1988-09-19

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 seven petitions numbered as follows: 332-5295, 332-5309, 332-5312 and 332-5319 to 332-5322, inclusive.
[Editor's Note: See Today's Votes and Proceedings.}


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: I want to bring to your attention that, under Standing Order 64 of the House of Commons, it is compulsory, when a Member has asked a question that it be replied to within 45 days. There is no exception, no means by which the Government can evade that particular responsibility. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that that is sometimes not done. By and large the House is cooperative with the government Members. Whenever there is a delay of a few days, Members usually extend their cooperation to the Government. However, we reach a point when our patience does come to an end.
Question 289 in my name has been standing on the Order Paper since March 15, 1988. To refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker, it relates to the number of contracts, awards, and
funds that were given to one Jean Sirois of Quebec City by the Government. That question has been on the Order Paper since March 15. The 45 day deadline has gone from 45 to 90 days and now beyond.
The Member across may think that the rules of the House are irrelevant. Perhaps that is the opinion of the Government, and perhaps that is why the question remains unanswered. As the custodian of the rules of this House, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask you if there is any means by which the Government could be compelled to reply to a legitimate question, one which is within the rules, and has not been challenged in terms of its legality, yet remains unanswered.
I have met privately with the Minister and suggested that, even if the list were not completed, I would be willing to offer my support at least to the tabling of the part of the answer that was available from the Government. Yet no reply even comes from that suggestion. The fact that the Government refuses to respond to this question obviously leads one to believe that the answer could potentially be one that would cause certain embarassment to the Government, therefore, it is withholding the information. If that is the case it is not right.
If there is another reason, I am willing to listen to what the reason is, and why the rules of this House are being breached in a cavalier fashion the way that they are in relation to Standing Order 64 as it applies to question No. 289 standing on the Order Paper of the House of Commons since March 15, 1988.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to contribute to this exchange of comments and remind the House that not so long ago, several weeks or maybe a month, I asked the Chair to look into the whole issue of the forty-five day limit. As the Hon. Member pointed out, the Government is supposed to answer a question within forty-five days, when so requested. When the Government fails to reply within forty-five days, as happens occasionally, no penalty is applied. No corrective action is taken, and we have no way of raising the issue in the House for debate.
I asked the Chair to look into the matter. Perhaps it has had time to consider the question and could give us an answer today or at least take the matter under advisement and refer it to the appropriate committee and ask the committee to see whether it would be possible to include corrective measures in Standing Order 64(3) and (6). It may be an academic question, but as far as the Standing Orders are concerned, it is frustrating for Members who put important questions to the


Canada Child Care Act
Government when they do not receive a satisfactory reply within the prescribed forty-five-day period. The Government says it can do nothing. True, except that we depend on the good faith and the good will of the Government to provide the requested replies, and if the Government does not want to do that, there are a number of solutions we can suggest to the Chair for obtaining satisfaction when a question has been asked.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) is quite right to feel insulted and to think that perhaps his privileges have been breached. He asked a question. I don't know whether it was embarrassing to the Government, and it is not for me to judge, but all I know is that we have a provision in our Standing Orders that says that the Government is supposed to answer within forty-five days of the question being tabled. It usually does that. It would seem that the Government does not want to answer this particular question. If that is the case, the Government should say so. At least we would know where we are!


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) and by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I believe that in this situation, there is no question of the Government's being reluctant to answer a question. Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to believe that the issue here is the complexity of the question and the information to be provided the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. In fact, since this Government was sworn in four years ago, the Government has always acted to provide the House and Hon. Members with the maximum amount of information, as quickly as possible, so that the House can get on with its business and Members can get the information they asked for.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would like to make it clear to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and also to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier that the Government does not intend to evade the Standing Orders, including Standing Order 64(6). The Government's intention is to give each question put by Hon. Members the attention it deserves, but again. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that occasionally, a question is so complex that it takes more time to obtain the information.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary who has just risen in his seat has said absolutely nothing, with due respect. He told us that sometimes questions are complicated; that may be so.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: It is the answers that are complicated.


Don Boudria: The Minister of Health is probably correct when he says the Government would be in a rather complicated situation if it tried to answer the question at hand. However, Mr. Speaker, I am still looking for a commitment from
the Parliamentary secretary. Will he or will he not answer the question pursuant to the rules of this House?
To refresh the memory of Members and of the Speaker, however, I am sure the Speaker is quite familiar with the rules. Standing Order 64(3)(b) states:
A Member may request that the Ministry respond to a specific question
within forty-five days by so indicating when filing his or her question.
Question No. 289 is marked with a number 2 beside it at the bottom of the page, which indicates that an answer is requested within 45 days. As far as I am concerned it is not a matter of choice that the Government has to have one of its Members stand in the House and state that he wants the House to know that this may be complicated. That is not good enough.
In order that Members of the House and all Canadians know what in fact I have asked of the Government, I have asked how many taxpayers' dollars-what is the amount of loot-that was given to Jean Sirois, a friend of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). That is all I want to know.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), and the Parliamentary Secretary for raising this matter.
As the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier so ably put it, under the existing Standing Orders there is absolutely nothing the Chair can do concerning this problem.
However I believe this is an important question which ought to be deferred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. Perhaps I might urge the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier to make the appropriate request to the Hon. Member for Timiskaming to have the matter considered or possibly to improve the Standing Orders for the next Parliament.
Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, September 16, consideration of Bill C-144, an Act to authorize payments by Canada toward the provision of child care services, and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the amendment of Ms. Mitchell:
[Stage Direction]

Motion No. 38
That Bill C-144 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is I think unfortunate that the House has not taken as close a look as it should have at some of the serious problems with this day care plan of the Conservative Party. As was stressed by some of our members in the debate, the number of witnesses was very severely constrained. The possibility of hearing witnesses from a variety of different parts of the country was prevented by the committee itself. As a result, we have a Bill reported back to the House containing some serious difficulties.
With these amendments we are attempting to do two things. First, to try to solve some of those problems. Second, to try to put in front of Canadians an alternative approach to day care. We think this approach would not only be much more efficient, would not only meet the needs of Canadian women and children much more effectively, but would do so in a manner which embodies strong national directions and objectives for day care of which we can be proud.
This particular amendment is complicated in that it attempts to remove a consequential amendment to the Bill dealing with the Canada Assistance Plan. CAP, as Members are aware, is the mechanism by which the federal Government provides support to people who cannot afford to meet expenditures which most of us are able to pay for, expenditures not only with respect to child care but in a large number of other areas with respect to their welfare. This Bill is a shift from the past approach of directing all federal Government support to child care through CAP. Consequently, the Conservative Government has to amend CAP itself in order to reduce the circumstances under which such child care assistance is distributed.
I want to take just a couple of minutes if I can to back up this amendment in the much broader approach which the NDP wants to take with respect to child care. I do it on the basis of two important pieces of evidence. The first comes from my own constituency of Essex-Windsor and the large number of people who are in need of day care there. The many different homes I visited over the past four and five years take care of children under ad hoc arrangements which do not have the kind of creativity, careful planning and attention to facilities which have to be there in official day care facilities. It is not that love for the children is not there on the part of the people running these ad hoc arrangements. Very often it is a case of the cost being low and parents choosing this arrangement because that is all they can afford. They cannot afford the official day care authorized by the provinces. Yet the need exists and it is desperate. I can think of thousands of people in my own constituency who share this need, and I suspect that close to two million children across Canada will not receive the kind of day care they should receive as a result of the Government's Bill.
Canada Child Care Act
Finally, on a personal note, I would like to tell Hon. Members that both my children went to day care facilities, which were excellent, official, inspected facilities, at a time when these facilities were less expensive and access was easier. Even at that time, however, there were waiting lists. My children found that experience to be tremendously stimulating and beneficial for them as individuals. They found it to be tremendously valuable in terms of their ability to work through the school system effectively and well in the future.
We are not talking only about solving a problem which exists for working parents, though that is important. We are also talking about creating a situation for children which will be much better than the situations in which many of them find themselves at the present time.
In a previous debate, I called for a child-centered policy for Canada. We do not have such a policy. When I hear people talking about eliminating abortion as being the heart of dealing with the problems of children, I say to them that the real answer is a child-centered policy that puts a decent day care strategy into effect. That is not what we will get with this Bill. That is why we have moved this amendment, and I hope it carries.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 38 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 38 (Ms. Mitchell) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on report stage of the Bill now before the House.
Call in the Members.
During the ringing of the bells:


Broadcasting Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has been asked by the Acting Government Whip to defer the vote until 6 p.m. today.


BROADCASTING ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, September 16, consideration of Bill C-136, an Act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions Nos. 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 48, 55 and 74 are grouped for debate. Motions Nos. 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 48, 55 and 74 will be voted on separately. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 19 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 20, and a negative vote on Motion No. 19 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 20.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal) moved:: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 33 at page 3 the following:
"(ii) 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."


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 40 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
''rations, of Canadian men, women and children,"


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 17
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 8 and 9 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"provide programming that is predominantly Canadian, using predominantly Canadian crea-".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 18
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 11 to 18 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"and presentation of programming;".


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 19
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 19 to 24 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(f) all persons licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility for the programs they originate, and such programming should be of high standard;".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 20
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 21 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"high standard and should provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern;"
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 29 and 30 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"enment and entertainment for men and women of all ages, interests, and tastes,"


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 22
That Bill C-136 be amended in clause 3
(a)	by striking out lines 33 and 34 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(iii) include community programs,"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 41 at page 4 the following:
"(i) facilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system for educational broadcasting".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 23
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 45 at page 4 the following:
"(j) that broadcasting services reflecting the aboriginal cultures of Canada shall be provided where numbers warrant and as resources become available for the purpose;"
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 5 by adding immediately after line
27	at page 8 the following:
"(b) ensures that predominantly Canadian creative and other resources are used in the programming of the Canadian broadcasting system;"


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 55
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 10 by striking out line 10 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"3(1);".
Motion No. 74
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 44 by striking out line 14 at page
28	and substituting the following therefor:
"contemplated by subclause 3(1) and in particular paragraphs 3(1 )(j) and 3(1 )(k),".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just so that we all understand the process, did I hear you say that every one of those motions will be debated together but voted on separately?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is correct, with the exception that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 19 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 20 and a negative vote on Motion No. 19 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 20.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members should be aware of the fact that eight of the motions we are dealing with refer to Clause 3, the broadcasting policy. One motion refers to Clause 5, which deals with the objects and powers of the commission, and Clause 10, which falls under the regulations and general powers of the commission. One motion deals with Clause 44, which refers to the objects and powers of the CBC.
These motions are important and fundamental, yet they are very difficult to deal with all in one shot. I will, however, try to suggest to the Minister that these clauses need to be very seriously reviewed by the Minister. I hope the motions will find favour with her.
1 do believe it was the intention of the Minister to see that this aspect of the broadcasting system would reflect the concerns I will try to outline in my argument. Clause 14 relates to Part C of the broadcast policy for Canada. In outlining the broadcasting policy, we have neglected to express our desire for Canadian content and Canadian expression in a very direct way so that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the CRTC. The Minister's response-


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry that I was tied up elsewhere when debate on Bill C-136 began.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Did you issue the writ? That's the question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You would really like me to tell you what is going on.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Was your meeting successful? Tell us all about it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would like to indicate, for the purposes of debate on this grouping of amendments, that I am prepared to accept Motion No. 14, Motion No. 15 and Motion No. 21.


Sheila Finestone: I thank the Minister very much for that information. Is that the motion which will recognize children and youth?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yes.


Sheila Finestone: I am very pleased with that amendment.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is just that the motion of the Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) comes ahead of yours.


Sheila Finestone: That does not matter. The Member's motion is along the same vein as mine. I am sure that that was a mere oversight. I am quite pleased that the programming goals will be clearly defined.
My next concern relates to Motion No. 17. The Minister has been good enough to accept Motion No. 14, and Motion No. 17 is directly related to it. It indicates the mechanism of how
Broadcasting Act
to make the system work in order that broadcasting undertakings, which include the programming undertakings, distribution undertakings, and network undertakings, operate within the Canadian system. It defines how we can ensure that it is recognizably and predominantly Canadian. I recommend to the Minister a review of that particular amendment. Perhaps we can hear about that when we vote on that amendment.
I point out to the Minister that since the Aird report of 1929 until the present there has been a continuing concern about the relatively limited amount of Canadian programming available on our Canadian channels. I need not remind the Minister of that, she has spoken about it at great length. We have been trying to ensure that we will have increased Canadian programming on our sets. As she well knows, since the spread of cable over 70 per cent of the English language television programs available to Canadians are foreign, for the most part American, and only 2 per cent of all the drama programming in English is Canadian while 10 per cent is French. We want not only made-in-Canada programs but programs which are reflective of Canada. Clause 3(l)(e) has weakened the possibilities of that and I strongly recommend a change in that regard.
With reference to the next series of amendments, our committee recommended very strongly that the developers, conceivers, and makers of the program should be responsible for them. The Minister has essentially made the cable companies, the carriers, responsible for the content of the programs which come through their systems. I suggest that that is unfair. The responsibility for programs which are broadcast should stop with the licensee.
The Canadian Bar Association presented a brief after our hearings. They brought to the Minister's attention the following:
In the new Act, by contrast, the term "broadcast", used as a verb, would probably be seen by a court as referring back to the definition of the word "broadcasting" in Section 2. Thus, paragraph 3(1 )(f) of the new Act would also impose a responsibility on distribution undertakings for programs they retransmit by wire, since such a retransmission would constitute "broadcasting" for the purposes of the Act, even though it only be "other means of telecommunications" not by radio waves.
So cable is included unfairly since, as you and I know, its primary function is to be a carrier. That is inconsistent with the Caplan-Sauvageau report, our broadcasting report, and the concern which the CCTA expressed. I ask the Minister to review what I perceive to be a very serious problem in this particular area.
The next area with which I would like to deal is that of educational broadcasters. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in the last few days, addressed the importance of the problem of illiteracy which faces this country. He talked about allocating $110 million over the next seven years. That is not very much money but at least it goes in the direction of the concerns which I have raised consistently in our standing committee, particularly in relation to the creative use of captioning for the serious illiteracy problem which we have in


Broadcasting Act
our country. I am sure the Minister would agree with me that it is a bondage on one-quarter of the Canadian population.
Some adult Canadians who are able to read and write cannot understand what they are reading. They do not comprehend it. Illiteracy has been called the secret shame of Canada. One-quarter of the Canadian population cannot read the instructions on a soup label or the instructions on how to fill out their income tax return.
A creative approach to addressing this problem through the Broadcasting Act would be to run open captioning along with programs in many areas. Adults who are too ashamed to admit that they cannot read could learn by referring the writing under the pictures to the words they hear. This would be a most effective way to be good educational broadcasters.
The key problem is that there is no reference in this Bill to educational broadcasting as such. Instead, a reference is made to educational programs. That is embedded in Clause 3(1 )(r) which reads, "including educational and community programs".
The goal of my amendment is to focus on the role of the community and programmers, which are the responsibility of the cable system, and to separate that out from the role of the educational broadcasters. It is fundamental that the Broadcasting Act make provisions to license, by the CRTC, educational broadcasting services which are established by provincial Governments and that such services be regarded as an integral part of the Canadian broadcasting system.
The Minister herself told us, in her response on June 23, 1988, that there is no agreement among provincial Governments and broadcasters regarding a more specific reference in the new Act and that the existing arrangements, which define what constitutes educational broadcasting through an Order in Council, remain workable. However, it is not clear enough. The CRTC needs direction. The existing language in the 1968 Bill is satisfactory, and I recommend that we go back to Section 3(1) of the old Bill.
There is one last area which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, and that relates to Motion No. 55 which is with regard to the standards of programs and the allocation of broadcasting time for the purpose of giving effect to the programming objectives set out in Clause 3(1 )(f) and (h). The amendment which I have proposed would remove subclauses (f) and (h) and make the application to all of the broadcasting policy in Clause 3(1). It would set the standards for the entire broadcasting system. I would like to point out to the Minister that Clause 10(l)(c) presently contains all of the sections found in the Bill under Clause 3(1). I suggest that we move it into Clause 3(1).
I gather that I cannot speak to Motion No. 74 which I consider to be a very important motion. I hope-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would Hon. Members agree to give two more minutes to the Hon. Member in order to complete her remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sheila Finestone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out to the Minister that with respect to Motion No. 74, and this might have been an oversight, the motion relates to the fact that we have given a specific mandate for programming purposes to the CBC, as found in Clause 44. However, it creates a problem because it leaves out aboriginals and the disabled. I believe that is a drafting error. I would ask the Minister if she would be good enough to check this motion. I have already asked my colleague from Edmonton to check the motion since it was of concern. I think that it is strictly a drafting error. I hope that the Minister will entertain an inclusion of all of the concerns found under Clause 3(1), but in particular paragraphs (j) and (k), which set out the mandate of the CBC. I believe that the Minister would have wanted aboriginals and the disabled to be covered.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here in the House after having flown overnight from Vancouver with my friend across the aisle, fresh and ready to debate this Bill today.
I want to thank the Minister for accepting these two amendments which I think are important. Motion No. 14, an amendment in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), is the same as my Motion No. 16. It was put forward by the Canadian production community. Without entering into a big debate about the matter in committee, we called it the "Night Heat" debate, something which is reflected in the statement of Paul Siren of the Canadian Conference on the Arts to the legislative committee when he described rather well the notion of producing Canadian programs that are distinctively Canadian and which reflect our culture. I am not talking about an American cop show which is made in Canada, but a cop show that is Canadian and which reflects our distinctiveness and culture. Some people call this a subtle distinction. It is not that subtle. It is a very important distinction. We have tried to include it in the Bill through this expression of encouraging the development of Canadian expression. I think this is good because in the future I see Canadians producing a wide range of programs for international markets in the global village. I see that we want it to reflect Canadian distinctiveness and culture.
Motion No. 15, which has been accepted by the Minister, would include children, along with men and women, in the Bill. This is very important for obvious reasons. Children spend so much time watching television. Thus the broadcast industry and the television networks, or the television that we are describing here, has to take into consideration the impact on children. This was a suggestion put forward by the Children's Broadcasting Institute and the Canadian Broadcast League, among others. I am grateful that the Minister has accepted it.


Motion No. 18 is a motion which I moved. I will try to explain it this way. The clause of the Bill with which it deals states:
(e) each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming-
There was a great deal of effort to have the word "predominant" included in the Bill. However, the clause continues:
-unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking, such as specialized content or format or use of languages other than French and English, renders that use impracticable, in which case the undertaking shall make the greatest practicable use of those resources;
I think that is a clause through which a truck could be driven. Therefore I proposed the amendment to eliminate all the words after the word "programming".
A good example of what is meant by this is set out in a letter that I received from the Canadian Broadcasting League over the signature of Rose Potvin. She wrote this:
Dear Mr. Waddell,
The Canadian Broadcasting League was delighted, when we appeared before you, to learn that the Minister had agreed to amend Bill C-136 to include the "predominantly Canadian" phrase in the policy section of the Bill.
We have now received a copy of the Minister's amendments. The phrase has been included in Clause 3 but attached to it are so many qualifiers that virtually any broadcaster can claim an exemption.
As we stated in our presentation to the Legislative Committee there is no reason to water down the policy section of Bill C-136 as the CRTC has the discretion to allow lower levels of Canadian content for certain licensees either by condition of license or by regulation.
If there is any difficulty over "predominant", the CRTC can cover it. Let us not put these extra words in the Bill which I say will emasculate the use of the word "predominant". We will not be able to succeed in doing what we set out to do.
The private sector, according to various reports, including a House of Commons committee have stated:
Every royal commission and task force has said the same thing, and each of them-like the parliamentary committee-has then expressed the pious hope that private broadcasters would finally deliver what they promised when they were licensed. Year after year, the broadcasters have declined to do so-
In other words, they have promised to do better in terms of predominant Canadian content, something they never seem to deliver on.
Motion No. 20 would strike out line 21 at page 4 and substitute the following:
"high standard and should provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern;
The clause which we are dealing with here in the bill tries to deal with balance. It deals with having balanced programming. Here it is deemed as a goal of the whole system to offer the public the right to be exposed to differing points of view on matters of public concern. We think, and this is why the amendment is here, that that should be the obligation of each broadcasting undertaking instead of the system as a whole. If it is made to be subject to the system as a whole then some station which everybody watches, for example in British
Broadcasting Act
Columbia, takes a very biased point of view, then another station, which hardly anybody watches, gives some room for the other side. We have met the whole standard for the system but it is not really fair and not really what we are attempting to do in terms of expressing a balanced point of view.
I know that this is a tough area, given free speech and guarantees of free speech and freedom of the press. However, I have had experience in British Columbia with this in election campaigns and other areas. It can be seen that these are public airwaves and these people do not own them. There has to be balance in them. Each broadcaster should be obligated to have that balance. We are not Americans in spite of how much the Government wants to make us Americans.
I believe Motion No. 21 was accepted by the Minister. It again would improve the human rights provision, and I congratulate the Minister on that. Of course during her political career she has always been open to women's issues long before those of us who were converted to that issue understood why it was so important.
Let me continue since I only have 10 minutes to deal with all the amendments. I thought the Government would consider accepting Motion No. 23. Motion No. 23 would amend Clause 3 by adding:
that broadcasting services reflecting the aboriginal cultures of Canada shall be provided where numbers warrant and as resources become available for the purpose.
This motion reflects the views of a number of aboriginal organizations that appeared before the legislative committee. The Bill as it stands makes reference to the need for alternate broadcasting services in the French and English languages. However, we believe that very little has been done to recognize and respond to the communications difficulties of our aboriginal peoples.
As it stands, the Bill provides little reason to believe that this situation will change.
Clause 3(n) merely suggests that programming that reflects aboriginal culture should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available.
As the Canadian Broadcasting League noted in its appearance before the legislative committee: "This gives provision for broadcasting services for aboriginal communities no priority at all".
We believe that the approach represented in our amendment is much more positive. It says that broadcasting services reflecting the aboriginal cultures of Canada should be provided where numbers warrant. In doing so, it adopts the language found in the standing committee report which was supported by members of all Parties. It would assure that aboriginal people have access, whether it be the South or the North, to broadcasting services that they themselves have a chance to control. A number of other groups that appeared


Broadcasting Act
before the committee addressed this issue. Our amendment would make aboriginal broadcasting more identified in the Bill.
While the Government recognizes English and French, the Bill is still behind the times in terms of dealing with multicul-turalism and aboriginal people.
Some cultural groups have said that this Bill should go through before this Parliament ends because if there is another extreme right wing Tory Government they may not even get this type of legislation.
These groups should think of the alternative, a New Democratic Party Government, or a government centre of the left in which the NDP has the balance of power. That would result in legislation that would really meet the concerns of the Canadian multicultural community and which would not be so tied into and impeded by the free trade deal.
While we appreciate the Minister's co-operation with respect to amendments dealing with children, women and human rights, we understand that over-all the Minister is hemmed in by the cultural implications of the free trade deal and an unwillingness on the part of the Government to attack the North Americanization of Canadian culture.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, first let me say to the Hon. Member who just spoke that indeed there are groups who have indicated their willingness now to support this legislation. One of those groups is the La Coalition pour la defense de service franqais de Radio-Canada. Included under the coalition is the New Democratic Party of Quebec. I wanted him to know that that group is on record as supporting this Bill.
I want to comment on some of the proposals that have been made. I have indicated those amendments that I am willing to accept. I believe they strengthen the Bill.
On the other hand, there are several amendments which I cannot accept. For instance, Motion No. 17 would remove the reference to maximum and return to the status quo of "predominant".
The use of the word "maximum" extends to other groupings that cannot be predominantly Canadian the requirement to provide the maximum amount of Canadian content. That would not happen ordinarily, and it ties in directly with Motion No. 18.
I believe the amendment proposed in Motion No. 18 would indeed weaken the Bill because, in those rare instances where it is not possible to provide predominantly Canadian content, if that usage were eliminated, it is quite possible that the licenses that are given to them could be eliminated as well. For instance, classical music stations that do not carry a predominant by Canadian content would not be able to apply for and get a licence under this restriction. Others, such as Tele-latino or Chinavision would not be able to get a licence in that case.
First Choice would not be able to get a licence because the movies that are shown are not predominantly Canadian.
We have insisted that those areas which can indeed be predominantly Canadian will be predominantly Canadian. But we also want to insist that where possible, on classical music stations for instance, the maximum use is made of those compositions that have been written by Canadians and so on.
I do not want to weaken the Bill in any way. I think these amendments would do that.
Motion No. 22 deals with educational broadcasting. We have provided in Clause 3 the inclusion of educational and community programs. Educational programs are there in that fashion because we understand the importance of including educational programs.
However, I want the House to understand that this is different from the 1968 Act because the clause at that time was included for a very different reason. It was meant to include the use of the CBC transmitters because there were no educational systems in place at that time. Since then educational broadcasting systems have come into play in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. They are operating now. They operate as well under federal-provincial accords, signed by Governor in Council. That has been discussed with provincial Governments across the country and that, indeed, is, it is felt, the best approach to follow with regard to educational broadcasting and the fact that education as such is a provincial responsibility. This has worked very well, and I think it will continue to work well.
The one other item that I want to mention is that I will take a look at the points raised by the Member from Mount Royal with regard to Motion No. 74. It is in effect a certain redundancy, but I will look to see whether or not that can be incorporated.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the amendments under consideration. I express my thanks to the Minister for accepting amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 21, and I would simply remind the House that amendment or Motion No. 14 introduced by the Liberal Party was aimed at encouraging ... I will read it because I think it is important:
"(ii) 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,".
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this is an excellent amendment and, as I just said a moment ago, I am very pleased that the Minister chose to accept it. To some extent I deplore the fact that she could not bring herself to be generous enough to include other amendments, particularly Motion No. 17 also relating to clause 3 and which reads:


"provide programming that is predominantly Canadian, using predominantly Canadian crea-".
I would stress "Canadian" ... I beg your pardon?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That would weaken it, the way that that is phrased.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Minister seemed to think this would weaken the Bill. Well, I would not want to argue with her about the value of her opinion on this.
Still, Mr. Speaker, I know it is important to insist that the Government should take into account the will of Canadians to continue strengthening the whole question of programming, to enable them to express their cultural aspirations through this medium. I simply want to make a few comments on the impact of the amendments before us.
Having given the Minister credit for generously accepting amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 21,1 want to say that like many others in this field I am disappointed that the Minister's Bill still needs to be reinforced, a Bill which I think seeks a Canadian solution but falls far short of the ideal solution.
This morning, for example, I read a Toronto Star editorial headlined "Broadcasting Act still badly flawed" which says that the Minister must not rest on her laurels but should continue to work and strengthen the Bill. It gives credit to my colleague from Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), telling her, and I quote:

"Liberal critic, Sheila Finestone, and her NDP counterpart, deserves credit for constructively criticizing a Bill that would clear our airwaves for further Americanization".

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the situation is not the same in the case of someone who speaks French, for he or she does not feel as seriously threatened by Americanization as does the anglophone majority of Canada.
But still I would simply point to a pervading factor in French television programming both inside and outside Quebec, namely the considerable number of American programs dubbed with French dialogue.
I thought that by creating this TV-5 Network, the Government would have realized the great need for Francophones outside Quebec to receive superior programming prepared by a network and a consortium made up of four or five countries, namely, Quebec, Canada, France, Belgium and Switzerland. But for us, outside Quebec, Mr. Speaker, this is an expensive proposition. As a matter of fact, in Quebec, those who want to suscribe to the cable systems offering the TV-5 signal, beside the other four channels must pay around $11.50 a month to get the basic package including the TV-5 channel, while those
Broadcasting Act
living in Ottawa or elsewhere outside Quebec must pay about $19.
Here, in my own riding, Skyline charges about $19 for the basic package-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is different now!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Not yet. I spoke a few moments ago with some people in my riding who told me that they still have to pay $19, and the Minister says that such is not the case, that it is going to change!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Patience, patience!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Patience! Goodness gracious, I have been patient for a great many years and people keep telling me that I should be patient and wait. But the fact is that on September 19, 1988, Francophones outside Quebec living in the Ottawa- Vanier riding must pay to Skyline over $19 a month to get the package which includes TV-5.
So, I see a major difference between the $19 which I must pay to get the TV-5 channel and the $11 which my friends have to pay in Quebec. I feel that is a major difference.
As to the Canadian content-


An Hon. Member:: There is no Canadian content!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There is indeed a Canadian content! This TV-5 channel which I feel is excellent for education and information purposes, is a scheme which was put together during the Sommet de la francophonie in Quebec City to meet the needs of all Francophones who want to be ... how should I say . . . nourished by a television which is sensitive to their concerns.
To me there is a flaw and something is lacking. Perhaps the Minister has an answer in mind to address my concern telling me that I have nothing to worry about and that I should not be so impatient. But the fact remains that on September 19, 1988, that is today, there are Francophones in Ontario as in New Brunswick who find it impossible to suscribe to a cable network offering the basic package they want, including the TV-5 channel.
One of my constituents to whom I was talking a while ago suggested that perhaps we should insist on cable networks offering a basic package with two French channels, that of Radio-Canada-that one is always there-and some other.
I must admit that I do not have the answer, because cable distribution networks are a monopoly granted by the CRTC to groups of people which are concerned above all with providing their customers with what they want. But I suggest there might be a solution which the Minister could thoroughly examine and which would make it possible for Francophones living outside Quebec to have access to the TV-5 channel. We


Broadcasting Act
should not overlook the fact that it is the Federal Government which has assumed the rather high cost of this whole new TV-5 experience. There has been a major Federal Government involvement to help the TV-5 channel succeed.
Since Canadian taxpayers contributed to the setting-up of this network, I suggest the Minister should at least ease my concern by telling me that I will get a reply shortly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the House allow the Chair the authorization to read the motions in a summary form as we proceed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 14 (Mrs. Finestone) and Motion No. 15 (Mr. Waddell) agreed to. The next question is on Motion No. 17, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 18, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 19, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 21, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 21 (Mr. Waddell) agreed to.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 22 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


The Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No.
23,	standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount


Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 48, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 55, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Broadcasting Act
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The last question in this grouping is on Motion No. 74, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald).


Flora Isabel MacDonald: At the time that I spoke, Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I would take another look at this amendment and, if possible, I would like it to stand at the present time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the motion stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion Nos. 25, 27, 29, and 30 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 25
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clauses 3 by adding immediately after
line 22 at page 5 the following:
"(vi) include a significant contribution from the Canadian independent
production sector; and".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 27
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line
26 at page 5 the following:
"(vii) be reflective of the multicultural nature of Canada;".


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 29
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 30 and 31 at
page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"(k) and the interests of any other broadcasting undertaking of the
Canadian broadcasting system, it".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 30
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line
37 at page 5 the following:
"(m) educational broadcasters reflecting Canada's provinces are key
elements in the Canadian broadcasting system;".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Minister of Communications.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate that I am prepared to accept Motion No. 27 and Motion No. 29.


Broadcasting Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I can see that we are going to do extremely well today. I am delighted, and I thank the Minister for the reconsideration. We are looking at broadcasting policy as it affects the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I will address the recommendations accepted by the Minister in a moment. First, I would like to address my first motion, Motion No. 25.
The general thrust of Motion No. 25 is the consideration that we would require that programming provided by the CBC should include a significant contribution from the Canadian independent production sector. This would ensure that the CBC would use independent producers in a variety of areas, not only for drama, but also for information and enlightenment programs within the CBC.
I understand that the CBC does have in house personnel. It conducts the finest of training, and those people are then available as the pool grows for the private sector and, potentially under this Bill, for those who will be working to produce programs in the distribution sector. Notwithstanding that, we have included the independent production sector in the general body of the Bill. I believe it is in Clause 3(h). The Minister has included the word "enlightenment" to make the mandate of the CBC more specific and clear. I wonder if the Minister wants to give some consideration to including that which she has done for the private sector, the independent production sector.
I am delighted that the Minister has accepted Motion No. 27 proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). However, his riding will be changing soon. We will see what happens there.
I certainly support the amendment that has been brought forth. I am pleased that the Minister will support the multicultural nature of Canada. Needless to say, the Ethnocultural Council and the Canadian Race Relations Group will be quite delighted with this particular amendment.
Did the Minister state that she was accepting Motion No. 29?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yes.


Sheila Finestone: That is the clarification of the word "element", and I believe that the Minister has accepted it. I believe that we should extend a word of thanks to the Canadian Bar Association for the clarity and depth of its evaluation of the whole system. It has been very helpful in enabling us to improve this Bill all along the way. I wish to give a deep word of thanks to the bar association, to the Minister, and her staff for recognizing that that recommendation was worthwhile.
I certainly support Motion No. 30. I brought forward an amendment. However, it was not received with favour. This is an excellent amendment. It brings back the concepts that were found in the original 1968 Bill and puts the educational
broadcasters front and centre, which is where they should be. They have a very important role in Canada. Children watch more television than they spend hours at school, there are adults who have learning problems, and there are various aspects of training and retraining in a global economy which is changing so rapidly. They can be enabled, helped, and guided through the educational broadcasting system. I am very pleased to support this motion of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway, which states:
"(m) educational broadcasters reflecting Canada's provinces are key elements in the Canadian broadcasting system;"
I believe that it is fundamental for Canada and the federal Government to take the leadership and ensure that we not only support, but promote educational broadcasters across the land, and ensure that they fit into what the Minister has described as the public and private elements which make up the Canadian broadcasting system. They are a part of the public element of the broadcasting system.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to a couple of the motions, and my colleague from Hamilton Mountain will speak on the last one dealing with the educational aspect.
First I want to thank the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) for mentioning that I will indeed be running in another riding.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Which one?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is called Port Moody-Coquitlam. That is one of the reasons I can hardly stand today. I ran in the Terry Fox Run at Port Coquitlam.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I did it twice.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister ran twice. I ran just once and I have trouble standing up today, but it was sure worth it. I saw Mrs. Fox personally and that was really something.
I certainly support Motion No. 25, the amendment put forward by my friend from Mount Royal. It says the CBC should have a significant contribution from the independent Canadian production sector. That is an important amendment.
I thank the Minister for accepting our Motion No. 27, which is designed to make the system reflective of the multicultural nature of Canada. I learned something in committee that I would like to pass on in commenting on this part. Mr. Fo Niemi of the Centre for Research Action on Race Relations gave an excellent brief, mostly in French. He said that it is precisely because President Juneau himself and Executive Vice-President Bill Armstrong always confuse two things that the mandate to reflect multiculturalism at the CBC should be included in the Act. They always seem to confuse multiculturalism and internationalism. They mentioned the coverage by the media of the events in Haiti and the culture and development of China. What has this to do with multiculturalism, he


asked? Multicultural programming for Canadians within the Canadian context is to reflect the diversity right here at home.
So he said to our friend, Mr. Juneau, President of the CBC, who I called the George Bush of Canadian politics because he has been in so many roles but never been elected to any. Mr. Juneau had a rather heated reaction to that one.
I must admit that I would confuse it, too. The point is, do not confuse international programming with multicultural programming. It is not the same.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Absolutely.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: However, I want to say this to the Minister and she should remember it. We still feel strongly, in spite of these provisions being put in the Act, that there is something outside the Act that runs with it, that is, it is all very well to give the CBC an updated mandate as defined in this Act, but if you do not give it any money, if you cut back as the Conservative Government has-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Come on now, Ian. Don't say that with a straight face.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is absolutely true. Some 28 per cent of regional programming has been cut back, to the tune of $29 million. The reason for that is that the CBC has to get more money to produce its drama and so on and it has done it centrally. It should have had more money from the Government rather than cut-backs. In 1984, in real dollars, the CBC budget was $905 million. In 1985 it was $826 million. In 1986 it was $806 million. In 1987 it was $789 million. In 1988 it was $775 million.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is a lot of nonsense.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister recently gave $20 million to the English service and $50 million to the French service. However, it is a fact that the Conservative Government, especially in the early part of its term with all those back-benchers who hate the CBC, cut it back quite dramatically. The effect has been to downgrade regional programming, and those of us from Vancouver feel that strongly.
As well, and the Minister knows this very well because she presumably has to fight for it in Cabinet, you must have an increase in funding for the CBC in order to deal with the mandate, or, at least level funding. As a matter of fact, in a recent report, the Conservative Chairman of the Standing Committee said 250 million new dollars annually was needed. That is a far cry from what the CBC is getting.
Dale Goldhawk of ACTRA said while the CBC is expected to fill a wide mandate, the money to do so just is not there. "In short, this part of the announcement does not exactly make my socks roll up and down". Rather well put. He was referring to the Minister's recent announcement. I know the Minister does not like to hear this. She sits there a little frustrated by it.
Broadcasting Act


Flora Isabel MacDonald: She has added all that money. Now say that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister has added money recently, but I dare her to dispute my figures on the CBC's budget over those particular years going from $905 million to $775 million.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is now $1.1 billion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We are talking real dollars. We know it has been cut back. Ask anyone in the regions and they will tell you.
The final motion is Motion No. 30 which deals with educational broadcasting. I see my time is running out so I will let my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar), speak on that.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to congratulate the Minister on the amendments she has allowed this morning. They will make it a much stronger Act. However, I am very concerned about Motion No. 30. It should be allowed because not only does the Bill not allow for educational broadcasting as a priority, it downgrades the amendment made to the Act in 1968 in this respect. That is the part we are concerned about. The fact that we need an agreement with the provinces to treat educational broadcasting as a priority was in the Act in 1968 and now that it is not there, it is downgraded.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, it is not.


Marion Dewar: My understanding is that the 1968 Act says that facilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system for educational broadcasting. We want this to be strengthened so that educational broadcasters reflecting Canada's provinces are key elements in the Canadian broadcasting system. That is not being allowed to stand.
Bernard Ostry has looked at this very conscientiously and critically in response to the federal Government's refusal to respond sympathetically to repeated constructive suggestions from educational broadcasters from across this country, and its inaction on issues central to the future of educational television. He said the effect of the proposed legislation on educational broadcasters and the people we serve cannot be underestimated. This is not just some other piece of legislation. The Broadcast Act is to one of the largest industries in Canada whose product touches the lives of every man, woman and child in this country what the Criminal Code is to the administration of justice.
I think one of the things we are particularly concerned about is the great strength of the Broadcasting Act and how it can serve the people of this country, and the ability of the educational networks to be able to reach out to the people. Certainly of great concern to us these days are the people who are illiterate. We have seen some of the programs put forward by the educational networks and their ability to reach people that otherwise would not be reached.


Broadcasting Act
I think as well we would be giving our aboriginal people some priority in the Act. I have had great concerns about the fact that even though our amendment was not so strong on the aboriginal people and we were allowing it to say "where numbers warrant" the Minister has not accepted that amendment either. When we get into great debates about the illiteracy of our country and the inhuman way we have treated our aboriginal people over the years-I am certainly not saying that in any partisan context but in the context of how we have evolved as a society-that there could be within this Bill the ability to strengthen the educational networks and at the same time share with the rest of Canada the great riches of our aboriginal people through broadcasting. In my view, this is a very valid amendment that could strengthen the Bill. I hope the Minister will look at it again and allow it to stand so that we could have that kind of strength in this Bill that is so important for the educational networks.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in support of the two motions now before us, since Motions Nos. 27 and 29 were accepted by the Minister, something I thank her for. I would like to refer in particular to Motion No. 30 that deals with a matter of great importance to me. If I may read the amendment again:
(n) Educational broadcasters reflecting Canada's provinces are key elements
in the Canadian Broadcasting System;".
To me this statement seems quite realistic and accurate. Educational broadcasters did not exist in 1968, at any rate when the Act was passed, at least not in Ontario; TV Ontario did not exist in 1968. Having worked, as I said in this House, for nearly eleven years and some months in education in Ontario and having been instrumental in launching the idea of an educational TV system in Ontario, I find it unfortunate that the Minister cannot respond positively to our proposal not to decrease the importance of educational television, but at least leave the matter as it was in the 1968 Act.

The 1968 Broadcasting Act at Clause 3(i) stated:
-facilities should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system for
educational broadcasting
This is what we call a stand-alone clause for broadcasters who wanted to go into educational television. Even though the Minister may disagree completely with those of us who think that she is downgrading the educational broadcaster by removing that stand-alone clause and putting in a clause which in our view groups the educational television with community programs, any broadcaster could say that he is meeting the requirements of the Bill because his programming is in keeping with it and does include educational and community broadcasting.
I know the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) just quoted from a release put out by the Chairman of
TV Ontario. Mr. Ostry in his plea to the Minister asked that she change the wording of the Bill to allow for this kind of stand-alone clause, but let me quote Mr. Ostry. He expressed:
-our profound disappointment in both the current hasty, eleventh hour process and its outcome.
Now is hardly the time to downgrade the standards of educational television originating in the regions. Indeed, it is a paradox that, at a time when the federal Government is, quite properly, committing millions of dollars to battle the problem of adult illiteracy in Canada, when the Prime Minister is endeavouring to encourage the development of a new "science culture", and when educational issues about skills training and multiculturalism command headlines in our news media, this proposed legislation appears to go out of its way to shove educational broadcasters out of "the system"
This comes back to the argument, and the Minister knows it, of how you define education. Maybe we could argue that there is a role for private broadcasters, a constitutional role that they may be able to displace or take over educational domains that are of provincial jurisdiction. I feel strongly that the Chairman of TV Ontario in my province, who is a well-known, serious and reasonable man, would come out so strongly condemning the present legislation and saying it is too weak. I hope the Minister will see the light as she did with the other two amendments in this grouping and accept, reply or assure us that she has absolutely no intention of muddying the waters between the provincial authorities on educational TV, the broadcasters or those who are lucky enough to have licenses given to them. I would not want us to see a few years hence have educational TV downgraded to the extent that it cannot operate or compete or see that its mandate has been weakened.
Before I end my remarks on this question, Mr. Speaker,
[ Translation]
. .. Mr. Speaker, let me make a simple clarification. Earlier I referred to TV-5, and I would like to clarify matters. I stated inaccurately that in Quebec the charge was $11 and some pennies, while in fact it is exactly $14.32. I checked earlier. I am told it is some $6 higher in Ontario and that the matter is still current. I must admit this is a matter of great concern to me, and I simply wanted to come up with accurate figures to avoid being told: Jean-Robert, you were off the mark, the charge is $14.32. Therefore, for the record, Mr. Speaker, the charge in Quebec is $14.32 for basic service, including programs from the four channels: The Canal Famille, the Meteo-media, Musique Plus and YTV in English, plus of course TV-5, while in Ontario we have no access to that basic programming and we must pay $4 a month in decoder rental plus $2 in service fees, so that in French-speaking Ontario areas, we have to pay some $6 more than in Quebec to get the service that, as I emphasize, is less extensive than that available in Quebec.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my support to the amendments which we are discussing and to urge the Minister to accept them.


I note, and put on the record as I think others have done, the views of the President of Knowledge Network, Mr. Glenn Farrell, who said in respect of this Bill:
The amendments to Bill C-136, proposed by federal Communications Minister Flora MacDonald are inadequate because they fail to recognize the important role that educational broadcasters play in Canada. This Bill downgrades the role of educational broadcasters at a time when regional communications are increasingly important.
There is not a Member of Parliament who has young children or young grandchildren, as 1 do, who cannot help but realize how much more knowledge our young people between the ages of four and eight or four and ten have about matters than children had 10 or 20 years ago. This is so because they have the opportunity to watch educational programs like Sesame Street and many others too numerous for me to report on. Any Bill which does not expand the ability of TV to disseminate more and more educational programming is deficient.
I want to speak about another aspect of the Bill, dealing not just with children. For almost as many years as I have been a Member of Parliament, I have raised questions about the fact that 20 per cent of the people of Canada are functionally illiterate, this at a time when we know that businesses, industries and farmers are facing increasing competition, making it tougher and tougher to be a success. Other countries have moved ahead of us because of their knowledge and ability to use the newest technology. How could the 20 per cent of Canadians who are functionally illiterate possibly find jobs, even if we lived in a period of full employment in that future when they do not have the ability to fill the jobs which are or will be available.
In the 1984 Throne Speech of the Government was a promise that dealing with illiteracy was to be a major objective of this Conservative Government. Silnce then virtually nothing was done by the federal Government, much too little is being done by the provincial Governments, and the voluntary organizations working in the field do not have the financial ability to do the job they want and need to do.
Four years have gone by and suddenly, two weeks ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) resurrected this important question, which he ignored for four years, and announced that the Government is proposing to spend over $100 million in the next four years dealing with illiteracy. We know that 20 per cent of the people of Canada are functionally illiterate, but nobody has any real information on the numbers of people who are attending programs organized by the provincial Governments and by volunteer organizations such as Frontier College or one such as that just started less than a year ago with offices in the constituency of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper), called Beat the Street.
Nobody knows how many people are in the programs. As a matter of fact one of the little tasks I have set for my staff is to get in touch with every such organization across Canada to
Broadcasting Act
find out how many people are in these programs. I have some idea of the information they will get. We will find that probably fewer than 5 per cent of the five million people who are functionally illiterate are in programs that will help them.
My colleague, the Hon. Member from Hamilton, has talked about the problems of native people. In cities like Winnipeg, Regina or Vancouver, to mention just three, one cannot help, if one drives around these cities, but note the tremendous movement into the cities of native people from the reserves. They come to the cities and their ability to speak English is far from what it should be. Many of them are in fact functionally illiterate.
In these cities, there is a time bomb which is ticking away and which will explode. Dealing with illiteracy is just one of the questions that we have to address if that time bomb is in fact not to explode. One of the ways it can be dealt with is by giving the broadcasting system, radio and television stations, public and private, not only the right to put on educational programs but the resources to do the job. Perhaps, for the private sector, we need legislation which will force the broadcasters to do some of the educational and cultural things they promised to do when they got their licences and which in fact they almost completely ignored once they were successful in getting the licenses. What they have concentrated on is having the right, as I think the Caplan-Sauvageau Commission has pointed out, to virtually to print money and make tremendous profits in return on their investment.
This is the situation we are in. It is a very desperate situation, it is a very serious situation. It is a situation which needs to be dealt with in every possible way. One of the ways is to amend this Bill so that the Broadcasting Act will make it very clear that radio and television stations and the networks have the right, and I would say the responsibility, to increase and improve educational programming. We need this amendment in the Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 25, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division will be deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 27 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 27 (Mr. Waddell) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 29 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 29 (Mrs. Finestone) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 30 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division will be deferred.
May I call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 12.58 the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, today I should like to refer to a situation in Quebec where the Conservative Government is still dragging its feet. On a number of occasions the Government promised the people of Matane that a paper mill would soon become reality. In 1984 the then Leader of the Conservative Party said that a Conservative Government would give the green light to the paper mill project. The rooster did crow three times but nothing has been done about Matane. Here is a comment reported in the Journal de Montreal September 9 issue: "Quebecor and Donahue management are puzzled about the Mulroney Government reluctance to sign a written commitment concerning Matane's paper mill".
Last year the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion told us it would soon be time to break open the champagne, yet here we are, a year later, and the Conservative Government still has not made any commitment in this case.
Recently the Government dispatched its Minister of State for the sod-turning ceremony at Matane. Quebec Government and private sector spokesmen did make clear and firm commitments, but the Minister of State had come empty handed.
Time is of the essence with respect to this project, for an elections is near and the people of Matane will remember this.


THE LATE JACQUES BEAUCHAMP
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the fourth estate in Quebec is in mourning after the death of Jacques Beauchamp. It is somewhat of an institution that has disappeared, Mr. Speaker.
The very prolific sports writer and public relations vicepresident of the Journal de Montreal died of a heart attack at the age of 61.
Jacques Beauchamp made a name for himself in Quebec and throughout the rest of Canada. He loved his job and was a tireless and honest worker. Sporting events were his forte, and the men and women who got to know him will tell you that he was a hard and valiant worker respectful of others, a demanding but generous and inspiring man. Jacques Beauchamp was a great humanist, ever looking at the positive side of things.
We offer our condolences to his close relatives and to the large Peladeau family. Professional and amateur athletes lost a friend, a father and an adviser. Sports fans lost a walking encyclopedia.


Jacques Beauchamp, Quebecers loved you! We salute you.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the Algonquins of Barriere Lake are currently blockading the construction of a Hydro Quebec power line from the townsite of La Domaine to Rapid Lake, their present reserve. The Algonquins of Barriere Lake oppose the construction of the line through La Verendrye Wildlife Reserve for good reason. A sum of $3.8 million is to be spent by the Department of Indian Affairs on a power line opposed by the very people for whom it is supposedly being built.
Why, you ask? Because the traditional uses and occupancy of the land by the Algonquins are already being severely eroded by hydro developments, road construction, industrial activity, hunting, and so on.
The Algonquins ask, what of the recognition and affirmation of their rights in Section 35 of Canada's Constitution? Must there be a confrontation, must all developments be halted, before the federal and provincial Governments sit down and listen?
I have tried, as have the Algonquins of Barriere Lake, to get the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Premier Bourassa to listen. The Algonquins call for a fair settlement, for conservation, and for a sustainable approach to their homeland. Canada and Quebec must listen and learn.
These lands were set aside as Indian territory by the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Canada and Quebec must respect the rights, title, and agreements with the First Nations.


OLYMPIC GAMES-PARTICIPATION OF SCARBOROUGH ATHLETES
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, six Canadians from the city of Scarborough are part of Team Canada at the Olympics. One of them, Ben Johnson, is a household name as the world's fastest man.
Let the names of Tessa Gordon, Lisa Ann Lyn, Elizabeth Levi, Asif Dar and Milton Ottey go into the record of this House as men and women doing their part to represent the ideals of youth around the world and to bring honour to Canada.


THE LEADER OF THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, Stephen Lewis sat down and made a deal with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Ian Deans sat down and made a deal with the Prime Minister. Dennis McDermott sat down and made a deal with the Prime Minister. And now Ed Broadbent says he is willing to sit down and make a deal with the Prime Minister.
I wonder what the price will be for selling out on the trade deal; a larger limousine, Minister of Finance, invitations to 24 Sussex, or does he want to be Deputy Prime Minister? The slogan for the NDP will now be "Vote for Ed Broadbent and re-elect Brian Mulroney".
If it were not so hypocritical it would be funny. If it were not so dishonest, it would be a joke. Well, for all we care the Leader of the NDP can form his coalition with the Conservatives, because then after the election the Liberal Government will have to face only one true opposition Party.


ROAD SAFETY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in
1985,	375 people were killed in rail, air, and marine accidents in Canada. Yet 4,365 were killed on our roads and highways.
Highway traffic deaths are still way too high. However, the trend is in the right direction. The rate declined from 4.2 deaths per 100 million vehicle-kilometres in 1973 to 2.2 in
1986.	Safer vehicles, the use of seat-belts and child restraint devices, and the crackdown on drunken driving have all helped.
The Road Safety Directorate of the Department of Transport and its provincial counterparts are to be congratulated on their work to date and we wish them even greater success in the future.


TERRY FOX MARATHON OF HOPE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, more than 425,000 Canadians ran, jogged, cycled, and strolled through 22 countries yesterday to raise an estimated $5 million for cancer research in the Terry Fox Marathon of Hope. Our embassy and Armed Forces personnel overseas were joined by supporters from many other countries. This is a tribute to Terry Fox and especially to his parents, Betty and Roly Fox. It is a tribute that the run continues, and it is a tribute that the number of people participating is expanding.


The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) and I ran the 10 kilometres in Port Coquitlam yesterday-[DOT]


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -I can hardly walk today, Mr. Speaker-in the presence of the Fox family. We took the opportunity, both before and after the race, to express to them the thanks of all MPs for their determined work in the Fox family tradition so that some day cancer can be beaten.


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, according to the recent Ontario Social Assistance Review Committee report the Canada Assistance Plan discourages people on welfare from getting a part-time job that could lead to a full-time job by reducing their welfare benefits if they work too much. If we are serious about getting people off the welfare rolls we should be trying to encourage them to seek employment, not penalize them for working.
It is time for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to take another look at the earnings exemption for welfare recipients under the Canada Assistance Plan.


PRESENCE OF TOXIC CHEMICALS IN FOODS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, last week the Ontario Government released a study showing that a wide variety of foods purchased in the province contain low levels of dioxins, dibenzofurans, and other toxic chemicals. This study confirms the results that Dr. Kate Davies of the Toronto Department of Public Health found in 1986.
Dioxins and furans are two highly toxic families of chemicals that come from the production of pesticides and wood preservatives and pollute the air when garbage is not burned at high enough temperatures. One kind of dioxin, TCDD, is believed to cause cancer in people. Scientists speculate that dioxins, furans, and PCBs create a reaction in the human body that may lead to increased cancer, inhibition of the immune system, and changes in hormones which, among other things, control the ability to reproduce.
The question we must ask ourselves is whether any level of these chemicals in food is a safe level. It seems to me that most Canadians would answer that the only safe level is zero.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, this week celebrates the fourth anniversary of a Government with a record of achievement second to none, including its record on the environment. Even so, we need more than four years to correct and remedy the Liberal legacy of environmental abuse, neglect, and apathy.
The Niagara River was the largest toxic garbage pail ever imagined, but last year, for the very first time, a Niagara River Clean-up Agreement was signed.
We have passed an Environmental Protection Act with teeth in it.
The Canadian Water Conservation Act allows us to control our own water.
Canadians are demanding action for a clean Canada. This Government has listened, has acted, is acting, and will deliver on this as it has on other things.


EMPLOYMENT
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, Bonita Clark's long ordeal has ended. I rise today to pay tribute to her courage and perseverance in battling an issue of major importance to women in the workforce. Canadian women owe a debt of gratitude for her seven-year struggle to have sexual harassment on the job recognized as a health and safety hazard.
Ms. Clark began to work as a stationary engineer at the Stelco plant in Hamilton in 1979. From her very first days on the job she was confronted with sexual harassment and gender discrimination. She recently succeeded in securing women their own washroom facilities at the plant, a basic necessity of decent working conditions.
According to the Human Rights Commission, sexual harassment is a reality faced by over 80 per cent of Canadian working women. Bonita Clark, by refusing to accept this reality and by protesting the health hazard posed by sexual harassment, provides inspiration to the women and men who are continuing her struggle to guarantee Canadians a workplace free of sexual harassment.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Post Office under our Government has made great strides in improving its service. However, there still remain pockets of inefficiency which must be corrected. Constituents call every week to point out some glaring oversights in postal service, a common one being "the address does not exist", even though the person has resided there for the last 20 years.
Two months ago I conducted a survey to gauge my constituents' views on abortion. I used the postal service to deliver the questionnaire, and I received a quick response of over 7,000 replies. However, two weeks ago I was informed that an area of my riding was only now receiving the survey that I thought had been all delivered. 1 contacted the postal substation and found that my surveys had just arrived, and that they must have been lost for the past two months. The area left out was approximately a quarter of my riding.
The Post Office could not provide me with an explanation for this major error. There is no excuse for this type of service, and I hope that the Post Office now moves quickly to ensure that mail never gets lost.


THE LEADER OF THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the NDP's main foreign policy plan is to pull out of NATO, to destroy our alliance with Great Britain, France, West Germany, Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal. The Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) now says that he is not sure that we will pull out of NATO.
The NDP's main economic plan is to nationalize the Canadian banks. But the Leader of the NDP says that he is not sure he will want to nationalize the banks.
The NDP says that they have become a mainstream political Party, but Eric Gourdeau, the NDP's star candidate in Quebec, says that the NDP is controlled by a tiny group of 50 communists.
Finally, the Leader of the NDP says that he is opposed to the free trade deal. But now he says that he is willing to form a coalition with the Conservative Party. The NDP and the Leader of the NDP have lost their grip on reality. Canadians want a strong, independent, democratic, sovereign Canada and will vote Liberal in the upcoming federal election. Because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has sold out his country, the Leader of the NDP has sold out his Party.
How can a man who says he opposes the trade deal say, with all his heart, that he is willing to deal with the Conservative Party?



Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the NDP have become a laughing stock. On the one hand, Eric Gourdeau, the NDP's so-called star candidate in Quebec, has said that the NDP in Quebec is controlled by "a tiny bunch of 50 people, Trotskyite or Leninist philosophers who turn out treatises willy-nilly", confirming what the MP for Terrebonne (Mr. Toupin) told us a long time ago.
On the other hand, the self-proclaimed defender of the little people, the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent), has said that he is willing to form a coalition with the Tories after the next election.
He said that he was opposed to the trade deal. The Member for Oshawa said that he was standing up for Canada, but now he says that he is willing to sit down with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) after the next election, to ram the trade deal through. He is willing to sell out his principles for a share of power.
The Leader of the NDP will not have that chance, because Canadians are going to vote for the one Party that cares for one strong and independent and sovereign Canada, the Liberal Party.
The question for the NDP Leader is this. Is he planning to sell out his Party to the right-wing Tories, or is he planning on having his campaign run by a bunch of lefty communists? That is the question for the Leader of the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MULTICULTURALISM
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to note that in the four years of administration of the Conservative Government, multiculturalism rated last on the list of priorities. Only in the last dying moments of the administration have we seen a Government, whetted by its appetite, go into an election campaign trying to maintain some degree of integrity in dealing with Canada's multicultural communities. Only in the dying moments do we see a Multiculturalism Bill, a Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, and now a realigned Department of Multiculturalism.
For four years the political climate vis-a-vis multiculturalism was a dry drought. Now, on the eve of a campaign, it is pouring and thundering with gifts.
It is time that this Government treat multiculturalism as other important areas of public policies, and detach the policy of multiculturalism from the roller-coaster election cart. Its


Oral Questions
assumption that Canadians are gullible and ignorant will not work, and Canadians, not only those in this field, will see through the barrage of Tory promises in the dying moments of a dying administration.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we see that there are still deliberations going on that forestall my putting a question to the Prime Minister. Here he is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I would have thought that he would have been going down the road a piece.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The way that the Government cuts programs reveals its priorities. Obviously the environment has not been one of this Government's priorities. The Prime Minister talks about fighting pollution, but instead he fires those people who protect us from pollution. Once again the facts contradict the boasting of the Prime Minister.
Over 500 environmental protection officers and pollution control experts and scientific researchers have already lost their jobs in the Department of the Environment in the last four years. Now, the Director of Personnel of the Department of the Environment has said that another 361 jobs will be wiped out over the next two years.
Having already slashed program after program in the Department of the Environment, how can the Prime Minister possibly justify cutting another 361 jobs in this Department?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition would do without his newspaper in the morning in order to base his questions at Question Period in the afternoon. He is obviously relying totally on a Canadian Press story that is very misleading, if not totally incorrect.
The Leader of the Opposition says that since 1984 the Conservatives have cut 511 jobs in the Department of the Environment. That is not true. The figure could only be arrived at, if at all, if one were to take the 230 architects and engineers whose salaries were previously paid by the Department of the Environment whose salaries are now being paid by the Department of Public Works, and treated those jobs as if they had been eliminated. They have not been.
The people concerned are in their same positions and doing the same things and providing the same services for the Department of the Environment. The only difference is that their salaries are being paid from a different source.
For the Right Hon. Member to get on his feet today and refer to those as cuts, or as jobs eliminated, is to indicate that this man is not competent enough to be Minister of the Environment, let alone Prime Minister of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The fact remains that there have been over 500 person-year jobs taken out of the Department, eliminated from the National Research Council, eliminated from the research divisions that are fighting PCBs and toxic chemicals in the Niagara, and the elimination of the Guelph-Toronto toxicology project. I note very carefully that the Minister did not deny the statement of his Director of Personnel, and another 361 jobs are now set to be eliminated in the next two years.


PERSONNEL CUTBACKS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it seems there is enough money for nuclear submarines, for pre-election goodies across the country and for a penitentiary in Port-Cartier in the Prime Minister's riding, but cuts are still being made at the Department of the Environment.
Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced that the environment was this country's Number one priority. However, he has already fired 500 environmental experts and there are plans to fire another 361.
Mr. Speaker, the environment seems to be the new sacred trust of the Prime Minister and his Government.
My question is simply this: If the environment is a priority for the Prime Minister and his Government, why does the Government keep cutting the jobs of the people who protect Canada's environment?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition prepared his second question and gave it by rote without any reference to my answer to his first question. I told him that he is basing his questions on false information, on newspaper reports that are misleading if not totally inaccurate.
For example, he just said that the projections for the next two fiscal years are that Environment Canada will lose up to 361 person-years, or jobs. That is not correct. The estimate for those two years, to the extent that we can project at all, and it is inadequate, totally ignores, for example, the person-years that have already been approved by Cabinet with respect to


South Moresby National Park Reserve, the person-years associated with Cabinet's approval of the clean-up of the St. Lawrence River, the person-years associated with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
I am told that five months into the current fiscal year my Department has already received upwards of 100 additional person-years which have not been taken into account in the calculations that the Leader of the Opposition puts on the floor of the House of Commons as though they were ex cathedra. They are not. They are wrong.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister categorically contradicting his Director of Personnel who made a clear statement as to what was in store for the employees in his Department over the next two years? Is he not denying that, in addition to the transfers to the other Departments, over 330 direct employment years in his Department have been let go in the last four years?
Just over the weekend the Ontario Government study revealed that there are dioxins in eggs, peaches, chicken, potatoes, hamburger, wheat, all of these foods eaten by Canadians. When the Prime Minister and his Minister eliminate toxic chemical research programs as they have done in this Department, they are eliminating the very experts, the very researchers who have been hired by the people of Canada to protect us against this type of problem. Is the Government not guilty of gross hypocrisy when we compare the Prime Minister's positive boasting against what has been happening in that Department?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to gross hypocrisy, the Leader of the Opposition wrote the book. I am not taking issue with anybody in my Department; I am taking issue with the Leader of the Opposition and a press report on which he bases his question. That press report is factually incorrect.
For example, if one were to rely totally on Main Estimates as opposed to Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates in a given fiscal year, one would come to the same kind of conclusion as the Leader of the Opposition has, that in 198687 the Department of the Environment would have lost 103 jobs. It did not. When the Supplementary Estimates were calculated into the equation, we gained 29, on a net basis, one of only three Departments to do so, reflecting the priority that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet attach to the environment.


PROJECTED STAFFING OF DEPARTMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister or the Minister of the Environment. No matter how much the Minister of the Environment engages in a shell game, the fact is that his Director of Personnel announced on Friday, as confirmed by the Public Service Alliance, that there will be cuts in the next
Oral Questions
two years, beginning April 1, 1989, of 180 persons, followed by another cut of 181 persons beginning April 1, 1990.
In the name of consistency and decency, which may be words too hard for them to spell correctly, can they deny and reject these projections made by the personnel manager in the Department and by the Public Service Alliance? Can they dispel these fears that there will be reductions of 361 persons in the next two years in the Department of the Environment? Can they do that on the floor now?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Public Service Alliance of Canada does not make policy for the Government of Canada. I am saying to him that the Department of the Environment will not be losing 361 person-years. It will not be losing 200, anything of the kind that the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Davenport have reported.
The statement by the relevant personnel person in my Department has been wildly taken out of context. It has been distorted and misreported by the Canadian Press. I am not taking issue with Canadian Press because I realize this is a complex business, too complex for the Leader of the Opposition to understand. But the Member for Davenport, who was a Minister of the Environment at one time, has no such excuse.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIAL
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, do we understand the Minister to say that one of his employees, the Chief of Personnel, Mr. Marks, was wrong in saying last week that there will be a cut of 180 persons beginning April 1, 1989, followed by another cut of 181 persons beginning April 1, 1990? Is the Minister denying the correctness of the statement made by one of his employees? Is he giving Canadians the assurance that these two cuts will not take place? Will he say that in the House now?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I told the Member for Davenport that the so-called cut of 361 person-years in the coming two fiscal years cannot be grounded in fact. It takes into account neither the person-years approved by Cabinet for South Moresby nor the ones approved for the St. Lawrence River clean-up, or the ones associated with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, not to mention the other initiatives that the Cabinet has already approved and those that the Cabinet is likely to approve in the next two fiscal years.
The story is not correct. The Member for Davenport is wrong. The Leader of the Opposition is even more wrong.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ON FUTURE STAFFING
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I will allow the Minister to add to his list of all the people who are wrong.
As I always do when he cites statistics, I listened to the Minister with a great deal of care. However, I will quote not


Oral Questions
the Leader of the Opposition, or the environmental critic for the Liberal Party, but what the Minister's Director of Personnel said with reference to cut-backs of 361 jobs. He said: "We cannot do anything else. We are committed to that reduction of 361". He went on to say: "Unless the powers that be give us relief from that, we are committed to proceed with that cut".
Those are Mr. Marks' words, not mine or any other opposition Member's. Are there cuts of that magnitude? Given what he said a few minutes ago about some additions elsewhere in his program, are there really just cuts of 261 as opposed to 361? In either case, if we are to believe what the Government has said about its commitment to the environment, why does it not give the unequivocal assurance that there will not be any cuts in the Department of the Environment this year or next year? Answer that.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, every time the Leader of the New Democratic Party opens his mouth he adds to the length of the list of people who are wrong. He comes into the House with a prefabricated question, similar to that which was asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I told him, on the floor of the House of Commons, that the figure of 361 is wrong. I told him that the 511 figure for previous fiscal years was wrong. He is left naked in the wind with his questions.
I am quite prepared to send to the Leader of the NDP a complete breakdown of the person-years for Environment Canada for each of the last four fiscal years, and those that are projected in the years ahead with expenditures that have been approved by the Government of Canada in connection with which there are person-years.
Once he has had a chance to peruse that statement from me and my Department and the Government, I think he will find it is much more reliable than the press story on which he is basing his questions. The press story is wrong.


DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the press story is much more reliable, I am sure, than the answers that we are getting in the House. If the Minister was calling into question the newspaper article, his own official's quotes, why did he not come into the House today and forthrightly and directly announce the number of cuts?
Will the Minister give assurances that those people who, according to his own officials, are going to be laid off, a number of whom officially would have to officially receive their notices by the end of this month, according to regulation, will not be given notice?
Second, considering that last week the Prime Minister stated in the House that the Government had increased the budget of the Department of the Environment since 1985 by some 13 per cent, will he now tell the House that the Prime Minister forgot to mention that, in the fall of 1984, there were massive cuts? If
he had compared the record of his Government from the time that he was elected, not from 1985 to the present, there were actually-get this, and correct me if it is wrong-a 10 per cent net reduction in real dollars spent on the environment by the Government. Will the Minister admit that?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, how could I admit it when it is wrong? The budget of Environment Canada, and I am dealing with the Main Estimates only, forget about the Supplementary Estimates which will greatly add to those numbers, is now $796 million plus. In the last fiscal year for which the Liberals were responsible, the corresponding figure was $777 million. That is an increase of $20 million, even without the Supplementary Estimates.
If the Supplementary Estimates are added, plus all the expenditures, for example, from the Western Diversification Office for South Moresby, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency for the Halifax Harbour clean-up, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion for the St. Lawrence River clean-up, you will find, Sir, that we have not only kept up with inflation, but we have also exceeded it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we also want to see those figures. The Minister is now taking on every environmental group in the country, the opposition Parties, and his own officials. The only person who agrees with him is the Prime Minister. That should cause him some concern.


BUDGETARY CUTBACKS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my last question is directed to the Prime Minister. Not long ago, the Prime Minister gave Quebecers and other Canadians the assurance that his Government had made a collective commitment to the environment. My question is simply this: Are these budget cuts of almost 400 per cent an essential part of his collective commitment to the environment?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP states that nobody agrees with the Prime Minister and myself about the splendid record of the Government of Canada in the environmental field over the last four years.
May 1 put on the record a statement made in Toronto by the Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Brundtland, who headed the celebrated Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development. She stated: "I thank the Canadian people and institutions who supported us," the commissioners, through the United Nations. "I thank the Canadian Government, in particular Prime Minister Mulroney and Minister of the Environment McMillan, for their commitment and for the example they have been setting for other industrialized countries".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology. The people of Matane have heard it three times now. In 1984, the Prime Minister promised a paper mill. In 1987, the Minister himself said in the House that Matane was a priority for his Government. I think we all realize what the score is. A few days ago, in fact it was September 7, the Minister of State went empty-handed to a sod-turning ceremony. When will the Government keep its promises to the people of Matane and participate with the private sector and the Government of Quebec in the paper mill project? We are very close to an election. Will the people of Matane finally get their share of the Conservative pie?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Government, Matane was promised any number of things for twenty years. There were promises galore, and nothing was ever done for Matane.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert René de Cotret: In recent months we received a number of projects from developers who are interested in Matane. In one case, a formal offer was made. The project was changed, and now a new project is about to be finalized with the developers and the Province of Quebec. I can assure the Hon. Member for Papineau that everything is unfolding as it should, to the satisfaction of the developers I met last week.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL COMMITMENT
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question is very straightforward and is directed to the Minister responsible for this dossier. When will he make a clear commitment on behalf of the federal Government? The Prime Minister promised Matane a paper mill. Four years later, nothing has happened. The unemployment rate in this region is 20 per cent. If the Conservatives had been serious about what they said, the paper mill would already be a fact. They had four years to do it, and if they had, the unemployment rate would not be 20 per cent. When is he finally going to act responsibly and give the people of Matane what they have been waiting for all this time?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the people of Matane have been waiting for 20 years. I can inform the House that there has been a major improvement in the Gaspe-Lower St. Lawrence since 1984, as far as unemployment is concerned. We have created 27,000 new jobs, which brought the unemployment rate down by 2 per cent. We are going to pursue our projects
Oral Questions
for Matane. We are going ahead. As I said earlier to the Hon. Member for Papineau, the project was changed several times. We now have the final version. We are working out the final details, and the people of Matane will be delighted to see that for the very first time a Government has kept its promises instead of making promises without end for 20 years without ever acting on them.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue the question of mathematics with the Minister of the Environment. He has been very careful in making his statements with respect to this news story. One thing the Minister has not yet denied is whether there will be cuts in the Ministry of the Environment. I want to ask the Minister specifically, will there in fact over the next two years be reductions in the person power which is there to administer the crucial new environmental concerns which people across the country are starting to feel? Will there be cuts, or will there not be?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. In effect, the Hon. Member asks: "Over the next two years, when I am Minister of the Environment, will there be cuts in my Department?" It implies that he expects the Conservatives to be in power over the next two years.
Of course I am not creating cuts. I am in the business of getting through Cabinet measures to protect the environment and to establish national parks. Almost in every case there are person-years associated with those initiatives.
I have told the Leader of the Hon. Member that, if one relied totally on the Main Estimates that are projected into the future, one will miss a very large part of the equation. On top of Estimates are Supplementary Estimates, and sometimes there are two or three sets. When all those Estimates are in, one will find that the budget for Environment Canada, supplemented by other Departments, has not only kept up with inflation but has exceeded it.


MINISTER'S POSITION ON STAFFING PROJECTIONS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, once again the Minister has risen and done his little dance in the House and tried to avoid the question. I want to put the question directly to him once more. He has not been prepared to say to the House that the projections which presently exist do in fact protect people in his Department.


Oral Questions
Therefore, do I take it that he is in fact admitting that there will be cuts taking place by the projections which the Government in fact has put into place? Are there cuts projected, or are there not? Answer the question.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the three questions, which are essentially the same, is no. However, even if one could equate numbers with efficiency and productivity, which I think is a false assumption, let me draw to the Hon. Member's attention and that of the House the fact that my Department, under this Government, has received the highest award from the Society of Canadian Office Automation and Professionals for productivity. That reflects the fact that, through administrative efficiencies and economies, we have been able to do an awful lot more than any previous Government in the environmental field.
*	*	4!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF UNITED KINGDOM COMMITTEE ON TELEVISING PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: -of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, led by Mr. David Hunt, Member of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Don't do it!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There has never been a Government reelected since it was introduced.


Mr. Speaker:: We welcome the visiting committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HOUSING
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Housing. In his mad dash to make a pre-election housing announcement he failed to account for, or commit the federal Government to providing, an adequate sewer system to serve the new housing project on the Downsview airport lands. That prompted the Mayor of
North York, where the lands are located, to conclude that "this housing project is fantasyland, an obvious election ploy that will never get off the ground".
CMHC officials knew very well that the site lacked any sewer capacity whatsoever. They also knew that storing the sewage waste in holding tanks was simply not a viable alternative. Given that, is the Minister prepared to commit the necessary funds to provide an adequate sewer infrastructure for this project so that it can proceed? Or, was the announcement on Friday simply a made-for-television fairy-tale production?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (International Trade) and Minister of State (Housing):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: -I find it passing strange that the Hon. Member, who has been calling for the transfer of these lands to CMHC for housing development, is now standing up and criticizing it. To me that does not make sense.
On Thursday evening I spoke with Mayor Eastman about the development, informing him of the announcement. There will be meetings this week between him, his council and my officials to discuss the development. The lands are to provide affordable housing to people in Toronto who require it. I think it is a very worth-while project and the Hon. Member should be applauding it.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the mayor as well and he informs me there is no commitment by the federal Government thus far to provide the necessary funding for the sewers which will make the project viable. Therefore, it is simply irresponsible for the Minister and the Government to pass on a cost which could be as high as $500 million to a municipality whose property taxes are at a sky-high level anyway.


FUNDING OF SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE-AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, no one is arguing about the viability of the project. However, is the Minister prepared today to commit the federal Government to providing the necessary funding for the sewer infrastructure?
As well, how can he call this an affordable housing scheme when 75 per cent of the homes will be built by private developers at the high Toronto market prices? Will he at least match provincial housing standards where 35 per cent of public housing projects and 25 per cent of private projects are set aside for affordable housing?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I think there were two questions there and I will handle the second one first. We said a minimum of 25 per cent will be affordable housing. I noticed the other day that the Hon. Members's friend, the Premier of the Province of Ontario,


came out in support of this land transfer and congratulated the federal Government in that regard. The same is true of the Ontario Minister of Housing.
As to the cost of sewage disposal and so on in this development, the only figure I have seen is the one that the Hon. Member has bandied about and the one that the mayor is reported to have given. We will be sitting down and discussing the development with Mayor Lastman this week. We will have a better idea of what his concerns are, and announcements will be made at the proper time.


DISPOSAL OF FEDERAL LANDS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the same Minister. First, I want to offer my congratulations to him on his new appointment and to say also that I welcome his announcement about the release of those lands at the Downsview airport.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Neil Young: The announcement raised a number of questions. Number one, how are those lands going to be disposed of? Will they be put on the auction block to the highest bidder? How will the 25 per cent for affordable housing that the Minister spoke about be disposed of? Will it suit the demand in Toronto for affordable housing for a whole bunch of people who are denied access to that market now?
The problem in Toronto, as the Minister knows, is not one of increased housing starts. The question is affordability and whether or not this scheme will help.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his kind words. I appreciate them.
I mentioned on Friday when I made the announcement that the marketing of the housing development will be through public proposal calls to developers and non-profit groups who will be financing, designing, and constructing the housing. It is our feeling that a minimum, and I want to stress that, a minimum of 25 per cent would be geared toward affordable housing. I think the Hon. Member knows full well, and will agree, that you do not want to set the whole proposal as affordable housing because that it just not realistic. However, I think it goes a long way toward assisting those who need affordable housing in the Metropolitan Toronto area. I can tell the Hon. Member it is never enough, and he knows that. I would love it to be more.


AFFORDABLE HOUSING QUERY
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, both I and my Party agree that there is a place for a mix of affordable housing on that site. However, on Friday, in response to a question I asked of the Minister of Supply and Services, I was told: "We are moving in the direction of providing additional
Oral Questions
social housing for senior citizens, the disabled, and affordable housing for young couples starting out".
As the Minister knows, the average cost of a house in Metropolitan Toronto today is around $230,000. Does he consider those people primarily on fixed income can get into that market? If they cannot, what does the Minister define as affordable housing?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be pinned down on defining affordable housing. The press tried that on Friday and it did not work. However, I can say to the Hon. Member that our priorities in the 25 per cent are for the handicapped and low-income people through the various programs available in conjunction with the Province of Ontario with which we are working to provide social housing.
I might point out that this Government's record on social housing has been very significant over the last four years. This is not something new. It has been going on for a considerable amount of time. As a matter of fact, 18 per cent of our social housing budget is spent in the Metropolitan Toronto area, a very significant amount, because that is a special area that needs help.


UNITED NATIONS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
A few weeks ago there was an announcement that pleased Canadians very much to the effect that Canada would be participating in the UN peace-keeping force in Iran and Iraq. Recently rumours were swirling about that either some or all of our forces will be withdrawn from that peace-keeping force. Would the Minister please advise the House and Canadians what this is all about?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to do that. As my hon. friend and as the House will know, all of the Canadian troops are now in place and our communications network has been set up. Our troops there are doing an outstanding job on behalf of Canada and on behalf of the United Nations.
At the time we announced that Canadian troops would be sent to Iran and Iraq, we indicated that our commitment to the United Nations was that the UN would replace our signallers as soon as possible with civilians working for the UN. I am pleased to confirm that good progress is being made. We expect to find the first of the civilian replacements going out


Oral Questions
within the coming weeks. We hope to start bringing our signallers back as soon as possible and we hope that perhaps the bulk of them will be home before Christmas.
Our observers will remain there for the duration of the six-month commitment that we have at the present time, but we are looking forward to bringing the first of our signallers home just as soon as possible.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and it concerns the lack of regional development programs in Ontario at the present time.
In 1984 the Government eliminated the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board, CIRB, on November 8. This program encouraged the establishment of certain industries in designated areas. In June, 1988, the IRDP Program was allowed to lapse and was not renewed. In December, 1984, the Canada-Ontario Development Agreement ended.
Given that the Government has stated it had a commitment toward regional development programs, when are we going to get a regional development program for areas of Ontario such as the riding I represent, Hawkesbury which still has a 14 per cent unemployment rate, for Renfrew, for parts of the Bruce Peninsula and other areas of Ontario which are not doing nearly as well as the rest of the province?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague well knows, we have been working very diligently in changing the whole dimension of our regional development programs throughout the country. We have announced WDO, and ACOA. In Ontario we have announced FEDNOR. We have announced a new

.. . federal-provincial agreement between Canada and Quebec.

We have announced special programs for eastern Montreal. I have also announced a special program in Ontario that is being negotiated with the provincial Government to help those regions that are not covered by these new programs, to allow them to be covered by a special program, once again to be administered by people within the regions rather than being administered by people in the centre who often are not are fully aware of the local conditions. That program will be forthcoming in the same way as all the other programs that have been put in place.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER GIVE COMMITMENT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary to the same Minister, and I may add that we are anxious to see these negotiations finalized, because the region I represent needs regional development.
I specifically wanted to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the case of Caron Fine Wood Products in Alexandria, an industry that was going to locate in our region and was turned down by his Department because of the free trade agreement, since recently, the Government's policy has been to stop giving grants to businesses in the lumber sector. Is the Minister prepared to review what his officials said and thus create at least fifty jobs in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, or is he going to sacrifice Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to free trade?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that not a single industrial development project in this country has been turned down because of the free trade agreement. Certainly not. In fact, many projects have been submitted as a result of the new potential provided by free trade.
Mr. Speaker, to give a more tangible indication of our commitments to regional industrial development, I can inform the House that between 1984-85 and 1988-89, contributions and subsidies to enterprises increased by 104 per cent in my Department's budget and the budgets for the Western Economic Diversification Office and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. This is one of the Budget votes, if not the vote, that has increased the most in this country. Regional development and industrial development is very important to us and will remain so.


TRANSPORT
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in his role as Minister in charge of privatization.
He will know that as a result of the sale by CN of a trucking company almost two years ago to private operators who operated the company as Route Canada, it went bankrupt about 10 days ago. This means that 350 truck owner operators classified by the Labour Board as employees or dependent owner operators who worked for Route Canada, who are being forced into bankruptcy, are owed from $5,000 to $20,000 for


work done, and find that they cannot use their own trucks because they were registered under the Route Canada name. They and the union representing the other employees have urged the Government and have asked the Minister to see that the agreement involving the sale by CN to these private owners will be tabled. Will the Minister now agree to table that agreement?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, this trucking firm was losing something in the order of $70 million a year. What was done at the time when the company was sold was to preserve the jobs and try to make a viable operation out of this particular company.
The Minister of Transport has indicated in the House on several occasions that he is looking into the matter. The Minister of Labour has also indicated that he is looking into the matter to ensure that all points pertinent to the Canada Labour Code are being honoured. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has indicated that whatever steps can be taken to ensure that help can be provided to the affected parties will be taken.
I can assure the Hon. Member the matter is under active consideration. I hope he will understand that in 1986 the firm lost $71 million, in 1985 it lost $42.6 million, and in 1984 it lost $31.9 million. In any event, what was going to happen that this operation would be closed down, and the Hon. Member should recognize that.


REQUEST THAT CNR REPOSSESS COMPANY'S ASSETS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, if the operation had been closed down by the CNR in the regular way, workers and the truck owners would have been protected. That is why they are now beginning to deal with lawyers and the Minister knows what legal costs can be for these people. Will the Minister see that the agreement is made public?
I point out to him that 3,000 employees have neither been paid their most recent wages, their holiday pay, nor their severance pay, which were all part of the agreement they had with CN which Route Canada took over. As well, pension benefits have been reduced.
Will the Minister ask the CNR to repossess the assets of the company and recommence the operation so people can be dealt with fairly?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member was in the House when the Minister of Transport indicated that a lot of rumours were circulating about this particular issue and that he was attempting to ascertain all the facts. I can assume he is engaged in that process right now.


Mr. Benjamin:: You were the one that privatized.
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, I am not the guy that privatized it. It was CNR.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You ordered them to.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It was a business decision which CNR undertook.
If the Hon. Member is suggesting that he would support a losing proposition of $71 million a year which would have an effect upon the whole operations of CNR, that is a convoluted way to run a business.
I can assure the Hon. Member that the Minister of Transport is actively pursuing this matter and I am sure he will get back to the House in due course.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In light of his recent commitment to the environment two weeks ago and the repeated requests of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities for the federal Government's share of sewage treatment and sewer separation costs, will the Government undertake today to assist municipalities with this program and help them to modernize and upgrade their projects at this time?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, this is a puzzling question coming from such a source because the hon. gentleman was a Liberal Member of Parliament when the Liberal Government of the day in the late 1970s, 1980 and 1981 cancelled the broadly based federal government program which supported the provinces and, through the provinces, the municipalities for this very purpose. In the absence of the program when we took office in September, 1984, we resorted to, I think, very creative devices to assist cities where the national interest was advanced. For example, in the case of Montreal, there was the clean-up of industrial wastes in the St. Lawrence River. In the case of Halifax, there was the clean-up of the Halifax Harbour. That is the sort of creative, innovative mechanism of federal-provincial cooperation that has served Canada and especially the country's environment.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL FUNDING
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the question that begs to be asked is why be so selective? What about the national capital region? What about the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton which has repeatedly asked for assistance in modernizing and upgrading the installations in this community? Today the regional municipality wants to


Oral Questions
make the quality of life in Ottawa better by dealing with how we dispose of waste water.
I say to the Minister, never mind what happened then. I was there in 1976. Yes, we needed a program then, but what about a program today, 1988, to help the municipalities deal with that very expensive program? Flow about your power to spend? Use it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: That's the Liberal approach, spend, spend, spend.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Everybody else is getting it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Hon. Member would want the country to ignore what the Liberal Party has done and said in the past in favour of what it is saying now. In any event, I mentioned the St. Lawrence River clean-up and the Halifax Harbour clean-up only as examples of the kind of major environmental undertakings the Government has launched. I could have mentioned, for example, the clean-up of the Hamilton Harbour through a federal-provincial mechanism that involved federal money being matched by provincial money for a very important anti-pollution control purpose. The national interest was served in that case and provincial jurisdiction was respected. Through federal-provincial harmony, "we did good", and I think we will do better.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to patronage in the Pointe-a-Cascy development in the Vieux Port of Quebec, a project on federal land which gave rise to strong opposition from the residents of Quebec.
Can the Prime Minister explain why the Government has asked the firm of Eastern Quebec Conservative organizer Marc Lefranqois to develop this site, in spite of the evidence of his latest project, the Terrasses du Vieux-Port, where he will allow the disintegration of a site which has been designated as world heritage by UNESCO?
Is the Government prepared to take into account the historic and heritage quality of this site by drafting a development plan in close consultation with local residents, or does the Government think it is more important to make a gift to a Conservative organizer and friend of the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Public Works is not in the House today but will be later in the week, I will take that question as notice today.


REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, we do not know whether or not there will be a chance to ask a question later this week.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Is the Minister aware, and if not, can he pass on to the Minister of Public Works, that some 500 citizens of Quebec met last week to voice their objections? They have asked for a moratorium on the development of the Vieux Port of Quebec until there is a real consultation. They wonder why in Toronto there is a commission under Mr. David Crombie, former Secretary of State, to look into the Port of Toronto while there is not one in Quebec. Why can Quebec not have the same kind of consideration in developing its Vieux Port that Torontonians have for their port?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, the Minister of Public Works will be able to answer this question in more detail, but the fact is that the Government has been proceeding and is very concerned with this issue. I can announce that-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Concerned with patronage.


Otto John Jelinek: No. If the Hon. Member would be willing to listen, nothing will proceed until an agreement is reached between the City of Quebec and the developer, and this agreement insists on following those views. In fact, I believe that on this issue and on any other issue related to this, the Government is proceeding along the right track.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question of Question Period, a single question from the Hon. Member for Willow-dale.


CANADA SCHOLARSHIPS
John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Minister set up a good program to allow Canadian students to compete for full four-year scholarships in the fields of science and engineering. However, I have been informed by a constituent of mine that the schools did not inform qualified students of this and that universities were given a set number of scholarships. As a consequence, students with high marks may not qualify while students with lower marks may get in.


Will the Minister investigate this and rectify the unfair occurrences?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his interest in this matter. This gives me an opportunity, and I know all hon. colleagues would want to join me, to congratulate the first 2,500 of the 10,000 Canada Scholars who have received their first scholarships this year.
I would be disappointed if the message had not been properly communicated. On March 28 all of the schools were informed and 4,000 packages were delivered. The Prime Minister subsequently wrote a letter to every school pointing out, first, the need for the program and second, our intentions for it. Other efforts were made to get the message across as well.
Indeed, I can say that I am particularly proud that 53 per cent of the new scholars in the natural sciences and engineering programs are women, and we had excellent co-operation from the Canadian Association of Universities and Colleges. Of course, next year it is intended that the program will be subject to a national exam, and that would, I hope, eliminate any of the problems that may have been associated with the initial start-up of the program.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-136, an Act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House will now proceed to the next group of motions. They are Motions Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 43, and they are grouped for debate.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 32
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 39 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"aboriginal cultures and representative native languages should be". Motion No. 33
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 9 to 25 at page 6.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 34
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 27 to 34 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
Broadcasting Act
"undertakings should contribute significantly to the creation of programming that is distinctively Canadian in content and character; and".


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 35
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 27 to 34 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"undertakings shall provide programming that is predominantly Canadian, using predominantly Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming, unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking, such as specialized content or format or use of languages other than French or English, renders that use impracticable, in which case the undertaking shall make the greatest practicable use of those resources; and".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 36
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 35 at page 6 the following:
"(i) should deliver only duly licensed services,".


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 37
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 36 to 38 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"(i) 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,
(ii)	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,
(iii)	should be regulated in a manner that reflects a reasonable recognition of exclusive rights acquired by Canadian broadcasting undertakings,".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 38
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 38 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"vices and in particular accord priority to the carriage of radio and television services of the Corporation and other public broadcasting
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 38 at page 6 the following:
"(ii) should ensure that foreign services, with the exception of conventional off-air broadcasters, are complementary to Canadian services,".
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 3 to 8 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"(iv) may, where appropriate, originate a community channel as defined by the Commission, under terms and conditions set out by the Commission."


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 41
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 4 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:


Broadcasting Act
"programming that is complementary to existing licensed programming services, including local program-".
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 7 the following:
''(v) shall not be permitted to have an ownership interest in, or be in common ownership with, a pay television, specialty or any other network programming service as defined by the Commission."


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, it is going to be very difficult to debate all these issues in such a short time. However, we will give it a good try.
Motion No. 32 is a recognition of aboriginal languages. In the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture we recommended, in our sixth report, that a new Broadcasting Act should make provision for service within the Canadian broadcasting system in aboriginal languages considered to be representative, where numbers warrant, and to the extent that public funds would permit. The Government has not included this particular aspect in its subclause 3(m) of the broadcast policy. I would suggest that this is vital to the National Aboriginal Communication Society which brought this to our attention once again and expressed its dismay at the Government's failure to act.
I can recall sitting on the Indian affairs committee and working very hard on the amendments and the concerns of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. I really care about this aspect of the Bill. I know that my colleague presented a somewhat similar concern earlier in the day and I hope that, in a reasoned way, the Minister will see fit to give consideration to this motion.
Motion No. 33 is a very serious matter and I would like to suggest to the Minister, through you, Madam Speaker, that this motion does not oppose the service of alternative broadcasting in any sense. I am convinced, as are many people who came before our committee, that it is defined much too broadly within the Act and that we really do not need this to allow us to move ahead in any kind of a new broadcasting venture. We have moved into specialty services and pay-TV, and we have not provided place in the Act to undertake these kinds of activities. I do not think it is necessary and it causes confusion to the CBC mandate.
I suggest that this amendment removes all references to alternative programming in legislation. It is not needed, in my view. The way the alternative services programming mandate is defined is so nearly identical to that of the CBC and its role in the Canadian broadcasting system that I think this only serves to undermine the CBC and marginalize high culture and multicultural concerns which should be contained within mainstream productions as well as within the confines of the CBC.
ACTRA brought its serious concerns to our attention when it said in its brief that the alternative program system would
risk becoming a ghetto of programming appealing to very few people. In addition, because of this alternative programming services mandate in the Act, the other components of the system would be forgiven a requirement to participate in the production of minority or special interest programming and that would become the responsibility of the alternative programming service.
The standing committee, in its fifteenth report, in recommendation 100, recommended that the alternative television programming service to be created would be on a not for profit basis. This is not the approach the Minister has taken on page 35 in Canadian Voices Canadian Choices where she talks about a consortium approach for this service.
I would like to suggest to you that if, through consultation with the CRTC and interested parties, we do end up with the kind of Channel 4 format which you see in England, we might well be open and willing to having this kind of a program, but having this in the Act does not prevent that kind of thing. I suggest that this is premature. In fact, it is almost unnecessary. In the response that the Minister gave us the Government says that it is prepared to contribute substantially in these initiatives through new funding. I would like to recommend strongly to the Minister that if there is extra funding it should go to the CBC which has suffered some serious set-backs in its funding over the long term since 1984.
Motion No. 35 is divided into two parts. My amendment addresses both subclauses 3(q)(i) and 3(q)(ii). I believe the broadcasting law in Canada recognizes that the goal was to make programs that were made in Canada but also reflective of Canada. With regard to Clause 3(q)(i), my motion would require that broadcasting undertakings, that is network and programming undertakings, well, would require that programming be predominantly Canadian, as well as that there be predominant use of Canadian creative and other resources.
I know the Minister answered earlier, in response to subclause 3(l)(e), I believe it was, that it was so. I would like to remind her that if she looks at the amendment which I have proposed to that clause she will see that it keeps all the exceptions in place. It keeps the exceptions that we have all been very sensitive to such as Tele-latino and Chinavision, to use the Minister's own examples.
If you read Motion No. 35 you will see that I have indicated that private networks and program undertakings "shall provide programming that is predominantly Canadian, using predominantly Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming, unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking, such as specialized content or format or use of languages other than English or French, renders that use impracticable, in which case the undertaking shall make the greatest practicable use of those resources".
I think that that would answer the concerns to which the Minister alluded earlier this morning, and I sincerely hope that for the sake of consistency and for the sake of the goals of the


Broadcasting Act the Minister will take serious interest in this particular amendment.
In subclause 3 (q)(ii) we refer to the private networks and the programming undertakings being responsive to the evolving demands of the public. I would like to point out to the Minister that not only have I shown some serious concern in this regard, but the CRTC brings the following observations. It says that the phrase "responsive to the evolving demands of the public" seems at first sight harmless enough. However, the specific object could have the effect of rendering the other general objects of Section 3 nullities. Would this specific object override the objects of high standards of programming, balance in programming, and programming for aboriginal peoples, for the disabled, et cetera? This section could cause needless litigation and may contradict an underlying principle of the regulation of the broadcasting industry, that is, that programming be of high standard and of quality.
I concur with the CRTC's view that we should amend this section. I suggest that private networks and programming undertakings should have the same responsibilities as those that are defined in subclause 3(l)(e) and that the Minister should put this clause in the Act to distinguish the role of the distribution undertakings, that particularly of private networks and specialty services or programming services, so that they have the obligation of Canadian programming along with the exceptions which I have just noted.
My amendment, in essence, is to bring consistency to the Act and to the possibility of the role of these undertakings. I suggest that the major objective is predominantly Canadian programming.
The next amendment, Motion No. 37, is a major area of concern with which I have had some ongoing problems. I would like to recommend to the Minister that the carriage regulations for cable are at least as important as the requirements for Canadian content quotas for broadcasting networks in maintaining any reasonable balance between Canadian and foreign programming in the system. I think that we must define cable and cable's role more clearly.
That is the ultimate goal of my Motion No. 37.
The standing committee felt very strongly about this aspect and there certainly has been no change in my view with respect to this particular motion. Motion No. 37 deals with the priority of carriage, with the complementary role that foreign services should play, and the exclusivity of the rights of those Canadian broadcasters who purchase programs and how they should be allowed to use them in the interest of the Canadian system.
The purpose of the Minister's focus, as I understand it, has been to bring the broadcasting system into a perspective that would develop the conditions whereby cultural sovereignty could be achieved. That was the goal of Mr. Bennett. It has
Broadcasting Act
been the goal of everyone who has been addressing this particular issue. I believe that goal is missing in this Bill.
I suggest that this motion is fundamental to the well-being of the broadcasting system and will ensure whether or not we have a Canadian broadcasting system or a North American system.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam
Speaker, we are dealing with a number of amendments. I wonder if the Minister accepts any of these amendments, but she is indicating that she is not.
This is a key part of the Bill in terms of the North Americanization of Canadian television. I did not expect the Minister to accept this amendment because in doing so she would have to go against the whole thrust of the Government's free trade initiative and the North Americanization that that embodies. I will say more about that in my speech at third reading.
This is a key part of the Bill because television is the most important cultural medium we have. Canadians, especially English Canadians, do not realize how our culture is potentially threatened by completely opening television airwaves to American programming.
Something can be done about this without hurting the choice of Canadians in watching television. That is the purpose of these amendments. These amendments respond to important recommendations of the sixth report of the standing committee. Motion No. 36 reflects recommendation No. 17 of the sixth report of the standing committee. Motion No. 39 reflects quite precisely recommendation No. 58 of the sixth report of the standing committee, a recommendation that was reiterated by recommendation No. 69 of the fifteenth report of the standing committee, which is the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture that has a Conservative majority. In recommendation No. 58 that committee stated:
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-
That is the American networks ABC, NBC, and CBS plus the American Public Broadcasting System. It continued:
-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.
"Complementary" means that they are showing different programs or adding something that we do not already have. If we have a Canadian news network, we do not bring in the American news network. If we have a Canadian arts and culture network, we do not bring in American ones.
We have to be able to say no to bringing in the superstation from the United States. That is absolutely fundamental because without this provision American channels like the ones we are getting now, such as Ted Turner's CNN news, will


Broadcasting Act
come in. There are no similar Canadian programs. Once they are available, we must have the Canadian service.
The Conservative philosophy is simply to let them compete with Canadian programming. However, the Canadian market is too small and Canadians cannot compete. That is why the market theory falls apart. That is why, without these amendments, we could see the elimination of private broadcasters. That is why Global, CTV, and other broadcasters oppose this Bill. The Bill fails to implement those recommendations in the reports of the standing committee.
Motion No. 36 would ensure that all services operating in Canada, including U.S. satellite to cable services, are licensed. As the House knows, for example, the U.S. Arts and Entertainment Network is beamed into Canada by satellite and affiliates with cable companies that 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 does not cost Arts and Entertainment anything to tap the Canadian market.
As the Association of Canadian Film and Television Producers said before our 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.
This is what Motion No. 36 seeks to do.
More important than this is Motion No. 39. This motion would ensure that with the exception of "three-plus-one", as I explained earlier, and border stations, the carriage of foreign signals should only be provided by cable systems if the programming they provide is complementary to that available from licensed Canadian broadcasters and network operators.
I admit that 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 that provide the unique service of Beverly Hillbillies reruns 12 hours a day in addition to Atlanta Braves, Mets, and other baseball games.
As the producers' groups rightly said when they came before the legislative committee, "this will have a highly negative effect on Canadian producers to maintain a distinct Canadian market".
To quote Sam Jephcott again:
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 trans-border signal penetration.
That means that the American channels will come in and take over from our channels.
Just as important as the question of distinct Canadian production market is that of the viability of Canadian local stations, such as City TV in Toronto and specialty stations, in the face of competition from directly competing U.S. services.
As I noted earlier, this motion comes from a direct recommendation of the sixth report of the all-Party standing committee. Gerald Caplan and Florian Sauvageau warned against creating in effect a North American TV market, an idea which is embodied in this Bill. I quote: "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 to Canada's broadcasting system, particularly of private broadcasting. More importantly, it would create an even greater imbalance between foreign and Canadian programs, and reduce Canada's ability to produce such programs".
The Minister in her reply in debate said:
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 something different. I think the Minister is wrong. Her policy would limit Canadian choices and the chance to watch Canadian broadcasting 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.
I am not proposing to stop Canadians from getting complementary services. We just want Canadians to have the chance to provide them. The standing committee's sixth report, chaired by the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) I believe, 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.
I know that I have to wind up. I wonder if the House would bear with me for about one more minute. This is the most important element in the Bill.
There is a Conservative majority in this committee. What has made the Conservatives change their minds on this? We have to look at a group called The Cultural Industries Alliance, made up of more than a dozen major cultural organizations, which 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-
I think that this is the answer. The answer is that the Minister has no room to manoeuvre. She cannot manoeuvre


because of the trade deal and because of the Americanization of the North American market. That is why the standing committee reports were rejected, and that is why we are bringing forward these amendments.
If Canadian private broadcasting has to survive, I would hope that the Minister would accept it. If she wants it to survive in the future, in the face of this American competition, she should accept these amendments, at least the concept of complementary services.
Mr. Len Hopkins	(Renfrew-Nipissing

Pembroke):
Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill C-136, and in fact at the same time congratulate the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), from my own Party, who has been carrying the debate in committee and in the House of Commons so effectively.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hopkins:: She has indeed pointed out the great amount of evidence that exists that there is a tremendous liability to Canadian broadcasters in the future if this Bill is passed.
She has also brought out, very plainly, the fact that Canadian broadcasters will be very much under fire financially from the major television broadcasters in the United States under the trade deal. It is another example of how the trade deal can attack Canadian culture and will attack Canadian culture.
There must be a long-term look at this Bill. When you really take that long-term look, you realize the liability that exists therein for Canadian broadcasters. This is very clearly brought out in an article by Peter Mortimer of the Association of Canadian Film and Television Producers, who heads his article "Broadcast bill's flaws need fixing". He says that the legislation just would not do unless it is amended.
I am sure that the Minister is quite familiar with the comments contained therein.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You are out of date. He has written again since.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: She is talking now. I do not know whether or not she is agreeing with me.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I was agreeing with Peter Mortimer's latest letter, the endorsement.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: As the standing committee observed in its report, since Canadians receive television programming primarily by cable, the proportion of Canadian programming that cable offers is at least as important as the proportion of the programming offered by off-air broadcasters. Of course, we only need to take a look at the areas of Canadian life which Canadian television touches today to realize the percentage of
Broadcasting Act
the Canadian public that actually watch programs via cable television companies.
It concluded that the carriage regulations for cable are at least as important as the requirement for individual broadcasters in maintaining any reasonable balance between Canadians and foreign programming in the system. The task force and standing committee both concluded that broadcasting legislation should clearly define cable's role and give policy guidance to the CRTC regarding which channels cable television could carry. The standing committee recommended the following. The Bill should be drafted so as to define the central role of distribution undertakings-the cable systems- 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.
With the exception of the "three-plus-one" services that are very common to us, ABC, CBS, the NBC, and PBS already carried the bill and 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. For Canadian broadcasters to succeed they must be able to schedule the best foreign TV programs as well as Canadian programs. To the extent that directly competing American TV services become North American services, Canadian broadcasters' ability to buy attractive U.S. shows is eroded. If this happens, the value of rights that they manage to buy will be eroded by the lack of exclusivity. The Canadian Cable Television Association stated that it agreed in principle with this recommendation.
We are dealing here with professional people who have been in the cablevision business and television business for years. I think that their views should be taken absolutely seriously. They obviously have a few members of the committee. They have not been by most of the committee, and they have not as yet been taken seriously by the Government.
The Canadian Cable Television Association went on to suggest, however, that at the very least a cable subscriber should expect to receive every signal available off-air. The CRTC also stated that it agrees generally with this recommendation. It raised the same concern about border signals available off-air from the United States, although it noted that "the commission would agree that the spread of these nonCanadian services by means of microwave or satellite services should be discouraged".
The Government responded to this recommendation in Bill C-136 by avoiding the issue. Instead of offering guidance on how the CRTC should treat the carriage of foreign services, the Bill simply states that distribution undertakings should accord priority to the carriage of Canadian programming services. That is contained in subclause 3(1 )(q) (i). In other words, as long as licensed Canadian services are carried, all American stations and networks can also be carried.


Broadcasting Act
By explicitly favouring the carriage of conventional pay and specialty American television services that compete directly with licensed Canadian services, the Government has hidden its head in the sand on the implications this policy has for the existence of a separate Canadian broadcasting market. To the extent that conventional U.S. stations and networks come in to Canada they erode the value of Canadian rights. One can readily see that because of the massive, unbalanced distribution of signals and television companies on each side of the border and the wealth contained therein.
In the case of the United States pay and specialty services, such rights will not be available to Canadian broadcasters at all. Having introduced legislation to ensure a separate distribution market in Canada for film and video products, the Government is clearly unwilling to see the erosion of the separate markets that have traditionally existed for broadcasting programs.
Having addressed that in general terms, I would now like to move an amendments:
That Motion No. 37 be amended by adding at the end of subparagraph (ii) and subparagraph (iii) the words:
"under terms and conditions set out by the Commission",
These words would simply be added on to Motion No. 37 after subparagraphs (ii) and (iii). The motion is seconded by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair would like to reserve on the amendment for the time being. I am sure the Hon. Member will understand that the Chair needs a little time to ensure that the amendment to the amendment is in order. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, 1 want to support the amendment contained in Motion No. 40. I do so because, putting it politely, I am puzzled at why the Government's Bill gives the cable companies almost everything they want. Cable companies seem to have tremendous political influence with the Conservative Government. As far as expanding the rights of cable companies is concerned, what is contained in the Bill is in direct contradiction to the recommendations of the Caplan-Sauvageau report, and also the report of the all-Party standing committee.
I wish to put on the record a partial list of the organizations which, like us, oppose the Government's move. For example, ACTRA-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That's wrong. It has reversed that position.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, the Minister has every right to put on the record anything that I say that she claims is wrong.
ACTRA, the Canadian Film and Television Association, the Association of Canadian Film and Television Producers, Des Producteur de films et de videos du Quebec, the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the private networks First Choice, the CUPE Broadcast group, NABET, and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.
I wish to put on the record part of a statement made by Michelle D'Auray of the Canadian Conference of the Arts who said, in part:
We do not believe a cable operator licensed as a carrier should be a programmer, doing content, because the concentration of ownership we already see elements of, would allow for too much control over the system for one company, one corporation.
We also believe the system has been built on the distinction of carrier and content and should be maintained at that level.
Let me take a moment to advise the Minister how unhappy and angry are many of my constituents, and almost all the people living in that part of Winnipeg west of the Red River, about the recent decision of the CRTC to permit the cable company which services more than half of Winnipeg the right to add three new stations to the stations carried-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I agree. Tell the CRTC.


David Orlikow: Well, it is the CRTC. However, sometimes the CRTC can be wrong.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Absolutely.


David Orlikow: It allowed Videon Cable to offer three more choices on its channel. The customers who buy the services provided by Videon Cable were not asked if they wanted an increase in the number of channels to which they could tune in. They certainly were not asked if they wanted the three that were added. In fact, not a single person who has called me agrees with those three channels, and the monthly bill was increased by 91 cents. It is time to have a careful look at the whole situation of the cable companies.
Almost every person and every group involved in television has opposed the expansion of rights that the Government is giving to the cable companies in the Bill.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is the CRTC.


David Orlikow: Our position is the position brought forward in the Caplan-Sauvageau report and in the task force report. I wish to quote a couple of sentences from the report of the House of Commons standing committee on this question. In indicating why it did not like this idea, it stated: "There would be incentives to market the vertically integrated service in competition or to the detriment of independently owned pay or specialty services, and will lead to a further fracturing of the market for existing companies".
Therefore our position is supported by the Caplan-Sauvageau Commission, the task report, and in the briefs presented to the legislative committee which argued that content should be kept separate from carriage. We see the cable industry as


being like Bell Canada in the transmission business, They should be subject, like Bell, to rate of return regulation. It has been suggested that one of the main reasons the cable industry wants to become involved in programming is to blur further its status as a carrier. If any Government were to come to them and attempt to make the cable industry subject to such regulation, we will have the CCTA come before us and say: "We are different from Bell and we are basically a programming undertaking", and so on.
We oppose the further expansion of the cable companies and the services they supply, and the ability it will give them to increase the rate of profits which, in our opinion, are already much too great for the cable companies.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to the subamendment and say, first of all, that I would have no trouble voting in favour of this provision because I believe it would provide a firm direction for the main amendment, Motion No. 37 now before the House.
I may recall Motion No. 37 to amend Bill C-136 in Clause 3, which adds the following:
"(i) 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,
(ii)	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,
(iii)	should be regulated in a manner that reflects a reasonable recognition of exclusive rights acquired by Canadian broadcasting undertakings,".

In speaking to these three points under the subamendment, I would like to make it clear that in ten minutes one cannot do justice to all the thoughts and points one would like to raise. I would like to talk about the parliamentary network and the recent shuffling of the parliamentary channel on cable. In my riding, for example, and I know the Speaker has received lots of letters and will be receiving more on this subject, there is quite a bit of unease about the fact that some cable companies have "elevated" the parliamentary channel so that many people who were receiving it cannot receive it any more unless they have a special hook-up. That hook-up is costly, I think $100.
In an article written on the weekend by John Warren, there is reference to a 1986 survey by Environics Research which shows that 3 per cent of all Canadians tune in, almost daily, to the parliamentary channel. Another 10 per cent watch it at least once a week. The numbers are 750,000 people daily with an additional 2.5 million each week. If their situation is like that of people in my riding where Skyline has moved it from Channel 16 to Channel 50, they are just out of luck. They
Broadcasting Act
cannot hear me anymore because someone made a decision to put other stations ahead of the parliamentary channel. I find that a bit difficult to accept, and I would like to tell the CRTC that indeed I expect that if this amendment is approved they will accord priority to a channel of such importance as the parliamentary channel.
We had the pleasure today of welcoming the British select committee on televising proceedings of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Maybe they would like to hear from some of us about what we feel about this broadcasting. Maybe they would like to hear from Canadians about how they feel about receiving the signal. I know I was quite impressed with the decision when it was taken some 11 years ago in this House. I was not too sure it was going to be very well received, but I am amazed to see how many people in my riding of Ottawa-Vanier come up to me every week and say: "I saw you on TV this week". I say: "What was I saying?" "I don't know but I saw you on TV".


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Is that good or bad?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The fact that they see you there is very important to people. I hope they understand I am trying to fight to get this channel back into the basic service so that people at home can receive the parliamentary channel.
The second point I want to make concerning according priority to the carriage of Canadian programming services in French and English, both public and private, is the famous question I raised this morning about TV-5.

I would like to get back to that, Madam Speaker, because TV-5 is important to French-speaking Canadians. I would like to give an overview of the present situation since 1 said this morning that people living outside Quebec have to pay more to receive the TV-5 signal, and that is quite true. It costs almost $6 more to receive the TV5 signal if you live outside Quebec.
The Association des cablodistributeurs du Quebec has signed an agreement with the Quebec-Canada television consortium under which cable distributors may transmit the signal to all subscribers to their basic service at a cost of, get this, $1.63 per month, which includes TV-5, Canal Famille, Meteo Media, Musique Plus and YTV. YTV is an English station which I watched at home not long ago, and I thought their programs were quite interesting.
Unfortunately, in provinces outside Quebec, for instance here in Ontario, negotiations did not lead to this kind of agreement. Here in Ottawa, as I said this morning, subscribers to Skyline Cablevision can receive TV-5 and Canal Famille- two channels, which is half the number Quebec viewers can receive-and they have to pay $2 per month more, while it takes another $4 to rent the decoder to be able to receive the signal. So it costs them $6 to get half the services that are available to Quebecers for $1.63.


Broadcasting Act
Madam Speaker, I find that hard to swallow. We are not any richer over here. We are not asking for more. We just want the same kind of deal they are getting in Quebec. Under the agreement between the Association des cablodistributeurs du Quebec and the Quebec-Canada television consortium, cable distributors, get this, can buy the signal at a cost of 29 cents per subscriber for the first year. To these costs should, of course, be added the cost of equipment depreciation and administrative costs, all of which are included in the $1.63 charge to Quebec subscribers. As for cable distributors outside Quebec, everything depends on the agreements which, I hope, will be signed some day by TV-5 with each distibutor. As I see it, considering the national investment in setting up the TV-5 network, and the fact that as Canadians we have invested millions to make this programming available to Canadians as part of a cultural mission and a desire to achieve a linguistic balance, 1 think equity should be restored as soon as possible in this respect.
I would therefore ask the Government and the CRTC- because I think the Minister is well aware of the problem, and she let me know she would try to push the CRTC to make this a priority-to put before the Canadian public a list of criteria that cable distributors should meet. That is in fact the purpose, as I see it, of item 1, the purpose we are trying to explain to Canadians, which is to 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. That is all we are trying to do, Madam Speaker, and I hope the amendment and subamendment will be accepted.
In item 2, and I want to read it, "may carry foreign ordinary programming services only when the program they provide is substantially different". We are trying to grandfather the existing 22 foreign services, if I may use those words. I guess I would have to say that American programming is actually in the basic service right now. In support of this amendment I quote the Association of Canadian Film and Television Producers that stated the following in a publication:
With the exception of the "three-plus-one" services (ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS) 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.
I see that I should wrap up my comments, Madam Speaker. I want to tell the House that what we are trying to do here is to strengthen the legislation, to make it a little more responsive, to get the CRTC to move, and to get the priorities set.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam
Speaker, I believe I can speak again on the subamendment, the amendment to the amendment. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) raised some very interesting
points about which we sometimes lose track when we are debating technicalities.
Cable companies, however, have incredible power. Recently there has been a switch of channels and people are very upset. Not only are people facing increased prices for cable-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is the CRTC.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I know the CRTC makes the rulings, but on the application of the cable companies.
If you give the cable companies, as this Bill is doing, the power to broadcast, to originate programming, if you like, other than local programming, regular programming-and they are the ones that carry the transmission-you have a potential conflict of interest, Madam Speaker. As someone pointed out, the potential for conflict is great as demonstrated when used to promote Canadian pay services taken over by cable's own Home Shopping Club Network.
In its sixth report the standing committee, chaired by a Conservative Member, gave the following examples of the danger of what it called vertical integration. Let me quote from it:
-the allocation of revenue between the distribution undertaking and the network operator directly affects the capacity of the network operator to meet its Canadian content and other programming obligations.
If distribution undertakings are permitted to own and operate such programming services, they would in effect be negotiating affiliation agreements with themselves, and would have an incentive to maximize the allocation of revenue to the distribution function. Moreover, there would be incentives to market the vertically integrated service in competition with or to the detriment of independently owned pay or specialty services.
The Hon. Member from Winnipeg suggested that a number of groups opposed this but the Minister said: "No, they do not any more". These groups have consistently opposed allowing cable to originate broadcasting. I do not know where cable got all this influence with the Government, but the cable companies are the big winners in this Bill, and there is a potential for conflict.
Here is what Gary Neil of ACTRA, the union, summarized when he appeared before the committee:
There are two aspects to the production of programming by cable. At the moment they are involved to some extent through the community channel and we do not think it is inappropriate and would not be particularly concerned if this bill were recognizing that in law.
In other words, you recognize that they can program with the community channel. He continued:
However when you get to a more general question of them originating programming, the difficulty with vertical integration is that the individuals making decisions about what will be available to Canadians would also have produced some of the material available for distribution.
Not all of the material, but some of it. He went on to say:
Clearly there will be prejudice on their part to decide in favour of the materials they have produced. It is a conflict of interest.
Michelle D'Auray of the Canadian Conference of the Arts said:


We do not believe a cable operator licensed as a carrier should be a programmer, doing content, because the concentration of ownership we already see elements of, would allow for too much control over the system for one company, one corporation. We also believe the system has been built on the distinction of carrier and content and should be maintained at that level.

The Association des producteurs de films et de videos du Quebec said this: We see to our dismay that the legislator ignored the recommendation in the Sauvageau-Caplan Report and preferred to authorize distributors to be involved in programming for local or other needs.

Our position is that content should be kept separate from carriage. We see the cable industry as being like Bell Canada in the transmission business. It should be subject, like Bell, to a regulated rate of return. The cable industry is making a tremendous rate of return, some say over 50 per cent. We feel that one of the reasons the cable industry wants to get involved in programming is that it would blur its status as a carrier. If any future Government were to come to it and attempt to make the cable industry subject to such regulation, like Bell as a carrier, it would come before the Minister and say: "We are different from Bell because we program as well as carry." We think that is the inarticulated major premise why the cable industry wanted in this Bill as a programmer and is what it won from the Government. I do not know what the price the Conservatives will pay for it but they have certainly given a huge favour to the cable industry, the one group that always supported the Bill.
These amendments attempt to stop the Government from mixing content and carriage. Let me quote Mr. Andrew Roman of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre when he discussed that danger:
-it will not be long before you are going to start to see the cable industry wanting to program channels and wanting to accept advertising, and seeking exemptions from certain classes of regulations from the CRTC or the Cabinet and going head to head with broadcasters.
If they can do that, because of the inherent advantage they have with the technology because they control the delivery system for 60 per cent or 65 per cent of Canadian households, they can put every broadcaster today out of business if they want to, just by grabbing up their advertising revenues and by using the same program producers on a contract basis as virtually everybody else does.
Look out, here comes Ted Rogers and the rest of the cable people to take over the private broadcasting in the long run in Canada or at the minimum to avoid their huge profits from being regulated. That is what is behind this.
I invite the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) to speak. As I understand his sixth committee report, it said that there should be a distinction between carriage and content. Is he still holding that position?


Mr. Edwards:: Madam Speaker, I think that some of what we have been hearing in the debate today relates to ideology and not to principle. I challenge the Hon. Member to tell the House whether or not it is the official policy of the New
Broadcasting Act
Democratic Party that the Canadian cable television industry should be nationalized.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I do not regard that as our policy. That is such a red herring.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I thought the Hon. Member for Edmonton South was rising on debate and that is why he was recognized. There is no question or comment period at this time. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, the new Parliamentary Secretary is very able in slipping in a bon mot.
We are addressing a whole distribution system. Subclause 3(r) relates to distribution undertakings. We have to realize that we are facing a new structure, a new option or a new right, whichever way we put it, that the Government has accorded to the cable industry. I will not argue with the Government's right to make those decisions. It has decided that the distribution undertakings can be concerned with both content and carriage, but I would ask the Minister if she would please seriously consider this.
There already is serious fragmentation of the base and tremendous competitiveness in the broadcasting industry with the networks, the programming undertakings and the broadcast undertakings now having the right to be programmers. Perhaps the Minister would at least consider containing their rights in this particular area to programming that would be complementary. It is in that regard that I had moved Motion No. 41. I would be very pleased if she would look at that particular motion and give some serious consideration to it.
When local broadcasters will be in competition with local distribution undertakings, it will set up a very difficult situation. The viability of those individual broadcasters may well be challenged.
What I consider one of the most fundamental aspects of this Bill, and one of the most fundamental principles that needs to be integrated into this Bill so that the Broadcasting Act effectively responds to a Canadian system, is Canadian content and Canadian realities. I would plead with the Minister to look very carefully at Motion No. 37. I suggest to the Minister that it is consistent with the view of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. It was supported by the CRTC and, believe it or not, by the cable people.
The limiting of the carrying of foreign programming services is seen as detrimental to our system. I have, in my motion, grandfathered that which already exists. I feel strongly that we ought not add any additional American services until we have enabled our own Canadian services to grow and to reflect what we believe to be in the best interests of the Canadian broadcasting system.


Broadcasting Act
The standing committee recommended the prohibition of further carriage of foreign programming in its fifteenth report, and this was made quite clear in recommendations 139, 140, 141, and 142. The Minister answered this by saying that 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 the access of Canadians to a range of international broadcasting services.
I would suggest that we in Canada are far from being discriminated against. Certainly our access to foreign services is not restricted. I would remind the Minister that because of our good-neighbour policy and because of the airwaves that flow over the border, 71 per cent of all the television programs viewed by English-speaking Canadians are American. I would remind her that 80 per cent of our publishing industry is in foreign hands, 97 per cent of films shown in Canada are foreign, and 85 per cent of records and tapes sold in Canada are based on imported master tapes. The thrust is to change that reality and enable us to have our own industries.
I think it is important that Canadian broadcasters have some exclusivity of rights. One of the things my amendment does is provide that the Canadian broadcasting system be regulated in a manner that recognizes exclusive rights of broadcasters. It would also, I think, enable the essential role of the distribution undertakings, the distributing of Canadian radio and television services in English and in French, both public and private. The first priority would be given to the public sector. Canadian services including specialty services would be clearly defined so that the CRTC could not in any way avoid the responsibilities which we believe it should have. Only if it has a clear direction in the legislation can it then be held responsible if it does not follow the will expressed in the Bill.
The Standing Committee said that this was very important. It is just as appropriate and important to establish a basis for requiring the licensed broadcasters to give priority to carrying Canadian programs and it is at least as important to establish a legislative base that requires that distribution undertakings give priority to carrying Canadian undertakings.
I was glad my colleague from Vanier talked about the place of the House of Commons channel. It is disappearing very far up the dial. In fact, I just spoke to an elderly aunt of mine. She tells me that she cannot get it because she has an MATV system which does not bring it in. My mother-in-law cannot get it because she does not have a converter that goes that high. Perhaps they have been saved from this unbelievable debate. Nevertheless, if this priority carriage was there, public and private Canadian services could be on basic services and these people could get access to those services.
I would suggest that we must limit foreign programming. It is absolutely fundamental. Rather than allowing the Americans to invade, I would suggest we could occasionally learn some lessons from them.
It is interesting to note that on May 18, 1988, this year, the United States Federal Communications Commission decided to reimpose a requirement which it had removed in 1980, that cable systems in the United States not import a distant broadcasting signal-that is about 32 miles or something like that-even when done on a compulsory license basis, whenever a program contained in that signal has been acquired for exclusive use by a local broadcaster. This rule is one from which we could learn and it would help Canadian broadcasters to have Canadian rights that would not be diluted by having their programs shown on Sunday while the other programs are shown on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday without simultaneous substitution. It will enable them to have a decent financing base from the advertising revenue.
The last point is that in the limiting of foreign program carriage, I would suggest we would end up, as I have indicated in my amendments, grandfathering the 17 presently accepted American programs and the 5 new ones that have been accorded as a result of the November, 1987 hearings. Thus we would limit the damage being done by this overwhelming presence which is eroding the program rights and the revenue base of our own Canadian broadcasters. I would like to see them have the exclusive rights which they buy right across the system and let us separate out our markets so we know that we have a Canadian broadcasting system that reflects Canada.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, in this group of amendments, there are several subgroups that I would just like to comment on. The first is with regard to Motion No. 33 which deals with the proposals put forward in the legislation for an alternative programmer which the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) would take out.
We have heard a lot said in the House about Canadian content and and about the need for more Canadian content. Nothing will bring more variety of Canadian content whether from our multicultural communities or dealing with the regional nature of our country, the diversity of our country, or the arts and the culture of our country, than an alternative programming service. It has been argued for time and again by the Caplan-Sauvageau task force and by many, many others.
I would like to read an extract from a letter at which I had just been looking at as I was listening to the discussion. It is from the Dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts at the University of Calgary. He says:
Needless to say I am absolutely delighted that there is provision in the proposed new broadcasting act for a new service that will pay attention not only to the multicultural realities of Canada but also to the vast storehouse of talent concerned with the arts. I believe unless the arts can find a place in the Canadian broadcasting system they are in danger of becoming irrelevant to succeeding generations of Canadians.
I mention that because this new service will offer, over and above what is now there, an additional outlet for our many Canadian creative talents: artists, composers, and so many people in that field. I would ask the Hon. Member to reconsider her position. The rules that would govern this are that the


CRTC would hold hearings and that there would be input from groups all across the country in order to construct the best possible alternative programming service that we could have. We have asked only that it be ready to go on air within two years' time. I think that can be met. There have been many expressions of interest already made to us by people who want to see that come about.
The second group of amendments to which I want to speak is this key one with regard to the licensing of U.S. services. I have heard what Members have to say about this. I want to state specifically why we have gone the route that we have, in fact giving the responsibility and the power to a Canadian regulatory body to determine what is accepted on cable and what is not.
In fact, the CRTC itself regulates the introduction of U.S. services by permitting only those services that are complementary to Canadian domestic services. The CRTC is the gatekeeper. I have heard arguments put forward saying that we should really license all of these, whether they are off-air or whether they are by cable. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal said that she would grandfather certain ones. Well, that really is not a logical position because if you are going to ask for the licensing of one service from the United States, surely you should be consistent and ask for the licensing of all services.
I just want to ask the Members who have put forward these proposals whether or not they have considered what this would mean. I am very concerned and very serious about this because it is true, I suppose, that we could ask, we could determine, we could demand, that every U.S. service coming into this country be licensed under Canadian regulations, whether it happens to be HBO or ABC.
One of the key criteria about Canadian licensing regulations is that the Canadian distribution service and the Canadian broadcaster be 80 per cent owned in this country. That being the case, how would you ask HBO, ABC, NBC, or anything else to be 80 per cent Canadian owned and controlled in order to have a Canadian licence? I suppose the only way you could do it is by weakening the content or the requirements under Canadian licensing, that is, to less than 80 per cent Canadian controlled. However, we are not prepared to do that with regard to those systems which are licensed in this country. They must remain Canadian owned and controlled.
Therefore we ask how we then guard against the proliferation of a great many services coming into this country from outside. We do it through the regulatory body that we have established in this country, the CRTC, and by requiring that the CRTC tell the cable distributors that they must ensure that only those services that are complementary to what is being offered here are carried. In that way you have some means of control, but if we lose that control anything could be acceptable.
Broadcasting Act
That is an argument that I want opposition Members to think very carefully about because, while what they are suggesting may sound good in the heat of the moment, if they really examine where it would lead us, they will find that it is not where they really want to be.
I feel that the authority and the power should be given to a Canadian regulatory body to determine what comes into this country. Look at some of the things which, even under the existing Act-and under the new Act it will be stronger-have been licensed and some of the things which have not been licensed. For instance, our cable services carry First Choice but they do not carry HBO. They carry The Sports Network but not ESPN. They carry Much Music, not MTV.
The CRTC looks at this and sees what is complementary. It is for that reason that we will put the requirement on the CRTC to decide what services cable carries and what they do not, and why they must maintain a larger balance of Canadian services than American. That is what you will see if you look at the division even in the present set-up.
The third area I want to mention briefly is the comments that have been made with regard to the cable programming role and whether or not they should be into programming as well as into carriage. There has been a lot of discussion about this. I think it is important to note that cable is already into programming. There have been a lot of services through community channels and through the Youth Television Network which have already been authorized by the CRTC. It is not as if this was something new.
We have written into this Bill very strict requirements with regard to programming as undertaken by cable. Yes, going that route was a very conscious policy decision on the part of the Government, but we ensured that the possibility of a conflict of interest arising when distributors originate programming was addressed by putting in two sections, with which I am sure the cable industry is not very happy, to ensure that the programming is properly monitored and properly produced. I am referring, of course, to Subclauses 9(l)(h) and 10(l)(h) of the Bill. We have put in these controls so that the conflict of interest possibilities are lessened, indeed regulated.
It is for these reasons, Madam Speaker, that I wanted to interject in the debate at this point. I wanted to explain why we are doing the things we are doing. We think that in the long run they will be better. We think that having the CRTC as the gatekeeper for programming is better than even considering the possibility in any way of lessening the demands of Canadian ownership and control. We think that there is a role for cable.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) mentioned the moneys that cable companies earn. I want to see that money reinvested in Canadian programming. In the way in which the Bill is written, that requirement to meet Canadian content applies to cable companies ordistribu-tion undertakings as it does on to programming of the CBC.


Broadcasting Act
It has to apply to all sections of the broadcasting industry and not just to isolated parts of it, as it had in the past.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to ask the Minister for clarification. In the set of motions we have been debating, Motions Nos. 32 to 43-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member puts the Chair in a very difficult situation. There is no question and comment period following these interventions at report stage. It is not a point of order, but if the House gives unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to ask a question, the Chair is prepared to accept it. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sheila Finestone: Thank you for your gracious approach to that, Madam Speaker. I was not sure whether the Minister was accepting, by omission, Motion No. 32 on aboriginal concerns, or does it mean that all Motions Nos. 32 through to 43 are not being accepted?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Right.


Sheila Finestone: Thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The graciousness was really on the part of the Minister. Does she wish to answer the question?


Sheila Finestone: She did.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first question is on Motion No. 32, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 33, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 35, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal, which would dispose of Motion No. 34, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
Mrs. Finestone, seconded by Mr. Gauthier, moved that Bill C-136, an Act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto-


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to make it clear that when the House gives consent to dispense with your reading, I take it the House realizes that the amendment will be inserted in today's Hansard as read. In other words, it will be printed even though we dispense with you reading it. It is because we are co-operative and want to get through this Bill fast that we are doing this, not for any other reason.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair wishes to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. The question is on Motion No. 35. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 36, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 14(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 37, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Renfrew- Nipissing-Pembroke. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Broadcasting Act
Amendment (Mr. Hopkins) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the Motion No. 37, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 38, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 39, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Broadcasting Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 41, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


An Hon. Member:: What about Motion No. 40?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Speaker's ruling is that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 41 would obviate the need for a vote on Motion No. 40. The Chair cannot decide until Hon. Members have decided on Motion No. 41. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 43, standing in the name of the the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the next group of motions, Motions Nos. 44, 45, 46, 47, and 50, which will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 44
That Bill C-l 36 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 7 the following:
"(s) subject to priority being given to the other objectives of this subsection in the event of any conflict therewith, the Canadian broadcasting system should be regulated and supervised in a flexible manner that
(i)	in respect to non-program services, does not inhibit the development of Canadian information technologies or the delivery of Canadian information services to Canadians, and
(ii)	is sensitive to the administrative burden that may be imposed on persons carrying on broadasting undertakings."
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 8 at Ipage 8 the following:
"(5) For the purposes of 4(2), "carried on in whole or in part within Canada" includes the transmission of a broadcasting service, wherever it may be orgiginated, to a member of the public in Canada directly or indirectly, where such transmission involves a contractual relationship with a member of the public or with a distribution undertaking serving a member of the public"
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 5 in the English version by striking out line 18 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"sion of the system."
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 19 to 40 at page 8 and lines 1 to 10 at page 9.
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-136 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 24 to 26 at page 9.
She said: Madam Speaker, we are talking in this group, first, about the definition of "network", which I would like to look at and discuss with the Minister. I proposed an amendment which I hoped she will find favour with. The second is a full amendment under Motion No. 47, which is a deletion of


Clause 5(2) of the cable regulations and supervision of the system, and the consequential amendments which would flow from that on Motions Nos. 44, 46, and 50. Actually, Motion No. 44 would add the place of the CRTC within the broadcasting system into Clause 3, which is the broadcastng policy.
I would just like to start by addressing the question of networks. We talked for a long time of services, which are available in an increasing number of Canadian households, that operate without a licence and earn revenue from Canada without any obligation to contribute to the Canadian programming system. It is of concern. It was an ongoing concern of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
In the prior set of amendments we were addressing the 17 American networks or superstations which had been accorded access to Canada through Canadian cable regulations, in essence. This amendment which I am proposing would in a sense stop the Americanization of our television system and create a better playing field, if I may use that rather overused term.
I would like to suggest that in the course of the amendment which I am going to bring on networking, the licensed Canadian services operating on the same basis that they presently work must spend money on Canadian programs and offer a balance of Canadian and non-Canadian programs. Therefore we have a sense of double standards. We have loose ends out there. We have a direct broadcast satellite service that is not properly covered-its signals are not covered-and pay per view has a potential of coming in here. I am suggesting that rules should be the same for everyone, and that the definition of networks should apply to satellite and cable services.
I would like to remind the Minister that even the CCTA endorsed the concept in the July, 1987 brief, and I refer to page 10 of that brief.
I had some legal advice which I would like to share with the Minister. When we look at the purposes of Clause 5(2), where the Minister refers to the services that carry on in whole or in part within Canada, it includes the transmission of a broadcasting service wherever it may be originated to a member of the public in Canada, directly or indirectly, where such transmission involves a contractual relationship with a member of the public or with a distribution undertaking serving a member of the public.
In that amendment which I am proposing I would like to suggest to the Minister that it implements recommendation 17 of the sixth report of our standing committee. Although the Minister made certain responses about the fact that she cannot cover services that do not have a business presence in Canada and operate under American law, she considers that it is doubtful whether it would be legally possible to require these services to submit to licensing by the CRTC, because Canada-did I say something wrong; sorry-cannot extend its laws beyond its territory.
Broadcasting Act
I would like to suggest to the Minister that this comment is based on a misconception of fact and on 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 these services to members of the public in Canada, and it is not captured through the nature of the amendment which I am proposing.
The principal focus of the recommendation is on the U.S. speciality networks, like Arts and Entertainment, CNN, et cetera, 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 legislatures wish it to, and if this be the case.
The term "undertaking" does not require actual physical presence or physical assets to be present in Canada. A number of cases have held that the mere presence of a signal in Canada can give rise to tortious-a marvellous legal word, the Minister does not know that I looked up her definition too-or copyright liability. I would suggest that her staff refer to Jenner v. Sun Oil (1952), or to CAPAC v. International Good Music (1963).
The wording proposed would also cover pay per view and direct broadcast satellite operations, offering their services to Canadians, to the extent that the services delivered on a contracted basis. In practical terms this confines the ambit of the clause to incrypted signals, where the signal originator authorizes a Canadian home to decode the signal for a fee. The committee certainly heard about how this is often sold under the table and illegally.
The fact that the United States service may not have a business presence in Canada does not preclude the Government from taking steps against the marketers or distributors of the service who generally operate in Canada. Making the legislation effective raises the same practical problems as going after illegal lottery operators or boiler room operations, operating over the border by telephone. You prosecute any local intermediary, issue stop mail orders, or take other quasicriminal steps available in Canada.
The proposed amendment does not actually prohibit U.S. services from operating in Canada. However, it would require them to obtain a CRTC licence for the first time.
In order to make room for complementary U.S. specialty services, it is expected that the direction on Canadian ownership would have to be amended to permit such services to qualify for licences. However, under Clause 9(2), that exemption could certainly take place, or under a broad policy directive. Such licences would presumably be issued for a transitional period only, so that would-be Canadian services in the same program category would not be foreclosed from applying or eventually operating in Canada with a Canadian version of the U.S. service, often even more interesting. We do not allow-and the Minister alluded to this a little earlier- HBO or ESPN, because we have First Choice and TSN.


Broadcasting Act
I would suggest that this whole thought of complementary versus competition in access to Canadian networks, to the Canadian little box where you punch buttons and you get what you want to see, is very key to the effective operation of this Bill. As the presence in Canada of American exports expands, and they take more and more money out of our market, we must find ways to be concerned about Americanization and take some kind of control over what is going on.
There has been an all-Party agreement in committee. If the cable industry was not so concerned, and it agreed, I would like to know why the Minister cannot agree to this particular motion. I strongly ask the Minister to give it serious consideration.
With respect to Motion Nos. 44, 46, 47, and 50, one of the elements in this Bill is Clause 5(2) which sets forth a number of objectives for the regulation and supervision of the broadcasting system. These are intended to be distinct from the objectives of the broadcasting policy set forth in Clause 3(1). Clause 5(3) states that the objectives for the regulation and supervision of the system set out in subclause (2) rank lower in priority to any conflicting objections in Clause 3(1). I would like to suggest to the Minister that there needs to be degree of clarity here. I have made what I hope the Minister will find, upon consultation, an amendment which can be helpful.
A review of the objectives stipulated in subclause 5(2) shows that four out of the six subclauses are largely duplicative and are of concepts already recognized in Clause 3(1). In particular Clause 5(2)(a) is the same as Clause 3(l)(b). Clause 5(2)(b) is the same as Clause 3(1 )(h)(ii). Clause 5(2)(c) is the same as Clause 3(l)(c)(iv), and Clause 5(2)(d) is a watered down version of Clause 3(l)(i). As a result, I believe that it will be confusing and it will be ill-fitting to reiterate those concepts (a) to (d) in Clause 5(2). Therefore, my Motion No. 47 flows from that thought. It deletes the articles in Clause 2. It would leave only Clause 5(2)(e) and Clause 5(2)(f) unaccounted for, and they are genuinely important and represent new concepts in the Bill. I recommend that they be moved to Clause 3, which is the over-all broadcasting policy, and can effectively indicate the role, place, and importance of the CRTC in the over-all broadcasting policy for Canada. I have added only one word, which would be to add the "Canadian" dimension to the role to be played by the CRTC.
In summation, I suggest that Clauses 5(2)(e) and (f) would now be placed under general broadcast policy as a new Clause 3(1 )(s) while at the same time adding that Canadian dimension. If all that is taken into consideration, I believe that we would avoid conflict between the objectives and the supervision of the system, and add a degree of clarity which I hope the Minister would find favourable. I would suggest that the CRTC also agrees with that perspective. I hope the Minister will see fit to give serious consideration to accepting the amendments.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the NDP, it is true that many of the subclauses of Clause 5(2) are similar to Clause 3. We have taken a slightly different position than that taken by my colleague from the Liberal Party on this matter. We see Clause 5 as potentially serving a useful role. We have proposed some amendments which will be coming up in the next round of motions. If Clause 5(2) can be improved, we would probably support that clause.
We do support Motion No. 50 moved by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. It is exactly the same as Motion No. 51 which I proposed. After a good deal of thought and discussion in the legislative committee, I have come to a position which is pretty close to that of the Minister with respect to the powers of the CRTC, as well as its decision-making process. Indeed, as I recall, the Minister accepted one of my amendments on this subject in committee. However, I believe that some refinements are still in order, and I believe that Motion No. 50 is one of them.
It would allow the broad power of policy direction to apply relative to Clause 3(1), the broadcasting policy for Canada. However, it would take away from the Government the power to make direction under Clause 5(2). I believe this would improve this section of the Bill by allowing the commission to act more independently, while at the same time maintaining the general power of policy direction by the Government. I urge the Minister to support Motion No. 50.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first question is on Motion No. 44, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 45, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 46, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Broadcasting Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 47, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 50, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

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


Constitution of Canada



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["The period provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.", '\nPursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order shall be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.']
Mr. Thacker:: Madam Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent in order that Motion M-151 in my name may be transferred to the name of the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), seconded by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Crofton). I would, of course, give the first speech. Members will be pleased to know that I will be limited to 10 minutes. That in itself might induce unanimous consent.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, it is an unusual procedure but, for the sake of the debate, we do not have any objection to the Parliamentary Secretary transferring the sponsorship of the motion to his colleague. I do not know why he would restrict himself to 10 minutes because the first speaker has 20 minutes. Is he telling us that the mover of the motion would have 20 minutes? I am just trying to clarify how much time would be given to all of us.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the NDP has no objection. As a matter of fact, given that the Government just gave $3 billion to upgraders and another $1 billion for Hibernia, we want to see the sleight of hand that will produce a resolution which says that deficits will be eliminated and budgets balanced. Not since the National Energy Program has there been such a massive infusion of funding for energy, and I find it very ironic. I am waiting to hear this because I recall our past debates.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 understand there is unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
BALANCING OF BUDGET Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Constitution of Canada so as to require the government to submit a balanced budget except:
(a)	in times of a declared national emergency or disaster, or
(b)	if the deficit receives parliamentary approval by a two-thirds majority.
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to rise on Motion M-151 to put to the House and Canadians an idea that I believe is essential to the future and the long-term stability of our country as a nation and as a society.
The basic principle of the motion requires a constitutional amendment that would require governments to balance the budgets we present here in Parliament. I have listed three exceptions. One is a declared national emergency. Another is a declared national disaster. The third is if this Parliament, by a vote of two-thirds of its Members, declares in favour of a deficit. I hasten to reassure Members that I am not wedded to the specific wording of the basic principle or the exceptions. There may well be other exceptions that Members come up with that we would all find acceptable. Perhaps a two-thirds majority is too high. However, it seems to me as parliamentarians our prime concern has to be for the long-term future and stability of our country.
We entrench in our Constitution our democratic rights because we know we cannot trust power solely to people. We also entrench human rights. I certainly would be prepared to work with other Members to work up a constitutional amendment that would protect future generations from environmental breaches. We need environmental protection in our Constitution for future generations. However, the purpose of this debate is constitutional protection for future generations on economic matters.
Why am I concerned? This year the deficit will be some $28 billion. Members know that a mere four years ago it was $38 billion. Certainly it is being reduced each year and that is a step in the right direction, but on April 1 of every year the deficit is moved over to the national debt. Members will remember that in 1968 the national debt was some $18 billion, even though we had built this country, fought two world wars, and endured 10 years of depression. However, since 1968, as a result of succeeding government budget deficits, the national debt has gone up to over $300 billion. The cost of servicing that debt is something like $31 billion or $32 billion. That is at current interest rates. We remember that three short years ago interest rates were 23 per cent. That would mean over $60 billion coming right off the top just to service the debt. I firmly believe that would lead to instability and rash action which could impair the future of our country. Certainly it would affect the well being of future generations.
As you well know, the national debt is simply excess spending on ourselves. Yet it has to be paid for by someone. If we do not, it will be put off into the future and our children and grandchildren will pay it. That will be done either through increased taxes or they will receive far fewer services. Or, some future Government will simply turn on the printing presses and we know what that does. We just need to look at all the Third World countries which have a small group of people who are fabulously rich and a mass of poor people. When you look at their economic history, every one has had a government which turned on the printing press and paid their national debt in that way. However, that leads to inflation, high interest rates and collapse. Surely none of us would individually impose that on our children or our grandchildren. Yet collectively since 1968 we have run our national debt from $18 billion to over $300 billion.


What I am saying, and I would like to hear other Members' views, is that it has got so bad that we now need a constitutional amendment that will protect our children and grandchildren from us. That is a terrible thing to say, but the fact is that representative parliamentary democracy has developed to the point in this country and others, particularly in the western world, where the interest groups are so powerful that they are able to convince Parliament to override the broad general interest of the country as a whole. We can all list examples of special interest groups which have received special concessions in this and past Parliaments. They were probably not in the national interest in the long-term, and if we had an entrenched constitutional amendment we would be protected from those types of pressures and powers.
Clearly, I want Canadians to appreciate the magnificent job done by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Today we spend about $100 billion on programs such as health care and defence and we are taxing away from Canadians about $103 billion. Therefore, we have a surplus of some $3 billion, yet we have a deficit of $28 billion. The reason is that we have to take about $31 billion right off the top to pay to people who have lent money to the Government.
Who are those people? They have more money than they are using at the moment, so they lend it to the Government. If you had $1 million you would never go out and put it in the business. You would lend it to your own Government where it is absolutely guaranteed, particularly as interest rates go up. That is what happened during the late 1970s, and it is not good for the country or our children.
Just imagine if past Governments had done what the Minister of Finance is doing in producing a balanced budget or indeed a surplus. We would not have a national debt. Think of what we could do in health care. Think of what we could do in research and development at a time when the nation needs to have research and development. We are on the cutting edge in competition with other countries. Just think of what we would be able to do for young women who in our society today have to work and choose an abortion for economic reasons rather than keeping a child.
Because of interest on the national debt, we today are beginning to lose opportunities. I think that is very bad. I wish I could have a full 20 minutes because there are many other points I would like to make, but I am anxious to hear from my colleagues. I hope in due course, if not in this Parliament but perhaps as a result of the debate here today that we will be able to refine the motion and in the next Parliament it will be resubmitted by myself if I happen to be successful in the election or by some other Member, and over a period of years this idea will grow to fruition. I hope within my own lifetime it will lead to the entrenchment of economic protection for future generations against our excesses as a result of the state of our democracy today.
Constitution of Canada


Mr. Raymond  Gameau@Laval-des-Rapides: Mr. Speaker,
I am always surprised to hear Tory Members discussing the deficit. In 1984 we on this side of the House, particularly myself, took a very firm position on that during the campaign.
I must say that Tory Members also took a position on the deficit. I suggest it was a normal course of action, particularly after the economic crisis that we had here in Canada. The former Liberal Government had to do something to support the unemployed by developing special programs to create jobs, otherwise the rate of employment would have been larger and small business people would have lost a greater part of their market, resulting in more difficulties for Canadian workers.
After having heard speeches, particularly from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), we expected something important from the Tory Government, but what we saw was in direct contradiction to what was said. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance said publicly, and repeated during the 1984 campaign, that they would cut the deficit but would never increase taxes. The Government has done exactly the opposite. The Government did not cut spending in terms of inflation, but has increased taxes to the tune of $26 billion. In the actual fiscal year that represents $11 billion, but if we take into account the positive effect of fiscal reform, it amounts to a net $9 billion in new taxes, not because of the growth in the economy but because of tax increases, sales tax, gasoline tax, personal income tax and so on.
I guess the Member is expressing the Tory point of view. He is coming back with the same rhetoric as before. In other words he is saying "we have to cut the deficit". He is proposing to put in the Canadian Constitution that, except in very difficult situations, we should not have a deficit at all.
It is very nice to hear those kinds of speeches a few weeks before the writ is dropped and before the election, but it is another thing to deliver the goods. After six years of economic recovery, where have the Tory Members been while we have had tax increases and big deficits year after year? That is two more years than the number of years the Tories have been in power. The recovery started two years before the Tory election in 1984. They voted for tax reform. When the Minister made his speech, they applauded him. Where were they when the deficit was still $28 billion or $29 billion after six years of economic recovery? They were no place at all. They did not raise any questions. After the damage has been done and after the Tory Government has added an almost 60 per cent increase to the national debt, we are presented with a motion for a change to the Canadian Constitution to eliminate the deficit. But where were they during that actual debate?
I read in the the Toronto Star about the series of promises which the Prime Minister and other Ministers have made. They add up to more than $14 billion. Where were you, Sir, when all those announcements were made?


Alan Redway: Are you for or against it?


Constitution of Canada


Mr. Garneau:: These will increase the deficit. We hear the Prime Minister saying that the environment is becoming the main priority for the Tories in the coming election, but where are the Members? They probably discussed the matter in caucus because they will have to increase the environmental budget which was cut by the Tories themselves. I read in The Globe and Mail for September 19 that the Government is now reconsidering cutting environmental jobs after having cut the budget. Now on the eve of the election the Tories want to increase it. The only hope we have is that the Government will bring the budget back to the same level it was in 1984. At least it could do that. When I hear Tories talking about the deficit at this time in our electoral process, I cannot believe my ears. It seems that the Tories are good at rhetoric but they do not live up to promises.
In 1984 the Government promised a net increase of 6 per cent for defence.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: A real increase.


Raymond Garneau: A real increase, yes, but when we look at it, not only was there not an increase of 6 per cent in real terms but there was a decrease in the budget in two of the three years for which the Government was responsible. Now the Tories are presenting a White Paper saying the Government will increase the budget by 2 per cent in the coming year. I think Canadians will understand that the Tory Party is good at rhetoric but very thin when it comes to delivering the goods.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I am surprised, in fact there is no word to describe how I feel. I had no intention of rising in this debate, but when again I hear the rhetoric of the Hon. Member who just spoke and who translates the rhetoric and speeches of Conservative Members, I simply do not understand! Perhaps I am naive, or would it be that I am not intelligent enough? What I cannot understand is that on the eve of an election campaign they keep telling us how important the deficit is, yet their Prime Minister is crisscrossing Canada and making promises right, left and centre. As I said earlier, the Toronto Star has put a price tag on all those promises- $14 billion!
How can we have the Prime Minister going around and making promises which will increase the deficit while at the same time his backbenchers stand up in the House and make speeches to show how deeply concerned they are over this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest these are crocodile tears and that we cannot give credence to these people who in 1984 promised to lower the deficit without raising taxes. Well, they did not accomplish much in terms of deficit reduction, but the taxes certainly went up! So now they are telling us they want to introduce a constitutional amendment outlawing deficits, yet their Prime Minister is travelling across Canada making million-and even billion-dollar promises which will totally
defeat the purpose of the Hon. Member's constitutional amendment.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate in this debate this afternoon because it fulfils one of the objectives of private Members' hour, which is to bring before the House certain ideas that are not part of the agenda of a Government or of the opposition Parties but which nonetheless can be introduced into this forum by Members of the House so that we can exchange one with another.
I certainly cannot conceive of anything more pressing in its importance than the subject before us today. The sands of time are obviously running out for this Parliament, but I would hope that if this debate accomplishes nothing more, it will at least put not only on the record but into our minds the importance of addressing the issue of the deficit and the public debt with a sense of priority when the next Parliament resumes.
I think we can take as a satisfaction from this Parliament, which is coming to an end, the progress that has been achieved. We know that when this Parliament assembled, we faced the spectre of a runaway, uncontrollable deficit. We can say at the end of this Parliament that we have achieved control over it. We have arrested the growth of the deficit. Instead of its mounting up from the $38 billion with which we began, it is now $10 billion less. If that rate of progress were to continue, obviously in due course we would get it down to the zero mark, which is the hope of many Hon. Members.
I think we need to address this problem with a greater sense of urgency. We should address it without resorting to the magic wand that some Hon. Members will doubtless want a Government to wave and without berating the Government for not doing this or for doing too much of that. We should face up to the realities that will confront Parliament when it will want to achieve a realistic, practical, achievable elimination of the deficit. Let us look at the possibilities. One of them is to reduce spending.
We have had a measure of fiscal responsibility in this Parliament in so far as the rate of spending before we took office was growing at an annual rate of 14 per cent per year over the preceding four years, and it has been reduced by this Parliament to an average rate of 3.5 per cent, less than the rate of inflation. If we are to make progress in eliminating the deficit, we will have to cut spending still more. Here is where the difficulty arises.
It is all very well for opposition Members to tell the Government that it is making promises that mount up to $12 billion. Which of these commitments would the opposition Members or Members on the Government side of the House want to challenge? One of the recent commitments has been $10 million for a proposed conservation area in Scarborough's


Rouge Valley. Is the Liberal Party against that? Is the NDP against that? Will they criticize the Government for making that commitment?
How about a donation of 123 acres of Downsview Airport land as a site for possibly 5,000 new homes at an estimated value of $60 million? That is $60 million that could come into the public treasury. Certainly money will be spent achieving this development that will provide low-cost housing. Would any Member of any Party oppose that?
Almost every spending proposal that can be put before the House of Commons is one that commends itself to reason because it is filling some human need. It is extremely difficult, therefore, to talk about cutting spending. We face the same difficulty when we move in the other direction, which is to attempt a radical change in the tax system.
I have found over the years that it is usually people right of centre who want to cut spending and people left of centre who want to achieve the no-deficit ideal by changing the tax system, usually by imposing more taxes on someone who is supposed to be paying very little in taxes. The NDP spokesperson is here. I will remind him that years ago, we used to hear a lot about Inco, International Nickel, being the villain. We heard that if only Inco would pay all the tax it should, then we would have no deficit problems at all. We have not heard as much about that lately. I suppose it is because Inco has not been doing very well for several years.
We hear now about certain individuals who are getting away with murder because of the various tax loopholes that are supposed to have been opened. I think we should realize that no matter how we plug those loopholes, and tax reform is certainly heading in the right direction, the mass of taxation will be paid by the mass of people. We have to realize that the mass of people will do the mass of the spending, and they will put up most of the revenue. We have to get away from thinking about Government grants and Government awards and move toward realizing that we are talking about taxpayer grants and taxpayer payments.
The real challenge to us in this debate is to recognize the enormity of the public debt. Every year, we have a deficit we add to the public debt, which has now grown to a size that a few years ago would have seemed beyond comprehension. When we add to that the public debt of the provinces and the municipalities, we begin then to take fright.
While most of the federal debt is owed within Canada, a very large portion of the provincial and municipal debt is owed offshore. Consequently, I believe that one of the challenges that cannot be ignored is the challenge of deficit budgeting and the increase of public debt. We will have to address this, and what I will suggest to address it is a scheduled plan.
It is not possible to eliminate the debt simply by legislation. It is not possible to eliminate it simply by a stroke of the pen. If we were to cut the deficit down to zero in one fell swoop, we would cause such a disruption in the economy that the result
Constitution of Canada
would be worse than the solution. The cure would be worse than the disease. However, it is conceivable, and I put this before the House as a concept to be taken seriously, that we could attempt a schedule of deficit elimination. We could attempt to bring it down by a certain number of percentage points year by year until we reach a balanced budget. That would be done by eliminating certain expenditures and by further tax reform and adjustment, but the real possibility of achieving this is by something which has begun in this Parliament and is due greatly to the economic policies of this Government, and that is by maintaining a buoyant economy.
If we want to eliminate the deficit without removing vital, essential public services, we will have to do it by increasing the revenue possibilities of our economy. We have done a great deal of that in the past four years. The number of people working and thus becoming income tax payers has increased by 1,300,000. We have had a growth of revenue not simply because of increased taxes but primarily because of more taxpayers and because of people earning bigger incomes and thus paying more individually in income tax or in consumer tax and the like. That is the real secret to it, being careful managers of the public purse in the kinds of expenditures that we authorize; being fair, just, and reasonable in a tax system that will eliminate all possibilities of a free ride at the taxpayers' expense and, most of all, carrying out those economic and trade policies which will bring to this country ongoing prosperity and bring to the Government the kind of revenue that makes possible the programs that meet the approval of our people.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak on this kind of motion for the umpteenth time in my years here. I have listened to a number of people at various times talking about the deficit and the national debt. What I find most ironic about it is that it was not socialists who rang this up. It was always private enterprise Parties. They have never been to able to explain, or have never even tried to explain, why.
In fact, the socialist Governments of Tommy Douglas, Allan Blakeney, and Woodrow Lloyd, had balanced budgets in a total of 26 of 31 years. I would like to find another political Party of the private enterprise bent somewhere in this country that could claim that kind of a record. So it was not any kind of a socialist ideology that brought about these national debts and deficits.
I am glad that my hon. friend from Lethbridge-Foothills is here to hear my remarks. I read his motion with great interest this morning. One of the myths that he and people like him like to peddle is that governments, like any individual or corporation, have to live within their means. Well, there is one fundamental difference between individuals and corporations on the one hand and Governments on the other. The difference is that the individual or the corporation cannot tax the people


Constitution of Canada
that they owe the money to, but Governments can, Governments do, and Governments will. That sort of mythology which is peddled by some of these outfits and their spokesmen in their places completely overlooks that basic difference between individuals and corporations living within their means and Governments doing so.
I am surprised that my good friend and colleague on the Transport Committee would move a motion like this, unless it is to pacify the Lethbridge Chamber of Commerce, because it is mindless and simplistic. It is a repetition of Reaganomics. It is the Proposition 13 syndrome imported from California.
What I find amusing about this is that the hon. gentleman is challenging his Government. I would be tempted to vote for this stupid motion if it would have the effect that I would like to see. Tie is challenging his Government to bring in a balanced Budget starting tomorrow, which would mean an increase in taxes of at least 50 per cent. It would mean a chopping of at least $10 billion or $15 billion off present expenditures. I could just see the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) jumping up and down with joy about that idea when he is on the verge of calling an election. He might be ignorant but he ain't stupid. However, that is what the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) wants him to be.
I would like to remind my hon. friend that during World War II Canada ran up a national debt and annual deficits that were mind boggling in those days. If fact, if you translated those into 1988 dollars, the national debt and the deficit for every damn year during the war, and the national debt at the end of 1945, was greater than it is now per capita and in total.
I invite my friends to read a book called, I think, The Unnecessary Evil, by Professor Bellam from the University of Manitoba. He throws all these wild eyed, right wing, mindless, simplistic Tory theories about deficits and national debts into a cocked hat.
What happened at the end of the war, Madam Speaker? During the war we turned the entire productive capacity of this nation to work. We had full employment. We did not have enough people to work. I remember working in the shipyards as a 17-year-old and seeing 15-year-old girls catching hot rivets for the war effort. We did it. When the war ended we had this huge national debt and deficit facing us. I will give credit to Mackenzie King, Louis St. Laurent, John Deifenbak-er, and Lester Pearson, who had smarter people around them than present leaders have, except for the NDP.
We had to rebuild most of our industrial infrastructure and capacity. We had to reorder the whole thing from a wartime to a peacetime production. We built up to a half a million homes per year. We are building half that many now and we have waiting lists as long as your arm in every city in this country. But at that time, in the late forties and all during the fifties, we had relatively full employment and we acquired that war debt.
By the way, that debt was wiped out without one nickel of foreign investment. We raised the money ourselves. Yes, our taxes went up. We had to buy war savings certificates and victory bonds through payroll deductions. Everybody did, the nation pitched in. During the late forties and all during the fifties the nation pitched in and we wiped out that debt in something like eight or nine years following World War II, and we had relatively full employment.
If we can do that with a declaration of war, we can do it with a declaration of peace, and we challenge our whole nation to do the kinds of things now that we did then. Madam Speaker, I want to say to my hon. friend, as the gentleman whose book I read said, if you were to reduce unemployment from the present 9 per cent down to 5 or 6 per cent over the next one or two years, you will have wiped out the deficit in three years.
It is not as though nothing needs to be done. We can put a quarter million people to work cleaning up our air and water. That will require billions of dollars that we will have to borrow. All those people are put to work, they pay taxes and that pays for the borrowing. I am an innocent stubble jumping prairie boy, but that has always worked before. It seems to make sense.
I talked about the requirement for places for people to live. Every city in this country has a list as long as one's arm for chronic care beds, hospital beds, low income housing and public housing. That would require the construction industry to go to work like it did during wartime. We could cut the national debt in half if those guys over there had something more than the imagination of a doorknob and did not rely on the theories of the 17th and 18th centuries, let alone the 19th century. It is outmoded thinking. It does not work. It never has and never will. It only appeals to the mindless selfish greed of those who ask: "What is in it for me and to hell with everybody else". Again, that is imported from south of the 49th parallel.
Canada is something more and better than that. I do not want to hear any more silly motions. What if there was a national emergency, a natural disaster which required the federal Government to spend $10 billion?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Read the motion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What would happen to the balanced budget? I expected more from the Hon. Member for Lethbridge- Foothills than what I see in this motion. This motion should get the contempt it deserves. Perhaps we should pass it to see what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has to say about it.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on the motion brought forward by my friend, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge- Foothills (Mr. Thacker). The motion states:


That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of amending the Constitution of Canada so as to require the
government to submit a balanced budget except:-
Of course, the Elon. Member for Regina West (Mr, Benjamin) did not bother reading "except", which states:
(a)	in times of a declared national emergency or disaster, or
(b)	if the deficit receives parliamentary approval by a two-thirds majority.
I have great respect for the Elon. Member for Lethbridge- Foothills. I have served in the House with him since 1984, and have learned to listen to him carefully. I certainly have a great deal of respect for the things he says, the ideas he puts forward, and the actions and initiatives he takes.
The motion which he has put forward today is one in which I can share in a sympathetic way many of his feelings. We have an enormous deficit today and have had for a number of years. The Hon. Member's point of view is one that is shared not only by Members on the Government side of the House but by many Canadians.
I was knocking on doors yesterday and a number of people confronted me on the deficit issue. They were very concerned about the deficit situation and the actions the Government had or had not taken with respect to it during the last four years.
As one who served in municipal government for many years, like the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar), I am certainly most sympathetic with the concept put forward because municipal governments must balance their budgets by law. They are required not to spend any more money than they raise for current expenditures. This is a concept which certainly raises a lot of sympathy in my soul.
However, I must depart from the position taken by my hon. friend, the Member for Lethbridge-Foothills. During the last two centuries, until the Great Depression of the 1930's, it was traditional economic thinking, traditional government thinking and traditional business thinking that we should have balanced budgets and no Government should spend more than it takes in. It was traditional thinking that we should always make sure that we either raise enough money to pay or cut our cloth according to the money we raise so that there will be a balanced budget.
That concept had some problems in the 1930's, with the Great Depression. The enormous economic difficulties we suffered at that time caused people to begin re-examining that issue and determine whether or not it made sense in all circumstances to have a balanced budget. The Hon. Member for Regina West has raised this in a practical sense, but in a theoretic sense, prior to the 1930's an economist named John Maynard Keynes wrote a book entitled "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money". He really turned the world of economics and the world of government financing upside down.
That book and the propositions that were put forward by John Maynard Keynes, later Lord Keynes, advocated what has become known as counter cyclical fiscal policy on the part of
Constitution of Canada
government. According to that policy, when a country is faced with hard economic times, it should be offset with expenditures to try to raise the level of demand in the country in order to encourage people to start businesses, to spend money and to put people back to work.
It may not be as well known that Lord Keynes had another part to his theory. It was not just to spend money and have deficit financing if there were hard times. He advocated that one in fact run a surplus, perhaps not enormous, but a surplus in good times. When people were working and the economy was booming and there were inflationary pressures, he suggested that we should not be running a deficit but should be running a surplus and trying to tax away some of that excess of spending power in order to keep inflation under control at the same time as running full employment.
The Keynes theory as set out in his book of general theory, employment, interest and money back in the 1920's was an anti-cylical policy. It was to run a deficit in bad times and run a surplus in good times. He advocated that policy very strongly through the 1930s and the times of depression. Some politicians and government leaders listened to his proposals, but even the ones who listened had some difficulty because it was certainly revolutionary in the sense of the then accepted economic theory. People said that this was really extreme leftism, communism, and would destroy capitalism. In fact, the theories of John Maynard Keynes, when put into practice, actually supported the capitalist process and made sure it worked.
Some people tried to put his theories into effect. Here in North America, Franklin Delano Roosevelt made some effort to put that into effect. In Canada, R. B. Bennett, the Prime Minister of Canada in the middle 1930s, made some effort to put it into effect. They did not go quite far enough to make it work. As my friend from Regina has pointed out, it took the Second World War to really force us into expenditures of the size that were necessary to bring us out of that enormous depression of the 1930s, to right the situation again. It was because of those expenditures and, quite frankly, the deficits that were run at that time that we did come out of the Great Depression of the 1930s.
It was during the closing years of the Second World War when people finally began to realize what Lord Keynes had put before them. They saw a method of maintaining full employment, keeping inflation at a reasonable rate, merely by fiscal policy, not by running up the Bank of Canada rate to enormous rates like they did a few years ago in the 1980s, but by controlling inflation with fiscal policy, not monetary policy, and taxing away those inflationary pressures.
Immediately after the Second World War, that is the sort of policy that the federal Government in Canada put into effect. I have to give an enormous amount of credit-I am not sure if the Prime Minister of the day deserves that credit, but his


Constitution of Canada
Finance Ministers certainly do; Mr. Ilsley and Mr. Abbott. Mr. Abbott passed away a short time ago. I am a great admirer of those two gentlemen because I think they truly put into effect the other side of Keynes' policies, the side where you actually ran surpluses in good times. But the problem was that that was not politically acceptable. Unfortunately, it is not very nice for politicians to go out and tell the public that they are going to raise taxes to run on a surplus. The public, understandably, does not want to pay higher taxes and, as a result, that sort of a policy became very unpopular. I am one who thinks that it was one of the main reasons why, in 1957, the Government of Prime Minister St. Laurent lost the election to Prime Minister Diefenbaker. The Government of the day, in good times, was running a surplus and keeping taxes at a rate to actually run a surplus on its current account.
You know where we have gone from there. The Government decided that since that was not politically popular, from then on it was going to make sure that it ran the country in a politically popular way. Finance Minister after Finance Minister has been afraid to raise taxes and to run that surplus in good times. As a result of that we have worked ourselves deeper and deeper into the debt that we have. It is only in the last four years that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has tried to address it. He has not tried to address it all at once, but has tried to address the problem slowly but surely.
With the greatest of respect to my hon. friend from Lethbridge-and I know my time has come to an end-I would like to say that while I have great sympathy for his proposition, I think if we practised a little Keynesian economics in this country and if Governments had the intestinal fortitude to do that, we would not have any problems with deficits or inflation or full employment. We would have the kind of economy that we all want in Canada; full employment with reasonable crisis under control at all times.


Marion Dewar: Madam
Speaker, I rise to speak to this because I certainly agree with a lot that the previous speaker has said. I am glad to see that some members of the Conservative caucus are taking on some of our program of full employment and responsible fiscal management, because they certainly have not done that in the last four years.
I see the Government going out and buying its way through every vote, taking a populace kind of approach to policy rather than looking at some good-management, long-term planning.
I recommend that Members look at the management of the Government of A1 Blakeney in Saskatchewan. He had three surplus Budgets in the last three Budgets and he was not afraid to say to the people of Saskatchewan that this is how we are managing. It has been downhill ever since the Conservatives took over in that province. That gives you a sense of what fiscal management is all about.
However, my approach to this would be a little different than what we have heard today. I have great concerns about
using our Constitution to contravene the political will of the country. If we want to build a strengthened democracy in this country, we have to put forward political platforms, let the people know how we feel about them, and let the people vote one way or another.
We have to be very careful about how we are using our Constitution. It is a simplistic approach to suggest that we can just make a constitutional amendment on things and then let the courts look after it. As responsible human beings who are democratically elected, it is up to us to put in place the kind of policies that we think are responsible and accountable. Bringing forward something like this to amend the Constitution is a lack of faith and trust in the democratic process and in the people who electus. I have great respect for those people.
I do not always agree with them, but I have great respect for those who elect us. I think that they have the right to forge the avenue that we are to take.
After the next election I think that many members of the Conservative caucus are going to see that they did not forge that road when they had such a huge majority. They could have had their full employment and a real tax reform. They could have been able to say to the people of Canada that they do not have to have just a small group of rich people getting richer.
If we look at the tax system, we recognize that there is about S29 billion in tax expenditures. Loopholes could be closed. With one stroke, it almost starts to look at dealing with the carrying of that deficit that is about $32 billion.
Those are the kinds of things that you have to look at and say to the Canadian people that it is not as simple as raising taxes or not raising taxes and this kind of thing. It is looking at good management and accountable fiscal policies that give you some long-term planning where you cannot be responsible.
Sometimes people have suggested that municipalities legislatively cannot accumulate debt. That, too, is a bit of smoke and mirrors. Municipalities have the ability of launching debentures. Some of those debentures can be very much an encumbrance on their assets.
In municipal government we adopted a policy that was called "pay as you go". Instead of increasing the debenture, we paid for the things in the good times so that we would have the infrastructure there and they would not fall apart. Proposition 13 did the opposite. It was a legislative proposition. The infrastructures in the cities of California fell apart. The kind of terrible disparities that came into that municipal legislation was really tragic. It showed that you cannot approach government in the simplistic way. I think it is six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.


Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order shall be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-144, an Act to authorize payments by Canada toward the provision of child care services, and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 13(4)(a) the House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division on the report stage of Bill C-144, An Act to authorize payments by Canada toward the provision of child care services, and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in consequence thereof.
Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first question is on Motion No. 4.


Ms. Mitchell moved:: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-144 be amended by adding immediately after line 24 at page 3 the following:
"3. It is hereby declared that the primary objective of the Canadian child care policy is to establish a national child care program which provides non-parental care for children who require it and which is consistently affordable, accessible, available and of assured quality across Canada, and which is provided by not-for-profit child care agencies."
The House divided on the motion (Ms. Mitchell), which was negatived on the following division:
Benjamin	(Division No. 571)
 YEAS Members Garneau	Nicholson
Blackburn	Gauthier	(Trinity)(Brant)	Gray	Ny stromBoudria	(Windsor West)	RiisCassidy	Hopkins	Young-18Dewar	Jewett	Finestone	MacLellan	Fulton	Mitchell	Canada Child Care Act
NAYS Members	Andre	Hamilton	N ickersonBeatty	Jelinek	OostromBernier	Johnson	PriceBertrand	(Bonavista-T rinity-	RedwayBlais	Conception)	ReidBosley	Kempling	RicardBourgault	Kilgour	ScottBradley	King	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Brisco	Ladouceur	ScowenCadieux	Lewis	ShieldsCochrane	Marin	SiddonCrofton	Martin	Stackhousede Cotret	Mayer	TaylorDesjardins	Mazankowski	ThackerEdwards	McCain	TowersEpp	McDermid	Turner(Provencher)	McKinnon	(Ottawa-Carleton)Fennell	McMillan	ValcourtFerland	Merrithew	Winegard-57Forestall	Minaker	Friesen	Nicholson	Grise(Niagara Falls)


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the Motion lost.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions, and I think you will find that the House is agreeable to the results of the division that has just been held applying to motions numbered 21, 22 and 36, so as not to delay the proceedings of the House.


Mr. Riis:: Madam Speaker, I agree that discussions have taken place and we support the proposal put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). May I further suggest that we reverse the voting pattern to apply to the concurrence motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent for the proposal put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier and for the proposal put forward by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next vote is on Motion No. 21. Mrs. Pepin moved:
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-144 be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 38 at page 4 the following:
"(h) indicate the means by which the province will encourage the development of childcare spaces in the workplace;"
The House divided on the motion (Mrs. Pepin), which was negatived on the following division:


Canada Child Care Act
(Division No. 572)
++YEAS
++NAYS
Members
Benjamin	Members Garneau	NicholsonBlackburn	Gauthier	(Trinity)(Brant)	Gray	NystromBoudria	(Windsor West)	RiisCassidy	Hopkins	Young-18Dewar	Jewett	Finestone	MacLellan	Fulton	Mitchell	Andre	NAYS Members Hamilton	NickersonBeatty	Jelinek	OostromBernier	Johnson	PriceBertrand	(Bona vista-T rinity-	RedwayBlais	Conception)	ReidBosley	Kempling	RicardBourgault	Kilgour	ScottBradley	King	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Brisco	Ladouceur	ScowenCadieux	Lewis	ShieldsCochrane	Marin	SiddonCrofton	Martin	Stackhousede Cotret	Mayer	TaylorDesjardins	Mazankowski	ThackerEdwards	McCain	TowersEpp	McDermid	Turner(Provencher)	McKinnon	(Ottawa-Carleton)Fennell	McMillan	ValcourtFerland	Merrithew	Winegard-57Forrestall	Minaker	Friesen	Nicholson	Grise	(Niagara Falls)	Andre	Hamilton	NickersonBeatty	Jelinek	OostromBernier	Johnson	PriceBertrand	(Bonavista-Trinity-	RedwayBlais	Conception)	ReidBosley	Kempling	RicardBourgault	Kilgour	ScottBradley	King	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Brisco	Ladouceur	ScowenCadieux	Lewis	ShieldsCochrane	Marin	SiddonCrofton	Martin	Stackhousede Cotret	Mayer	TaylorDesjardins	Mazankowski	ThackerEdwards	McCain	TowersEpp	McDermid	Turner(Provencher)	McKinnon	(Ottawa-Carleton)Fennell	McMillan	ValcourtFerland	Merrithew	Winegard-57Forrestall	Minaker	Friesen	Nicholson	Grise	(Niagara Falls)


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment lost.
The next vote is on Motion No. 22. Mrs. Pepin moved:
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-144 be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 38 at page 4 the following:
"(h) indicate the means by which the province will encourage the development of childcare spaces in after school setting to meet the needs of children between the ages of 6 and 13;"
The House divided on the motion (Mrs. Pepin), which was negatived on the following division:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.
(Division No. 574)
The next vote is on the amendment of Mr. Orlikow to Motion No. 22. Mr. Orlikow moved:
That the motion be amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
"(i) indicate the means by which the province will encourage the	Benjamin
development of child care spaces to meet the needs of infants and toddlers	Blackburn
under three years of age."	(Brant)
Boudria
The Elouse divided on the amendment which was negatived Cassidy on the following division:	Finestone
Fulton
++YEAS
Members
Garneau
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Hopkins Jewett MacLellan Mitchell
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nystrom
Riis
Young-18
	{Division No. 573)			NAYS	
				Members	
	YEAS				
Members	Andre	Crofton	HamiltonBeatty	de Cotret	JelinekBernier	Desjardins	JohnsonBenjamin	Garneau	Nicholson	Bertrand	Edwards	(Bonavista-Blackburn	Gauthier	(Trinity)	Blais	Epp	Conception(Brant)	Gray	Nystrom	Bosley	(Provencher)	KemplingBoudria	(Windsor West)	Riis	Bourgault	Fennell	KilgourCassidy	Hopkins	Young-18	Bradley	Ferland	KingDewar	Jewett	Brisco	Forrestall	LadouceurFinestone	MacLellan	Cadieux	Friesen	LewisFulton	Mitchell	Cochrane	Grise	Marin
Martin	Nickerson
Mayer	Oostrom
Mazankowski	Price
McCain	Redway
McDermid	Reid
McKinnon	Ricard
McMillan	Scott
Merrithew	(Hamilti
Minaker	Scowen
Nicholson	Shields
(Niagara Falls)	Siddon
Stackhouse
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt
Wentworth)	Winegard-57
Canada Child Care Act


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


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that Bill C-144, as amended, be concurred in.
The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.
The next vote is on Motion No. 36. Ms. Mitchell moved:
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-144 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
The House divided on the motion (Ms. Mitchell), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 575)
++YEAS
Members
Benjamin
Blackburn
(Brant)
Boudria
Cassidy
Dewar
Finestone
Fulton
Gameau
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Hopkins Jewett MacLellan Mitchell
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nystrom
Riis
Young-18
++NAYS
Andre	{Division No. 576)
 YEAS Members Hamilton	Nickerson
Beatty	Jelinek	OostromBernier	Johnson	PriceBertrand	(Bonavista-T rinity-	RedwayBlais	Conception)	ReidBosley	Kempling	RicardBourgault	Kilgour	ScottBradley	King	(Hamilton-Brisco	Ladouceur	ScowenCadieux	Lewis	ShieldsCochrane	Marin	SiddonCrofton	Martin	Stackhousede Cotret	Mayer	TaylorDesjardins	Mazankowski	ThackerEdwards	McCain	TowersEpp	McDermid	Turner(Provencher)	McKinnon	(Ottawa-<Fennell	McMillan	ValcourtFerland	Merrithew	Winegard-5Forrestall	Minaker	Friesen	Nicholson	Grise	(Niagara Falls)	
Members
++NAYS
Andre	Hamilton	NickersonBeatty	Jelinek	OostromBernier	Johnson	PriceBertrand	(Bonavista-Trinity-	RedwayBlais	Conception)	ReidBosley	Kempling	RicardBourgault	Kilgour	ScottBradley	King	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Brisco	Ladouceur	ScowenCadieux	Lewis	ShieldsCochrane	Marin	SiddonCrofton	Martin	Stackhousede Cotret	Mayer	TaylorDesjardins	Mazankowski	ThackerEdwards	McCain	TowersEpp	McDermid	Turner(Provencher)	McKinnon	(Ottawa-Carleton)Fennell	McMillan	ValcourtFerland	Merrithew	Winegard-57Forrestall	Minaker	Friesen	Nicholson	Grise	(Niagara Falls)	Members	Benjamin	Garneau	NicholsonBlackburn	Gauthier	(Trinity)(Brant)	Gray	NystromBoudria	(Windsor West)	RiisCassidy	Hopkins	Young-18Dewar	Jewett	Finestone	MacLellan	Fulton	Mitchell


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6.27 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.27 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, September 20, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers