1988-07-25

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 14 petitions Nos. 332-4901 to 332-4903 inclusive; 332-5008 to 332-5013 inclusive; and 3325015 to 332-5019 inclusive.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADA CHILD CARE ACT


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-312, an Act to provide an interim measure respecting abortion and to amend the Criminal Code.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment of the time of the House to explain this Bill entitled the Canada Abortion Law Interim Measures Act. As you are aware, the House is about to begin debate on abortion law in Canada, and I wanted to say very clearly and categorically in a Bill what I perceive to be the position that the House can take if it desires to prohibit abortions to the extent permitted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, I have taken it upon myself to draft and present to the House a Bill which prohibits abortion except where medically necessary.
It also contains an important exemption which I think allows for compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights.
Even more important, the Bill also contains a provision requiring the Prime Minister to convene a conference of First Ministers to consider an amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect the life of the unborn. This would complete the right and privilege of making laws with respect to abortion so that a more effective law can be made in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) moves for leave to introduce Bill C-144, an Act to authorize payments by Canada towards the provision of child care services and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in consequence thereof.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

July 25, 1988
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may reiterate the agreement of last week, it is the Government's intention to resume debate on Bill C-136. In accordance with the agreement, that debate will terminate at or before one o'clock. I would just like to point out that the Government has no intention of calling any further business before one o'clock and we will call it one o'clock once the debate on that Bill is finalized.
At three o'clock, after Question Period, the Government will call third reading of Bill C-82. I understand that there is no Private Members' Business today, so once the debate on Bill C-82 has terminated we would call it six o'clock and the deferred division on Bill C-82 and any deferred division on Bill C-136 would take place at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the understanding. Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, July 19, consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-136, an Act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the broadcasting Bill before us today gives us an opportunity to look at the state of broadcasting in Canada. Broadcasting is very important to Canadian culture. Watching television is a major form of recreation for Canadians from coast to coast as, of course, is listening to radio. People spend many hours a day watching television and it is said that children spend more hours before the television set than they do at school. Therefore, the type of material which is sent out to Canadians on our public airwaves is extremely significant.
Unfortunately, the Bill before us today is a step backward in the evolution of our broadcasting system. It is a great disappointment. There are some good things in the Bill but it is a severely flawed Bill. My list of congratulations is comparatively short and my disappointments comparatively long and relate to the most significant items.
We do not legislate in the area of broadcasting very often, only about every 20 years. Therefore, the fact that the Minister has missed the opportunity to bring in a good Bill is doubly disappointing. It is even more so since the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture gave a great deal of attention to the issue of broadcasting. We had an excellent
task force report. The Caplan-Sauvageau report was thorough, comprehensive, detailed and exciting. That task force held hearings all across the country. It listened to Canadians and came up with a dynamic report.
Our committee studied that report and held hearings again to listen to Canadian consumers of broadcasting as participants, directors, performers, and broadcasters, private and public. All sectors of the system spoke to us and we listened carefully. Our report on changes in broadcasting contains some very good items, many of which did not make it into legislation.
Moreover, the Minister has tried to give the impression that this is a step forward and will result in more Canadianization. That, however, is not the case. There will be less. The standards required for Canadianization are going down. It is of what we do not see in the Bill and the slight changes in wording that we have to be most careful because that is how this deceptive act has been performed. They are small changes in terms of the number of words but critical changes in terms of the standards we set for the use of the public airwaves.
For both the private and public sectors in broadcasting there has been a diminution. We are not aiming as high as we could. Standards previously set, although not reached, are not even being set. One of the jokes that went along with the Caplan-Sauvageau report was that rather than making recommendations for a new Broadcasting Act the committee should recommend the re-legislation of the old Broadcasting Act with the added clause, "This time we mean it". Well, the Minister did not take that advice and this time she is not aiming even as high as the 1968 Broadcasting Act.
With regard to the requirements for Canadianization, Clause 3.(1 )(d) says:
-each element of the Canadian broadcasting system shall contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming, making maximum use of Canadian creative and other resources;
We know that in the case of private broadcasting "making maximum use" has been paltry indeed. They are making enormous profits yet not contributing their fair share. Our committee said that in no uncertain terms and pointed out, as had the Caplan-Sauvageau report, the extensive profits and the availability which existed for Canadian programming. The Minister does not require that at all. Consistent with the financial and other resources available to private networks and programming undertakings they are supposed to, as indicated in Clause 3.(l)(p)(i):
-contribute significantly to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming-
How much is "significantly"? They will tell you that it does not have to be very much at all because Canadians do not like Canadian programming. They do not have to be predominantly Canadian as was the requirement under the old Act. The 1968 Act said that the CBC should be predominantly Canadian, and private broadcasters at least had to be predominantly Canadian in their creative and other resources. The CRTC
July 25, 1988

interpreted that to mean at least above 50 per cent. The Act of 1958 said it should be predominantly Canadian for all, public and private, in content and character.
We see this watering down. In 1988 the content and character requirement is gone for the whole system, with the CBC the only one which has to be predominantly and distinctively Canadian. That is a real disappointment. I believe that our committee showed very adequately that the resources were available to the private sector to enable them to be really Canadian in their content and character. We know that the artistic resources are there. We have excellent performers, writers, producers, directors and so forth.
The CBC has also had a diminution in its role. Taking out only one word from the aims of the CBC results in a change of direction which is extremely important. The word "enlightenment" has been taken out. It used to be information, entertainment and enlightenment.
Information is, of course, news and public affairs programming. We all know what entertainment is. The CBC previously had a requirement to provide programming for enlightenment. This was a very important role. The CBC was the only source of this kind of programming for many people in Canada. By dropping this one term as a requirement for the CBC the Minister is telling us that the CBC does not have to fulfil this goal. Information, entertainment, and enlightenment remain a goal for the whole system, but the programming which will provide this enlightenment could be relegated to only the alternative broadcasting sources. We do not know very much about what will be provided. We do not know when they will be on stream or what they will do.
We question why that enlightenment function should be in the alternative sector rather than in the main thrust of the CBC, our public broadcasting system. It is a dereliction of duty and shows the sneaky way in which the role of the CBC is being diminished. It will be forced into a greater role of simply news, public affairs and entertainment programs. It will not have to perform nor be funded to perform the role it has played in the past.
Another significant failure of the Bill is in the area of human rights. The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture was very clear in what it recommended. The important issue for women across the country is that they have been absent or badly represented in many news and public affairs programming, and shown in idiotic roles in much other programming. There have been task forces, committees, resolutions, there have been policies and programs to change this. Visible minorities have been asking for more fair treatment in the media, on the airwaves as well as in the boardrooms that govern them.
Our committee said that the programming carried by the system should provide a balanced representation of Canadian society, reflecting its multicultural and bilingual realities, its
Broadcasting Act
aboriginal peoples and the composition of its population with regard to sex, age, national ethnic origin, colour, religion and mental or physical handicap. There must be fair representation in order for broadcasting to be fair and realistic in reflecting Canadian society.
Women make up roughly half the population of the country. They ought to be well represented and not just appear as an occasional minority group on television. The legislation states nothing along the lines we recommended. Instead, Clause 3(1 )(c)(iii) states that the broadcasting policy should:
strive, through its operations and programming, to reflect the circumstances and aspirations of Canadian men and women, including the linguistic duality and multicultural nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society,
That is very weak and far from what was recommended. Its intention is unclear.
Women have been dealt with unjustly and unfairly for many years. The long struggle to correct that has been totally ignored by the Government. Visible minorities who have taken courage by women's organizations are demanding better treatment. Their needs have been similarly ignored.
Sex is not even mentioned as one of the objects in Clause 3(l)(g)(i), which states that the Canadian broadcasting system should:
be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of different ages, interests and tastes,
Sex is not even mentioned.
The discrimination against half our population has been the subject of major lobbying efforts, yet research and task force reports are not even mentioned in the Government's agenda. That is wrong. Canadian women expect better. Women represent half of Canadian society and the airwaves belong to the public.
I am also disappointed with the Government's approach to the right to service. We were very clear that it was wrong that Canadians did not get full broadcasting services, particularly in the public sector, because they have paid for those services with their tax dollars. While people will get some kind of CBC service in many parts of the country, be it radio, television or something of each, they will not get all of the services. FM radio is not available in many places, even though it could be provided at not too significant a cost. We heard that many areas get English but not French, and people feel left out because they are not getting the services for which they have paid and which other people in the country are receiving.
Our recommendation 26 was very clear about what we believe should be the case. The Bill should reaffirm that all Canadians are entitled to Canadian broadcasting services in French and English, with this right being implemented if necessary by means of concerted action by the public sector.
If it takes some special measures through public funds to see that people get these services, then that ought to be done.

July 25, 1988
Broadcasting Act
Instead, the Government has done very little. The Government states in Clause 3(h) that:
a range of broadcasting services in English and French should be extended to all Canadians as resources become available;
That is not very specific. It states that these services should be available, rather than making clear there is an entitlement to them, as a matter of right. Obviously these services must be provided as resources become available, but I thought there would be some urgency on that issue. It is very vague with respect to the regions.
The clause states that the CBC should reflect Canadians to the nation and the regions to themselves. It has also been relegated as a minor function for the alternative service, to reflect Canada, the regions and its multicultural nature.
The committee was clear that the regions ought to be in the system for the nation as a whole as well as reflecting the region to itself so that people would get the full services in their areas as well as the programming from their own area.
What is the reason for this disappointing situation? The rumour is that the Government had better legislation and would have gone further with the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, but the draft measures were sent to the trade negotiation office and were vetoed by the American Government. That is the rumour I heard. I would like to see what clauses landed on the cutting room floor and for the Minister to show us what she had planned. While we have come a long way in developing our culture, we have not stopped developing in terms of our artistic qualities, our character and the contribution Canadians can make to the world. We need all of the resources at our disposal to see that our talents and our contribution is developed.
There are measures in Bill C-136 that reflect the free trade agreement. It is one of the first casualties of the free trade agreement. The Government is stating through this Bill that it does not have confidence in Canadians to move forward. Not only will we stay still, we may even move back in some respects. That shows a lack of confidence in Canadians that I do not share.
Our culture has made enormous strides. Different sections have developed at a different pace. It is wrong that we will not even have the tools to develop in the future. As Simon Reisman said, only those measures that are consistent with the free trade deal will go ahead to help develop Canadian culture. He was confident that there were many measures consistent with the free trade deal that could be taken. But the point is that we should not be asking permission to implement our own measures. We should not have a piece of legislation that ties our hands. Instead of making decisions about what is good for Canada, Canada's regions or Canada's cultural community, we first have to ask if this legislation is consistent with the deal we tied ourselves into in 1988. That is a shameful situation to be in, and I think that the far better approach would be to say that we will keep our ability to make decisions.
Let us have confidence in our artists, broadcasters, writers and performers. Let us see to it that the public's airwaves are used for this dynamic expression of Canadian culture. Let us keep all the legislative tools we need to develop policies to protect and promote Canadian culture in broadcasting and in all of the other sectors we would want to protect and enhance in the future.
If the film distribution Bill was the first cultural casualty of the free trade agreement, this broadcasting Bill is the second cultural casualty of the free trade agreement. There will be others in other areas of life as well. I think this is extremely unfortunate, particularly when our culture is booming. We have an enormous amount of talent and we should be supporting and enhancing that talent at this stage. We should not be looking back, freezing the situation where it is now. We should have confidence and we should look toward the future.
I am extremely disappointed about having to talk about this Bill on second reading stage, approval in principle. I have worked on this subject for years. I participated in the hearings held across Canada by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, a committee that did listen to Canadians. The Bill reflects a Minister who did not listen to Canadians. It reflects the influence of the trade negotiations office which has certainly not listened to Canadians.
If we were listening to Canadians, we would be having an election right now on all of these issues. I look forward to that election. In the meantime, I am very disappointed that now, in the middle of summer, the Government is pushing forward such a broadcasting Bill. This is one of the few opportunities we have every couple of decades to look seriously at broadcasting and to plan for the future. The Government is missing that opportunity. Instead, it is tying Canadians' hands for the future because it would rather pursue Ronald Reagan's vision of a North American market. It would rather deny the opportunity for us Canadians to develop our own culture as a part of our very exciting Canadian society.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Roger Clinch (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I would like to enter into this debate. The new broadcast Bill, Bill C-136, will ensure the continued strength of the broadcasting system and the continued presence of competitive Canadian programming. Accordingly, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill.
We would have the impression from the Hon. Member who just spoke that this Bill has been greeted with only negative reactions. I think Hon. Members would be very interested to know that there have been some very positive reactions. If you would permit me to do so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the words of some of the more recognized newspapers and groups in Canada which have been very pleased by the Minister's new broadcast Bill.
July 25, 1988

The Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, June 25, had this to say: "The federal Government's long awaited broadcast policy looks solid and impressive". The Globe and Mail of the same day said: "It passes the immediate test of increasing the variety and volume of Canadian programming".

... Instead of burying the Caplan-Sauvageau Report, this Bill embodies its spirit and follows its main policy thrusts.

"A small, well-stuffed goody bag that gives Canadian television viewers their first real hope of an all-Canadian CBC and pledges a second publicly supported network within two years," said The Ottawa Citizen.

... Miss MacDonald's Broadcasting Bill at first glance is very promising for improvement in the quality and quantity of French-language programs.
Daniel Lemay, La Presse, Saturday, June 25:
... For the first time, the Canadian Broadcasting Act will recognize the distinct character of the French radio and television industry and market.
Manon Cornellier, Le Devoir, Saturday, June 25:

The Globe and Mail of Monday, June 27, said: "It is a major accomplishment for Miss MacDonald to come out with a package which not only reaffirms the central role of public broadcasting, and backs it up with some more money, but also takes a swipe at the private television broadcasters for their miserable contribution to Canadian programming". There are several other quotes.

The Coalition for the defence of the CBC's French services:
Miss MacDonald has met our main demands, and in terms of general principles-like journalistic independence, freedom of expression, having two presidents for the CBC and recognizing the distinct character of the French services-we are very satisfied.
And on the French CBC program, Le Point, of June 23, 1988:
... task force report, the central role of the CBC is maintained and the distinct features of French-language television are recognized . .. Many things in this report satisfy me ...

There is also a letter I would like to quote from. [Translation]
From the Coalition pour la defense des services franqais de Radio-Canada, a letter addressed to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Prime Minister,
This is to inform you that the Coalition pour la defense des services frangais de Radio-Canada supports Bill C-136, the Broadcasting Act, introduced by the Hon. Flora MacDonald.
The proposed legislation largely coincides with the position we have defended for many months and is more sensitive to the needs of our society than the present legislation. We are very pleased with your Government's proposal to recognize in the Act the distinct characteristics of the Canadian
Broadcasting Act
Broadcasting Corporation's French and English services and of the radiotelevision industries.

How did the Canadian Conference of the Arts respond to the broadcast Bill and policy? It responded by saying:
-newly elected CCA President, Paul Siren, generally welcomed the bill and policy on broadcasting, tabled yesterday in the House of Commons by Communications Minister, Flora MacDonald.
"In its wording and intent, the broadcasting bill and accompanying policy are a step in the right direction" ... "We applaud the government's objective to strengthen and increase Canadian programming, particularly in English- and French-language television drama, and welcome the new funds for the CBC.
We also had approval from Television Northern Canada which said:
Minister of Culture and Communications Titus Allooloo welcomed today's announcement by federal Minister of Communications Flora MacDonald on funding for satellite distribution of a new northern television service.
"The new public/educational television network, as put forward by Television Northern Canada (TVNC), is a major step forward in northern communications," said Mr. Allooloo.
These are but a few of the quotes of those who have responded very favourably to this Bill.
We as Canadians already have access to what is perhaps the most diverse and competitive broadcasting system in the world. This system has grown and developed at an astonishing pace over the past 20 years while the broadcast Act itself has remained unchanged.

Broadcasting is fundamentally important to our political and cultural sovereignty. That is why our Canadian broadcasting system must be an accurate reflection of who we as Canadians are, how we behave and how we view the world.
It is in fact the purpose of Bill C-136 to achieve this goal, especially with respect to French broadcasting. It must be recognized that French broadcasting and English broadcasting do not operate under the same conditions. The point of promoting Canadian programming in French Canada is to have programs that enable viewers to identify with characters that are like them. It is a matter of linguistic and cultural survival.
French broadcasters have consistently provided the requisite amount of drama programming. Thus, quality, not quantity is the issue here, because as programming costs escalate, broadcasters may be tempted to resort to foreign, less costly productions. Before this starts happening on a large scale, the Bill on broadcasting proposes a legislative solution.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time, the proposed legislation recognizes that French and English markets require different policy approaches, and these differences will have to be reflected in CRTC decisions and within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself.

July 25, 1988
Broadcasting Act
We cannot discuss the issue of French and English broadcasting without mentioning the presence of our two official languages. In the case of broadcasting, this presence is more than a constitutional reality, it is a fact throughout our broadcasting networks.
The Bill recognizes, for the first time, this country's linguistic duality. Many Francophone Canadians outside Quebec-in Ontario and New Brunswick, for instance- receive very few signals, if any, in their own language. Clause 3 contains provisions in this respect.
To remedy the situation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will have to play a more important role. Its services must be offered in both official languages to reflect the specific situation and needs of both language communities, including official language minority groups.
The Bill also provides that the broadcasting system should safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada. The production of drama programming is essential in order to achieve this goal.
Bill C-136 will preserve and enhance the uniquely Canadian mix of private and public broadcasting while providing for even greater diversity in programming choices and encouraging continued technological advancement. It is forward-looking legislation that will guide the Canadian broadcasting system well into the 21st century.
Clause 3 of the Bill states that the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of different ages, interests and tastes. It should also provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern.
Just as important, for the first time, the new Broadcasting Act recognizes the great diversity of Canadian society and, in the spirit of the Charter of Rights, the need to ensure equitable presentation for all Canadians within the broadcasting system. The Bill also acknowledges the bilingual, multicultural and regional nature of the country and the special place of aboriginal peoples in our society.
In order to achieve policy objectives, public broadcasting has always been an important part of our broadcasting system. The Bill reaffirms the Government's commitment to a strong and independent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The CBC remains the central element of the Canadian broadcasting policy.
It is recognized, however, that the CBC cannot be the only source of Canadian programming, and that it can no longer be expected to provide all types of programming for all interests and tastes. The Bill therefore reflects the need to ensure that
all elements of the broadcasting system contribute to programming objectives and takes steps to increase Canadian choices.
To encourage more special interest in Canadian television programming the Bill provides for a new alternative programming service. This will offer the kind of programs that Canadians have said they want to see but which would otherwise not be available because of their non-commercial nature and the high cost of television production. The ultimate form and structure would be shaped by public hearings to be undertaken by the CRTC so that all Canadians will have an opportunity to express their views.
The CRTC will also have access to a wider range of tools to enforce its regulations and conditions of licence. In addition to fines and such legal recourse as mandatory orders, the CRTC is given the power to regulate more flexibly, with a licence fee tied to performance.
Recognizing the regional nature of Canada the Bill provides for decentralization and streamlining of the CRTC's decisionmaking process. Panels of commissioners holding hearings across the country will be able to make decisions quickly. They will reflect more accurately local circumstances and conditions within the context of a national regulatory framework. These and other changes to the CRTC's structure and administration will improve greatly its effectiveness as a regulator and its responsiveness to the industry and the Canadian public.
For these reasons the new Broadcasting Act as set out in Bill C-136 is legislation of major importance for all Canadians. The Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) is justly proud of this Bill. It is an outstanding document reflecting and responding to one of the most important public policy discussions undertaken by this Government.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join in the debate on Bill C-138 and to say to my colleague from the great Province of New Brunswick, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Clinch), that although he has spoken with his usual eloquence I must say that we are going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to the substantive parts of his remarks.
I would like to outline very briefly some of the concerns that I have with regard to this particular piece of legislation. There can be no doubt of its importance. The fact of the matter is that watching television is perhaps the number one leisure activity for many, if not all, Canadians. Canadians spend more than 24 hours each week on average in front of the television set. Each year Canadian children watch almost 1,000 hours of television compared to attending school for 800 hours. We should reflect on that fact for a moment-1,000 hours in front of the television set compared with 800 hours in school. Can anyone doubt the importance of the substantive arguments that have been made by colleagues on all sides of the House, particularly my colleague from Mount Royal, who has outlined very clearly the position of my Party about the importance that the content of television and radio plays?
July 25, 1988

Some 95 per cent of Canadians are radio listeners, spending some 18 hours per week at that particular activity. Two-thirds of Canadians say that watching television is their favourite pastime. I do not know if that goes for the proceedings of the House of Commons or not, but perhaps it is with regard to other programs on television. More than 50 per cent of Canadians say that broadcasting is their principal source of news and information. Thus when we sit back and reflect upon the contents of Bill C-136 and when we take into account those facts it is important to recognize that changes ought to have been made in line with those suggested by my colleague from Mount Royal.
The content of our system has been and remains a major problem, for while it is true that society's heavy reliance on recorded media is an important fact, what is even more important is that most of what we watch and hear is in fact not Canadian. It reflects the thoughts and attitudes, the world view and feelings of other nations, primarily our neighbour to the south, the United States of America. Those remarks with regard to the United States ought not to be interpreted by those who are somewhat perverted in their thinking to suggest that we do not like our colleagues to the south. I happen to believe that the United States is a great nation, and Americans are a great people, but there are glaring differences between Canada and the United States.
Canadians must have access to more Canadian programming. At the present time, less than 7 per cent of television drama available to us in English is Canadian, yet we spend nearly half our viewing time watching it. There are more hours of American newscasts available to us than Canadian newscasts. Hon. Members will realize the fact that American newscasts provide more information to us as Canadians about events in their country and their perspective of the global community than in fact we as Canadians do about ourselves. Most thinking Canadians, some of whom may be on the opposite side, but most of whom are on this side, would readily come to the conclusion that, because of our diversity in geography, the smallness of our population and the manner in which it is distributed throughout this country, there is an ever-increasing need for us to have more information and news about our great country, whether one happens to live in western Canada, Quebec, Ontario, or the Atlantic Provinces.
In a recent newspaper advertisement the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting introduced Michelle, a typical ten-year old Canadian, who spends roughly 80 per cent of her television viewing time watching American programming. She spends as many hours each year watching American programming as she does attending school. As the ad states: "A foreign power has control of Michelle's mind". If one stops and thinks about it, Mr. Speaker, Michelle spends 800 hours in school and 1,000 hours watching television. Not only is that a difference of 200 hours, but it shows the massive increase in terms of viewing American programming, indeed foreign programming.
Broadcasting Act
As I indicated earlier in my remarks, the position of our Party on Bill C-136 has been outlined very clearly by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Fine-stone). As she stated, we recognize that the 1968 Act has served Canadians well in bringing about Canadian ownership of broadcasting systems. As a result, the Canadian broadcasting system is the envy of people in many corners of the world. However, there are some things which are missing in this piece of legislation, of which the Minister is well aware. Bill C-136 changes the CBC's mandate by removing the requirement that its programming contain a balance of information, entertainment, and enlightenment. Only information and entertainment remain. Therefore, the question is why? This will undermine the basis of such fundamentally important programs as Man Alive, The Nature of Things, and a host of other programs. Removal of enlightenment will weaken the distinctive quality of CBC programming. Members opposite may have a different view, however, that is the view I take on this particular issue.
Does the Government believe that the CBC television should be only a commercial, mass-audience network, and that all enlightenment should fall under an alternative television network? That is an important point to which I believe the Government should give careful consideration in terms of examining what can be best said and done for Canadians in this great country.
Let me turn now to the subject of regional CBC cuts and change in the CBC mandate. The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in its report entitled Broadcasting Policy for Canada, pointed out that the CBC, as a result of its parliamentary appropriation being cut, has been forced to cut by 28 per cent the resources for regional broadcasting in order to maintain network programming in recent years. If one happens to live in Toronto, Montreal, or cities of that nature, this particular fact, which I am underlining for the benefit of all Members, may not strike home to them. However, for those of us who live in the peripheral regions of the country, regional programming and the opportunities that it provides is important to us and to the people we represent.
Bill C-136 reduces the CBC's mandate to meet the distinctive needs of the various geographic regions of the country. The 1968 Act required the CBC to serve the special needs of geographic regions, and now the CBC is to reflect Canada and its regions to the national and regional audiences. Why does the Government want to reduce the CBC's role as a local and regional programmer? That is pretty fundamental. Prior Governments of different political persuasions have done many things to try to unite this great country, from a railroad to the auspices of regional economic development programs, and some time ago the introduction of the CBC. If we remove or reduce the opportunities for regional and local programming, I can only underline the difficulty that that will cause for many people in the regions of the country.
The 1968 Act required that individual broadcasters provide programming that is predominantly Canadian in character. Now Bill C-136 proposes that it be changed. As a result, the

July 25, 1988
Broadcasting Act
CRTC will be free to reduce its requirement that broadcasters maintain 50 per cent Canadian content and still be consistent with the intent of Bill C-136. The CBC's description is reduced and distinctive. These descriptions are of fundamental importance. We see the Bill as paving the way for the Canadian broadcasting system to become part of what has been known as the North American system.
I believe that the Bill has another serious flaw. There is no recognition of aboriginal services in Bill C-136. The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture recommended that a new broadcasting Act should provide for the CBC to offer service in aboriginal languages considered to be representative, where numbers warrant, and to the extent public funds permit. The Government failed to act upon the recommendation that the CBC offer service in aboriginal languages. The National Aboriginal Communications Society has expressed its dismay with the failure of the Government to act to provide this important protection.
Mr. Speaker, I come back to my earlier thoughts when I talked about Canadian content, about the importance in this country of looking at Canadian content-and it is a reality that we must address-and Canadians, whether they are watching television or listening to the radio, do so in great numbers. There are some individuals who will say, well, perhaps parents ought to have a more active role in the determination of what their children watch or listen to on the airwaves. That is correct. I share that sentiment. But the reality that we must face is that Canadians, in great numbers, are watching a great deal of television and of course listening in great amounts to radio. Therefore, it becomes increasingly important that the Government try to address some of the concerns that I and indeed other Members have raised. I look forward to hearing some of the responses from Members opposite, as well as my colleagues, as this debate continues.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald).


Miss MacDonald:: I just have a brief comment, Mr. Speaker. For the enlightenment of the Member who has just spoken, I think that it is important to note that perhaps he has not read the Bill thoroughly. What has been done in this case was to use the words that had applied only to the CBC in the previous Bill, in the 1968 Bill, words such as "enlightenment", and now move them into a position in the Bill where they apply to the entire Canadian broadcasting system, including the CBC. But what we have done is to stipulate that distributors, carriers, the private network, the public network, all of them take into consideration that word, "enlightenment".
I also want to assure him that if he will read through the Bill carefully he will see that the question of our aboriginal societies are addressed within the Bill. All of these things are introduced into the Bill. Although previously there was a very limited application of these requirements to the public
broadcasting service only, they now apply to the whole range of services that fall within the Canadian broadcasting system. Public as well as private carriers, such as cable and so on, all have these particular requirements attached to them now.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's intervention. I hope that her comments achieve the objective that I have enunciated.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It think they do.


David Charles Dingwall: It seems to me that the removal of "enlightenment" will in fact weaken the distinctive quality of the CBC programming. If the Minister is able to convince me over a period of time that that particular objective that she has spoken of-and that I have just spoken of-is reached in the Bill, well, fine and good. If not, in the interpretation that I and my colleagues have been able to wrestle with as it relates to this particular Bill, we believe it is a serious omission. However, I do appreciate the intervention of the Minister on this matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to enter this debate because I have been watching what is happening to broadcasting, both public and private, for many years, and the more I see what has happened and how little we have done and how often we have done the wrong thing, the more depressed I get. In this Bill I see very little, if anything, that will begin to change the depressing realities.
First of all, let me point out that what the Minister is proposing in this Bill and what the reality is since the Conservatives formed this Government, has been that the public sector broadcasting is underfunded. In large measure, this is the result of this Conservative Government's four-year vendetta against the CBC, which has led to a $140 million reduction in the network's allocation from Parliament.
I also want to point out that the private broadcasters are not doing their job. Twenty years ago, when I was on the parliamentary committee which dealt with this kind of question, I took the time to look through the applications of the groups or the individuals whose applications were successful, those to be given a licence to set up a TV station and to broadcast from any of the cities across Canada. I am talking not about all of the applications but about the successful applications. Every one of them had grandiose proposals about how they would provide Canadian content if their application was approved. It is not just public affairs and sports, but drama, variety and comedy. You name it, they promised it. Of course, as soon as they got the licence, they proceeded to ignore every promise that they had made.
What we have now is a private system of television stations, certainly in the major cities, that-as one commentator who has studied the question has said-have been given a licence to print money.
July 25, 1988

It has been estimated that their net profit each year, after taxes, is 50 per cent of their investment. No other field of endeavour in this country is anywhere near as profitable.
Now, let us look at what we believe is a crisis in Canadian television. We see that Canadian films represent only 3 per cent of screen time in Canada. Only 3 per cent of film profits stay in Canada, and 3 per cent of video cassette sales are Canadian. Canadian publishers own only 30 per cent of the Canadian market, and 77 per cent of magazines sold in Canada are foreign. Eighty-five per cent of records and tapes sold in Canada are foreign.
There have been a number of very successful films produced by Canadians: My American Cousin, The Kids of DeGrassi Junior High, all with public money.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: There is more.


David Orlikow: How often are they shown on television or in Canadian movie theatres?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is why we have a film distribution Bill.


David Orlikow: Very little.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Or on the CBC. But they are going to.


David Orlikow: The Minister said that they are going to. We have heard those promises for longer than I would like to remember.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is a new policy. The NDP does not want it.


David Orlikow: What is clear at this time is that Canada and its cultural industry need vision and aggressive policies of expansion. This is particularly true because the Mulroney trade deal will make things even more difficult for both public and private broadcasters.
Let us just look at the kind of thing which has happened recently. An example of the Government's performance and attitude is found in the continuing effort of the Minister and her colleagues to sabotage the CBC's bid for an All-News network. After all, the CRTC-supposedly an independent agency which makes decisions-is to study these kinds of questions and make decisions which will be followed. The CRTC awarded this licence for an All-News network to the CBC.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: As of September 1.


David Orlikow: It obviously had a vastly superior bid. What happened? The Government intervened and demanded that CBC find a private sector partner. In effect, she and the Government scuttled the plan. What is the result? Canadians now have an All-News monopoly,and that is the American monopoly held by Ted Turner and the CNN. The Government has achieved its end, namely an All-News network run out of
Broadcasting Act
Atlanta, which does not cover the Tories sell-out on trade nor the Prime Minister's scandals, et cetera. CNN does not even know what street Canada is on. I have said earlier that this Government has helped, in the way of deliberate policy, to harm the CBC.
Let us look at what has happened. We have had a series of vicious budget cuts which have systematically undermined the network. Let us look at what has happened to CBC funding in real dollar terms since the Tories took power. In 1984-85, the CBC got $905 million. In 1985-86, it got only $826 million. In 1986-87, the amount dropped to $806 million. In 1987-88, the CBC got $789 million, and for this coming year it will receive only $775 million. That is a reduction, according to my rough calculations, of about 25 per cent. That is the record of the Government and how it supports public broadcasting. That just is not good enough, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister has spoken proudly of the so-called new money for the CBC that she has found to help it reach 95 per cent Canadian content level. She is giving $15 million of new money to the CBC's French service and $20 million to the CBC's English service. This does not even come close to making up for the cuts which the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have made in the last four years. The President of ACTRA, Dale Goldhawk, said some time ago:
And while the CBC is expected to fulfil a wide mandate, the money to go forward just isn't there. In short, this part of the announcement doesn't exactly make my socks roll up and down.
Ian Morrison of the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting said:
The most significant test is whether the Government restores the CBC parliamentary allocation to at least the real level it was in 1984 when the Conservative Government took office. The 1988 parliamentary allocation to the CBC has been reduced in real terms by $140 million from its level in 1984. In this new policy context, funding of $35 million leaves CBC with a net annual shortfall of more than $100 million. The Government has therefore failed this test.
Jamie Portman, writing in the Vancouver Sun, pointed out:
The Government has ignored a recent call from an all-Party Commons committee that it show its commitment to better Canadian programming by increasing it support of broadcasting with up to $250 million fresh funding annually ... in real dollar terms, the CBC's budget has shrunk by more than $150 million since the Conservatives came to power.
What good was it to have a parliamentary committee headed by the then Member of this House, Mr. McGrath, who spent weeks and months proposing new rules and a new way of handling things in Canada, giving the parliamentary committees more staff, more time saying that parliamentary committees after they have done their work would be listened to, that they would play a major role in how things are done? Here we have a Government which has consistently ignored the parliamentary committee, on which a vast majority of the members are Conservatives. Yet the Government has almost completely ignored the recommendations of that committee.

July 25, 1988
Broadcasting Act
I want to point out to the Minister that the Canadian people do not share the Government's apparent intense dislike of public broadcasting. A 1986 Environics poll showed that over two-thirds of Canadians were in favour of increased spending on the CBC. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. People want more funds for the CBC, not less, which is what has happened in the four years in which we have had a Conservative Government.
There ar few very minor good things in this Bill. We are pleased to find the Government and the Minister acknowledging in this Bill that "the CBC is the principal vehicle of cultural expression in Canada". Given the views of so many of the right-wing back-benchers of the Conservative Party, many of whom would like to see the CBC disappear altogether, to get this recognition out of the Tories seems like a great victory.
We need a CBC that is capable of having an appeal to a mass audience while at the same time producing such excellent programming of enlightenment as Ideas or Man Alive. To take off the CBC live drama, music as well as documentaries demonstrates a short-sighted vision. The Government is making commercial factors the litmus test for what should and should not be on the network.
As a Member of Parliament from Winnipeg, I have to join with other Members, including I think some Members on the government side, who are not only dismayed but horrified at the real abandonment by the CBC in the area of regional programming. The standing committee detailed the problems of regional programming in its report. It pointed out that the CBC has been forced to cut 28 per cent of its resources for regional programming in order to maintain regional programming in recent years. The regional managers of CBC operations in every province have noted that in recent years they are "less able to develop new talent, present variety programming, and work with independent producers". We have heard from Winnipeg, Halifax, Hamilton, Windsor and I suppose from Vancouver about the situation.
The 1968 Broadcasting Act established that the CBC must serve the needs of the regions. This current legislation suggests that the network need only reflect the regions to its audience. This is a significant difference from what we came to expect, and it can only lead to the centralization of the CBC, which we in the regions reject completely. The role of enlightenment as well as that of regional and multicultural programming is given over to the alternative programming network. The Minister, however, was not able to secure the funds for this network from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) at this time. She promises instead another two years of studying and delay for a proposal that has already been the subject of intense analysis both by the parliamentary committee and by the Caplan-Sauvageau report. The Government has apparently ruled out a CBC role in this new service and has left it to the CRTC to work out a structure, which I believe is the responsibility of Government.
When we look at private television, Mr. Speaker, we see some very sad facts. The task force pointed out that the private sector has simply not been doing its job, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech. We should remember that the standing committee established that private television broadcasters average a 50 per cent annual return on investment. Surely they should be forced to do more than what they do. Broadcasting licences should be more than a licence to print money. Private networks have to be more than transmission belts bringing in American programs to Canadian viewers with Canadian commercials. What has the Minister done about this in her new legislation? She has watered down, it would appear, the requirement in the current Act that private broadcasters be predominantly Canadian. Instead, she has put in place a form of performance incentives. Fees will be collected in secret by Treasury Board from those private broadcasters who do not meet their requirements for Canadian programming. The money will be distributed to those who do. Rather than getting tough with private broadcasters who consistently fail to meet their conditions of licence, the Minister is offering a shoddy scheme which is fraught with difficulties.
Let me take a moment to illustrate what I have been saying with an example from Manitoba. In Manitoba we have a number of private and public television stations. Most of them are located in Winnipeg because more than half the population of Manitoba is in Winnipeg. What has happened in the last couple of years? The CRTC, for reasons which I cannot understand, gave a licence to a group to set up a television broadcasting station in Portage La Prairie, 50 miles from Winnipeg. So we have Channel 13. But what do we see from Channel 13? It is almost entirely American programming, the game shows and movies. There are some very good movies, but almost no Canadian content at all.
Why did the CRTC issue that licence? I do not know, but part of the reason that they were able to do so is that the message they get from the Government is that it is not very concerned about Canadian content. The Canadian people are concerned about Canadian content. Sure, they want to be able to watch American programs. Sure, they want to watch American baseball games or American football games or drama or Dallas and all the others when they are on. However, they should have the ability to choose what they want to see.
Canadians who really believe that Canada is a separate country and needs its own culture if it is to survive and not become the fifty-first state, also believe that we need a broadcasting system, both public and private, which provides Canadian content. That is what they have seen less and less of since the Conservative Government was elected in 1984.
What we have here are a Bill and a Minister who says some of the right things, but their desire and determination to do the right thing is, in my view, to say the least, sadly lacking.
July 25, 1988


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say something about Bill C-136, the Broadcasting Act, which the Government brought forward for debate in these last days of July. I think it is appropriate to say that it is a real shame to be debating this matter now. Broadcasting is one of the most important issues that could possibly be put before the country as it relates to culture and society and understanding ourselves. Broadcasting is absolutely central to culture in our time. To have a Bill, which will play such an important part in determining how the broadcasting system evolves over the next decade or two, brought forward for debate in July when there is not as much readiness to debate carefully and critically, seems to me fits in with the Government's agenda of moving things along with not as much critical attention as should be given in order to gloss over the shortcomings of legislation.
I am therefore pleased this morning that there is critical attention being given to these matters and I hope others will come into the debate and continue the exploration necessary at second reading to determine whether the Government has met the challenge or to clarify the extent to which it has fallen short.
I listened with great interest to the comments of my friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), as he debated a variety of shortcomings in the Government's practices and in Bill C-136. I ask those who are listening to take those as a given for my own sense of the situation. I want to expand particularly on one area which, of necessity, has had limited attention in much of the debate, and that is the question of how adequately this Bill recognizes the multicultural policy of the country stated in this Parliament almost 17 years ago, and to which we have in this Parliament given legislative expression.
I refer, of course, to this House passing Bill C-93 and sending it to the other place. In doing so we declared that multiculturalism is a view of the country and describes a policy of the Government of Canada which is to characterize every federal institution. That Bill was available to us when the Broadcasting Act was reaching its final stages, and I think it is eminently fair to ask ourselves to what extent Bill C-136 has been developed and put before us in the context of Bill C-93.
I do not think it is going to be difficult to say that this Bill falls far short of what we would expect in the context of multiculturalism. It only underscores the extent to which our supposed commitment to multiculturalism is a matter of slogans, specific events and days, but is not acceptance of a reality that should be reflected in all the institutions the federal Government directs and controls. It is certainly not going to be adequately expressed in Canadian broadcasting if this Bill passes the House unchanged.
In order to justify those comments I want to take a look at Clause 3 of the Bill in particular. That clause sets forth at some length a broadcasting policy for Canada. To do so I shall have to cite a number of paragraphs indicating how much the
Broadcasting Act
Bill reflects the context of the 1960s, lives within the world of official bilingualism, and only in occasional references suggests that larger view that should have been basic in elaborating a broadcasting policy.
We are told, first, that the Canadian broadcasting system will operate primarily in the English and French languages. Then, of course, there are other references. We are told further on that it is designed "through its operations and programming to reflect the circumstances and aspirations of Canadian men and women, including the linguistic duality and multicultural nature of Canadian society, and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society." That describes an aspect of the entire broadcasting system.
When we turn to those sections that describe the programming provided by the CBC, we find no such broad vision at all. The programming provided by the CBC should, it says, "be in English and French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities." Nothing better spells out our view, based on the experience of the 1960s, inadequately developed beyond our view of the country as officially bilingual, of the constraints within which the CBC and Radio Canada have carried on their functions.
Certainly the Bill continues to provide a requirement for enlightenment, the point the Minister was debating earlier. However, the very point that she and I were briefly discussing earlier this morning, the widespread ignorance about our citizens of various cultures, seems to me here, in the most important area where the CBC carries out the federal Government's mandate for informing and enlightening Canadians about other citizens, to lack any explicit declaration that the CBC is to ensure that the multicultural nature of the country is recognized.
Certainly it is part of the general broadcasting policy, yet we know how far short our broadcasters have fallen in achieving that. To leave the CBC without an obligation to do that is just an indication of how limited the vision of the Government is, and to how limited an extent the multicultural policy of 1971, legislated now in Bill C-93, has been put before the directors of the CBC and Radio Canada in ensuring that they will respect the reality of the country.
There is in this area a fundamental point to be made. The federal Government will operate in English and French. The federal Government will speak to all Canadians in those two languages with some very limited recognition that there are Canadians who need to be addressed, presumably through the ethnic press or multilingual broadcasting, in other languages as well. Immigrants come to this country, persons of diverse cultures from all the continents of the earth and live in this country and work in public life in those two languages. To assume that the cultures that they reflect, which continue to

July 25, 1988
Broadcasting Act
underlie their public lives in English, should not be reflected in broadcasting, that this is not an obligation explicitly laid on the CBC and Radio-Canada, is to recognize one of the most fundamental shortcomings of broadcasting.
I make this point because we spend a certain amount of money in the Department of Secretary of State, the multicul-turalism directorate or sector, whatever one wants to call it, especially in the new context of which the Conservatives make so much. It has a bit more money and some new initiatives and is trying desperately, as an election draws near, to catch up on the past. However, whatever happens over there, precious little happens in the broadcasting area, and the Department of Communications quite clearly carries on along the old lines. Certainly there is some stirring of recognition of more needing to be done. I want, in a moment, to get to the matter of alternative broadcasting services.
In Clause 3.(l)(n)(iii) we have the declaration that the broadcasting will:
-be in English and French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community-
That is, it seems to me, a refusal to recognize, to lay explicity on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Radio-Canada, the obligation to reflect the multicultural reality of the country in various ways, even if it does that in English and French broadcasting.
The changes that need to be made in these areas might well be recognized if we look at one other clause which is an important addition to the Bill. The recognition of the need for broadcasting in aboriginal languages and to the aboriginal peoples is provided for in subclause (k) which states:
-programming that reflects the aboriginal cultures of Canada should be
provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become
available for the purpose-
There is that fatal last clause, of course, always the limited resources. What has been made available in the various regions of Canada, and I think particularly of northwestern Ontario where I have some sense of it, including the hour of broadcasting in Oji-Cree which occurs on CBQ radio in Thunder Bay every Friday afternoon from two o'clock to three o'clock is an example, a perfectly appropriate, absolutely essential recognition within the Canadian broadcasting system, within the CBC English language service on this station of another language group.
If it is recognition of the aboriginal peoples, let that provide an instance of compensation for those enormous crimes of the past carried out by agents of English and French Christian civilization in this country, the missionaries particularly and the schools which sought to stamp out the use of the various languages as pagan excrescences for which there was no place in today's Canada. Let us make that good.
There in the Bill, in a paragraph which says all the right things-although I regret the last clause about the constraints of finances-is an instance in a Canada of which my view of multiculturalism is a view which recognizes that we begin with
official bilingualism and recognize the fact of aboriginal peoples. Having done both of those things there is no way that we can stop with biculturalism and the aboriginal peoples. We must recognize that the country is multicultural.
In recognizing the fact of a diversity of culture there may still be that old attitude, a mix of white man's burden of Christian missions, completely secularized of course, that these cultures will disappear, that you do not have to do very much except give people some vague sense of what these people do, of the peculiar ways of these ethnic communities, and if you have enlightened them to that extent you have done your job.
That sort of attitude which is in the legislation has permeated communications policy throughout the history of this Department back to the 1960s. Those attitudes fall completely short of providing for the reality that we have in a multicultural Canada.
What are we given in the Bill as the prime means of making up for the great vacuum which exists in CBC, Radio-Canada and obviously in far too much of the private broadcasting which is a matter of some information? The broadcasters say proudly that news comes first. Well, that is about the only local thing that they do, so inevitably it comes first. There is very often nothing after it except perhaps a bit of community broadcasting shoved into some of the lowest listening hours on Sunday morning. For the rest we get American shows, the travesty in the Canadian broadcasting system which CTV has provided over the years with a bunch of stations which exist simply to print money, not to do anything for the Canadian people. That system quite obviously is not going to meet the need which I am addressing.
What are we given in the Bill to respond to recommendation 24 from the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture which declared that the programming carried by the system should provide a balanced representation of Canadian society reflecting its multicultural and bilingual realities, its aboriginal peoples, and the composition of its population with respect to sex, age, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, and mental or physical handicaps? There, in language from the Charter, we have the points of diversity in the Canadian population cited.
What does Bill C-136 do in addressing that particular recommendation? Well, be it noted that we are given some provisions for alternative television broadcasting services in English and French. I went over to chat with the Minister for a few moments to be quite clear about this because I was looking for some kind of provision in the Broadcasting Act for multilingual radio and television. I thought this was where the Minister of Communications was providing a gap for it.
In fact, although this particular term is not defined in Clause 2 of the Bill where the definitions are provided, alternative television programming services are not an attempt to provide for all those stop gaps, if you will. I do not mean to disparage any one of them which provide broadcasting in various languages and try, in the metropolitan markets of our
July 25, 1988

cities, to find commercial support, the means to carry on this response to the desire of people to hear broadcasting in their own languages, languages other than English and French. Subclauses (i) and (j) of Clause 3 contain the Government's response to the realities I have just sketched and the attempt to provide for them.
What will the programming provided by alternative television programming services be like? One short line says that it shall reflect Canada's regions and multicultural nature. There, of course, is the vital adjective. It shall, as far as possible, be acquired rather than produced by those services.
This third network is only a concept within the legislation. The resources have not been provided and study is to continue. It is a service that will be loaded with responsibility not just for multiculturalism but the regional realities and other diversities in Canada. It is feared that as a result of this third network, CBC and Radio Canada will pay less attention to the regional nature of the country.
We are told that this third network will provide for the multicultural nature of Canada and that the programming will be acquired rather than produced by those services. I can only conclude that this will be a very limited service. It is still only a concept because the Government has not provided the resources. We shall see what the next Government will do, but can only hope that it will move quickly to provide those resources.
This service could broadcast excellent NFB productions to Canadians. This service will hardly be able to develop a philosophy and view of Canada which needs to be reflected in broadcasting, or carry primarily the production of programming designed to reflect that reality.
There is no provision for broadcasting in languages other than French and English. Will there be a channel in the predominantly English speaking parts of the country to broadcast this kind of acquired programming in English while the areas that are predominantly French speaking will broadcast on another channel? Obviously, minorities will be neglected. What will the effect of such terribly limited resources in our metropolitan markets be on those producing such programming?
While there is some vision, there is not much evidence of that concept being developed. As long as this remains broadcasting primarily in English and French, it may serve to enlighten Canadians who know the official languages well but will do nothing to fill the gap in order to recognize multiculturalism as also being multilingual and that the diversity of languages spoken by Canadians needs some reflection in broadcasting policy.
I regret that we are likely to see just this one round of debate on this Bill, without amendments in order to continue the discussion that is so badly needed if the multiculturalism
Broadcasting Act
policy we have enunciated is to become more than just a motto but a reality of federal institutions in the broadcast area.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Member talked about the need for programming in languages other than English or French. Not only is there very little broadcasting on radio or television in languages other than English or French, there is almost no programming which explains the life and problems of our native people and people who come from countries whose knowledge and comfort in English or French is limited.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) is here. There are elementary schools in his constituency and part of my constituency, where 95 per cent of the students come from either native families or new immigrant families whose language is neither English nor French.
Does he not agree that it is time that both public and private television and radio began to face up to the reality of what is happening in cities like Winnipeg, which is a small example of what is taking place in other areas like Toronto and Vancouver? Should they not deal with these problems? Is it not time for the Government to instruct them to do so? It has not called upon them to do the kind of job that is so essential if these people are to be integrated into the mainstream of Canadian life.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question because it gives me an opportunity to expand on this important matter. He is right about the need and the limited response.
I alluded to CBQ's broadcasting of an hour of Oji-Cree in Thunder Bay every Friday afternoon. It is a rare exception to this generalization that the need is not being met. It is a very limited response in an area of enormous importance. The population in northwestern Ontario that speaks Ojibway and Cree often live in isolated communities. They live in sufficient numbers for the languages to have their own vitality. Nothing in the age of electronic information does more to strengthen the use of language and the belief in a future of it than to be able to hear it on the radio or television.
There is a diversity of population in cities from coast to coast. Aboriginal people and others from all over the world deserve to have broadcasting in their language so they may have an opportunity to live something of the strength of their own culture through the existence of their language.
The culture we see at folklore festivals is often reduced to food and dance partly because we do not know the languages. When the languages are reduced to the level that one communicates in a family, a great deal of the beauty and strength of a culture is lost.
If Barbara Ward's observation years ago about Canada being the first international nation is to be a reality, then our broadcasting must operate in more than just English and French. There must be a recognition of the need in our cities and wherever people live with a diversity of languages, to

July 25, 1988
Business of the House
develop those languages and hear them spoken on radio and television.
Canada can play a role in the development of language, as I understand it is doing in French. The French spoken in Canada responds to technological development more imaginatively than is sometimes the case in France. That is an example of a Canadian cultural contribution out of our richness of language.
The Member for Winnipeg North might particularly appreciate my referring to Dr. J.B. Rudnyckyj, the former commissioner on the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. That commission played an important part in the limited linguistic development to where we have achieved recognition for the equality of status in English and French in federal institutions.
Occasionally I correspond with Dr. Rudnyckyj because he remains a powerful proponent of a larger recognition of language in this country, including the recognition of regional languages. He wants to move beyond the provisions in the Official Languages Act that legislate against the destruction of language, or "linguicide" as he terms it. We need actively to find those means that could strengthen language. There I think is where the broadcasting policy of the Canadian Government has failed ever since 1968. Of course, in 1968, the official languages policy of Canada was only being elaborated. It had not been legislated when the Broadcast Act of 1968 passed.
Unfortunately, in this Bill there is not that further recognition of the necessity of making the Canadian broadcasting system multilingual, with care, of course. I know that this arouses fear in many Canadians, English-speaking and French-speaking both, who are anxious enough about maintaining official bilingualism and who think that federal responsibility for additional languages and for broadcasting in them would only arouse opposition to our policies.
This is country that is drowned in American culture. The CBC particularly, and Radio Canada obviously less so, fight for listeners and viewers by re-broadcasting American shows. These broadcasters have given little thought to the possibility of reflecting the diversity of the Canadian population in radio and television. If they were to do so, they would attract viewers who now simply do not bother to watch. These viewers might be attracted if they saw themselves and their ways on the television screen or heard them on the airwaves. That is the challenge that faces us. This Government has obviously failed in that challenge.
We are so aware of the fact that these days, the Conservative Party is doubtful about CBC and Radio Canada, even though back in the early 1930s, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission was a product of the Bennett Conservative Government. These days we are grateful for small mercies, for the good words that exist in Bill C-136. We probably could not have expected a Government that discovers multiculturalism
just at election times to have done very much about the needs that I am expounding on. It is a challenge to the three Parties to elaborate policies and to develop the means to ensure that the multicultural reality of Canada is really reflected in our broadcasting.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Order made Thursday, July 21, 1988, the recorded division stands deferred until six o'clock today.

I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), informing me that he is unable to present his motion during Private Members' Hour on Tuesday, July 26, 1988.

It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence pursuant to Standing Order 39. Accordingly, I am directing the Table Officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Since notice will be removed, the hour for Private Members' Business will be cancelled and, pursuant to Standing Order 39, the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour.
It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m. this day.
At 12.54, the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
July 25, 1988

Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, when it was time to stand up to be counted with my Leader's efforts to let the people decide the fate of the Mulroney trade deal, the NDP ran away from the challenge. Not only did the NDP's weekend retreat represent a reversal of its initial position of support, it also depicted a Party lacking political backbone.
When the purpose of this political stand was to guarantee the people of Canada a say before the deal is finalized, the NDP ignored this principle and chose instead to attack the role of the Senate. Yet it was the same NDP which encouraged Senators in their crusade against an unjust drug Bill. It was the same NDP which cheered the Senate on as it studied and challenged the legitimacy of the Government's two refugee Bills. Does not this trade deal, which will alter the very fabric of our country, merit similar scrutiny by the Senate?
History will show that when the political going got tough with the trade deal, the NDP got going. Members of the NDP wimped out. They blinked. In so doing, they failed to stand up for Canadians' indisputable right to shape the destiny and future of their own country.


ABORTION
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, there exists the strong possibility that Canada could become the North American testing ground for a controversial drug that will revolutionize abortions.
RU 486 is a pill which induces abortion without the need for a physician or medical facilities. This new drug will allow the killing of an unborn baby in the privacy of one's own home. This drug, if produced, would serve to cheapen further the value of life-for killing will become a simple act of taking medication to cure some ailment. The duty of all mankind is to protect all life, and any attempt to cheapen life must be challenged.
I intend to do whatever is necessary to fight any attempt to introduce RU 486 into Canada.


AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the residents of Winnipeg are being asked to celebrate the fact that the maintenance contract for the Airbus aircraft to be purchased by Air Canada will be done in Winnipeg. What we are being asked to celebrate is the fact that we have not been shafted by the Government. The 727 maintenance work is already being done in Winnipeg. By placing the Airbus work there we simply maintain the status quo.
At the present time promises are also being made to the effect that by having the maintenance work in Winnipeg we will become the North American centre for Airbus maintenance work. This echoes the promise that was made about the CF-5 when by doing the work in Winnipeg we were supposed to obtain global contracts for the CF-5. That has not materialized.
This sounds like another inflated promise. I wonder if the Government could give this one in writing. In that way we could have some assurance that, if we are going to be the North American centre for the maintenance of Airbuses, there would be a guarantee that the work will come there rather than be simply another inflated promise from a Government that is desperate for re-election.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the young people of Canada who become Canadian Forces cadets serve us well and deserve recognition.
Within the last two weeks Royal Canadian Army Cadets have competed against over 2,400 young target rifle shooters at the annual competition in Bisley, England. Led by Colonel Bert Cafick and coached by Mr. Clem Tremblay, the team of 18 cadets from across Canada won team competitions against 62 other teams.
Special mention must go to Kirsten Watt of Orleans, Ontario; Cory Roberts of Regina, Saskatchewan; Tom Sutton from Baldonnew, British Columbia; and Jamie Metlin of Truro, Nova Scotia, who won medals in events. Cadets Watt and Roberts, in different events, both beat 2,460 other shooters for their gold medals.
These are some examples of the accomplishments of Canadian young people who are cadets. I am sure that all Hon. Members applaud these achievements. We must continue the support given to cadet programs across the country.

July 25, 1988


AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage the Government of Canada to ensure that the assembly of NSA helicopters takes place in Nova Scotia. This is a relatively short program. The suggestion of setting up new facilities in Quebec when there are already existing facilities in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and a workforce to go along with them, boggles the mind.
In Halifax the IMP group is designing a new hangar for the ongoing support of the Sea King helicopter and its replacement, the new shipborne aircraft. We have an experienced workforce to which we need to transfer the technology and we must maintain their jobs until there is sufficient maintenance type work for them to continue this traditional Maritime program which is the core of our aerospace industry in Nova Scotia.
Quebec has already been assigned two-thirds of this whole program. Quebec also has the Airbus contract of over $1 billion to look forward to, and the F-18. Nova Scotia has the manpower, the training, the technology, and the infrastructure to do the assembly and maintenance work; Quebec has none of these. In fairness and equity this contract must go to the workers in the Province of Nova Scotia.

December; and it is now an excellent deal and worthy of speedy passage through both Houses of Parliament.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du Loup):: The
real face of John Turner! Mr. Speaker, in his editorial in La Presse of July 22, Claude Masson qualified Mr. Turner's decision to oblige the Senate to delay passage of the Free Trade Bill as inconceivable and unpardonable. He even described Mr. Turner's gesture as undemocratic.
Personally, as a Member of this House, I believe that by this action Mr. Turner has once again shown he is incapable of playing his role as Leader of the Opposition. His use of this cowardly subterfuge is positive proof that he has no respect for this House and even less for the Canadian people.
How can he claim to have the qualifications for being our next prime minister, when at the first opportunity, and this only as Leader of the Opposition, he hides behind an institution like the Senate whose members are not even elected? He hasn't fooled Canadians, and I am sure that Mr. Turner will not prevail over their common sense.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF CANADIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in its submission to the House of Commons legislative committee respecting Bill C-130, the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States, stated that it sees the FTA as a means whereby more Canadian jobs would be created, with a higher standard of living for present and future generations, and greater wealth and opportunities for our children.
The Chamber emphasized that the Canadian community must be prepared to step forward and compete internationally, that we cannot afford to sit on our hands and let the opportunities offered by the FTA be squandered. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has faith in the skills and ingenuity of Canadian business, and in the confidence and strength that Canadians have as a people.
It emphasized that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was a good deal for Canada when it was announced in October, 1987; it was a good deal when it saw the fine print in
* *
*


HIGHWAYS
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, Public Works Canada has recently released a pamphlet on "Driving the Alaska Highway". It states: "A trip along the Alaska Highway can be a once in a lifetime experience".
I would agree that it is a wonderful trip, with unsurpassed scenery. However, since 1982 the former Liberal Government, followed by the present Government, continued to cut the funds for the maintenance and construction of this one vital link to the Yukon and northern British Columbia, to the tune of 42 per cent.
The Association of Yukon Communities, Chambers of Commerce, and the Yukon Territorial Government have made numerous pleas to the Government to prevent further deterioration of the highway which impacts on tourism, transportation costs, and the long-term goal of self-sufficiency in the North. All to no avail.
July 25, 1988

In the past two weeks unseasonable rains have resulted in washouts, long delays, and sections of the Yukon being cut off from any road access.
The 50th anniversary of the highway will be in 1992, just a few short years away. I urgently call on the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnis) to restore funding for this historic highway so that it can truly be, as this pamphlet states, "A great highway of the North".


THE SENATE
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the Trudeau Government did not have an election mandate for wage and price controls in 1975. Although it had no such mandate and had actively campaigned against such controls, although its program affected every working person and business in Canada, the Liberal majority in the Senate did not block it. It made no demand for approval by the electorate. It let the program go by.
The argument now that the Senate is entitled to block the free trade agreement, on the basis of a 75-year old precedent from the semi-colonial past, defies belief.
Are those people correct who think that the Liberal majority in the Senate works hardest when it is protecting the chartered banks and the Liberal Party?


APARTHEID
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as August 6 approaches, Canadians are wondering whether the Government will change its policy with respect to the South African athletes who will be playing at the Player's Tournament for Tennis Canada, which is in my riding. For us, it is a great affront to see the federal Government have a policy which permits South African athletes to play in this tournament under any guise whatsoever.
Whether visas are the issue, whether federal government financial backing for Tennis Canada is the issue, a way must be found for the Government to prevent these athletes from participating. This is what the spirit of the Gleneagles Accord among Commonwealth countries calls for, and I call on the Government now to act so that a racist Government will not be represented, directly or indirectly, at the Player's Tournament in my constituency of York Centre, Toronto.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, when I was younger, I use to like reading the Gaston Lagaffe strips.
That was some years ago, but I still see people who are past masters at the art of the "gaffe".
The Leader of the Liberal Party decided that in this country, laws are no longer made by our elected representatives but by the non-elected members of the Senate. That was the first gaffe.
The duly elected Liberal Government of Quebec is in favour of free trade. The Liberal Leader in Ottawa is against free trade. That was the second gaffe.
Seven Canadian provinces are in favour of free trade. The Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada is against free trade. Third gaffe.
In Quebec, we had Gaston Lagaffe, now we have Turner "la
gaffe"!


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, well, the banks have struck again. There is a new user fee that the banks are applying, and that is to businessmen in northern Ontario who dare to speak out about bank policies.


Ms. Copps:: What about business women?


Iain Francis Angus: Well, there are no problems at all; this is a man. Fred Goodine from Sault Ste. Marie spoke out at the Premiers' conference on northern development in Thunder Bay last fall, on bank policies as they relate to businesses.
Now, his company has been frozen out by the Royal Bank from any business because of his public statements. That is an unacceptable way for banks to act. I am sure that they are not going to stop donating to the government Party just because the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) happens to say things against them.
Oral Questions POLITICAL PARTIES

July 25, 1988
(1415)


THE SENATE-POSITION OF LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, well, four years of opposition have done nothing to diminish Liberal arrogance. For years they campaigned on any kind of catchy slogan, and then they legislated as they wished. It was campaign, sloganeer and legislate, and they called elections as they wished.
They seemed to think that calling an election was their absolute right as the elected Government. However, now, since they are impotent in this House, they have made a deal with- is it John MacEachen, or Allan Turner, or is it Allan Mac-Eachen?


Sheila Maureen Copps: They are not impotent.


Benno Friesen: At any rate, they will gladly sell off the role and the rights of this House, and expand the role of the Senate in order to catch a glimmer of hope that would enable them to hang on to power in the other place and maybe expand it in this one. Well, that is the kind of arrogance that drove them out of office, and that is the kind of arrogance that is going to keep them in perpetual opposition.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, imagine my surprise as I was driving to work this morning and I heard an anthem playing very melodiously on the radio, America The Beautiful. It talked about the great continent of North America and how we had great agricultural programs and great environmental programs. In fact, the whole ad was sponsored not by the Government of the United States but by the Government of Canada, using as background music America The Beautiful. It seems to me that if the Government is bound and determined to move us down on the road of free trade, for heaven's sake could it at least pull advertisements that I as a Canadian find offensive? If the Americans want to run ads talking about America The Beautiful, let the Americans do that.
Canadian tax dollars and government sponsored ads should not be used to propagate the idea that agricultural programs are North American. The word "Canada" is not used once in that ad, and I see that as part and parcel of the Government's move to make us simply a part of the continental United States.


AIRPORTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I brought to the attention of the House that snack bars at Pearson International Airport were charging outrageous prices. A small sized Coca-Cola is $1.29. This is an unbelievable price when you consider that a small sized Coke is half that price in the city and also consider that the Government is responsible for the terms on which concessions are operated at Pearson International Airport.
I called on the Government at the time not only to manage the airport from the point of view of a good landlord but to bear in mind as well the situation of passengers who are sometimes there for very long periods of time, with children, and who are forced to pay prices that are set with really no competition at all behind them.
Since I made that statement in the House I have received dozens of representations from people in my riding and elsewhere about the fact that prices are far too high. Does the Government intend to do anything at all about that? Will ceilings be set so that gouging at the airport will be brought to an end?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my question of the Acting Prime Minister. It took the Government four years to deliver on the Mulroney promise for a child care package. It will take it another 7 years for a total of 11 years before we ever see the light of day totally given to this package.
How does the Government feel about introducing today a Bill into the House of Commons that does absolutely nothing to ensure the safety of Canadian children, that will leave more than half a million Canadian children without access to licensed and organized child care spaces, and that will not assure the mothers of this country that when they have to go out to work their children will be left in safety? Is this the Mulroney promise on child care?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is out of the House on business. I am very happy to acknowledge the Hon. Member's question and point out to her that we are the first Government that has brought forward legislation in the House of Commons on child care. The previous Government had
July 25, 1988

ample opportunity to do that but never did so when it was in office.


Mr. Gauthier:: Stick to the facts.


Jean J. Charest: The Hon. Member said I should stick to the facts. The facts indicate that we will be putting $6.4 billion into child care over a seven year period. If the Hon. Member is wondering how fast the legislation will get through the House, that will depend upon whether his Leader will ask the Senate to put it through or not.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR GENERAL ELECTION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if this is supposed to be the centre-piece of the Conservative election, I am not surprised the Minister did not have the guts to come into the House of Commons today to defend it because it is absolute garbage.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: If the Government does not listen to the Liberal Party and does not listen to child care groups and concerned parents across the country, will the Government call an election and let the parents of Canada decide if they want to have a child care program that has no national standards, that does nothing to ensure the safety of children, and that will only meet the needs of one-quarter of those children who are desperately in need of increased spaces?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I think any reasonable citizen would recognize the fact that this is a substantial commitment to the area of child care in Canada on behalf of this Government-any reasonable citizen except for the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.
As far as the election being called is concerned, we now know the position of the Liberal Party of Canada is that the Senate should decide when elections should be called and not the democratically elected people of Canada. We are not run by the Senate of Canada. The Liberals are, and soon they will have an election on many issues.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is recognized again, as she will be, I do want to remind Hon. Members that reference to other Hon. Members, whether they be Ministers or otherwise being in or out of the House, is not appropriate. I cannot help but notice today that that tactic could be carried on by both sides. Perhaps it need not be pursued.
Oral Questions


QUALITY OF DAY CARE CENTRES-NATIONAL STANDARDS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Members should be ashamed for what has been brought forward today, which guarantees no child .. . and you have children, you over there! It guarantees no national level of quality for child care facilities.
Why has the Conservative Government decided to subsidize provinces like Alberta, which only has commercial profitmaking child care services? Are those the Conservatives' standards for child care? I would like to have an answer, at least from those who are parents: Would they leave their children in commercial profit-making day care facilities or do they want national standards, to be respected by the Conservatives?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the national child care policy presented by this Government is an investment of nearly $6.4 billion over seven years, to which another $1 billion has recently been added. The purpose is to provide flexible services and leave parents a choice, Mr. Speaker.
Now, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is still not happy with that, unfortunately! Perhaps she could consult the Liberal Senate, since it decides and leads the Liberal Party of Canada. We will see if the Senate will decide and if Mr. Turner intends to ask the Senate to approve the legislation or not, because he said he was God in the House of Commons.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-TERMS OF U.S. LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. As she will know, the American Free Trade Bill will be tabled today in the U.S. Congress. The Government should know that it still contains several provisions contrary to the Canadian Bill. First, it contains a provision which will allow the American Government to monitor and oppose Canadian imports which might be subsidized. Second, there is a provision which says that the free trade agreement will be subject to American law in the U.S. The Minister for International Trade said he did not like either one of those provisions.
[Stage Direction]
July 25, 1988
Oral Questions
In these ridiculous circumstances why does the Government not submit this trade deal to the Canadian people and let them decide if this is what they want for Canada?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the U.S. legislation is being tabled in Congress today and that it is proceeding as people in the Congress and the administration indicated it would. I only wish I could say that the Hon. Member who speaks for the opposition Party recognizes that the same kind of process should apply to legislation in this House. However, that is not the point of the opposition-and one could hardly say the "Loyal Opposition" any more. Nevertheless-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Loyal to the Senate.


Mr. Speaker:: I remind the Hon. Minister that she cannot say the contrary either. I know she will want to withdraw that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the new slogan of the Liberal Party is "Let the Senate decide". "Let the Senate decide on trade legislation". Now I suppose it is "Let the Senate decide on child care". "Let the Senate decide on the major issues before this country". It is a complete abdication of responsibility.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian people were to decide in an election that they want this trade deal, the Senate will respect their view.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: The Government is afraid to submit this deal to the Canadian people because it knows it cannot be supported.


TERMS OF CANADIAN LEGISLATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, Article 8 in our Bill, contrary to the American Bill, provides that the free trade agreement will take precedence over all other Canadian law, including regional development law, agricultural law, fisheries law, environmental law, trade adjustment law, employment equity law, and so on. That places the free trade agreement next to the Constitution and only the Constitution in importance, and this is a major change in our country.
Why does the Government not let the people decide in an election if they want that kind of major change for this country?
Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: First, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's preamble is totally wrong. Section 8 pertains only to legislation affected by the free trade agreement, not all legislation as the Hon. Member would like to pretend.
I remind the Member that Section 8 is included in the safe transportation of goods legislation brought in by his Government. It is also in the Cree-Naskapi Act, the James Bay Indian Act, and the Western Grain Transportation Act. I have a list of Acts in which it is included. It is used in Canadian law quite frequently. The Hon. Member cannot stand up and mislead this House with that kind of inaccurate information.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Youth who is responding on the child care legislation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare told the Senate committee studying child care that the Government would augment provinces' child care expenses up to 90 per cent of the national average.
This Bill clearly states that the Government will pay only up to 70 per cent of the expenses need to reach the national average. Why has the Government again broken its promise to the people of Canada?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, it was with great pride that the Government introduced in the House today for the first time legislation on day care. This $6.4 billion package over a seven-year period is a substantial commitment to the issue of day care for all Canadian families.
I hope that the Hon. Member will assist in its rapid passage through the House in order that it can also be put through the Senate as rapidly as possible.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the Government has consistently said that it would bring in a child care strategy program. This legislation has no national standards or national objectives. The Government has gone back on its word with regard to the 90 per cent topping up.
Why did the Minister of National Health and Welfare decide to change the topping up from 90 per cent to 70 per cent and break his promise to the Canadian people?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the legislation provides a 50-50 cost sharing of operating costs of commercial and non-profit agencies, a 75-25 cost sharing of capital cost of non-profit agencies during the period ending March 31, 1995, and, finally, a top-up to certain provinces based on national average entitlement per child care formula. That is what the legislation contains.
July 25, 1988


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the Government promised 90 per cent topping up. It is obvious that is not there. Over and above that there are areas in Newfoundland, the Territories, and other provinces which do not have an infrastructure for child care which need that 90 per cent topping up. I would like the Minister to tell this House why the Government has broken its promise on this.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to make that representation she may do so in committee as soon as this legislation goes through the House. She and all Members of the House will have the opportunity to make whatever representations and amendments they want to put before the House. I hope she will help the legislation get through as rapidly as possible, as a responsible Member would do.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Detroit Edison Company operates the Fermi II nuclear generating plant in Munroe, Michigan, just a few miles from hundreds of thousands of Canadians in the Windsor-Essex County area.
Two weeks ago the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the United States gave that plant a very bad report card saying it was operating at minimally acceptable levels in five key categories. Last Saturday we learned there was a leak of radioactive steam from that plant and that it has been closed down temporarily.
Will the Government insist that the U.S. Government not allow that plant to re-open until it is absolutely certain, on the basis of it being satisfactory to Canadian authorities, that there is no risk to the health and safety of Canadians in the operations of that plant? In particular, will the Government ask that there be a special inspection of that plant by the International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concerns that have been raised by the Member for Windsor West. Those concerns have been raised by a number of Canadians and we have conveyed them to the United States administration.
It is important to note that all Members in this House share a public concern about the operations of Fermi II. As a result of that, Canadian officials have asked the United States
Oral Questions
administration to consider placing Fermi II under an appropriate IAEA safety mechanism for a review, specifically to take into consideration what has happened during the past weekend.


REQUEST FOR MONITORING BY INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in light of what happened this past weekend, will the Government on an urgent basis reiterate the need for an International Atomic Energy Agency inspection? Second, will the Government accept my request that the Government have the Americans agree to a permanent reference to the International Joint Commission of the inspection and monitoring on an ongoing binational basis of this Fermi II plant so that there will be assurances to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians living all too near to Fermi II, that if it is allowed to operate again, it will not be any threat to their health and safety?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, the Canadian Government has raised with the United States administration the matter of steam leaks and other occurrences at the Fermi II plant. We have asked that it be reviewed under the IAEA.
The Member suggests that this be done under the IJC. We thought it would probably be better under the multilateral standards, but we will certainly take his suggestion into consideration.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT DEMAND CLOSURE OF PLANT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I want to pursue the question asked by the Member for Windsor. After months during which Atomic Energy Board of Canada and the Government refused to act at all in any serious way, we are pleased to hear that a reference to the IAEA has been made.
This plant has been described as a dinosaur of the industry, and the worst in the country by NRC officials themselves. It has been described as an accident waiting to happen. Within two days of the publication of the evaluation that showed its operational efficiency in five areas was the worst possible, there was another radioactive steam leak.
Will the Government demand of the U.S. Government that this plant be closed down until this evaluation takes place?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that we have conveyed our concerns to the United States and made certain suggestions about how to deal with the Fermi II plant. The Hon. Member goes on to make a further suggestion.
We have asked that the matter of steam leaks and other occurrences be considered within the broad parameters of the

July 25, 1988
Oral Questions
international regulations. He has made a further suggestion. I will see that that suggestion is referred to the Department and given consideration.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, we are making progress, so I would like to pin the Hon. Minister down on this issue. We have had no answers from the Government, and the Atomic Energy Board of Canada said that it was strictly an American concern and the plant was no problem. Suddenly, after a steam leak and a report from the NRC, the Government will act.
We want the answer to be clear. Will the Secretary of State specifically request that the plant be closed until this evaluation takes place?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been suggestions from both the Member for Windsor West and the Member for Windsor-Walkerville about what should be done in this particular situation. I have indicated to both of them that I will convey their suggestions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs so that the suggestions could be given consideration.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. Ships from every nation now ply the waters of the Great Lakes. It is reported that many vessels dump untreated human waste directly into the lakes.
The recent closing of some of Toronto's beaches has been attributed to some ships dumping waste directly into the harbour. This poses a serious problem for our drinking water and creates the possibility of tropical diseases being introduced into Canada. Will the Parliamentary Secretary investigate this dumping practice and bring down tough legislation to prevent waste from being dumped into the Great Lakes?


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for this very important question and for his interest in environmental concerns.
The control of vessel waste is covered under the Canada Shipping Act, which is administered by the Canadian Coast Guard. Environment Canada acts in an advisory capacity to the Canadian Coast Guard.
Let me assure the Member that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which was passed in Parliament a few weeks ago-the first piece of environmental legislation to pass the
House in over 11 years-will enable us to review and bring in strong controls if necessary and where appropriate.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the election by the York-Simcoe Conservative Association of the present Member for York-Peel as the Conservative candidate in the forthcoming election-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You have not heard the question yet. And in light of the finding of 14 conflicts of interest against that Member by an independent judicial inquiry established by the Prime Minister, and in view of the Prime Minister's statement that he accepted the findings of the independent judicial inquiry, does the Prime Minister intend-


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the question. I have to say that that question is out of order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would then ask the Acting Prime Minister whether she will state categorically on behalf of the Government that the Member for York-Peel-


Mr. Andre:: Out of order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That the Member for York-Peel will not be part of any Government or Cabinet-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


An Hon. Member:: You know better than that.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member will know that that is also out of order. The Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-IMPLEMENTATION DATE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. The general counsel for the U.S. Special Trade Representative Office has said that in the event that Canada is not ready to go with the trade deal on January 1, "we will just have to wait to implement".
July 25, 1988
Does this mean, in the Government's interpretation, that the January 1 date fixed for the trade deal to come into force could be easily postponed by the Government?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we negotiated an agreement with the United States which says that it comes into force on January 1, 1989. This Government is working toward that deadline, as is the Government of the United States. Neither the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, Allan MacEachen, or whoever, will prevent us from reaching that deadline.


REQUEST FOR GENERAL ELECTION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, at least to me and my Party, this quotation suggests that the Senate announcement by the Leader of the Opposition will mean very little in terms of the timing of the next election. Therefore, the moral issue still faces the Government.
The Government has to make a decision, and I ask the question directly. Will the Government let the people of Canada make a decision with respect to whether this deal should go forward or not? Will the Government let the people of Canada decide?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member has read the trade agreement and that he knows that Article 2105 states that the agreement is to come into effect on January 1, 1989. He is also very aware that the legislation is proceeding in committee through the House of Commons.
I want to assure the Hon. Member that that process will continue. I also want to assure him, as the Prime Minister has stated, that there will be an election at an appropriate time. I have no doubt that there will be a number of issues discussed in that election campaign, trade being one of them.
I want the Hon. Member to know that yes, indeed, we will be proceeding with the legislation. Second, there will be an election in due course. I ask the Hon. Member to be sure to put those two things together.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that falls under the category of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I will put the question to the Acting Minister, if one is present, or to the Acting Prime Minister.
_____________________________17915
Oral Questions
My question concerns one of the most important aboriginal land claims in Canada at the moment, one which is in fact teetering in the balance. On July 10 the Dene and Metis of the Northwest Territories said yes to the proposed agreement-inprinciple provided that certain matters could be either negotiated or re-negotiated, and a request to this effect has gone to both the Minister and the Prime Minister.
I would like to know if the Government has considered this request, and what exactly is the position of the Government at the moment with respect to the settlement of this vital northern claim.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would be pleased, as we are, that the Yukon Indian leaders have voted to accept the land claims settlement for that northern territory. As the Hon. Member also knows, the negotiations for the settlement with the Dene and the Inuit have gone ahead. There are a couple of outstanding items still. These are being negotiated. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has himself spent a great deal of time and effort on this particular claim, and those negotiations and discussions are continuing.


CONCLUSION OF NEGOTIATIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It will come as some surprise to the Dene, the Metis and the Government of the Northwest Territories that those negotiations are in fact continuing. The Deputy Minister for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said that there would be no negotiation on the outstanding items.
I am asking the Government to say today whether or not the door is still open. Is the Government prepared to pursue every avenue and examine every option in order that there may be a successful conclusion of all aspects of this claim?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Hon. Member is aware, and as I have said, there have been considerable negotiations that have taken place to date. There are still a couple of major areas outstanding.
I will certainly refer the Hon. Member's question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but as I understand it there is now a process under way to negotiate or to ratify an AIP. Following that ratification, the negotiations with 13 different groups will be continued, hopefully to the same successful conclusion that has been worked out with the Yukon claim.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ATTEMPT TO NEGOTIATE OUTSTANDING ISSUES
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Following on the same line of thought about land claims, I



July 25, 1988
Oral Questions
would like to say that the ratification last week by the Council for Yukon Indians of a framework agreement put together by the three principals in the negotiations, the Council for Yukon Indians, the federal Government, and the Yukon Government, was indeed historic and did go beyond what happened with the Dene and Metis. To that extent, I must say that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development deserves some credit, as do the other negotiators.
Having gone this far in this important and historic step in the longest outstanding land claims negotiation in Canada, is the Government now prepared to initiate immediate talks with the principals to clear up the two outstanding issues, and what is the time frame for that?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to refer that request for information to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I was pleased to hear the Hon. Member's comments at the time that historic step was taken, and I know that she and others have done everything possible to try to move this forward. However, I will refer her request for the next stage, the final ratification, to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that he can give her information with regard to the proposed timetable for the final steps.


YUKON LAND CLAIM SETTLEMENT
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Acting Prime Minister knows, this particular ratification does require the consent of the three parties and will eventually have to go to Cabinet for certain aspects of it. Therefore, I would ask the Acting Prime Minister if she is prepared to say what the commitment of the Government is, now that the Council for Yukon Indians has kept its end of the bargain by ratifying its framework agreement, to complete this agreement. Will Cabinet deal with this expeditiously so that we can finally have, for the first time in nine years, a settled land claim in Canada?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was quoted in the press the other day as saying that this is really just a framework, not a final settlement, and she wants to know what the details of that final settlement are. I am not in a position to give her the details of that final settlement today, but I have said that I would refer the requests she has raised to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I can tell the Hon. Member that this is considered to be a major and important priority for the Government, and there will be continuing attention paid to all the details so that we can bring in that historic final document that she mentions.


HOUSING
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the two Ministers of Transport, I address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. My question concerns the Government's silence on the intensifying crisis in affordable housing facing many Canadians in Metropolitan Toronto.
Earlier this month the City of Toronto announced a SI.2 billion housing program that would include a parcel of land which holds 15 acres owned and controlled by Canadian National Railways, a federal Crown corporation. In support of the public interest in reliable and affordable housing in Metropolitan Toronto, has the federal Government instructed the CNR to release its land holdings and therefore to become a viable and co-operative partner in this housing venture? If so, when can we expect a formal agreement to be signed between the federal CNR and the City of Toronto?


Mrs. Shirley Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, Canadian National is a Crown corporation, and of course, works at arm's length from the federal Government. As well, the federal Government has instructed all Departments that hold lands in the city of Toronto to review the need for those lands, along with the Bureau of Real Property Management. We are looking at the lands, we are looking at what is available, and as soon as we know what is available, they will be disposed of in an equitable manner.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I tell the Parliamentary Secretary that this is not a case of reviewing lands. This is a golden opportunity that cries out for a federal partnership with federally available land. The Government must make up its mind whether it will be a partner or not.


CANADA POST CORPORATION LAND HOLDINGS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. Given that many people are requesting that federal surplus lands be first and foremost considered for federal housing, can the Minister inform the House whether the Government is prepared to utilize the very substantial and surplus post office lands in Metropolitan Toronto for badly needed housing rather than selling these sites for top dollar value, which not only loses us the federal lands which are very valuable but which ironically also increases the spiralling costs of land for housing?
Will the Government finally take advantage of these land opportunities and provide some real federal leadership in the area of housing in Metropolitan Toronto?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, a great proportion of Canada Post's capital facilities in lands and buildings are in fact leased from
July 25, 1988

Public Works Canada. Public Works handles them in a manner with which the Hon. Member is acquainted. In terms of other lands and buildings and so on, I am not aware that the Post Office has surplus lands. Any surplus lands that it might have will be dealt with in a way consistent with government policy.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Last week in western Canada he announced that his Department would be increasing the level of purchasing to 12.4 per cent in western Canada. Why did the Minister set a level below the 1984 level of 14.2 per cent? Why is he actually decreasing the percentage of money that will be spent in western Canada?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as always the Hon. Member has his facts wrong. What we announced last week in Regina, which was followed up with a specific announcement in Calgary a day later with my colleague, the Minister responsible for western diversification, was that we would increase, over current purchases from the West, western procurement on a yearly basis by some 17 per cent, with an ultimate goal of bringing in equality of opportunity to all regions.
We will be able to do this for two reasons. First, we have put a greater emphasis on Canadian purchasing. In fact, last year we reduced offshore purchases by 26.6 per cent, that is, foreign purchases, thereby giving more Canadian businesses an opportunity to sell to the Government of Canada.
When-not if-the free trade deal comes into effect, there will be an additional access of up to $4 billion of opportunities for Canadian businesses. We will be able to increase the share for western Canada without taking away from Ontario and Quebec.


EXPENDITURES IN WESTERN CANADA
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to want to ignore the fact that western Canada was getting a higher percentage four years ago than it is now. I want to know why the target is even less than the despicable record of the Liberals. The Tories then were saying that the Liberals were not spending enough in western Canada. Now that target is even less.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, as I have just said in the House and in the West, something which has been agreed to by my provincial counterparts in a recent federal-provincial Minister's conference on procurement in Quebec City, the West had been ignored for 20
Oral Questions
years by the Liberal administration. There is no doubt about it. Thus there was a lot of catching up to do.
We have already increased procurement in the West by some 25 per cent in the last couple of years. Now, with the western procurement initiatives which were announced last week, we are increasing that even further and working toward reaching an equitable proportion of purchases in all regions of Canada.
I suggest that the Hon. Member get his facts straight. I invite him to come to my office, to give him a briefing and to let him know exactly what is happening in this area.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Last week I pointed out in this House that as of June 30 the Conservative Government has dropped the industrial incentive regional development programs in eastern Ontario. I asked the Minister when he would be bringing in a new industrial and tourism incentive program for this part of the province. He chose to insult the people of eastern Ontario by quoting provincial-wide unemployment figures and by bragging about government economic policies. He ignored the high pockets of unemployment that exist in eastern Ontario. He ignored the tens of millions of dollars that the Government has cut out of the eastern part of the Province of Ontario.
Will the Minister give the House a commitment today that the Government will take the unemployment problems and the economic problems of eastern Ontario seriously and bring in an industrial and tourism incentive program?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, as everyone here would know, this Government does not need any lessons from our predecessors in terms of regional incentives that are geared to build upon the strengths of the various regions of the country and that are successful in terms of the creation of permanent jobs rather than part-time jobs, programs that are less geared to digging holes and filling them up again, but which stimulate industrial growth and opportunities in the various regions of the country.
The region about which the Hon. Member speaks has not been ignored, nor will it be ignored. Under this new arrangement there has been developed the Western Diversification Fund, ACOA, the eastern opportunities fund, a fund for northern Quebec, and other regions of the country.

July 25, 1988
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT MEASURES


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, it is a farce that that Minister should have answered that question since he is personally responsible for some of those tens of millions of dollars of cuts in eastern Ontario.
As a complement to an industrial and tourism incentive program for eastern Ontario, will the Government start by dropping its self-imposed 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber, which is very important to this region? Will the Government cease the cuts in the Public Service of Canada? Will the Government restore research and development funding to the Chalk River laboratories and to the National Research Council of Canada which has been devastated and where we have lost several hundreds of jobs? Will the Government bring in an agricultural and forestry program in that regional development for eastern Ontario? How about doing something for a change other than just cutting?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, obviously you have been very generous with the Member, giving him an opportunity to point out all the strengths that there are in eastern Ontario.
Indeed, to be fair, we announced a couple of months ago a $1.3 billion boost to research and development, particularly in the area of industrial incentives, to permit the various regions of the country to build upon their strengths, to allow the traditional industries to revitalize themselves-forestry, agriculture, fisheries, and mining-while at the same time lessening the dependence of Canadians on some of these traditional industries and working toward a more future oriented industrial sector. All of these things are done within a framework of a new national policy on science and technology, and a new industrial strategy from which all regions of the country will benefit, particularly the region which the Hon. Member represents.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. When the Minister appointed Allan Marchment as the watchdog over postal rates he did it with great fanfare. Now the Government is trying to hide this new appointee.
Why has the Government not referred the appointment of the president of a review board to the parliamentary committee? Is the Government afraid that an examination of his
qualifications as a watchdog over the Post Office will not stand up? Will the Minister make sure that his Government now refers the appointment of Allan Marchment to the parliamentary committee so that his qualifications for this job can be examined?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Hon. Member was at the committee meeting at which I appeared to talk about the board and the fact that Allan Marchment had agreed to serve as chairman.
Sally Hall, past President of the Consumers Association of Canada, agreed to be one of the members.
A former Member of the National Energy Board, Mr. Senneville, agreed to serve as a third member.
If the Hon. Member would like to talk to these outstanding Canadians about their qualifications for serving the public of Canada in this fashion, why does he not suggest it to the chairman of the committee and send the invitation?


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Minister is not aware of the parliamentary procedure whereby such appointments are referred to a parliamentary committee on an automatic basis. The committee took the unusual action of writing a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister asking for this appointment to be referred to the committee because it has not been referred up until now.
Why is the Government trying to hide Allan Marchment? Refer him to the committee.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I thought the Hon. Member was there-I am sure he was-when I appeared before the committee and talked about Allan Marchment's appointment. If that is hiding Allan Marchment, it is a peculiar definition of hiding. I do not know why the Hon. Member is getting into such a lather. If he would simply send a letter to me requesting such a-


Cyril Keeper: The letter is gone.


Harvie Andre: He just indicated that he sent a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister. Since it is not a Governor General appointment, but an appointment by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, perhaps he should address the request to the appropriate person. I have already answered orally that I would certainly consider such a request.
July 25, 1988


FISHERIES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Last Friday the Minister met with civic representatives, union leaders, and myself in Glace Bay to discuss the closure of the Highlands Fisheries plant in Glace Bay, thereby putting 310 individuals out of employment.
The Minister gave an undertaking to the gathering that he would have conversations with the president of Clearwater, Mr. John Risley, to secure from him undertakings, hopefully written undertakings, as to the future of this particular plant, and more important as to when the hiring of the 310 employees will be resumed. The Minister gave a date of August 1, 1988.
I ask the Minister to respond as to whether or not that date has been firmed up and the plant will open on August 1.


Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the Minister is intent on having Clearwater live up to the commitment that he is looking for from the company. The Minister visited Nova Scotia on Friday with the purpose of having that plant reopened in order that the workers could return to their jobs. That was specifically undertaken for that reason. The Minister has no reason to look for anything but a concrete plan from the company. That is why it has an enterprise allocation and access to inshore fish.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


BLOCKADE MOUNTED BY LAID-OFF WORKERS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for that response. I wish to remind him that it was a Clearwater representative who said to the community that there was no fish available. Subsequent to the meeting on Friday with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in the darkness of night a ship arrived in port with 30,000 pounds of fish. As a result there has been a blockade of Highlands Fisheries by employees in Glace Bay.
In view of the fact that 310 employees are out of employment, in view of the fact that the Minister has given the community an undertaking, would the Hon. Member not give this House an undertaking that he will return later in the day and give us a status report on what is taking place at the Highlands Fisheries Ltd. plant, in other words, whether the Minister has received written undertakings to open this plant on August 1, 1988?


Patrick George Binns: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the Minister is following the situation very closely. He has asked the company to keep in mind the
Lobbyists Registration Act
concerns of the workers, and hopefully the 310 workers will be back to work in the near future.
The Minister has a few cards that he can play in this matter, and he is following it on an hour-to-hour basis. I am sure he will use whatever means he can to help the workers return to their jobs.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Harvie Andre: that Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to the House today during third reading of Bill C-82, the proposed Lobbyists Registration Act. It is an important step toward the establishment of a lobbyists' register.
In September, 1985, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced this initiative as part of public sector ethics. Soon after, a discussion paper, Lobbying and the Registration of Paid Lobbyists, was tabled in the House and was referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. Early last year, the committee presented a unanimous report that recommended the establishment of a lobbyists' registration system. Bill C-82, which I tabled in June, 1987, is faithful to the spirit of the standing committee's recommendations.
From the start there have been four guiding principles in the development of a lobbyist registration system. First, openness. A registry should allow the public and public office holders to know who is making representations to Government, giving transparency to the public's relations with Governments. Second, clarity. It should be clear who is required to register and who is not. Third, access to Government. The requirements of a registry system should not impede access to Government by the public. Fourth, administrative simplicity. Administrative processes should be kept to a minimum so that the purpose of the program is fulfilled without imposing an administrative burden on those affected by it.
It was not an easy task to put these four principles in one package. Some seem at odds with others, but I believe the Bill remains true to its principles.
The proposed registry has two levels or "tiers". Tier I lobbyists are professional third party lobbyists who represent clients to Government. We know them as government relations consultants, lawyers, and accountants. A Tier I lobbyist would be required to disclose his or her name and business address and, if applicable, the name of his or her firm. In addition, this lobbyist would disclose the name and address of the client, and

July 25, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
if that client were a corporation, the names and addresses of the clients parents and subsidiaries. Finally, the subject matter of the lobbying activity would also have to be disclosed.
Tier II lobbyists are often called "in-house lobbyists". They are employees of corporations or organizations who, as a significant part of their duties, lobby on behalf of their employers. Because the interests behind those lobbyists are more readily apparent than in the case of Tier I lobbyists who have an arm's length relationship with their clients, Tier II lobbyists are required to disclose only their names and the names and addresses of their employers. In both cases, the onus is upon the lobbyist to register, not the client or the employer.

Mr. Speaker, although a two-tier system was not part of the recommendations of the Standing Committee, as the Hon. Members for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) felt obliged to remind me, we believe the system is better suited to reflect the principles I mentioned just now. Furthermore, it contributes to administrative simplicity without sacrificing openness.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to a two-tier system, disclosure requirements will be more straightforward for most lobbyists, and registration will consequently be easier to administer. It is important that the system should not become an administrative burden, either for those who have to register or for the Government, or become a maze of red tape for those seeking to obtain information.

The Lobbyists Registration Act is a very solid proposal for a registry. It will provide the information needed so that the public as well as public office holders can find out who is making representations to Government. In a democratic society, the ability to find out who is lobbying is as important as the ability to lobby. This system requires only as much information as is necessary to identify who is lobbying for whom and, in Tier I, on what subject. The registry will not be burdensome for lobbyists to comply with or for the Government to administer. The amendments made by the legislative committee have improved the Bill in terms of the clarity of what is or is not lobbying, and who is or is not a lobbyist. I am pleased to put this Bill before you for final consideration.
Over the past weeks and months we have discussed and debated the who, what, why and how of the lobbyist registration system. I hope today that Hon. Members opposite will agree that the when is now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I may say it is a pleasure to finally have
an opportunity to rise in the House and speak to the Bill respecting the registration of lobbyists.
The subject has been discussed for quite sometime. The House will recall that the first legislation in the United States was introduced an passed in 1946. So it would be inaccurate to say the Conservative Government invented the wheel in this respect.
The first Bill in Canada concerning the registration of lobbyists was tabled in 1969 by then Member of Parliament Mr. Barry Mather. The second Bill was tabled in 1974 by a Liberal Member, Mr. Ken Robinson, Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore at the time.
In 1976, the late Walter Baker also tabled a Bill. In 1985, our colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), tabled another bill to register lobbyists, and finally, also in 1985, the former Member for St. John's East, now His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland, tabled a Bill on the registration of lobbyists in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that the Conservative Government was elected largely on its promise to abolish patronage.

It is important to remember this mandate that the Government gave itself in 1984 during the election campaign. The Conservatives talked about the patronage, and they said that if elected they would reform the system. They said that they would reform the system of political appointments. They talked about the fact that, in their view, things could be done in a better way. Well, Canadians believed the Leader of the Conservative Party during the election campaign. After the election, Canadians became disillusioned by the Conservative Leader-who became the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) after the election-because he did not live up to the promises that he had made to the people of Canada.
You will remember that this Government was criticized by the Opposition, and rightfully so I might add, in a non-partisan way, of course, by members of the Opposition and by the Canadian people, the media, editorial writers and so on, for the way in which it was dealing with the issues involving public sector ethics.
On September 9, 1985, the Prime Minister decided that he had had it with scandals, with things going wrong in his Government, and he presented himself in the House of Commons and made an impassioned speech for reforming the public sector ethics that he had allowed to decay under his leadership, gave us a speech and a package of documents wrapped in a nice blue ribbon, although blue ribbons are very seldom nice. He asked a Page to table it right here on the table of the Clerk of the House of Commons. He sent a letter to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Leader of the NDP Party (Mr. Broadbent), to all MPs and Senators, and gave instructions to his Ministers. In this speech of September 9, 1985, and in an open letter to MPs and Senators, the Prime


July 25, 1988

Minister promised a new conflict of interest code. He promised another one after that, but he did offer us a new code on that day. He offered instructions to Ministers, imposing limitations on the hiring of family members. We know that some of his colleagues in Cabinet had appointed sons and daughters and cousins and in-laws, and all sorts of relations, to various positions. He wrote a letter to the opposition Leaders concerning the ethical standards for MPs and Senators. He established an experimental program for parliamentary scrutiny of Governor in Council appointments. He said at that time that we would have a system of registration of lobbying activity. Now, what he said is very important. I will repeat it. He said, and I quote from point five, dealing with the registration of lobbying activity, not that we would just register lobbyists, not that we would just register lobbying, he said that we would register lobbying activity. I see my friend from Nickel Belt is paying very close attention to this, because he and I are very interested in the registration of lobbying activity.
I want to read to you from page 9 of this letter. It is a very long letter that the Prime Minister sent to Members of Parliament. I guess the Prime Minister had a lot to think about on the weekend before that. He wrote long letters to MPs.


An Hon. Member:: He knew what he wanted.


Don Boudria: On page 9, he said:
The fifth component of this comprehensive approach to public sector ethics is the undertaking of this Government to introduce into the House of Commons, at an early date, legislation to monitor lobbying activity and to control the lobbying process by providing a reliable and accurate source of information on the activities of lobbyists. We will require, among other things, paid lobbyists to register and identify their clients.
This will enable persons who are approached by lobbyists for Canadian corporations, associations and unions, and by agents on behalf of foreign governments and other foreign interests, to be clearly aware of who is behind the representation.
I repeat that part: "Who is behind the representation". I see that you are paying very close attention to this, Mr. Speaker. I will read further:
1 have accordingly asked my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to prepare, on an urgent basis, legislation to govern lobbying activity.
I did place emphasis on certain key words in there, and you will see why. I want to read a little further from this letter of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does have a pretty mean pen sometimes, and it is important for us to be fully apprised of what it is that he has told us. On page 10, he states:
This initiative should not be misinterpreted to mean that this Government is aware of particular improprieties in the conduct of lobbyists or that it considers lobbying to be an inappropriate activity. On the contrary, the practice of lobbying plays an important role in ensuring that governments, in taking the decisions which affect the lives of all of us, are able to take properly into account the multitude of diverse interests involved. This Government is simply saying that something so important should not be shrouded in mystery.
It was said by the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Lobbyists Registration Act
I thought that the Government was going to introduce on an urgent basis legislation to govern lobbying activity. I believed the Prime Minister, which I suppose is the first mistake. I believed he was going to do what he said he would. I know it is extremely unfair to quote the Prime Minister, using his own words, but I am doing it anyway so that all Canadians will understand that we were not quite given the merchandise that we were promised. I would be the last person to say that this Government broke a promise, because, of course, I am nonpartisan. Nevertheless some of us, shall we say, have been somewhat disappointed that the Prime Minister let us down one more time.

I want to apprise you, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that a number of Canadians have not been satisfied with the actions of the Government as they pertain to lobbyists. We on this side of the House wanted to agree to a degree with the Prime Minister when he said that there was nothing wrong per .ye with the profession of being a lobbyist or with partaking in lobbying. There is nothing wrong with someone being a lobbyist and making representation to the Government on behalf of a labour union, on behalf of a corporation, on behalf of the Coalition on Acid Rain , on behalf of Campaign Life or on behalf of anyone else. That is okay. One can lobby for that. If Jean Bazin wanted to lobby to get a position in the Senate, that is okay too. I do not object to that. I thank the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) for reminding me that people have lobbied for a Senate position from time to time. Perhaps Senator Michel Cogger may have done it. Perhaps Senator Jean Bazin, who is a close friend of the Prime Minister, may have done that. It could be that people have lobbied for Senate positions. That is not illegal nor should it be. People have a right to make a representation to the Government for anything which they feel is important.
Canadians have a right to know who is doing what to whom. If, for instance, Mr. Speaker, you and I worked for the Coalition on Acid Rain we would want to know what that giant corporate entity has done in the way of lobbying the Government. If were lobbying for the Coalition on Acid Rain we would want to know if Inco had lobbied against emission standards. If we were lobbying for Campaign Life we would want to know what the pro-choice group has been lobbying for in the area of the abortion debate which will start tomorrow. We have a right to know these things. I suggest that we have a better form of government when all these activities are in the public domain.
The Government did not initially deliver on the merchandise. As I indicated a while ago, the Government, instead of delivering the Bill that it promised, on December 19, 1985, gave us a White Paper on lobbying. That White Paper, a very thick document, was tabled in the House and everyone looked at the White Paper on Lobbying and asked what it was for. The Prime Minister promised us some legislation on an urgent basis. Remember what I said a while ago when I was quoting

July 25, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker? Three months later this urgent basis had been forgotten because we got a White Paper which discussed the pros and cons of registering lobbyists. How could we discuss the pros and cons of registering lobbyists when the Prime Minister had made a solemn promise? A solemn promise is like a sacred trust, you cannot breach it. Surely the Prime Minister would know you do not breach sacred trust. He has had to deal with that issue before, and I think he found out the hard way that when you make a solemn promise you are supposed to live up to it.
1 do not want to digress from the main topic at hand here, but we were disappointed that the Prime Minister did not bring his lobbying Bill at that time. In any case, that was December 19, 1985 and there was still no Bill. The White Paper itself was shelved for five months.
Finally in April, 1986, after a few more scandals, a few more trouble spots for the Government, the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure was mandated by the House to study the report on the registration of lobbyists. On that committee we had the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), other government Members and myself. We had, I think, a very good non-partisan study of the possibility of registering lobbyists. We studied this issue here in Canada. Then we went to Washington and to Sacramento, California. Those are two jurisdictions which have a system of registering lobbyists. We looked at their systems and identified the strengths and weaknesses of each one. For instance, the weakness of the system in Washington was that one was only deemed to be a lobbyist if one were lobbying an elected person. If one were lobbying an unelected official, say the executive assistant or chief of staff of a legislator, one did not have to register. Obviously that was a tremendous weakness in the system. If one is lobbying Government, whether it be a Member of Parliament, my executive assistant, my constituency assistant or the chief of staff of a cabinet Minister or even a Deputy Minister, one is still lobbying the Government. Obviously one should have to register the very same.
On the other hand, when we studied the system in California we found that it really asked for a lot in the way of detail. As a matter of fact it asked for so much that the system actually became buried in itself. Lobbyists there, I believe, have to register not only the lobbying activity but the fees they were charging, which I kind of like, but there was much detail, such as having to file with the registrar each month every invoice of every expense over $10 or something like that. It means that if a person went to the restaurant and spent $12.50, that person had to get a bill so he or she could put it with the expense account and file it at the end of the month. Can you imagine lobbyists filing into the state legislature at Sacramento with a great big box full of invoices and stuff at the end of every month so they could prove to the person in charge of registering lobbyists that they had not exceeded the amounts in every category and so on for that month? That kind of a system,
needless to say, would be a bureaucratic nightmare. There is no way we would want to hire a group of people to administer that. It would be costly and because it would ask for so much information, the information we were looking for would probably be buried in some other information and we would end up knowing nothing at all. That is not what we wanted.
So our committee made a good and strong recommendation and prepared a report which we tabled in this House. The report which the committee tabled asked the Government to have a system of registering lobbyists. Some members of the committee, and I think I would be fair in saying it was the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt and myself, would have wanted to register the fees and disbursements of lobbyists-in any case the fees of lobbyists, but some of the government Members felt that was to onerous, particularly in the beginning.
In an effort to obtain a consensus of all political Parties we agreed that for the time being we would not ask for the registering of the fees and disbursements of lobbyists so long as we got the name of the lobbyist, the name of the lobbying firm, the name of the company or organization which paid for the lobbying activity and the subject matter of the activity as well as the name of the person or governmental organization which they were lobbying. That was, in fact, what we were looking for initially. Our recommendations also proposed after a period of some years that we review the system with the possibility of increasing the requirements on lobbyists at that time. With that review included in our recommendations we went along. However, we did recommend as well, and I will now read from our recommendations:
[Translation)
I read the following recommendation: We recommend prohibiting lobbyists from accepting from their clients any remuneration connected in any way with the results of lobbying. This simply means, Mr. Speaker, that it is prohibited or should be prohibited, according to the unanimous report of the parliamentary committee, that a lobbyist be able to demand fees based on results. For instance, if I am a lobbyist, I cannot go to a client and say: That will be $1,000 for lobbying, and $10,000 as a bonus if I get results. We say that should be prohibited. In any case, I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that in some provinces lawyers are not allowed to charge fees on this principle. That is the case, for example, in Ontario. Does the same apply to Quebec? I don't know. Some could enligthen us and I hope that during the debate we will have shortly, someone can enlighten us on that.
As I see it, being able to charge fees based on results can lead to abuses. We know of only one firm of lobbyists that sets fees this way now and I assure you that it was quite controversial. Perhaps if this lobbying firm stopped doing so, most Canadians, I think, would feel that the system was much better.
July 25, 1988

These are the recommendations that we made with respect to what is required of lobbyists. We recommended that registered lobbyists be required first to disclose their name, firm name if applicable, a contact person, address, and telephone number; second, name of clients and their place of business; third, the matter upon which the lobbying activity is to take place. I said moments ago that we should prohibit contingency fees or fees contingent upon a result. We also recommended a definition of lobbyists and so on. We produced a good report that was tabled in this House in early 1987.
Because this was a compromise position, we felt the Government would introduce a Bill which pretty well mirror imaged the unanimous report of the parliamentary committee. After all, the Opposition had watered down its expectations in favour of getting a unanimous report, so we figured the Minister would probably introduce something pretty close to what we asked. Yet that did not happen, if one can believe it. Instead, the Government introduced a two-tier system of registering lobbyists. From now on, there will be a Tier I lobbyist, which is a consultant or, if you wish, a professional lobbyist. That lobbyist would be operating under a contract with a client, or the lobbyist could be a member of any profession when engaged in lobbying for pay; in other words, a lawyer or accountant who acts as a lobbyist. This kind of lobbyist would be asked to register detailed information such as that I described a while ago pursuant to our unanimous report.
There would also be Tier II lobbyists. I have no idea where the Minister got this idea. It certainly is not from my report, not from his White Paper, not from anything any Member ever raised in this House in any speech at second reading, report stage, or anywhere else. It was not even raised in committee.
The Tier II lobbyist consists of employees and officers of trade organizations, labour federations, business corporations, unions and voluntary groups who, as a significant part of their duties, lobby for their employer.
Those people will be asked to supply only limited information by the Government. For example, they will have to register once a year in a manner which has been described by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt as providing a copy of their business card. The only thing we will be asking them to do is identify themselves once a year with their name, address, and phone number. Providing a copy of their business card would pretty well do that.
My objection is that these people, the so-called Tier II lobbyists, are getting away with something that other people cannot. Why do we offer Tier II lobbyists those kinds of advantages? The Minister says the reason is that in the case of a Tier II lobbyist we know who they are, we know who they act for, and it is pretty obvious what they want. He says in his
Lobbyists Registration Act
press release on page 5, that even among paid employees there are distinctions worthy of recognition. Certain individuals may, on rare occasions, represent the views of their business or association, but they are not primarily engaged by the employer for the purpose of lobbying. By contrast, many groups and corporations retain full-time individuals on staff who are responsible for liaison with and communicating ideas and concerns to the Government. While the latter should be required to register as lobbyists, the former can hardly be considered to be a paid lobbyist. That is quite true. He says further that this system of two different tiers of lobbyists is based on the well established distinction between the often hidden interests of the clients of the third party paid lobbyist, in other words Tier I, and the transparent and well understood interests of the corporations, industry associations, public interest groups, and other such organizations whose staff lobby on their own behalf, or Tier II.
Let us look at the distinction the Minister is making. He says that Tier II lobbyists are transparent, well understood interests of corporations, industry associations, public interest groups, and other such organizations. I say to him that sometimes that may be the case. I will concede that, and even that there are occasions where one can tell by the organization what it is they are concerned about. I will use as an example an organization which has been in contact with me lately, one which I have a certain closeness with, and that is the Campaign Life Coalition. They are obviously going to lobby for pro-life legislation on abortion. However, although that is true for that organization, it may not necessarily be that obvious and that transparent and well understood, to use the words of the Minister, in certain other groups.
Let me give an example. Let us say, for example, that someone is a full-time employee of a giant multinational. I will use Imasco as an example, a parent company of several other companies. If someone is a paid lobbyist for that company, how is it obvious, how is it transparent, how is it well understood what he or she is lobbying for or against? There is no logical answer. When the company is so big one cannot tell which one of the subsidiaries the lobbyist is speaking for or against or which legislation they would be favouring or opposing.
Another example is someone campaigning on behalf of George Weston Enterprises or someone like that. That company's list of subsidiaries is the length of your arm, Mr. Speaker. How can you tell which one of the subsidiaries they are lobbying for? They could just as easily be lobbying against the very thing you may think they are lobbying for. It is not, contrary to what the Minister said, transparent and well understood what they are lobbying for or against.
In order to correct some of those deficiencies I offered some amendments, and I know other Members did as well, to the Bill proposed by the Minister. I say this having supported his Bill on second reading debate and having supported the unanimous report of the parliamentary committee. We suggested amendments which would do a number of things.

July 25, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
Let me read the amendments we wanted the Government to include in the legislation. We wanted, first, to ensure that the Bill would provide that someone who collects information for the purpose of having someone else do the lobbying would also be identified as a lobbyist. I introduced that motion. Unfortunately, it did not get anywhere. My second amendment was to ensure that we were asking the same thing of Tier II lobbyists as we were of Tier I lobbyists, that is, of course, to correct the situation I described a moment ago.
I introduced another motion, which was debated but refused by the Government, to prevent a lobbyist from charging contingency fees. Our committee, which for the benefit of Conservative Members listening to this debate was largely composed of government Members, was opposed to lobbyists being able to charge contingency fees. However, that is not in the Bill.
The Minister says he could not make such a requirement because he does not have the constitutional authority to do so. That is, apparently, due to the fact that contract law is provincial and we are obviously dealing here with federal legislation. Although the Minister may technically be correct in saying that contract law is provincial, which is true, we should remember that the federal Government can require someone lobbying it to meet before it will entertain such a lobby. In other words, this Bill could easily include a provision which would prevent an employee or federal legislator from entertaining a lobby on the part of someone who is charging a contingency fee.
The Government had every opportunity to do that. Such a condition in the Bill would prevent legislators from receiving such a lobby. Perhaps there are other means of satisfying that. There are indeed ways in which the Government could have prevented lobbyists from charging contingency fees.
As I indicated a while ago, we are dealing with this Bill today after some delay. I want to make it clear to the House, to the Minister, and to all Canadians that in no way has either Party in the Opposition made any attempt to delay the passage of this Bill. I indicated that in April of 1986 our committee started to do its work on that report. In September of 1986 the Government prorogued Parliament. It recalled Parliament at the beginning of October, and on November 19 the Government decided, through a motion proposed by the Government House Leader, to reactivate our committee. On January 27, 1987, our committee tabled its report in the House of Commons. On June 30, 1987, we gave Bill C-82 first reading. I do not know why it took from January to June.
However, if you think that is strange, wait until you hear what I am going to say next. We only started to debate the Bill on March 8, 1988, some nine months later. I do not know why that gestation period was required, but nevertheless we started at that time.
Perhaps some would think that after we started debate on March 8, 1988, the Opposition may have dragged its feet. No, Sir, Mr. Speaker, the whole debate was concluded on March 14, six days later, and some of those days were used to discuss other legislation. In fact, only about four hours of House time was utilized to debate Bill C-82. You can see, Mr. Speaker, the great co-operation offered to the Government by opposition Members of Parliament in an attempt to have speedy passage of this legislation.
I hear a Conservative Member speaking. If he is congratulating the House on having disposed of the motion so rapidly, I thank him for that. I assume that that is what he is saying.
In April of this year the committee met. After only two or three hearings the committee dealt with the Bill in its entirety. We had had only two or three meetings on the Bill and the Minister was not pleased. He felt it was taking us too long to deal with the Bill in committee after we had had about three meetings. He literally had a temper tantrum.
On April 27, 1988, in an interview given to The Globe and Mail, the Minister threatened to shelve the Bill to register lobbyists because it was taking too much time. Can you believe that? The Minister took three years to produce a Bill which the Prime Minister promised on an urgent basis, and because we did not have it ready after three one and a half hour meetings of the parliamentary committee, the Minister literally had a tantrum.
If you do not believe me, Mr. Speaker, I will read to you what The Globe and Mail says. Surely you will believe The Globe and Mail. An article of April 27, 1988 says that legislation to register lobbyists could be postponed indefinitely if opposition Members continue to push for amendments. The Opposition was guilty of trying to improve legislation. What an awful bunch we were for trying to improve the Government's imperfect Bill!
The article continues: "He directed his comments at New Democratic Party MP John Rodriguez and Liberal MP Don Boudria who have been trying to toughen the Bill which is scheduled to be sent back to the House of Commons for final reading in May". You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that even the media thought this Bill would be dealt with in May. Today is July 25. I have been lobbying the Government since May to bring this Bill back before the House, and it only did so a week ago.


Cyril Keeper: Did you register?


Don Boudria: No, I did not register my lobbying activity at that time, in response to the question of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). We do not have such legislation yet.
I would like to read an article from the April 18 Calgary Herald. I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), who is reading Maclean's magazine, to listen
July 25, 1988

attentively to what I am going to say because the Calgary Herald is published in his riding and Maclean's is not. The editorial is entitled "Lobbyist bill overdue". It reads:
Almost three years since he promised legislation, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's new law to register paid lobbyists has gone only as far as first reading and committee hearings.
Well, it had actually gone to second reading. It continues:
It has taken entirely too long for this piece of public interest legislation to become law in Canada.
Since the Tories have asserted, as Mulroney did in 1985, that Canada needs a law requiring the registration of all those who lobby for a living on Parliament Hill, then they should get on with the job of enacting such a law.
The United States has had such legislation since 1946 but Canada's long delayed and slightly bedraggled Bill C-82 had to wait until this month to make it as far as a Commons committee hearing.
It was ushered by an apologetic Consumer Affairs Minister Harvie Andre who argued that the bill ought not to require that lobbyists divulge how much they are paid for their endeavors on behalf of a plethora of interest groups which routinely seek favors from the government.
In short, the bill will ask lobbyists employed by companies or groups to register only such data as their names, addresses and telephone numbers.
Those are the Tier II lobbyists to which I was referring. It goes on to indicate:
A second category or so-called hired gun lobbyists will also have to report, in advance, the issues they have been hired to discuss with government officials.
But that's the extent of government's attempts to provide for public awareness of the activities of influential but little known lobbyists in Ottawa.
No wonder Bill C-82 is also known as the business card bill. It is almost too weak to bother with, but it is, just barely, better than nothing.
That report is from the Calgary Herald. I know the Minister knows the Calgary Herald very well.
I believe I have grabbed the attention of certain Conservative Members. I apologize if I spoke too loudly and woke them up. However, there is a price to be paid for sitting in the House of Commons. Tory Members will have to deal with the fact that they have to listen to what happens in here before they vote. I hope they pay very close attention as I lobby them for their support.
The Bill is not as strong as we would have liked. I have made my pitch for a number of amendments both in the House and in committee. If debate on this Bill should end today, it is better than nothing, as the Calgary Herald has stated. I will support the motion and encourage my colleagues in the Liberal Party to do so, but there is still a chance, if the Minister asks for unanimous consent of the House to revert to report stage, to accept the amendments I have offered. I would be willing to grant that unanimous consent, and I am quite sure most of my colleagues would do the same, in order to improve the Bill in the way I just described.
I have described what the Bill requires of lobbyists. It does not deal with fees as I would have preferred, nor does it prohibit contingency fees. The Bill does not require a record of official contacts, in other words, who was being lobbied.
Lobbyists Registration Act
The Bill contains no provision to stop someone from registering after they have been fined or jailed for making a false statement. A lobbyist who has defaulted under the Act could continue to practise their profession. That is another weakness in the Bill.
There could be stronger enforcement provisions in the legislation. However, in spite of its weaknesses the Bill still carries out its original objective, which is to register lobbyists.
I support the thrust of the Bill. I would like the Minister to reconsider my amendments. I would be pleased to give my consent, if he asked to revert to report stage to deal with those amendments.
While the Bill essentially follows the recommendations of our all-party committee report in January, 1987, it is lacking in those areas I have identified, including its failure to ban contingency fees and requirements for Tier II lobbyists.
That being said, I recommend that the House support the Bill notwithstanding those deficiencies. We want to register lobbyists. Let me state for the record that when the three-year period is up we should increase the requirements on these people.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to this House that the profession of lobbyist is an honourable one, or should be. I note that many lobbyists in Canada do not want to identify themselves as such. They are called government consultants, vice-presidents of government relations or all sorts of other similar titles. I do not think this should be so. When the Parliamentary Committee visited Washington, we noticed that lobbyists in Washington were proud of their profession, just as lawyers or doctors are proud of theirs. And with a law that would require several things of lobbyists, I feel that we would raise the standards of behaviour and that over time, since it will take time, lobbyists will have a profession that will be better known, better recognized and more credible.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage my colleagues to pass this Bill today.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks on third reading of Bill C-82, let me state that the New Democratic Party voted against the Bill at report stage. In the course of my remarks I am sure it will become crystal clear to the House and those who are listening why the NDP has opposed this Bill.
The Bill represents flimflam by a powder-puff Minister who was not committed to the whole concept of registering lobbyists and lobbying.


An Hon. Member:: You mean he is a wimp?


John R. Rodriguez: There are those who would be so unkind as to use the four letter word in describing the Minister, but I am not in that group. I simply say the Minister knew who his

July 25, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
friends were and who his friends are. He recognizes that he cannot bite the hand that feeds his Government with juicy contributions that come in very handy in an election year.
Who is a lobbyist? We have defined a lobbyist for the purposes of this debate as anyone who, for pay, approaches a legislator or anyone within the bureaucracy with the intent to influence the drafting or changing of legislation, the changing of rules or regulations to the obtaining contracts or appointments to boards or commissions.
Before I came here in 1972, I and many Canadians were aware that there were very powerful interests outside Parliament which seemed to have their own way with the Government in dealing with contracts and appointments. In fact, I have a comment which sums up the way it was and the way it will continue to be in spite of Bill C-82.
It is from an article that I clipped from The Gazette in Montreal on December 3, 1986. The headline reads "Lobbying Threatens Parties: Masse". It goes on to say:
Energy Minister Marcel Masse said yesterday the growing popularity of lobbying is undermining Canada's political party system.
He went on to say, as reported in the article:
"It has become infinitely more easy to attract the attention of one's fellow citizens, the communications media and even the Government by belonging to a pressure group than through advancing one's ideas inside a political party," Masse said.
He went on to say that the danger inherent in lobbying is that it gives disproportionate weight to the opinions of the rich and the powerful. In fact, if people want to bring about change in our kind of democratic system, they should become involved in a political Party and work to make changes.
There is a further refinement that is even more invidious than the ones the Minister described. There are those who latch on, as a scavenger fish latches on to a shark, to the Government. They become friends of the Government and they work for the election of a Prime Minister or a Government because they know that when that person becomes Prime Minister or when that Party forms the Government, they can then extricate themselves from this close relationship and join or start a lobbying company.
In fact, because of the friendships these people have created within the political Party that now forms the Government, the fruits of their labours can finally ripen and fall into their hands.


Harvie Andre: John, that's a microphone in front of you. You don't have to shout.


John R. Rodriguez: I see that the Minister responsible for this flimflammery, Bill C-82, has now been awakened. He was deeply plunged into Canada Post's annual report. Now I see that he has removed himself. He cannot stand the heat; he is leaving the Chamber.


Harvie Andre: You're hurting my ears.


John R. Rodriguez: I am glad that someone can hurt some part of you.
What I have described is not idle speculation. In fact, that is a description of one Frank Moores who was the former Premier of Newfoundland. He was one of the Prime Minister's staunchest supporters for the Leadership of the Conservative Party. In fact, he worked diligently day and night, without pay, without an iota of compensation, doing it all out of the goodness of his heart, working hard for Brian, putting Brian in the Prime Minister's seat. However, everything comes to those who wait. In the fullness of time, as the world unfolded, Brain ascended to the Prime Minister's seat, and of course he rewarded them that brung him to the dance. In his famous words, "You always dance with them who brung you".
What did Frank Moores do? He is not stupid. You don't become a premier of a province if you don't have a little bit of stuff up here. He formed GCI, Government Consultants International. Who did he bring in? He brought in all the flops and flicks and flacks. He brought in Gerry Doucet who was a Cabinet Minister in the Nova Scotia Government, a good friend of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He brought in Gary Ouellet, a magician. He has a tuxedo with 12 pockets. I saw this guy at lunch one time, he made a quarter disappear. I saw it. The quarter was in his hand, he did that and the quarter disappeared. He has written 12 books on magic. He makes things disappear and 1 suspect he can also make them reappear.
Here was Government Consultants International, a mere new kid on the block in 1984. In that short period of time between 1984 and now, GCI has become the most powerful private lobby group in the country. In fact, its clients include Nabisco Brands Canada, Mercedes-Benz, Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd., the Iron Ore Company of Canada-if ever there was a connection-and American Express Canada. As a matter of fact, American Express Canada was with Public Affairs International, and when Frankie baby arrived on the scene with GCI, he approached American Express Canada and it switched. There was a $175,000 contingency fee just on that account alone. How about Microtel, Huang and Danczkay? These groups got contracts for expanding the airport in Toronto.
Business has been booming at GCI. It has very powerful customers. Guess what? GCI does not charge a fee. It has a contingency fee. It says: "If I get you the contract, I get a percentage".
As a matter of fact, this whole thing blew up, and I think that is the reason for this flimflam, powder-puff Bill. In fact, Frank Moores literally and frankly screwed up. He took $2,000 from a fisherman on the Atlantic to get an interview with the Fisheries Minister so that he could make a pitch to get a fishing licence. The fellow got the fishing licence.
.

July 25, 1988

Frank Moores also sat on the Board of Directors of Air Canada at the same time as he was representing the Airbus Industrie from France which was negotiating with Air Canada to sell airbuses. Guess what? He got kicked off the Board of Air Canada. Guess what? GCI helped, and Airbus Industrie landed the contract. Do Hon. Members know what GCI's contingency for that little project alone was? It was S30 million.
There is no question that these are the louder voices, those who have political influence and friends in the PMO and the Government. These are the ones who are able to use political influence to land contracts.
The Prime Minister said something I would like to read into the record. Things were supposed to change as of September 9, 1985. The Prime Minister, embarrassed by all these revelations, realized that we needed to have ethics in government. Therefore, he wrote a letter to Members of Parliament and to Senators. I want to read the first paragraph of that letter because I think it sort of ushered in, we all thought, a new era of government ethics.
The Prime Minister wrote:
Dear Colleagues:
It is a great principle of public administration-I would even say an "imperative "- that to function effectively the government and the public service of a democracy must have the trust and confidence of the public they serve. In order to reinforce that trust, the government must be able to provide competent management and, above all, to be guided by the highest standards of conduct.
Furthermore, in that letter the Prime Minister promised to establish a registry of lobbying. In the letter he recognizes the need that Canadians have every right to know who is doing what to whom, and I would add for how much. That was the underlying principle when I represented the New Democratic Party in the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure which studied the question of lobbying.
We came back with a unanimous report. I did not get everything that I wanted. I wanted to make sure that we knew how much the lobbyists were paying for the lobbying activity. I wanted to know who the contacts were. I wanted to know who was behind the mass mailings, such as the letters we received recently about how having a law on tobacco advertising infringes on the rights of Canadians. I wanted to know who was behind that type of indirect lobbying.
I wanted to ensure that we outlawed contingencies in lobbying. The contingency fee schedule is the greatest incitement to dipsy-doodle around the law, and probably to encourage unscrupulous lobbyists to do dirty things.
I was also interested in having a registrar who would have the ability to verify the information that is placed on the lobby registry. If the registrar is not given the power to verify the information, who will find out if what is put on the registry is in fact correct?
Lobbyists Registration Act
The unanimous report of the committee represented for me the bottom line. It basically said that a lobbyist is a lobbyist. It said that it did not matter if they belonged to the GCIs of this world, or if they belonged to an association, but that they were still in the business of lobbying and therefore ought to be registered. That was the bottom line for me, and it was in the unanimous report. We also recommended in the report that the registrar be given the power to verify the information in the registry.
The Government took the unanimous report and came back with what I have described as a flimflam of a Bill. In fact, it sets up two tiers for the registry. Tier I is for companies- Frank Moores, Bill Neville and a whole host of others-such as PAI and GCI. Under Tier II there would be the associations, all these little innocent associations-and I say this facetiously-which have no power. I refer to the Pharmaceuticals Association, the Manufacturers' Association, the Bankers' Association, the BCNI, the Construction Industries Association, as well as the trade union movement. These would fall under Tier II.
Guess what information we require from Tier I, Mr. Speaker. We need to know the name of the lobbyist, the address, and the company for whom the lobbyist is working, its address and the issue being lobbied on. Under Tier II only the name of the lobbyist and the association has to be listed. That is all. In other words, all that has to be done is that the business card must be turned over.
It is imperative that at least the minimum of what the issue is ought to be included in the information that is put on the registry for the associations. While I have described Frank Moores and the way in which he operates, I have come to the serious conclusion that it is not the Frank Moores type of company, the GCIs or PAIs, which are the ones that have the most power in this country but, after looking at this matter intensively, I have come to the conclusion that it is the associations which carry the power. Those associations, such as the Pharmaceutical Association and the Bankers' Association are the ones that hold the power. One only has to look recently to how Canadian bankers persuaded the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) not to legislate with respect to the abuses on bank service charges but to accept something called voluntary compliance.
In my view it is the associations which have the greatest power today. Any registry of lobbying and lobbyists-and I include both those concepts-must demand from Tier II the minimum that is demanded from Tier I. Justice demands it. The democratic sense of openness demands that in fact the registry contains that minimal bit of information.
The Minister left the Chamber and came back. He was not interested in any of this which raises the question as to how effectively he was lobbied. Not one amendment was accepted by the Government to give some backbone to Bill C-82. Thus the caucus of the New Democratic Party voted against it at report stage. We are going to vote against it at third reading as

July 25, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
well. All we have to do is work on defeating this Government and we will bring in the type of lobby registry Bill that ought to be brought in, which will assure Canadians of openness and transparency.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to elaborate a bit on the very important point he made, that is, that the centre of power in the lobbying industry in Canada may not be with high profile agencies such as Public Affairs International or Government Consultants International. While these are the high profile actors in the whole field of lobbying, it is in fact the associations which hold the centre of power. They do not make the stories on the front pages of our newspapers so much as lobbyists do. I refer to the bankers and the pharmaceutical industry representatives. I refer to the Business Council on National Issues. Who knows how many average Canadians know what BCNI stands for? Will my colleague elaborate a bit on his conclusion that in fact these associations are the most powerful lobbyists in the capital?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It is an important one. It is a thought provoking one as well.
I would like to give two examples of how these associations have indeed wielded power in this Government. One is the Business Council on National Issues. The executive director of that organization is one Mr. Thomas d'Aquino. That organization is made up of probably the wealthiest corporations in this land, such corporations as Power Corp. They are the creme de la creme. They pride themselves on giving leadership to Governments of Canada. In fact, if one were to examine the journey of the free trade agreement that was signed by the Prime Minister and by Ronald Reagan, one would see that in fact here was a Prime Minister who as recently as 1983 said that we will have none of this free trade stuff with the United States. He said that the people said no to it in 1911 and they say no today. What changed his mind? As the piece unfolds it will be recognized that the BCNI was really pushing for the free trade deal with the United States. In fact, it put it on the agenda of the Prime Minister and lobbied the Government to accept the whole concept of free trade with the United States, which led to the subsequent negotiations. That is one point.
The other one concerns the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. Apparently the lobbying association, PMA, approached the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with respect to a change to the Patent Act that would extend and give protection to drugs for 10 years. That lobbying was ongoing, but because there was no registry there was no way that those who were opposed to that type of action had any inkling that they could present counterarguments to the Government and the bureaucracy. In fact, PMA persuaded the Government, and it fell neatly in line with the free trade deal
being negotiated at the time. With the one using the other we eventually saw Bill C-22 brought before the House.
I have mentioned the Bankers' Association only recently hitting the fan. In fact some may say that the banks held up the fan, when all that was happening was that great demands were being made for changes to the Bank Act that would ensure consumers a fair deal with bank service charges. The Finance Committee studied the matter, came back with a report, and demanded that the Government act. Lo and behold the Bankers' Association huddled with the Minister of State for Finance, and we got the Government's acceptance of voluntary compliance with respect to bank service charges. That is where that matter has ended.
I tell my hon. friend and colleague that as I have observed it the real powerful lobbyists around the capital are the associations. I believe that they twisted the Government's arm in setting up the two-tier system. That is why we have the associations in Tier II with only business card information, while those in Tier I have to disclose the issue. Knowing the issue that is being lobbied gives Canadians who may have a differing view an equal opportunity to provide information to government and bureaucracy, it is extremely important.


Cyril Keeper: When the legislation with regard to the generic drug industry was before the House, many ordinary Canadians were seeking to put pressure on the Government and were lobbying the Government to preserve the protection that they had in the generic drug industry against sky-rocketing drug prices. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry was doing its own lobbying in order to forward its interests and be able to do whatever it wanted with regard to the price of drugs in this country.
At that time I remember hearing about some very quiet lobbying that was going on. In contrast to the public lobbying from ordinary citizens fighting for their rights, there was some very quiet lobbying going on in Washington. There was a leak of information of how the pharmaceutical industry of the United States was able to use the American Government in order to approach the Canadian Government.
Does my colleague believe that this legislation the Government has brought forward with regard to lobbying will throw light on the process of lobbying? Will it throw light upon how power is wielded in the capital? I am thinking of the whole question of the generic drug legislation as a case study.


John R. Rodriguez: That is an excellent question. When the standing committee visited Washington in the United States, it found out that lobbyists were registered. One can go to the office where that information is kept on file and, for a fee, have the information pulled off the computer. If one has the name of the lobbying firm or the lobbyists, the information can be taken from the computer. The computer lists the name of the lobbyists, the lobbying firms, and the issues on which lobbyists are lobbying, together with a list of all companies that are clients of particular lobbying firms.
July 25, 1988

If we had such a registry which applied not only to individual companies such as GCI and PAI but also to the associations, we could cross match. If we needed information on who was approaching the Government on what issue-for example, on the pharmaceutical question Bill C-22 that was passed-we could go to the computer to find out who the lobbyist was and, if that were the issue, it could be cross matched with the file in Washington. In that manner we could find out if the pharmaceutical association was lobbying the Canadian Government for certain changes and if in the United States a lobbying firm was lobbying the Canadian Embassy with respect to making sure that the Government of Canada made changes to the Patent Act with respect to pharmaceutical products.
A democracy cannot survive if people do not have information. One of the greatest guardians of democracy is an informed citizenry. If citizens do not have the correct information, they are left to surmise and speculate. I suggest that that undermines the whole process.
There are two other federal Acts of Parliament which are extremely important to this whole question of transparency and the right to know. The first one is the Election Expenses Act, an extremely important Act where contributors of more than $100 are listed. It is important to know who is supporting the political Parties and the candidates and that that information is up front and open. We did not have that before. The second one is the Access to Information Act, not the type that we see here where many things are blacked out, the Government chooses to delay certain information, and the commissioner of Access to Information Act states that the Act is being frustrated by the Government.
In 1983 the Prime Minister was correct when he said that the Liberals believed that Canadians did not have a right to know. He stated that Conservatives believed that Canadians had every right to know. I agree with him, and every right thinking Canadian across the country agrees with those words, but they are only words. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Here we have a Bill which will complement those two federal pieces of legislation and federal laws, and Bill C-82 is an eunuch. The Government has eunuched lobbying registration, and it is a sad day for openness of government. It is a sad day for the transparency of government within a democracy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am glad to have the opportunity to put a few comments on record with regard to this legislation. I appreciate the impassioned plea that my colleague who spoke before me made for common sense when it came to lobbying legislation.
I must say that in listening to my colleague, the lobbying critic of the NDP, one is driven to the conclusion that this legislation is simply a sop to public opinion. It comes two and a
Lobbyists Registration Act
half years after the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised it in an open letter to the public. It is just a way to smooth over troubled waters. It is a piece of legislation without teeth, without real intent to control lobbying, without real intent to throw light on the whole question of lobbying. In listening to our critic, to the critic from the Liberal Party, and to the Minister as he presented his case for this legislation, I have come to the conclusion that this legislation is nothing more than a sop to public opinion, rather than being a real attempt to control lobbyists, a real attempt to bring to public light the activities of lobbyists, or a real attempt to reinforce the democratic traditions of this country. It is just a way for the Government to get out from under the reputation that it developed as a Government of scandal.
It is this conclusion that I want to examine by looking at the facts, at the substance of the legislation. If this conclusion stands up, it is a major condemnation of the Government.
The first limitation in this legislation which stands out is the one with regard to the kind of information that will be provided to the public. We on this side of the House and our spokespeople have said that the information is inadequate. Not only should the name of the lobbyist be made public, not only should the subject of their lobbying be made public, but the people they contact ought to be made public. I suppose that members of a Conservative Party, Members with a Conservative philosophical bent, might argue against a comprehensive provision of information by saying that it will just create another bureaucracy. My reply would be: Why bother with the regulation of lobbyists? Why bother with seeking to create something called a registry of lobbyists if it is not going to have teeth, if it is not going to in fact deliver the goods, if it is not going to provide the kind of information that is necessary if we are to control the activities of lobbyists?
Another inadequacy of this legislation is the fact that it does not provide the kind of information that people need if they want a true picture of what goes on in lobbying in this capital. The parliamentary committee made recommendations which highlighted the inadequacies of the legislation, which is to say, that we should not only have the name of the lobbyist but the subject that the lobbyist is lobbying about, and the contacts that the lobbyist is approaching.
It would be useful as well, if we are serious about registering lobbyists, for this legislation to require lobbyists to disclose the costs of their lobbying activities. Why not provide it by indicating how much they are spending in order to lobby the Government on a particular subject?
Would it not have been useful for the Canadian public to know, in particular all Canadians who used their democratic right to seek to influence the Government when it came to the generic drug legislation and their efforts to preserve the protection they had against sky-rocketing drug prices until the election of this Government, who was lobbying the Government? Who was scuttling that legislation which provided such a unique form of protection for Canadian consumers? Who

July 25, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
was lobbying the Government? Who were they contacting in the Government? How much were they spending in that massive lobbying effort?
I want to note in brackets, so to speak, an article that I read in the paper the other day, dealing with the same subject. It concerned another country, Mexico. The Americans and the American pharmaceutical industry was laying a heavy trip on Mexico in the same area, saying: "Don't you dare do anything that will interfere with the operations of the pharmaceutical industry. Don't do anything that would impede their capacity to set whatever price they want to set for any drug that they should bring on the market".
The importance of that issue is not limited to Canada. It also has implications for the whole continent, and I would suggest the western world as well. Would it not have been useful if we had known how much money was being spent on lobbying when it came to the whole question of the generic drug industry? It is particularly useful to know those costs, because the public opinion polls showed that the public was in favour of the generic drug legislation on the books of this country. It raised a question about the Government's use of a popular piece of legislation that was saving Canadians money, a piece of legislation that was making sure that miracle drugs could be available to people at a reasonable cost. Why would a Government scuttle such legislation? Why would a Government tear the guts out of such legislation? That raises questions.
People must suspect that some pretty powerful interests have been leaning on the Government. There must have been some pretty effective lobbyists seeking to change the mind of this Government, seeking to push the Government in the direction of scuttling this legislation. We would like to know how much they spent on those efforts. Those Canadians who fought to preserve the legislation we had, which was unique in the world, had a right and a desire to know just what they were up against when they were fighting for its preservation, what kind of powerful interests were involved, and how much did they have to take off? That is one comment with regard to the whole inadequacy of this legislation, from the point of view of the information that it provides.
The reason that I am looking at this legislation is that people who have spoken before me have come to the conclusion-or at least their comments have lead me to that conclusion-that this legislation is not really intended to do anything effective about lobbying in Canada and that in fact it is windowdressing.
Let us look at what kind of information the legislation provides for Canadians. It does not provide-and it would be useful for us to know what was going on in any particular lobbying effort-is who is being paid to organize mass mailings.
Who is being paid to manage advertising campaigns directed at influencing government policy? As Members of Parliament we get enormous amounts of mail. We get so much that this House has seen it necessary to assign staff to individual Members of Parliament. In other jurisdictions, such as in Britain, Members of Parliament, for all practical purposes, do their own work. They answer their own mail; they write their own letters. In this country, because of the massive amount of written communication that we receive, we have found it necessary to hire staff, at least three paid employees in the offices of Members of Parliament, to assist in answering the mail. It would be interesting to know how much of that mail is an expression of the spontaneous opinion of ordinary Canadians; how much of it is a direct expression of grass roots democracy; how much of it is a real expression of public opinion and, on the other hand, how much of it is manufactured, how much of it is manipulated, and how much of it is self-serving.
It would have been useful in the generic drug debate for Members of Parliament to know whether the mail being received was something which had been arranged by a lobbyist. Did some lobbyists in Toronto, Ottawa, or Sudbury arrange for people to send in letters to Members of Parliament that called for the scuttling of the legislation, or was it a spontaneous expression? Information requiring the disclosure of names of those who are paid to organize mass mailings and who are paid to manage advertising campaigns would have thrown some light on the situation.
You might ask me, Mr. Speaker: Is it really practical for Governments to monitor all the activities of lobbyists? I must say that I do not know. It has not been done in this country yet. If we are going to bring forward legislation to register lobbyists, to give the public the feeling that we are keeping an eye on them, the legislation ought to be effective. We ought not to undertake legislative activities which are meaningless or simply window dressing.
I want to take a further indepth look, another peak, at the legislation to confirm if the conclusion that we have come to, namely, that this legislation is toothless and is simply a sop to public opinion rather than meant to control lobbyists. Another aspect of lobbying about which we have been informed is something called mapping. Apparently if you want to get something done in this city, you have to know more than a Member of Parliament, and more than just the House of Commons.
There are large government Departments in Ottawa. There are thousands of government employees. There are many managers and there are various kinds of central agencies through which the Government controls itself. Lobbyists are able to map out the way to get to the centre of power. If you have enough bucks to pay them, if you can afford the time and energy of these people who have learned to walk the maze of government decision making, you can get to the centre of

w
s

July 25, 1988

power. Ordinary Canadians, if they come to Ottawa from, say, my riding and want to get a decision out of the Government, would come to myself as their Member of Parliament. That is legitimate, and I would do everything I could to help, but they could not hire an expert or someone who had spent perhaps their working life in the bureaucracy in Ottawa learning all the ins and outs, nor could they hire someone who had spent their working life supporting a political candidate who then becomes Prime Minister and, therefore, has a special insight on how decisions get made in Ottawa.
Why does this legislation fail to provide this kind of information, information that would tell us who is doing the mapping activity in Ottawa? Who leads those people who want to get something out of the Government through corridors of power? Who shows them the dark accesses to power that exist in this capital? Who shows them how to get to the real decision makers and how much are they paid? This kind of information is not available as a result of this legislation. I would say that the public will learn very little about lobbying activities from this legislation, and that is why I say it is a sop to public opinion. It is an effort for the Government to get away from the reputation that it has developed as a Government of scandal.
This legislation has loopholes. We all know the tax legislation has loopholes, but this legislation coming through today is like Swiss cheese; it has many holes.
We have here a two-tier system for the registration of lobbyists. Surely to goodness, if you are going to register lobbyists, you want to register them all and you want to treat them all the same and get the same information from everybody. You want to have a sense of fairness, and you want to know what is going on in all the lobbying activities in the capital. This Government has chosen, instead, to say: "Okay, we will ask for one set of information from one set of lobbyists and something different, something less, from another set of lobbyists".
The Tier II lobbyists are presented to us as the weak cousins, the poor cousins, of the lobbying industry. These are the guys who do not have to give as much information, I assume because they are the 80-pound weaklings on the beach. They will not be able to deliver a punch when it comes to getting a decision out of the Government. Who are these two-tier lobbyists? One is the Business Council on National Issues, BCNI. We have this alphabet soup of the lobbying world: BCNI, CGI, PJI, PAI, PMA, or PAM. It is a maze, but what is BCNI? It is an association, a group of the most powerful corporations in this country. This is corporate Canada. These are the largest companies in the country. They have got together in an organization called the Business Council on National Issues. These are no wimps, Mr. Speaker. The Minister may look like a wimp having presented such toothless legislation to this House, but BCNI is no wimp. This group convinced the Government to bring in the free trade proposal even though the issue was not mentioned in the last election.
Lobbyists Registration Act
Let me sum up. This legislation is full of loopholes. It is letting through the gate the most powerful lobbyists that operate in this capital-the Business Council on National Issues, the trade association, the Bankers' Association, and the Pharmaceutical Association. These are powerful groups which have had a real impact in this House and in this Parliament. These groups have convinced the Government, even though they did not tell the people so, to sign a trade deal with the American Government. These are the people who convinced the Government to scuttle the generic drug legislation and who convinced the Government to remove the protection ordinary Canadians had on drug prices. These people have been let through the gate without being asked the full range of information required of other lobbyists.
Because of the loopholes in this legislation we have to conclude that it is not really meant to control lobbyists. It is not really meant to throw the kind of light on lobbying that would inform the public. It is not really meant to enhance democracy. It is simply a sop to public opinion by a Government that was wallowing in scandals and desperate to get the negative news about it off the front pages of the newspapers.
This is damage control legislation. It is not meant to rein in the lobbyists or the most powerful interest groups in this country. It seeks to improve the image of the Government. It seeks to send out a message to the public that the Government is doing something about influence in the capital.
I have examined the facts and, having done so, I have to agree with the impassioned plea of my colleague who pointed out that this legislation did not deserve the support of this House. It is inadequate not only because it lets the most powerful slip through the net, but even because those little fish it catches do not have to supply adequate information. They are not required to tell us how much they are spending on lobbying, promoting letter writing campaigns, on mass advertising campaigns, or on mapping and leafing through the maze of government decision-making processes. This legislation is nothing other than a token gesture in an effort to make the public believe that the Government is concerned about the use and abuse of influence in the capital.
If the Government was really concerned about that, it would have taken seriously the recommendations of the committee that studied the issue. The committee said that if we wanted to throw light on the activities of lobbyists, if we wanted to enhance and protect democracy, then we had to have all possible information about the activities of all lobbyists.
I am sad but not surprised that after the Prime Minister promised tough lobbying registration two and a half years ago, we are getting a watered down piece of public relations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, when this Bill was in committee I tried to amend the legislation so that a registry for

July 25, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
associations under Tier II would have to declare the name of the person lobbying, the employer, and the issue on which they were lobbying. The Minister huffed himself up and said: "Yes, that would be registering lobbying and we do not want to register lobbying; we want to register lobbyists". He is sitting there and, if I am not quoting him correctly, he can shake his head. It is obvious I am reporting it accurately.
Does the Hon. Member see any strength in that argument? Is there any logic to the Minister's argument that we are not out to register lobbying and that is why he would not require disclosure of the issue on which the Tier II lobbyists are lobbying?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I guess this is part of the Alice in Wonderland quality of this legislation. We want to know who the evil doer is, but we do not want to know anything about the evil doing. We want to hear no evil, see no evil, and we sure do not want to register it.
If any Government is going to throw some real light on lobbying in this city, we need to know more than who is doing the lobbying. We have to know who they are doing it for. We have to know what they are trying to get out of the system. If you are here on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry, what is it that you want? The public has a right to know that. We have to know how much you are spending to do it. How big a budget do you have?
We want to know these things because it is not simply enough to know who the lobbyists are. Otherwise all we need is a collection box for business cards. The Prime Minister could have an in basket at his door and as the most powerful lobbyists in this country walk through, they could take their business card out of their wallet and drop it in. That would be the result of simply registering lobbyists and forgetting about lobbying.
I think the Minister's comments in committee laid bare the fact that the Government does not really want to do anything effective about lobbying. It does not want to expose what goes on when the powerful come to Ottawa seeking favours from the Government. Oh, it is nice to have the newspapers report on the activities of spontaneous grass roots groups such as Rural Dignity. Then the Post Office can send out staff and have that group followed everywhere. We will not ask them for their business cards, but we will sure see what they are doing.
That is a double standard. The activities of ordinary Canadians when they protest the policies of government are visible, but when it comes to those who yield enormous influence, those who can get Governments to make decisions against the public interest, we just want to know who they are; we do not want to know what they are doing. All that says is that the Government is not serious when it comes to registering and controlling lobbyists.
If that is the case, then the Government should not be wasting the time of this House in having us here during the summer months to pass legislation that is not going to throw
any new light on what is happening with regard to the making of decisions and the influence that the powerful in this society yield when it comes to the direction of government.
Why does this legislation not ask the Business Council on National Issues or the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association to provide the same information as it does of its friends in the Tier I category, such as Government Consultants International? Why do they not apply a consistent standard across the board? Why is it that the two associations which influence government policy do not have to give information? Why is it that the one group that was able to undercut legislation, that had the support of the vast majority of Canadians, that was able to make the Government go down a road which was unpopular with the vast majority of Canadians, does not have to provide the same information as do other lobbyist groups? Why is it on the Tier II wimp list? Why is it that the one group that told the Government to sell out Canadian sovereignty is not on the Tier I lobbyist list?


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I rise on debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair will need the help of the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on this matter. On July 21 the House passed a special Order which said that after Question Period on Monday, July 25, the House would consider third reading of Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists, and complete the debate on that Act before five o'clock.
The Chair understands that at the time this motion was proposed by the Hon. Minister of State he thought there would be a Private Members' Hour today. There is no Private Members' Hour today, but nonetheless there was an Order made that it was up to the Chair to put the question on third reading of Bill C-82.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am in the hands of my colleagues. I understand that the House Leader had agreed that when the debate was completed we would suspend and come back at six o'clock for the divisions. I am hesitant to keep colleagues here any longer. They have now endured two speeches of some volume and lacking any sense. If we had some assurance that there would not be further abuse for long periods of time, I would certainly not be reluctant.
However, perhaps I can delegate this responsibility to the House Leader who has the unfortunate job of having to deal with the NDP on a day-to-day basis. I would not want to undermine any relationship he might have with that organization, although I cannot understand how anyone can endure that task day after day.
July 25, 1988


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say how much I appreciate the comments of my friend, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I am not sure that he has helped me in future negotiations, but it helps my colleagues opposite understand what I have to put up with.
This agreement was worked out last week. The intention was that once we had dealt with this legislation there would be no more business put before the Elouse prior to the vote taking place at six o'clock. We have a choice of calling it six o'clock or recessing the House until six o'clock, whichever the Chair finds to be more appropriate under the circumstances.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister who spoke first on this issue wanted some indication of what we have left on our speakers' list. We have one more speaker and if it is agreeable we will have one more speech and then take the vote at that time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is no problem, Mr. Speaker. In our usual co-operative mood we would agree to extend the time to allow for that one speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The lucky member of the New Democratic Party will be the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to impose any additional abuse to that self- inflicted by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). I appreciate the polite generosity of others in the House in extending to me this opportunity to say a few words about a matter which has not been exhausted in debate here.
I am sure that not even the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would suggest for a moment that we have before us in Bill C-82 the be-all and end-all on the issue of lobbying. This is a matter of great concern to all Canadians. It was certainly of considerable concern to the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedures which submitted its report some time ago and asked a great deal more of the Government than the Government has offered in this legislation.
My colleagues have, with a great deal of eloquence and insight, examined the issue of lobbying. However, I must say that after listening to the debate there might be a temptation to see lobbying as, by definition, evil rather than an aspect and a part of the process of this place which becomes evil only as a consequence of its abuse.
Therefore, it is perhaps useful for the electorate to understand the role that lobbying plays. Lobbying is a special word which is applied to the exercise of individual citizens' rights to petition their Members of Parliament, members of Government, or members of the bureaucracy in order to achieve some end. I think you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that that is a substantial and key part of doing our job properly.
Lobbyists Registration Act
You yourself, Mr. Speaker, have probably come to realize, as have I and my colleagues, that the vast complexity of issues with which Members of Parliament have to deal is far beyond the competence or intellect of Members of Parliament to have mastered. We are required to deal with an infinite number of complex, specialized issues about which we could not be expected to have expertise. It must be added that in many cases, no matter how well aware we are of the environment in which we operate or how well read we are, we may not even know that certain matters are indeed even issues.
When those who ask to see us, lobbyists included, initiate discussions on a variety of matters, very often it is helpful, and not only helpful but necessary in order to give us the impulse to begin the study and investigation which allows for the formulation of points of view.
This kind of lobbying occurs in our offices here on the Hill and may occur in our riding offices back home. It is frequent and involves ordinary Canadians, Canadians who have special recognition in our communities, the wealthy, the poor, labourers, employers, and women. It involves a whole spectrum of people who represent our constituencies.
One does not have to be around this Hill very long to realize the frequency with which one could accept invitations to very exorbitant dinners or fine cocktail parties or, in the case of one significant lobbying organization, an extraordinarily, exorbitantly luxurious party which people vie to attend in order to share the beneficence of those who seek to purchase influence to ensure that the directions chosen are consistent with the will of those able to entertain Members of Parliament at such a level as to bend their minds.
Members of Parliament, of course, have to keep in mind that they have an electorate to face. We also know that lobbying does not include only Members of Parliament but members of the bureaucracy not answerable to the electorate; those who write the legislation, those who can distort and bend the minds of Ministers and shape legislation to reflect, not the interests of the Government but the interests of those special interests better informed and better heeled, and who can determine directions in subtle ways of which we ourselves are all too often unaware. Lobbying is a normal part of the process of democracy subject to abuse.
The issue is that there ought to be full disclosure and transparency of the character of lobbying wherever it occurs. This Bill purports to allow intelligent people to determine whether questions should be raised about a particular lobbying activity, the costs incurred for that lobbying, the pay-off, who is being lobbied, and about what. Those are activities that we ought to be able to track down.
This legislation fails on a number of accounts. Its first failure is that it constructs an artificial distinction between those who may be described as professional lobbyists working for businesses that, for a fee, uses whatever means it has to

July 25, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act
pursue Members of Parliament, the Senate, and the bureaucracy to achieve certain ends. Such firms as Government Consultants International and Public Affairs International will make certain contacts for a fee.
One may gauge that the effectiveness of such groups may be based on expertise and intimate knowledge of Government. However, it is perfectly clear that when one examines closely the way these organizations work, particularly GCI operated by Mr. Moores, one must be suspicious that it is not the expertise developed by virtue of education or anything of the sort, but the personal contacts and influences gained over years of intimate involvement in partisan political activity. That is what gives such organizations a special claim.
Furthermore, it appears that such a consulting organization may measure its fee on a contingency basis. If it is pursuing a contract like the Airbus contract, amounting to billions of dollars, such a consulting organization could earn millions of dollars. Obviously, the message to all Canadians is that the more money one has, the better one is able to influence the outcome of a bureaucratic or governmental decision. That is an important consideration in the issue of transparency of lobbyists and knowing how much it costs, how much is paid, how much changes hands, and for what. It is important to know what is being discussed and who is involved, because it could constitute a form of extreme prejudice to the rest of the population of ordinary Canadians who cannot mobilize these huge sums of money. This is one example of the application of a particular approach to charging clients to obtain goals on their behalf.
If we are going to have legislation to make lobbying transparent, it is self-evident that we should know what fees are changing hands. We should also be aware that if the size of a contract determines the fee, it will introduce the kind of bias and motivation to make as much as possible at whatever cost.
Contingency fees should be banned and we should ensure that we know what fees are being charged so that we do not create a situation in which wealth, even more than now, will determine a business' ability to gain an appropriate response from government.
Others have spoken about the artificial division between Tier I and Tier II. Tier I constitutes consulting firms such as GCI and PAI. The purpose of this artificial division is to create a loophole so vast as to provide all the room necessary for another scandal, which the Government needs desperately. We have a crazy situation in which the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association can spend all the money it wants and hire a former Liberal Minister for all kinds of money to do nothing but lobby while calling her a vice-president. She would not be included in this legislation.


Cyril Keeper: Who is it?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I would not mention names because that would be unparliamentary and impolite. This former Liberal Minister, in the face of purported Liberal opposition to Bill C-
22, was suddenly hired as a lobbyist, with the title of vicepresident of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of Canada. Surely her activities and activities like those should be registered in the same way as those listed in Tier I. That is elementary.
Since this legislation creates an artificial division, excluding from effective registration employees who function as lobbyists, it is an essential waste of time. This legislation is more rhetoric than substance, and therefore it fails.
There are other shortcomings in addition to those which I have already enumerated. This legislation is so deeply flawed that it should be rejected on that basis alone by any rational person who wants to make lobbying as transparent as it should be. The Government wanted to pass the test of honesty and fairness. I am happy to join my colleagues in voting against this legislation until something better comes along. We know that it will not come with this Government. We will have to wait until more rational and principled heads take power.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that I think he is intelligent. He, along with his colleagues, is being a little more than self-righteous about these matters. What would be their reaction if we brought to the House Conservative Party resolutions that were sponsored by Joe's Diner, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, or General Motors?
I have noticed lately that his Party has resolutions from certain locals of unions. I believe the Canadian Auto Workers Association can introduce motions directly at his Party's semiannual conventions. How can he to pretend for one moment that he is acting in the interest of his ordinary constituents, young, old, and of all incomes? In fact, the joke is often made that Bob White runs his Party. I do not think it is a joke; I think it is a reality with respect to the trade issue.
How is it that the Hon. Member can pretend that he is so virtuous and speaks for ordinary people when in fact members of one particular interest group can introduce motions and have them passed at his Party's conventions?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to get a question from a colleague whose intelligence, which I also respect, is indicated by the frequent occasion he has to criticize the shortcomings of his own Party. However, there is that Tory flaw. The Hon. Member asks how we can talk about lobbying when UAW, the Womens' Incentive Centre of Windsor, or the farmers of Kent County can bring in resolutions that become a party policy. That is exactly the point.
Any policy initiative of the New Democratic Party is derived from a clear identification of source, and those who join our Party have the right and responsibility to determine what the policies of our Party will be. It is easier for the Hon. Member. His Party does not do that. Its policies are made in that chair right over there, and I suppose even the Hon. Member wonders where they come from, he has questioned them so frequently.



July 25, 1988

Of course, my eminent colleague across the way, intelligent as he is, seems to have missed the point. We are not talking about the processes which occur at the conventions of political Parties. We are talking about those activities that occur in respect to elected officials and the bureaucracy in their official functions as members of the Government. It is our concern that because of the way in which the Conservatives arrive at their policies, secretively and without identification of source, that GCI, PAI, and the like will spread the loot around to create party policy for the Conservatives. This policy will not have the UAW, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, or the name of Conrad Black written under it. It will be secret, at least to the extent that we can measure untoward influence in this House. This legislation should do something about that, and this legislation has failed.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member did not catch my point. My point was how this gives credibility to his Party. I hate to say anything good about the Liberals, but in the two other Parties, an individual man or woman but not a member of a group, a lobby group or a union, can go to our conventions and introduced resolutions. How does it help his Party to act in the public interest when one can pick up its list of resolutions, as I am sure the Hon. Member has, and find that a good percentage of them are sponsored not by men and women as individuals but directly by the Canadian Auto Workers Union or local this and local that?
I hope the Hon. Member will agree with me, when he rises to give me the answer to that question, that it will be a better day when the only resolutions of his conventions will be sponsored by flesh and blood individuals rather than by unions.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must have said that in jest. Individual members come to the Conservative conventions and move resolutions that are forgotten about. New Democratic Party members, whether through unions or through local constituency associations, have not simply bought their membership cards the day before nomination meetings, subsequently to be forgotten about. They have joined the Party and they have responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to go to riding association meetings and convince the associations to support their resolutions.
I am not surprised that the Hon. Member does not understand the principle. It is democracy.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Income Tax and Related Acts


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 yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Order made Thursday, July 21, 1988, the recorded division stands deferred until six o'clock this day.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will suspend its sitting until six o'clock p.m.
At 5.27 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, July 21, 1988, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Frederal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977 and certain related Acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and on the amendment of Mr. Garneau (p. 17724).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, July 21, 1988, the House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) concerning Bill C-139.
Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Andre	Jepson	OostromBelsher	Johnson	PennockBernier	(Bonavista-Trinity-	PetersonBinns	Conception)	PlourdeBlais	Jourdenais	PriceBlenkarn	Kelleher	RavisBlouin	Kempling	ReimerBourgault	Kilgour	RicardBradley	Ladouceur	St. GermainBrowes	Lanthier	SparrowCardiff	Lewis	StackhouseChartrand	MacDonald	StevensClark	(Kingston and	Stewart(Brandon-Souris)	the Islands)	TaylorClinch	MacDougall	ThackerCrosby	(Timiskaming)	Towers(Halifax West)	Mantha	TremblayDesjardins	Martin	(Lotbiniere)Desrosiers	McCuish	VankoughnetDomm	McDermid	VincentDorin	McKenzie	WarnerEdwards	McKnight	WilsonEllis	Minaker	(Swift CurrentFennell	Mitges	-Maple Creek)Fontaine	Moore	Winegard-72Friesen	Nicholson	Hardey	(Niagara Falls)	James	Nickerson	Jelinek	Oberle	NAYS	Members	Allmand	Gray	MurphyAlthouse	(Windsor West)	NystromAngus	Grondin	OrlikowBoudria	Guilbault	PennerCassidy	(Saint-Jacques)	RobinsonCopps	Hopkins	RodriguezDingwall	Isabelle	TardifEpp	Kaplan	(Richmond-Wolfe)-29(Thunder Bay-	Keeper	Nipigon)	Manly	Finestone	McCurdy	Garneau	McLaughlin	Gauthier	Mitchell


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.		
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, you will find that there will be unanimous consent to apply the vote previously taken to this motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Reversed.


BROADCASTING ACT
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is unanimous consent to apply the vote in reverse order to the motion.
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald that Bill C-136, an Act respecting broadcasting
July 25, 1988

Lobbyists Registration Act
and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.		
Bill read the	second time and	referred to a legislative
committee.


LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-82, an Act respecting the registration of lobbyists, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on Bill C-82.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declared the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.

July 25, 1988
Lobbyists Registration Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.35 p.m. this House stands The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m. adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.

Tuesday, July 26, 1988


[Stage Direction]
Prayers