentioned at the outset of your remarks that you have been in the United States recently-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member, even in the period of question and comments, would come through the Chair to ask her questions and address the Hon. Member. It was done before and I let it go. The Hon. Member.
September 27, 1988


Sheila Finestone: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. You are right. I had forgotten the protocol of the Chair. Through the Chair, I would ask the Hon. Member if in his recent trip to the United States, and with his knowledge of the free trade Bill, he would see that although the Minister may well have wanted to have had a Canadian Bill that would reflect Canadian concerns, because the entertainment aspect is not seen as a cultural aspect in the United States, that had some true implication for the potential for licensing any and all satellite-to-cable programs, direct-to-home, which perhaps can soon be part of the new technology, or the direct broadcasting system, the concerns that new technologies will bring, and if we do not control them, we are going to have an even greater problem on our hands.
What would his view be regarding entertainment versus cultural programs, or cultural sovereignty?


Lloyd Axworthy: In response to my colleague from Mount Royal, it may be that too few Canadians and perhaps too few Members of this House have taken the time to read carefully both the American implementing legislation dealing with the trade agreement and, perhaps more important the accompanying document that was issued by the President called Administrative Action. Within that document you will find that the Americans make very specific definition as to what they consider to be the impact of the trade agreement. They believe that any attempt by Canada to subsidize a cultural or communication activity that will injure their commercial interest will now be subject to a substantial countervail retaliation, not just in the area of culture but in other industries as well. They can attack hydro or automobiles for undertaking that kind of action.
It is interesting to note, in exchanging views with American experts in the field, which I have done in various meetings over the past week, that their view is that that is one of the great advantages that they have won as a result of the trade agreement. They have been able to see this as a way of substantially restricting any further attempts of Canadian content rules or limiting distribution in other areas. That is part of their win-win proposition.
The definition, of course, is one that is very clear. They see it purely as an enterprise. Perhaps you have to understand that is a country where there is virtually no foreign broadcasting. I guess the odd British film shows up on PBS from time to time, but Americans basically look at their own programming. They have no understanding or concept or sensitivity to a country such as ours, where 98 per cent of our drama is from a foreign country and, therefore, we have to provide protection. They see it purely as something that is a market-place decision, a market-place decision, by the way, that must be buttressed and supported by the power of the state.
I am just illustrating this particular observation that was made to me. It is one reason why the Americans have been so supportive of this particular trade agreement. They see it as a
Broadcasting Act
way of establishing a precedent for bludgeoning into other markets around the world.
The attitude expressed by Secretary Treasurer Baker and Ambassador Yeutter in front of the House of Representatives and the Senate Committee, on testifying, shows very clearly that the reason that American Congressmen should support the trade legislation is that it will give a lesson to other countries, that if they try to get cute on things like culture, establishing new forums and relations, then the Canadian example can be used to break through.
They will be using this, very clearly, as part of their argument at the Uruguay Round to open up the whole system around the world for their access, because they know that they have such a dominant position in order to be able to do this. Attempts by other countries to provide content provisions or limitations will now be under attack, and we are aiding and abetting in that attack by the acquiescence of the trade agreement.
This is not simply a matter of a debate between some cultural groups. This is part of a very clear and broad trade strategy by the United States. They are under pressure and they are losing markets in their manufacturing, and they see that the opportunities in the service industries and to the so-called entertainment industry is prime among those. They will be using this in a way that they hope will bash their way in to other world markets. Other countries have attempted to preserve their cultural arrangements against that kind of Americanization. We are in fact an accomplice to something that will become a very major and dramatic debate, the GATT Round, and unfortunately we are on the wrong side of the argument.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate, although I didn't think it would be necessary. I thought the Government would understand the incredible significance of this debate. What I fail to understand, Madam Speaker, is that during the last minutes of a reign, of a government, we are . ..


Miss MacDonald:: Filibuster!


Marcel Prud'homme: I beg your pardon. If you really think this is a filibuster, you don't know what a filibuster is, because if anyone can organize a filibuster, I certainly can and I would give you your money's worth! I regret the attitude of the Hon. Member for . . . for which riding?


Sheila Finestone: Are you objecting to the fact that some of our Members have the right to speak on broadcasting? Is that your complaint, Madam Minister? Ridiculous.


Marcel Prud'homme: Right. So if we can let bygones be bygones, the Minister seems very anxious to have her Bill adopted, and I understand that. The Minister would like to see

September 27, 1988
Broadcasting Act
her legislation passed as quickly as possible. Elowever, Madam Speaker, we are talking about some vital issues. As an experienced parliamentarian, I fail to understand that having come to the very end of this Government's mandate-of course this Government was duly and democratically elected, I realize that-I can't understand why, within the last two weeks, this Government has introduced bills that are incredibly important to Canada's future. There was the child care Bill, which of course is not before the House today, Madam Speaker.
I briefly took part in it, not on the substance of the matter but on the way we were to vote on it. It is as though the Government, at the last minute, looked back on its election platform of four years and two months ago and said, "Oh, how can it be? We forgot day care! Let's bring in a Bill, rush the Opposition, rush all the interest groups and pass this Bill." In the last minute, almost at the last gasp of a dying Parliament! And again today, they come to us with a Bill! I see that they are impatient, that the Minister is very impatient, I understand that, but if she would bear with us, I could tell her, "Madam, why did you not force your Government to deal with this question long before today?"
When you have a Minister with clout in a department or in Cabinet, I think it is that Minister's duty, as my colleague, the Whip for my Party, and my Party's excellent critic, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), will tell you, when a Minister has clout, he or she must fight within Cabinet and say, "This is a priority." If it is a priority today, in the last minute, why were these Bills not a priority a year ago?
So I am quite amazed that in the last minute, perhaps in the last week of a long reign, because their term in office is almost the equivalent of five years, Madam, since we have sat continually, with extended hours and summer leave cancelled. The Government has really had five years and not four and in the very last minute, it wants to force through two bills that it considers very important and that we consider important. It wants to show Canadians that the Opposition is blocking two Bills, when there have only been three speakers, I think, on this Bill.. . Madam Speaker, I will not participate in a filibuster. We know that! I believe in Parliamentary reform. But I can tell you one thing: there is a difference between what you call a filibuster in English, i.e. unduly prolonging debate, and not debating at all, and we are within those limits.
You know, Madam Speaker, that we attach great importance to this Bill-that is understandable. Why? Because today, what is Canadians' main activity? It is watching television. It is not playing sports. Canadians are glued to the television twenty-four hours a week on average. It is important to know what is on television. It is important to know who controls television. Every year, for our young pages who have just arrived . . .
Our young pages who have just arrived are a product of that generation. Each year Canadian children watch almost 1,000 hours of television, compared to 800 hours spent in school.
It reminds me of the debate I had some years ago when I had the honour of being the arts and culture critic prior to my esteemed colleague, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), who did a remarkable job in her new assignment. I remember that I said to the Hon. Member for Frontenac (Mr. Masse) when he was the Minister, and that was before he became popular, "You have a duty, Mr. Minister. You are not the defender of cabinet decisions near the artist, you have the duty to defend the artist in Cabinet." That is my conception of a Minister.

That is how I see a Minister's responsibility. He has a duty to defend the interests of his sector, meaning that if I am Minister of Youth, I defend youth, and if I am Minister of Seniors, I passionately defend senior citizens, and I would certainly do that. If I am supposed to defend farmers, I have a duty to stand up to my Cabinet colleagues. I am not supposed to take the Cabinet's decisions and get them accepted by the people whose interests I am supposed to represent. It wouldn't make sense.
I repeat what I said earlier that our children, who will build the Canada of tomorrow, watch 1000 hours of television and spend only 800 hours in school.
Madam Speaker, 95 per cent of Canadians listen to the radio for an average 18 hours a week. Madam Speaker, this is very, very significant, if my figures are correct.
But I said all this during the debate we had two and a half years ago to Mr. Masse, our present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Two-thirds of Canadians . . .

Two-thirds of Canadians admit that watching television is their favourite pastime. I enjoy it too. Sometimes I watch television for too long in the late hours and it is terrible, Madam Speaker, as you know very well when you have to get up early in the morning, and you cannot do otherwise but keep watching television because it is interesting. In my case I watch international affairs, disarmament questions, east-west relationships, and political programs; for others it is a cowboy program, a criminal program, or violence. However, it is very important.
Today we are told we are filibustering after three speakers. We must make sure Canadians understand, regardless of whether or not there is an an election coming that, at the very last minute this Government has decided today to ram through the House a very major, capital, and important piece of legislation. That is the reason that, at the very last minute, I accepted the request of my esteemed colleague, the Hon.
September 27, 1988

Member for Mount Royal, who did a remarkable job in participating in this debate.
Fifty per cent of Canadians say that they are not too interested in reading, that their principal source of news and information comes from broadcasting. Madam Speaker, can you imagine that 50 per cent of Canadians say that broadcasting is their principal source of news and information. What does that mean in practice? It means that television shapes the minds of the people. Television shows them the type of news, or does not show them the type of news, and this is very dangerous. You, Madam Speaker, know what 1 am talking about because of your great career prior to this career. You understand the importance of broadcasting and television.
These young people who have just arrived to work in Parliament are the ones who probably tomorrow will be sitting in the House of Commons. Some of them get their information from television, or they are influenced by television. When you have a neighbour like the United States of America, and I hope they are listening across the street-for the time being. For listeners, when I say "across the street", I have to explain, to have an intelligent debate, that it is because the Embassy of the United States of America is across the street here in Ottawa.
When I was a student it used to be called the American Embassy. I remember I lead a delegation-I always liked demonstrations what I was a student. We had a few demonstrations to tell them that they should not call themselves the American Embassy, but the Embassy of the United States of America. It was a nuance that we students understood. We were proud Canadians and we understood the difference, because we are part of America too, but we are not citizens of the United States of America. We are Canadian. If we want to remain Canadian, if we want to have a Canadian country, and if we want to progress toward the future in remaining what we are and in becoming even better, we have to watch how we shape our brains. You do this by what you listen to, by what you see, or by what you read. It so happens that Canadians prefer television to reading. That means you gradually form an opinion of the world, of Canada, of your province, of your own race or religion, by what influences you. I repeat that to make Canadians understand why at this very last minute, it is important that we do not deal with this Bill urgently.
Last week it was day care. We are supposed to have a new era in Canada of participatory parliamentary process. Members of Parliament would be more independent. They would be somebodies after all. You remember that famous quote. Parliamentarians thought they were going to be somebody. They were going to give their time, their devotion, their patience and their understanding in working in a parliamentary committee. This was the invention of the man who is now Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland. He put his name on the report, the McGrath report. That dealt with reform of the House of Commons and its committees.
Broadcasting Act
What happened with day care? Some 40 witnesses said it was bad, it was wrong. They are all experts. I am not an expert on day care, but I recognize its immense importance. You may smile but I understand the problems if we do not take care of our young Canadians. They are raised differently than you and I were raised. They are raised differently than my esteemed colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) was raised. Today we have a lot of single parents who could go on welfare. They want to work but they have children. They need day care. This did not exist in my day. I am the youngest of 12 children. We did not have day care because our society was different. I know we need a good full day care system, yet we rammed the Bill through the House. We did not listen to anything that was said in the committee. Now it has gone to the Senate and the Government would like the Senate to ram it through, otherwise the Conservatives will campaign against those in the Senate.
I say to the Senators: "As long as you exist, do your duty. You have the duty to at least study the Bill, at least for a couple of days. At least three days." Is that asking too much for something that is supposed to cost $6.4 billion?
Amendments to this Bill here today were turned down. Why did my colleague from Mount Royal work so hard? It is because she believed in the spirit of the McGrath report that says legislative committees will have some power. Power to convince. Power to be convinced. Power to call Canadians to participate, to give us their view, and then react accordingly.
There are parliamentarians who are stubborn and say this is the Bill, the Queen can do no wrong, the Minister can do no wrong, and it is take it or leave it. I would rather say leave it for a while until we come to our senses and recognize that the Bill is too important to ram it through the House so rapidly.
Do I need to say that the broadcasting message very often is not Canadian? I could talk for hours about Canada. Yes, I become passionate. What the hell am I doing in the House of Commons if I do not believe in Canada? I came here for that. Everything that could help us frame a good Canada must be debated and understood. Programming must be Canadian.
We should also remember it is all very well to talk about anglophones and francophones but we must understand that long before we were here, long before even my ancestors came to this country in the 1600s, there were native people and we should address that question.
1 also disagree with the role of the President and Chairman of the CBC. This should be addressed.
I must conclude by saying I am disappointed, as Canadians should be, that a sense of urgency seems to have fallen upon the House of Commons. Everything is urgent. There is no urgency. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) can call the election in the spring if he has such a-


Benoît Bouchard: No.


Marcel Prud'homme: Why not? I do not mind.

Broadcasting Act
I would like to conclude by saying that this Bill should be suspended. If it is the intention of the Prime Minister of Canada, as is his right, to call an election, day care and this legislation should be put on the shelf and left to the next Government to decide how it wants to tackle it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, as the critic for communications and culture but more importantly as a Canadian, I know the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has a very passionate sense of the place of Canada and the importance of maintaining our identity. I heard him extol, and rightly so, the importance of differentiating ourselves from our American friends and cousins. He very often says that good fences make good neighbours.
Given that, I wonder how he feels about the fact that this Bill, while purportedly saying we are going to have a better Canadian broadcasting system, allows all kinds of American programs to come in here unlicensed. It does not define the necessity for predominantly Canadian content. It does not say where that content should appear on the screen.
The Hon. Member has also been outspoken, certainly in the lobby, with respect to TV5 and its importance for all Canadians. Therefore, does he feel it would be fair to allow the American systems access to our market and have them take the money out and produce fine programming but programming which can be hurtful to Canadian artists and their potential to grow and reach the world class level they are capable of?


Marcel Prud'homme: Well, Madam Speaker, that will show to my friend that we did not prepare ourselves accordingly, because if we had, I would be able to pick up a paper and have the answer. I will try. This is exactly what Winston Churchill said. This is true parliamentary debate and exchange. The essence of the British parliamentary system is to have that kind of exchange, unprepared. We see from time to time one of the members of the majority in the House asking a question of the Minister, such as happened today, and the Minister rising and giving the answer. Everyone knows it is theatre, it is prepared.
I do not deny the fact that Americans produce good programs. Of course, they do. They are so rich and powerful. I can use the same argument for the trade agreement of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and of President Reagan. I do not deny the fact that the Americans produce big and produce good, but they are big. I am not afraid of that. I enjoy the neighbourhood of the United States. I enjoy everything it can offer me, as I would hope Americans would enjoy what we can offer them. Unfortunately, it is very often a one-way street. The United States is so big. It does not want to harm us. I am sure of that. I am absolutely friendly with the United States of America. But I know one thing, being big as
September 27, 1988
it is, it cannot care less about what it does to us, and this immense invasion of programming reduces our Canadianism. There is no doubt about that. Canadians will have to decide what kind of country they want and what kind of Canadianism they want to give to those who will come after them.
I am always extremely suspicious when a Bill of this kind is too general in tone. I do not like too much regulation. But there is not enough protection for us in this Bill against the absolute infiltration by American programming. It is not bad, it is dangerous, and at least we should realize it is dangerous. In a country the size of Canada, with our small population, we have to double our efforts in being more careful when we arrive at something that goes directly to the fabric of Canada, and that is this Bill. It is-

It is vague. It is not specific. There are too many loopholes. I am not overly fond of Bills that tell me where I am supposed to put the stamp on the envelope, and I hope I didn't give that impression. The simili, in any case, is very French. However, I would like to know how we can protect ourselves against this huge giant, a giant I am quite fond of, and I am referring to the United States. They are so pervasive and so powerful that if we don't watch out, the situation might become very dangerous for us.

What do we see in the national anthem? I had the honour, under the Right Hon. Lester Pearson, to be appointed to the National Anthem Committee. The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and I are the only sitting Members left of that committee. What did we include in the English version of O Canadal We say: "We stand on guard for thee". What does it mean? It means we must be careful with a Bill of this kind.

We must watch out. In fact, the same would apply, as I said earlier, to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. The agreement is not all bad.

We have what the Government calls the Free Trade Agreement, or, as my Party prefers to call it, the Mulroney-Reagan agreement. It would be silly to say that everything in it is bad.
I am not ready to say that. I did not say it and I will not say it. But I am allowed to "stand on guard for thee". I say to you, the young people, it is your Canada that is at stake in the trade agreement. It is your Canada that is at stake in the kind of day care we want for Canada. It is your Canada that is at stake with these kinds of Bills, especially this one. This Bill is the most important thing because this is what influences people. How can we be denied the right to debate a little longer than three or four speakers for something that is-

.. . that goes straight to the roots of our Canadian identity?
I am certainly not ashamed of taking part in the debate at the
September 27, 1988

very last minute, because I thought the Government would say: Listen, we are going to call an election, enough is enough!

Enough is enough. How many more Bills does my dear friend have up his sleeve to try to ram through the House? Is he going to bring in Bill C-79? I had the honour to be the Chairman of the legislative committee on the reform of the Election Act. Is he going to bring another Bill forward? I would say, please, Madam Speaker, enough is enough. Please let us study this more attentively.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I must interrupt the Hon. Member. The period provided for questions and comments has now expired.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, thank you, for giving me this opportunity to speak in debate on this important piece of legislation. One of the most important aspects of this present crisis in Canadian broadcasting is the increasing continentalization of our airwaves. The all-Party standing committee in its report recognized this problem and made a number of strong recommendations to ensure the distinctiveness of the Canadian market. These were not minor recommendations. As the sixth report of the standing committee, chaired by Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards), noted, these recommendations were parallel in importance to the Canadian content requirements that apply to individual licensed broadcasters. It is a combination of the Canadian content obligations applying to individual broadcasters and the carriage priorities, and other carriage rules applicable to cable, that determine whether the Canadian programming objectives set out in the broadcasting policy can be met.
The Minister explicitly rejected these recommendations to create a distinctive Canadian market. For example, Recommendation 58 said that the Act should be drafted so as to define the essential role of the distribution undertakings as that of distributing Canadian radio and television services in French and in English, both public and private, with first priority given to the public sector Canadian services, followed by private Canadian services.
With the exception of the three-plus-one services already carried, the Act should make provision for the carriage of foreign radio and television services only when the programming they provide is complimentary to that available from licensed Canadian broadcasters and network operators. The Act should also provide for priority to be given to the carriage of services in French and distribution undertakings that serve primarily Francophone subscribers.
Clearly it is the result of the trade deal negotiations that has hamstrung the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald). My colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), put forward two motions that
Broadcasting Act
reflected the standing committee's and task force's reports to amend this Bill at report stage. They were Motions Nos. 36 and 39.
Motion No. 36 would ensure that all services operating in Canada, including U.S. satellite-to-cable services, are licensed. The House knows, for example, that the U.S. Arts and Entertainment Network is beamed into Canada by satellite and affiliates with cable companies package and sell it to Canadian subscribers. It makes no contribution to Canadian programming and does not need to meet the requirements of the CRTC. In fact, it basically costs A & E nothing to tap the Canadian market.
As the Association of Canadian Film and Television Producers said before the standing committee:
It would be consistent with the government's stated policies for broadcasting in Canada to require all broadcast services available in Canada to be subject to CRTC regulation and approval. The CRTC has a demonstrated sensibility to the needs of broadcasters and the government's policy priorities. We should all be confident in the Commission's ability to develop a realistic licensing process for foreign satellite-to-cable services coming into Canada, given a solid legislative base.
That is what Motion No. 36 sought to do.
More important than this, however, was Motion No. 39. This motion would have ensured that, with the exception of the three plus one American networks, NBC, CBS, ABC and PBS and border stations, that carriage of foreign stations should only be provided by cable systems if the programming they provide is complementary to that available from licensed Canadian broadcasters and network operations. This motion is in part a response to the continuing penetration into the Canadian cable market by U.S. services. In particular, I am referring to the recent decision to license U.S. superstations which provide the unique service of Beverley Hillbilly reruns 12 hours a day in addition to Atlanta Braves, Mets and other baseball games.
As the producer groups rightly said when they came before the legislative committee, this will have a highly negative effect on the ability of Canadian producers to maintain a distinct Canadian market. To quote Sam Jephcott of the CFTA:
Canadian producers have relied on the "cordon sanitaire" that kept such channels out of Canada in the past, an advantage that allowed them to license original Canadian programming to Canadian broadcasters as well as American ones, without the diminution in value that inevitably occurs when market exclusivity is compromised by transborder signal penetration.
Just as important as the question of a distinct Canadian production market is that of the viability of Canadian local stations such as City TV and specialty stations in the face of competition from directly competing U.S. services.
As I noted earlier, this motion comes from a direct communication of the all-Party standing committee's sixth report. In her response to that report, tabled with this Bill, the Minister gave the following reply, which is in my mind really quite extraordinary:

September 27, 1988
Broadcasting Act
The prohibition of foreign radio and television services other than those whose programming is complementary to that available from Canadian broadcasters has not been included in the legislation, since it would unduly restrict Canadians' access to a range of international broadcasting services.
The impact of the Minister's policy is really something quite different. She is simply dead wrong. Her policy will limit Canadian choices and the chance to watch Canadian broadcast services. As the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting rightly put it:
If this country had adopted such an approach 60 years ago this country would never have developed a separate Canadian broadcasting system except in the public sector.
We are not proposing to stop Canadians from getting complementary services. We just want Canadians to have the chance to provide them. The standing committee, in the sixth report, put it very well, I think, by saying:
We note that even in the large U.S. market, where service is provided entirely in English, there is only one available service in most programming categories. In Canada, it is beyond question that a Canadian service could not co-exist with a non-Canadian service, especially if the Canadian service is expected to provide a meaningful contribution to Canadian programming.
There was a Conservative majority on that committee, so the question is, what made the Tories-I notice one or two around-change their minds? Well, a group called the Cultural Industries Alliance made up of more than a dozen major cultural organizations has said the following:
We have already seen evidence of the effect of the trade agreement on existing policies and policy development. This includes the rejection of key recommendation for Broadcast Policy made by the House of Commons Standing Committee-
This brings us to the general question of the impact of this trade deal on our cultural industries. It has clearly had an impact on the Bill before us. The Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) trade deal threatens to change completely the nature of cultural activity in Canada. The Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed that cultural policy was untouched by the trade deal. He has said with apparent pride that the status quo has been maintained.
What is the nature of the status quo of which the Prime Minister is so proud? Only 3 per cent of film profits stay in Canada, 3 per cent of videocassette sales are Canadian, prime time drama is 2 per cent to 3 per cent Canadian, and 77 per cent of all magazines sold in Canada are of foreign origin. The litany of statistics goes on. No other sovereign country can match this unfortunate situation.
The fact is that the United States has succeeded, in the trade negotiations, in whittling away at Canada's cultural programs as it has whittled away at so much of the character of Canada. As a direct or indirect result of the trade deal talks, the Conservative administration has abandoned its film distribution policy, abandoned the Baie Comeau book publishing policy which sought to repatriate a portion of our publishing industry, reduced the capital cost allowance on Canadian films which the Americans had argued was an unfair subsidy, and rejected a number of important recommendations of the House of Commons standing committee in the
recently announced broadcasting policy. Worse, the trade deal effectively blocks Canada from adopting new policies to reverse the foreign domination of our culture so clearly revealed in the above-mentioned statistics.
According to Trade Ambassador Simon Reisman, new measures affecting cultural industries would be scrutinized by both sides to determine whether they are consistent or inconsistent with the agreement. The United States will be able to take retaliatory action of "equivalent commercial effect" against any Canadian cultural program that is inconsistent in its view with the agreement. In effect, it defines as an unjust cultural subsidy any action which costs the United States money.
In the area of communication as in so many other spheres of our relationship with the United States as a result of the trade deal, we are chipping away at the character of Canada and chipping away at those structures which will enable us to determine our own future, not only in the economic sphere but in the cultural sphere as well. What is more, we add to the sad litany of negative effects for our country that have been listed by those of us who oppose this deal.
I was interested in hearing my colleague in the Liberal Party express his pride in our country. That is a pride that I would like to have maintained in my own heart. However, that kind of pride in this country can only be reinforced and maintained if we have those powers and those abilities within our land that will enable us to determine our own future in all spheres, not because we are disinterested in appropriate economic and commercial relationships with other countries but because, if we are to have proper and rewarding relationships with other countries, as other countries have with us, those relationships must be based on the integrity of our nationhood.
This Bill, as so many others, because of a context which chips away at that nationhood, constitutes a failure on the part of the Government that should be the basis for its punishment when after Friday afternoon the Prime Minister, we all hope, will finally get up the courage to go to the polls to determine whether in fact the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal will be the determinant of our future or whether it will be the consciences and the needs of the Canadian people which will determine the future of our country.
Mir. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in his speech the Hon. Member has stated that this Conservative Broadcasting Act will threaten the capacity of Canada to project its individuality, its soul, its self and, in particular, its capacity to project that individuality up against this massive attack of American media which comes from south of the border to threaten, not intentionally, I believe, Canadian expression or Canadian culture. However, it is a massive attack of radio, television, magazines, and even newspapers. Today I was walking down the street and saw that we now have newspaper boxes for U.S.
September 27, 1988

News Today on our streets. That may become more prevalent if this free trade deal goes into operation.
The Member has very well expressed this threat to our capacity, through broadcasting, to express ourselves as Canadians. I want to make sure that his point is not missed by the Canadian electorate who might be following this debate. Could he give us some more examples of exactly how threatening this Bill is to our capacity to do that. We do not get too many opportunities to put forward our point of view. We do not have the same resources as the Government, and I look on these debates in the House of Commons as one of the few means that we have to expose the weaknesses of the Government's legislation.
I know the Member ran out of time. Perhaps he has some more examples of how serious a threat this Bill is to broadcasting in Canada and the capacity of our country to express its culture and individuality so that we all have something in common.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question. I was much taken with the preamble to his question in which he cited the tremendous impact upon Canadian culture of the American media. I immediately began to reflect upon that most conspicuous of matters treated in recent weeks by the American media, to wit, the presidential election. I like to think of Canada as a tolerant country, a country that accepts dissent, accepts a diversity of opinion. Indeed, I would like to think of Canada as-and please do not misunderstand me, let me make sure that I say this clearly- essentially a small "1" liberal country. I mean that to construe a nation of tolerance, of diversity of ideas and dissent.
We are being bombarded with the notion that somehow it is a sin to be a liberal by an American media which, through this Bill will gain, one way or another, continued and perhaps expanded access to Canada as an audience. It is suggested that to believe seriously that sticking laser weapons and other kinds of contraptions in orbit for war purposes is destabilizing, and to describe it as such and to suggest for a moment that these mass expenditures on weapons constitute a danger to society is somehow bad. They suggest that if every American does not, at every excuse, jump up and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, that is somehow un-American.
I know, Madam Speaker, that just as I and my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway, you have been aware of what is going on there. That is an election that is based on the notion that a good society is an intolerant society. This may seem like a small thing but I think that most Canadians, were they to realize that this pervasive encroachment of the American media and those kinds of American attitudes have a serious impact on our young people, would be offended by it if they examined it for just a moment.
Surely it is significant to our country that those attitudes, which have developed in another nation with a history quite different from ours, should become determinant in our own
Broadcasting Act
attitudes in a country which I consider to be one of the more civilized countries in the world. Inevitably, if we do not enhance the opportunity for Canadians to have greater and greater access to those attitudes which are the foundation of our nation, our nation will be threatened seriously.
I find it offensive to have a trade deal that says that if we attempt to increase the degree to which we communicate our values through our cultural media there will be retaliation from our trading partner, the partner in the economic agreement. That, all by itself, is sufficient reason for rejecting the trade deal.
I do not know whether, in expressing this concern, I have specifically answered the question of my respected colleague, but I thank him for the opportunity to allow me to point out the real impact that the present debate in the United States has on our country through the American media. More important, the content of that debate is so destructive, so pitiful in its disregard even for American values, that I fear the penetration of such a set of values in our own country. Without any means of limiting it, it promises difficulties for us in the future.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Madam Speaker, I know you are a much younger person than am I, but I would like you to cast your mind back a few years to remember the first time you or your family owned a television set. If you can remember those days perhaps you can also remember how you got the reception on that set in those days. I know that you have appeared on television yourself many times since then, Madam Speaker, and you are appearing on television right now. I would like you to cast your mind back a year or two to those days when the first television set was acquired in your family and to think of exactly how you got your reception in those days. That is the picture I would like you to have in your mind as I make my comments this evening.
I do not know what you remember about that, Madam Speaker, but I remember quite vividly when my family got our first television set. We had an aerial on the roof. There were some guy wires attached to that aerial to hold it on the roof. They were wrapped around some screws that were sunk in the roof. Sometimes when the wind blew one wondered whether the aerial would come down. Of course, the reception on the television was not very good. After a few years water began to leak where those screws were sunk into the roof. It was not a very satisfactory method of getting television reception.
When my wife and I got our first home, I was rather pleased that it did not have one of these aerials on the roof. It had a big tower on the side of the house. I remember those days very well, when there was a tower up the side of the house on which there was a television aerial. That is how we used to get our signals for television reception.
That was fine in our family for a while, but one day, not too long after we moved into our house, our three-year old

September 27, 1988
Broadcasting Act
daughter, Kim, was playing in the yard. My wife and I were looking out the back window from the second story and suddenly a face appeared at this window. It was our three-year old daughter, Kim, who climbed up the television tower and was looking in the window at us. As a result of that we decided that that was not a very good way of getting our television reception either and in fact it would be better to make a deal with a cable company and have them string some cable into the house to get our reception that way.
That is the way many people, particularly in urban centres, get their television coverage these days. When you become a cable subscriber sometimes you feel a little as though you might be a captive of the cable company, perhaps a captive of the CRTC because the CRTC regulates the cable companies and allots the territorial franchises for those companies so that there is inevitably just one cable company where you live. You must buy your television signal from one television cable company and you do not have any choice. As a result of that the companies can dictate the kind of programming you get. They set the rate for the cost of that programming and, of course, they do that in conjunction with the CRTC that regulates those companies. That programming is set in a way that sometimes we do not always appreciate.
I do not know whether you have heard from your constituents on that subject but I have heard a lot from my constituency in the last few months about changes in the kinds of stations that are now being received and changes in the rates being charged. Senior citizens in particular, who watch a lot of television, feel rather upset and concerned that they are being dictated to by the cable companies and the CRTC.
People who live in a single family home have another alternative to a cable company. It is the satellite television receiver by which people can bring in signals from everywhere. They do not have to rely on a cable television operation and do not have to pay the cable company. They are not a captive of cable television because they have the right to install their own dish in their own yard.
The interesting part of the satellite receiver is that it is not regulated by this Bill we are discussing this evening, Bill C-136. The Bill exempts from regulation an individual homeowner who might want to put a satellite dish in his or her yard. Individual homeowners like me and others are not governed by the provisions of this Bill. We do not stand to be regulated or licensed. We do not stand to pay a fee. In fact, this Bill exempts single family homeowners specifically from that kind of regulation.
However, people who live in a condominium apartment or townhouse, who are homeowners just like individuals in a single family detached dwelling, would not have an alternative to cable television. They would become subscribers to cable and subject to all those rules and regulations of cable. They could be subject to having to buy the same kind of programming that those cable companies give to everyone else. They could be subject to paying the fees and the increased fees each
year that cable companies seek and which seem to be inevitably approved by the CRTC. They do not have an alternative of a dish or satellite television receiver that a single family detached homeowner would have, unless it was regulated.
The Bill we are discussing tonight regulates condominiums. It does not specifically exempt them from the provisions of the Bill as it does with single family homeowners. That is discriminatory. People who live in condominium apartments and townhouses feel very keenly that they are being discriminated against by this Bill. It is true that if each condominium owner decided to own his or her own satellite dish they would not be regulated. If there was a complex with 40 units and there was a dish on each of the 40 balconies or 40 dishes sitting on the roof, they would not be regulated. They would be considered to be exempt under the terms of the Bill.
However, because there may only be one, two or perhaps three dishes for the whole complex, whether they be town-houses or apartments that are owned just like you or I own a single home, they are subject to regulation. They are subject to be licensed and pay fees. It is not so much that condominium owners feel it is wrong to pay fees, wrong to be regulated or wrong to be licensed, but that they should be treated exactly the same as owners of single family dwellings. I agree with them very strongly. Otherwise, they are being discriminated against.
Condominium owners have gone through this battle many times in the past. They have gone through this battle with respect to property taxes. The House may be aware of the appeals that have been taken by condominium owners against assessments for municipal property taxes based on the fact of discrimination, on the fact that originally when all these condominium complexes were assessed for real estate taxes on a municipal basis they were assessed on the same basis as if they were a business, not as if they were single homes. They were assessed as if they were generating some sort of profit out of this. As a result, they were given the same type of assessment that a rental apartment building would have been given, a building in which there is an owner and tenants, in which the owner charges not only rent to cover the costs but to make a profit.
Condominium complexes originally, and there are probably some still today, were assessed on the same basis because they look like an apartment complex. They were assessed on the same basis as an apartment complex with the assumption that there was some sort of a business profit being generated. It was thought they should have a higher assessment than your home, Madam Speaker, and mine, a single-family detached dwelling.
Of course, condominium owners fought against this and fought against it very hard. There were appeals one after another in my province from city to city, from neighbourhood to neighbourhood, from complex to complex. Eventually, in
September 27, 1988

most cases, certainly in my own constituency, those condominium owners were successful in having their assessments reduced to something comparable to that of your home and mine, Madam Speaker, single-family detached homes and dwellings.
They have been used to this sort of discrimination between single-family home owners and condominium owners over many, many years. They do not like it. It is quite natural that they do not like it. That is why they are upset with this Bill, just in the same way that they were upset with their real estate taxes many years ago, and perhaps to some extent upset with them today because of that discrimination.
You may or may not be aware, Madam Speaker, that many of these complexes were discriminated against, as some undoubtedly are today as well, as far as garbage collection is concerned. Once again municipalities treated them as if they were a profit centre, as if they were a business, as if they were an apartment building with an owner who was generating some profits. The concept for many years with those types of buildings was: "Look, we will charge you some taxes. The taxes may be higher than you might otherwise pay if this were a single home, but you will have to pay this high rate of taxes, and there are certain services we will supply you with". One of those services was garbage collection.
The garbage truck, sanitary engineers from the municipality, did not go around to the apartment buildings to pick up the garbage. That was not part of the tax bill. That was an extra that the apartment owners had to arrange for, had to pay for separately apart from regular garbage collection service. He or she then had to charge that back to the tenant and increase the rents in order to do so. It was the same concept that municipalities originally took with respect to condominiums, whether it be an apartment complex or townhouse complex. It was the same theory that was applied, which was that condominiums are a different sort of animal from the single-family detached home.
Condominium owners fought against that kind of discrimination as well. Eventually, they won, at least in my constituency and in my municipality. They may still be fighting those battles in some other municipalities across the country, but in mine they won.
It is against this background of discrimination, this background of a matter of high principle for condominium owners, a principle which says that they should be treated exactly the same as any other home owner, that they view this Bill. They view it as gross discrimination against them as condominium owners.
This piece of legislation and the particular problem of discriminating against condominium owners with respect to television reception in terms of satellite TV receivers did not start today. It did not start with this Bill. It did not start four years ago with this Government. Quite frankly, it started many years ago with the former Government, the Liberal Government, and the Broadcasting Act which this Bill is aimed at amending and replacing. That sort of discrimination between
Broadcasting Act
single-family home owners and condominium owners was inherent in that legislation, as well as in the legislation that was put in place by the former Liberal Government. Condominium owners did not just suddenly rear up and get excited when they saw this Bill for the first time as it concerns this issue. This is an issue that has been going on with them for years and years. In fact, it has been going on since the early eighties at least.
I recall that when I first made it known that I was going to be standing for Parliament in the last election, representatives of condominium complexes in my riding came to me. They outlined the problem for me and showed me the problem that was in the present legislation that had been put in place by the former Government. They said: "For Heaven's sake, we are counting on you. We are counting on a new Progressive Conservative Government to correct this wrong and to make sure that there is no discrimination in the future".
I took that message and conveyed it to the then Leader of the Official Opposition, the Present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I conveyed it to him in the form of letters that I wrote to him. I conveyed it to him in private meetings. As you may recall, Madam Speaker, I have conveyed it to him publicly in this House during this debate, the debates that have preceded this one and in statements that I have made in the House pursuant to Standing Order 21.
I have tried my best to get the message across that what the Government is doing here is viewed very vehemently and strongly by condominium owners not only in my riding but across Canada as gross discrimination.
I would like to add here that about 5 per cent of the population of Canada-5 per cent of the 25 million or 26 million who live in this country-live in condominiums. We are talking about something in excess of one million people who are potentially affected by this provision in the Bill, a million people in the country who feel that they are discriminated against as a result of this Bill.
It was not just with the Prime Minister that I expressed these concerns. I expressed them with every Minister of Communications and Culture that we have had since the Government took office in 1984. I have had meetings with those Ministers. I have had meetings with their exempt staff and their political staff. I have had meetings with their department officials. I have had meetings separately on my own and I have had meetings collectively with numerous other Members of Parliament who share this concern that I have on behalf of our constituents. It would seem that they have all been to no avail.
Initially, it appeared that we were making progress. You will recall, Madam Speaker, that early on in the mandate of the Government there was another Bill concerning broadcasting, Bill C-20. That particular Bill had inherent in it the same discrimination aspects as this Bill has with respect to condominium owners.

September 27, 1988
Broadcasting Act
It was as a result of that particular piece of legislation and the meetings that took place around it within the Progressive Conservative caucus that an organization called the backbench committee was formed. It is a committee which has been subject to a great deal of discussion, a great deal of debate. Some people, including my friend from Ottawa- Vanier, has characterized it as the dinosaur club of the Progressive Conservative Party. If we are the dinosaurs of the Progressive Conservative Party, we were born as a result of concern arising out of this issue, the issue of cable television, broadcasting, et cetera.
What has to happen is that we must have some changes made to this Bill or we have to see it die. That is what happened to Bill C-20. It died on the Order Paper when the first session of the Thirty-third Parliament came to an end. That Bill was allowed by the Government to die on the Order Paper. At that time it had apparently seen the light. But it did not because subsequently, as we can see, there was this new Bill, Bill C-136. Here we are at third reading. There are a great many people-over one million-in the country who are condominium owners who would like to see this Bill die on the Order Paper. Quite frankly, that is their last hope, their last gasp.
I see that you are giving me the time signal, Madam Speaker, but I hope perhaps somebody will ask me a question and allow me to make one or two further points.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, the Member got my attention when he mentioned my riding of Ottawa-Vanier and referred to my identifying some members of his caucus as dinosaurs. At the time I thought that indeed on the language issue, on Bill C-72, the people who were and are opposing certain amendments to the law of the land were indeed people who spoke of prior times or who represented possibly some thoughts or some trends that were with us many years ago, but he has now enlightened me by telling me that indeed it started with the back-bench committee. I remember that one too, so I thank him for reminding me of the historical significance of the dinosaur dynasty in the Progressive Conservative Party.
I know that the Member has a great interest in the condominium question on Bill C-136. I know that he has had a number of constituents call and write to him, and he has made us aware of the numerous interventions of his constituents.
He is certainly aware that our concerns have been similar to his in dealing with the wording of the definition of "distribution undertaking" in Clause 2(1), which, when taken together with Clause 4(3), would clearly bring the MATV, the master of TV systems, under the Act to the extent that they receive and distribute broadcast signals.
I want to quote something from the Canadian Bar Association's brief which I have before me and which impressed me as being somewhat enlightening and revealing of what, I would suppose, a very good body of lawyers would have to say about
the subject of Bill C-136. I may want to ask the Member to comment on that.
They state in their brief to the legislative committee on Bill C-136, "There continues to be an omission in the Act, namely the situation where an apartment or hotel distribution system, either using encrypted radio signals or a closed circuit cable system, provides programs solely to the tenants of the apartment building or the guest rooms of an hotel. Constitutional issues aside, in that case, the new Act would not apply to the system because the signals would probably not be thought of as being intended for reception by the public". That is the end of the quote from the testimony of the Canadian Bar Association.
I wonder if the Member, who I think has a good background in law-1 do not know if he is a lawyer, but he impresses me sometimes with his arguments-could explain to us if he has had any representations or comments from lawyers dealing maybe with the legalistic point of view here. It may be narrower than saying, as he has been telling us in the House, that indeed we should treat condominium owners as singledwelling property owners are treated, that is, having the right to utilize the MATV systems.
I wonder if he could bring us up to date on the legal approaches to this Bill. Is he satisfied, for example, that there is a fuzziness to the Bill that would make it possible for a court to have to pass judgment on the interpretations of these clauses, and is there a danger that we are indeed going to be finding ourselves in a legal mess, in a few months or a few years down the road, with this wording of the definition of distribution undertaking, in Clauses 2(1) and 4(3)?


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for his comments. I might say that the Canadian Bar Association's brief and their comments were made to the legislative committee dealing with this Bill before amendments were made to that clause that the Hon. Member referred to, the distribution undertaking clause.
In that committee, on the clause-by-clause passage of the Bill, there was an amendment made to this clause, as the Hon. Member knows, which added to the end of the definition of distribution undertaking the words "or dwelling unit, or to another such undertaking".
The purpose of that amendment, of course, was to try to solve the problem that had been pointed out by the Bar Association and raised by the Hon. Member, to take the fuzziness out of that definition. But in taking the fuzziness out of the definition, it in fact made it quite clear, in the eyes of the lawyers for the Department and in the eyes of the public, that what they were doing was excluding specifically single family home owners and not excluding other people.
In fact, I appeared in committee and put questions specifically to the lawyers from the Department of Justice who were there with respect to this Bill. I asked them if the wording "distribution undertaking", as amended at that committee, would catch something like a senior citizens' home. He said
September 27, 1988

yes, of course. A senior citizens' home would have to be regulated and licensed and pay fees if it had one of these dishes.
I asked similarly if it would catch a hotel and that sort of thing. Again, that was the same story. There has been this effort to clarify it, but in so clarifying it, it has reinforced the discriminatory aspect of the Bill.
In fact, it is interesting to note that in dealing with this Bill and in seeking advice from the Minister as to how this Bill is going to be applied, the Minister has told me and told every condominium owner who has contacted her in this regard, "Have no fear about this Bill. You will be excluded from this Bill by regulation".
We know, of course, that the Bill catches you and regulates you and it may license and require you to pay a fee. But she said, "Don't worry about it, because we are going to pass a regulation that will exclude you. So there is nothing to worry about".
Why is it, the condominium owners ask, if we are going to be excluded anyway by regulation, that we do not put it specifically in the Bill and say that it is quite clear, you are excluded by legislation, not by regulation?
For some reason the Minister does not seem prepared to do that. The condominium owners attribute the Minister's statement to the cable companies. They say it is because of the cable company lobby and that this country is not being run by a government of the people, by the people, for the people, but in fact it is being run by the cable companies, and it is a government of the cable companies, by the cable companies, and for the cable companies, and that in fact this sort of thing is discriminatory and a real disappointment to condominium owners across the country, and it is to me, too.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments is now concluded. We will now proceed to the adjournment debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT DEBATE


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, the abuse of Canada's immigration system by individuals who are undesirable, both in Canada and in their native countries, is becoming a major problem bordering on a serious crisis.
Adjournment Debate
Francesco Piperno, a noted Italian terrorist, successfully stayed in Canada for more than seven years. He was convicted in Italy of complicity in the murder of former Premier, Aldo Moro, in 1978. Mr. Moro was elected to office by open, democratic elections. Italy had had a democratic Government since World War II, and any changes to its society are made by the ballot box and not through violence.
The Red Brigades, of which Mr. Piperno was a member, was committed to a communist revolution to be achieved by violent means. Democracy meant nothing to these committed terrorists. Their only objective was to destroy freedom and replace it with their own notions of tyranny. The Red Brigades were noted for their terror tactics which were responsible for killing hundreds of innocent human beings.
Therefore, it is ironic that Mr. Piperno, who despised democracy, would choose the democratic system which guarantees all people freedom, to defend him from being returned to Italy to stand trial. Mr. Piperno came to Canada and claimed refugee status. The Italian Government issued a warrant for his arrest for his role in the murder of Aldo Moro, the former Italian Premier, and it attempted to extradite him in 1983. In fact, for more than seven years Mr. Piperno used all the legal means at his disposal in Canada to avoid having to return to Italy to stand trial. Mr. Piperno was even able to land a job teaching physics at the University of Alberta while he continued his fight to stay in Canada. The final irony, he applied for refugee status, refugee status in a democratic country.
Mr. Piperno's case is a celebrated one. However, this occurrence is becoming more widespread in our immigration system. Individuals with criminal records, notorious criminals, murderers, and terrorists are taking advantage of our laws to escape prosecution in their own lands.
This is not right. If an individual commits a major crime in another country, that individual must be punished in the country where the crime was committed, if he can be assured of a fair trial. Individuals cannot be allowed to circumvent justice by escaping to Canada and using our legal system to avoid punishment for their deeds. The Canadian public must be protected from these types of individuals. We Canadians are a very generous group of people who place the rights of the individual above all other commitments. Thus, we have a major quandary on our hands.
At what stage do the rights of a society supersede the rights of an individual? We must remember that the individuals with whom we are dealing are not Canadian citizens or landed immigrants. Should those individuals who are not Canadian citizens or landed immigrants be granted the same rights and access to protection of Canadians laws as are available to all Canadians? Should Canadians be allowed to foot the bill for those individuals who are deliberately using our system of justice to evade punishment for a crime committed in their native country?

September 27, 1988
Adjournment Debate
I believe that as legislators it is our duty to address this very serious problem, for it relates directly to the society we want for Canada. At present, due to the past policies of the previous Liberal Government, and the intransigent actions of the other place on Bills C-55 and C-84, our system has become inundated with false claims by individuals with unsavoury backgrounds. This, in turn, has sent out a false message to the world that, if one can get to Canada, one will have at his or her disposal all the mechanisms enjoyed by Canadian citizens and landed immigrants.
In addition, individuals who use Canada's immigration laws and legal system to escape prosecution for capital offences committed in foreign lands, create a negative impression of our system of justice. Canadians have every right to ask whether a dual system of justice is being practised. The taking of an innocent life in another country is the same as taking that life in Canada. Murder is a capital offence in all civilized societies, regardless of the political stripe of a government.
If one can escape to Canada after committing a murder, are we in effect condoning that crime, if an individual is somehow successful in staying in Canada? What if an individual who has committed a crime and has managed to escape to Canada and while using our legal system to gain status here, commits another murder? Who is responsible for the termination of an innocent life? The individual would still be alive if the perpetrator of the crime had not been allowed access into Canada and used our legal system to further his or her position. Therefore, even though the Government has passed legislation which will stop the cheaters and criminals of the world from entering Canada under false pretenses, further action is required. We need short-term measures which will prevent abuse of our immigration system until January 1, 1989 when the provisions of Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 come into effect.
Second, all individuals in Canadian jails who are fighting extradition to other countries for committing a capital offence should be sent back. Charles Ng is a prime example of an individual who committed the most heinous crimes in California and is still in Canada after four years of fighting extradition to the United States.
Third, any individual who commits terrorist acts in countries which have democratic Governments should be returned to those nations.
Fourth, all terrorists who commit crimes against innocent civilians, such as airplane hijackers, should be returned to those countries to face justice.
The message must be clear to all that Canada only wants those who are peaceful and law-abiding. Individuals who do not meet this criterion need not bother to come to Canada for they will be sent back. Canada was built by those individuals who had the greatest respect for the law. It is up to us as legislators to ensure that Canada continues this tradition. Our
democratic institutions are our greatest asset and sometimes one of our weaknesses, but the more we recognize how fragile our democratic institutions really are, the more we will do to strengthen them. I am certain that our immigration system will once again acquire a worldwide reputation of being fair and accessible by those individuals who possess all the qualities which will continue to strengthen Canada.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for following up on his question. When he asked the question in May of 1987, the Minister could not give a full and complete reply because the case was before the Immigration Appeal Board. Subsequently, Mr. Piperno voluntarily left Canada, in January of this year, and withdrew all of his legal applications.
I guess this emphasizes the reality that someone can come to Canada as a visitor and despite being convicted of a very serious offence which resulted in a ten-year sentence, remain in this country until January of this year. It emphasizes for the House and Canadians the problem with the law that was on the books prior to this Parliament's action early last fall and the Senate's subsequent concurrence in our judgment a year later. It is a bit of a shame that the Senate took so long to approve legislation passed by democratically elected members of this Chamber, and we have to live with the consequences.
I would like to pay tribute to the Hon. Member. I served with him on the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration. He has had a longstanding interest in helping change the legislation so we could separate the true immigrant and the true refugee from those who would abuse our system. He brought to our attention a case of what he viewed to be abuse, and I am pleased to report that the law has been changed and the man in question has left the country and is currently serving his sentence in Italy.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-ESTONIA-RECOGNITION OF HONORARY CONSUL GENERAL
Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, have you been nominated as yet for the upcoming election? I am pleased to hear that. That is good. I have as well. I was nominated in a wonderful community centre in my riding called the Latvian Cultural Centre. That is really a great spot. I hope you will have an opportunity to visit it one day because it is the centre of the Latvian community in my riding and in Metropolitan Toronto. They have all sorts of Latvian cultural activities, language classes, history classes and dancing classes. I know you would enjoy them. As well, it is really a community centre for the whole neighbourhood. In fact, I have had fund raising dinners there, I think about six. I was nominated there in 1982 and again earlier this year. It is a very active place and a great spot in our community.
One of the reasons it is located there is that it attracts an awful lot of Canadians of Latvian origin who live in nearby neighbourhoods. I have a lot of Canadians of Latvian origin in
September 27, 1988

my constituency. Interestingly enough, just outside my constituency is the Estonian Cultural Centre, called Estonia House, on Broadview Avenue. As a result of that, of course, there are a lot of Estonian Canadians who live nearby as well. In addition, we have a goodly number of Lithuanian Canadians.
You are aware, Madam Speaker, that Canadians of Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian origin are called Baltic peoples. They come from the Baltic nations, if you will, and in fact I suppose something like 2.1 per cent of all my constituents could be described as being originally from the Baltic states. I am sure you are aware, Madam Speaker, that back in the 13th century-that is quite a way back and we have to look at history-Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were independent countries. After that they became dominated by one neighbouring country after another and lost their independence but never the goal of freedom and independence.
After the First World War in 1918, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania became once again sovereign, independent, free nations. They remained that way until the Second World War, in fact, until 1940, when the Red Army of the Soviet Union invaded them and in so doing broke three peace-keeping treaties or non-aggression pacts with those three nations. Those Baltic states were devastated by the Soviets. In fact, in one month alone in the year 1941, while the Soviet Red Army was occupying those three countries, over 100,000 people were sent off to labour camps. Thousands were imprisoned, tortured or murdered.
On top of that, in 1941 the Nazis invaded and wreaked the same sort of devastation. About 300,000 Jewish residents of those three nations were deported or executed during the Nazi occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania during the Second World War.
After all that came the Yalta Conference in which Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Stalin got together and divided up Europe into spheres of influence, deciding that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania should be in the Soviet sphere of influence. Immediately after that, within the next few years, with the Soviet troops again occupying those countries, something like 500,000 people of Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian origin were deported to the Soviet Union. Between 1940 and the early 1950s about 10 per cent of the total population just disappeared, deported to the Soviet Union.
Canada recognized the independence, sovereignty and freedom of those three Baltic states, namely, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. When they were taken over and occupied by the Soviets, Canada never recognized that illegal annexation or occupation. We have always considered, as far as legalities were concerned, that those three countries should remain independent nations.
Each of those nations has an honorary Consul General here in Canada. Up until 1972, those honorary Consuls General of
Adjournment Debate
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania here in Canada were officially recognized and listed in a publication of the Department of External Affairs called The Diplomatic Corps and Consular and Other Representatives in Canada. However, since 1972, they have not been listed in our Canadian diplomatic directory. That is not so in other countries. Lor instance, the United States and Australia officially recognize the honorary Consuls General of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to those countries. Here in Canada, since 1972 when we dropped them from our official recognition list, we have been thinking about it and considering whether we should put them back on the list and whether we should in some way recognize them again.
It seems rather strange that for 16 years now, Canada has been thinking about this and wondering about it, and Canadians of Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian origin and many others including me wonder if it is just that we are slow thinkers and learners in Canada. What is going on that it is taking so long, or is it really that we are lacking in courage? Is that the whole reason for it?
Recently, even Mr. Gorbachev, the Secretary General of the Soviet Union, seems to have had more courage with respect to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania than we Canadians have had. In fact, recently Mr. Gorbachev has allowed Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania to ask publicly to be made sovereign states and have sovereign status, to have representatives at the United Nations, to have representation at the Olympics, to have control of their own press and to have control over foreign travel and their own military and secret police. He has allowed Estonia actually to set up a commission to investigate the status of the deportations.
Why is it that Mr. Gorbachev has all this courage? If Mr. Gorbachev can have all this courage, why can't Canada have the same sort of courage and recognize in our diplomatic registry the Honorary Consuls General of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania? Why is that?


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Madam Speaker, first, I think that I should congratulate my colleague from York East (Mr. Redway) for the excellent presentation he has just given us on Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. I would like, perhaps, to remind his constituents that in defending them so vigorously, he shows, I think, how sensitive he is to the ethnic communities and how welcoming Canada is as a country, one that is built on such ethnic communities.
And that also is why the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) had the pleasure to reiterate in the House the policy of the Canadian Government on the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. He clearly stated at the outset that we have no intention to recognize de jure the occupation of these countries by the Soviet Union since 1940. However, like all Canadian Governments since that time, we recognize

September 27, 1988
Adjournment Debate
their de facto annexation, because the Soviet Union exercises its authority over this territory.
This statement of principle is based on some concrete actions. The Government continues to allow acting honorary consuls from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to perform their duties in Canada.
Official relations with the authorities of the Baltic States are limited. No Canadian ambassador goes to the region. Other Canadian officials who go there avoid relations with the local authorities as much as possible.
Special procedures have been established to make it easier for Baltic representatives in other countries to come to Canada in the exercise of their duties.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania may be shown as acceptable birthplaces on Canadian passports and immigration documents.
To reassure my colleague from York East (Mr. Redway), these measures and others show that Canada still refuses to accept Soviet control over the Baltic States, and Soviet authorities are fully aware of that.
As to the listing of Acting Honourary Consul Generals of the Baltic States in the Department of External Affairs publication entitled "The Diplomatic Corps and Consular and Other Representatives in Canada", our policy is not to delete the names already listed but not to add the names of new consuls. Successive Canadian Governments did review the question and decided to maintain this policy.
In conclusion I would say that the Minister is very much aware of the concerns voiced by Canada's Baltic community and, without losing sight of the wider consequences relating to our foreign policy, he will certainly make it a point to take them under very serious consideration on every appropriate occasion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, September 28, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers