1989-11-03

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York Centre rises on a question of privilege. Before I hear him I perhaps would like to consider the situation.
Because of the courtesy of the hon. member for York Centre a few minutes ago, he gave some indication that he wished to raise a question of privilege. There may be time later in the day to raise it, but I am looking at the order, and that is what I am bound by.
I have to ask the hon. member, is it something that is arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting? If it is not, I will have to ask the hon. member to go through the usual motions, and give an hour's notice.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to be straightforward about this and ask unanimous consent to raise my question of privilege now rather than raising it at a time which would delay the introduction and first reading of a bill the government has given notice of its intention to proceed with at noon. I can wait until noon, but I think it might be more in the interests of the House that I be able to do it now, and it will not be long.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair wants to co-operate with members. The hon. member has asked for consent, but the members that he is asking the consent of have no idea of what it is the hon. member is raising. I think I have to say at the moment that the application is premature. As a consequence of discussion, the hon. member may be able to obtain that consent, and then of
course I am in the hands of the House. The hon. member for York Centre.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it had to do with a deliberate interference by an official of the Federal Business Development Bank with the delivery of documents to me which the corporation had agreed to provide me and which it began providing me with yesterday. They were documents which I had phoned the RCMP about. I told them that I would be giving these documents to them between four-thirty and five o'clock. However, they were not made available. I would briefly like to explain the circumstances and indicate that my privileges were affected.


Mr. Speaker:: I am bound as your Speaker to follow the rules. I have to say to the hon. member for York Centre that perhaps if he has discussions and if events change then of course the Chair would hear him further. For other members and for the public that is watching, I cannot help but hear a discussion that is going on among members. That is a discussion that members will need to have. I am bound by the rules.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: May I seek unanimous consent to deal with the question of privilege now?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York Centre has asked the Chair if he could seek unanimous consent. I, of course, am prepared to listen to the Hon. Minister of Justice.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the comments of my hon. friend, I now understand a little better what he is driving at. I think it might be in the interest of the House and the business of the day to briefly address the question of privilege, but we do have only a short time between now and eleven o'clock. If he can address it briefly, that might assist everybody.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has agreed that the hon. member for York Centre be permitted to raise the question of privilege and I will hear the hon. member for York Centre.

November 3, 1989
Government Orders


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Yesterday morning, in the light of the apparent unwillingness of the government to call in the RCMP in connection with work being done by Senator Cogger, or possibly being done by Senator Cogger and his firm for the Federal Business Development Bank, I telephoned the Commissioner of the RCMP and told him that if an inspector would attend at my office between four-thirty and five o'clock yesterday afternoon I would present him with a collection of documents.
Before doing this a member of my staff, Marc Lafram-boise of the research bureau of the Liberal caucus, telephoned the Federal Business Development Bank and arranged for relevant documents from the bank to be transmitted to Ottawa for me to include in the package to present to the RCMP.
These documents were sent from Montreal by the Federal Business Development Bank and they were in effect seized by the vice-president of public relations for the bank in Ottawa, so they were not available to me to present to the RCMP.
I consider this to be an interference with my responsibilities as a member of Parliament to do my job in bringing forward the evidence that was available that had to be considered in relation to Senator Cogger's involvement with the Federal Business Development Bank.
I learned only this morning of the reasons which I have just outlined why these documents were not delivered. If you find a prima facie case of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member. Are there other members rising on this matter? The Hon. Member for Glengariy-Prescott-Russell.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: am the member who phoned back the Federal Business Development Bank to find out what had happened.
I was informed this morning that the documents in question had been seized by a gentleman by the name of Michel Azam, identifying himself as the vice-president of government relations for the Federal Business Development Bank. This information had been sent to my colleague, the member for York Centre, to the attention of all Liberal members actually, by the Access to Information Co-ordinator of the Federal Business Development Bank.
One element that is important to add here is the fact that these documents we requested, which were promised to us and which were subsequently intercepted were documents in the public domain. They were photocopies of documents previously given to people in the media, i.e. the Montreal Gazette.
If you look at the matter closely, Mr. Speaker, you will find that privilege is defined as the sum of our peculiar rights enjoyed by either House and by members individually and collectively.
Using that definition, Mr. Speaker, you will agree with my colleague for York Centre and I. Information was provided to the media, photocopies of which were promised to members of Parliament to do their job. My colleague organized a meeting with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pursuant to a suggestion made in the House of Commons by a cabinet minister, as a matter of fact.
Those documents were withheld from members of Parliament by a deliberate action on the part of an individual at the Federal Business Development Bank who, by the way, has since agreed to release the documents. Nevertheless, they were not available yesterday for the meeting in question.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that you will be inclined to agree that this House cannot function unless officials of the government give us at least the same courtesy offered to people in the media and others.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to take the matter under advisement. I thank the House for giving consent and the hon. member for York Centre for raising it. I may want to hear further on it. I shall take it under advisement.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of of Bill C-16, an act to establish the Canadian Space Agency and to provide for other matters in relation to space, as
November 3, 1989
[Stage Direction]
reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are 10 motions in the amendment set down in the notice paper at report stage of Bill C-16, an act to establish the Canadian Space Agency and to provide for other matters in relation to space. I have had the opportunity to examine them, and I am now ready to make the ruling.
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 are in order and will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 3, 8, 9, and 10 are also in order and will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows: (a) Motions Nos. 3 and 10 will be voted on separately; (b) an affirmative vote on Motion No. 8 obviates the question being put on Motion No. 9; (c) an negative vote on Motion No. 8 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 9.
Motion No. 4, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West, will not be selected because it deals with the same subject as Motion No. 3.

Motion No. 5 by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Pagtakhan), is identical to a motion that was moved and debated in the Legislative Committee. For this reason this motion will not be selected.
Motion No. 7 in the name of the same Hon. Member is similar to a motion that was proposed and debated in Committee. However, the Chair is of the opinion that this motion is sufficiently different and therefore I will allow it to be put to the House. It will be grouped for debate with Motion 6 but each will be voted on separately-
I shall now put motions Nos. 1 and 2 to the House. [English]


MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-16 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 23 at
page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
Government Orders
"nology for non-military, peaceful purposes;"
and by striking out line 25 at page 2 and substituting the following
therefor:
"space technology for non-military, peaceful purposes to and throughout".


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West) moved:: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-16 be amended in Clause 5 by adding immediately
after line 26 at page 2 the following:
"(c.l) assume all existing contracts, memoranda of understanding or other arrangements in the name of Her Majesty in right of Canada related to its functions;".


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, both Motion No. 1 and Motion No. 2 attempt to establish clearly defined limitations in the mandate and the operational structure of the proposed space agency.
I would like to concentrate my remarks particularly on Motion No. 1. The current bill before the House outlines that the proposed space agency shall promote "the peaceful use and development of space".
It was argued in committee, and I think the argument is valid, that although the term "peaceful use and development of space" indicates that we will be seeking to use the mandate of the agency for non-aggressive military purposes, the argument can be made that the term "peaceful use" does not preclude the use of this agency for non-aggressive military purposes.
During committee stage the minister acknowledged that the agency could actually become involved in a type of non-aggressive military action. The minister gave the indication, by way of example, of the launching and maintenance of surveillance satellite systems.
The crux of the argument lies in what can be construed by the term "non-aggressive military use". Such a definition in the past has been used, for example, to qualify the low altitude testing of cruise missiles in Canadian air space. It is non-aggressive, but ultimately the testing of those cruise missiles has forwarded the whole problem of the use of nuclear military weaponry.
Therefore, because the current legislation does not specifically preclude military actions under the mandate of the space agency, it leaves the door open for Canada to enter into the exploration of space as a military frontier.

November 3, 1989
Government Orders
The potential for the abuse of the mandate of the space agency for military purposes, although it may be non-aggressive military purposes, is heightened by the fact that Canada has not specifically excluded itself from participating in the U.S. strategic defence initiatives or star wars initiatives.
Collusion with our southern neighbour in the deployment of any star wars space based weapons system remains, I submit, a very distinct possibility, unless this current legislation is strengthened to ensure beyond all reasonable doubt that this cannot take place. The only way of ensuring that is to strictly define the mandate of the new space agency as being one of non-military and peaceful purposes.
The intent of Motion No. 1 is to do just that. It is to define, in very specific terms, the function of the space agency to include the planning, direction, management and implementation of programs and projects for nonmilitary and peaceful purposes. It is to include co-operation with space and space-related agencies in other countries in non-military peaceful use and development of space.
The operative phrase is the term "non-military peaceful use". By inserting this phrase, as proposed by the motion that I have submitted, we will effectively limit the mandate of this agency to a strictly non-military and peaceful function.
I submit that this is not an abandonment of our responsibilities under the NATO and NORAD agreements. It does, however, clearly establish the fact that Canada should not squander its moral and economic energies in the militarization of the space frontier.
It serves to send a very clear and strong signal to our neighbour to the south that the exploration of the space frontier shall be done for the sole purposes of scientific, technological and economic advances and not as yet another attempt to gain the upper hand in the endless and the morally reckless and economically corrupting game of military superiority. We saw enough of that in the cold war years. It is time to move on to new ground.
By supporting the proposed amendment, the Parliament of Canada will say no to the participation of this country in the militarization of our space frontier. I submit to all members of the House that it would clearly establish the mandate of this new space agency as a proud participant in the quest for the betterment of
mankind and not as an instrument for its ultimate destruction.
I appeal to all members of the House today to give serious consideration to the proposed amendment. The slight semantic changes that are proposed here could well represent a very dramatic and very defined shift in the future operations of this new proposed space agency. I appeal to the members of the House to support this motion of amendment, and I thank you for the time to present my arguments today.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to this particular amendment. However I would also like to speak more generally to the bill. I will be introducing a number of amendments and rather than being on my feet three or four times perhaps I could cover the content of them all now since they are related.
Since the 1930s Canada has had a flourishing space science program and, from the beginning, our remarkable achievements have depended on a small handful of outstanding people-individuals dedicated to the expansion of human knowledge about our world and our universe.
The beginning and the ongoing survival of the space program, the space industry and science has depended on and still depends on science and research being carried out by scientists working for the Government of Canada. Their numbers have been dwindling, partly due to the declining commitment of government to science and research and the increasing tendency to bend everything to the immediate or short-term needs of the market-place.
There is not a new generation of young and eager scientists developing to replace them. Therefore, it is vital as the space agency is established that everything possible be done to keep those scientists we have working for Canada's space program and to inspire a new generation of bright, inquiring minds to join them.
The amendments I have proposed arise from the concerns of these scientists and technicians and their support staff who are vital to the continued success of the space program. It is important that I address them together rather than separately.
They are asking the government to listen to their concerns for their families, their careers, the integrity of the space program and the success of this infant agency. They do not have, at this point in time, a lot of confidence that their concerns are being heard and answered. In the months since the agency was announced for the nth time on March 1 of this year, many

of the questions and suggestions by the staff and the scientists have gone unheeded. They are still in the dark about the structure of the agency, reporting responsibilities, future prospects for advancement in the profession and what their career and earning potential will be.
Until the hearings of the legislative committee began, they even had no assurance that they would not be forced to move first to temporary quarters in Montreal, work out of cardboard boxes and then move again 18 months later to St. Hubert. That concern has now been resolved.
However, other concerns still remain. They still do not have any assurances about the provision of language training for themselves and their families, about career opportunities for spouses, even about the classification of their own jobs.
Let me address the amendments that were proposed to the legislative committee by the Professional Institute of Public Service of Canada and that reflect the same concerns as were expressed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
Motion No. 2 simply provides that in addition to entering into contracts and agreements, the agency may also assume existing obligations of the existing programs. This really is just an amendment for greater certainty, as drafters of legislation like to say. I am not sure why it would be a problem for the government to accept that motion. Perhaps one of the members on the opposite side could explain it to me, if there is a problem.
The second amendment, and that is Motion No. 3, is fundamental to the concerns of the professionals working for the government. I suggest that it is fundamental to their ultimate decision about whether to stay with the agency.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the member. The House has no doubt noticed that the hon. member for Ottawa West is making a summary of all her motions. I gather there is consent to allow her to do that, even
Government Orders
though we are discussing Motion Nos. 1 and 2. She is doing it in the interest of saving time.


Mr. Charest:: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly my understanding of what motivated the hon. member in making such a presentation, and, of course, we have no objection to that, if it is in the interest of the House to proceed in such a way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well. The member for Ottawa West.


Marlene Catterall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have not been watching my time carefully so you might signal me a minute before.
The purpose of Motion No. 3 is to protect the status that most of the scientists, researchers and technical professionals now enjoy with the National Research Council. NRC has scientific and technical positions that are based less on paper qualification than on experience and performance, recognizing the unique nature of science and the excellence of the results that can be produced. This system is not unique to NRC. It also exists at the Department of National Defence, and perhaps other federal agencies or Crown corporations.
The problem with the existing legislation is that it tries to squeeze these scientists and technical professionals artificially into the rigid engineering classifications of the public service. The paper credential requirements limit their opportunities for advancement because they may be grandfathered in their current positions but that would not apply to subsequent positions they might legitimately expect to move into.
It would also force most of them into pay scales that are well below their current earning potential. I have seen specific examples of this coming from space agency staff. The bill deals only partly and very unsatisfactorily with this issue and it deals with it only for the few scientists in the astronaut category-those who will be going into space to conduct their research.
I say it is unsatisfactory because it allows for the possibility of special appointments under terms and conditions provided by Order in Council. It deprives the persons appointed in that way of the protection of the Public Service Staff Relations Act while treating them in every other way as public service employees.

November 3, 1989
Government Orders
My amendment simply removes this special provision for the astronaut scientists and gives the agency the authority that the NRC already has, under which these scientists already live and that DND enjoys, to develop classifications for all its scientific personnel that reflect their talent and their contribution to the space program.
The third amendment deals with those people whose position is transferred to the agency. I believe the minister has somewhat agreed that it corrects the bill to say what, in fact, it was intended to say, that people whose positions are transferred to the agency do not have to compete for their own jobs.
The government has a provision in Clause 28 of the bill that says that this applies only for 90 days or three months after the space agency is formally established in law. That is of concern to the people working for the agency now because while they are allowed to transfer with the position to the agency within 90 days and not have to compete for their own jobs. If their position is moved on day 91, after this bill comes into effect, they would then be in a position where they would have to compete for the job they have held for many, many years.
I know it is the intention of the agency to transfer all positions immediately. That may or may not happen, however, and I believe that the professionals working for the agency, in fact, all the staff working in positions that will go to the agency, deserve the protection of not having to fight for their own job just because it is transferred to the agency. It has taken three years to put the agency in place, and even eight months after the final announcement, vital questions about the structure and functioning of the agency have not been resolved. The employees have little reason to be confident that all the issues with respect to the transfer of positions will be resolved in 90 days. If it cannot be done in eight months, how can the government assure them that it can be done in 90 days? I suggest that it does no harm to remove the 90 day provision to give some assurances to valuable employees that their rights will be protected.
Incidentally, the 90 days is there because when the bill was first written two and a half years ago there was no certainty that the transfer of positions could be accomplished in less than that time. Other things were written two and a half years ago, including the press release announcing the establishment of the agency. At that
time, there was no question of moving labs and people. Its purpose was simply to establish a consolidation and a new administrative structure for the people working in the government labs and programs that constitute Canada's space program.
The program was and is working very well close to the seat of government and close to all the international connections that are so important. The government let this become a political football thereby delaying the progress of the space program, delaying many vital and costly decisions of the space industry, and, as one person with several years experience with the European Space Agency said: "Making Canada an international laughing stock."
The Prime Minister has already shown his lack of understanding of the space program, and the lack of value he gives to the people who are responsible for Canada's enviable international reputation, when he suggests that they can be replaced as easily as a burnt out light bulb.
He is wrong. Without the handful of people in our space program, we do not have a space program. These people will transfer to the agency because it opens up to them other opportunities in the Public Service of Canada and because that transfer does not immediately mean any decision about relocating the family or themselves. Whether they will eventually go with the agency when it moves to its new headquarters in St. Hubert will depend on how well the government listens and responds to their concerns. There has not been much evidence in the last eight months that this is happening.
I urge the House to adopt the amendments, and I urge the members on the other side of the House to educate and coerce the Prime Minister to treat these people with the respect and consideration they deserve, or the fears of some of the members opposite will become a reality. The space agency in St. Hubert will be a nice new building, but it will indeed be an empty shell.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this morning to speak on Bill C-16, an Act to establish the Canadian Space Agency and to provide for other matters in relation to space, and in particular on the excellent amendments proposed by my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap, which will amend
November 3, 1989

and make clear what is ambiguous from the objects and functions section of the bill, which states:
The objects of the Agency are to promote the peaceful use and development of space, to advance the knowledge of space through science and to ensure that space science and technology provide social and economic benefits for Canadians.
They are very eloquent words, but ambiguous. When we look at Clause 5 (2), the object of my colleague's first amendment, we find that there is a Mack truck loophole, as I describe it. His proposed amendment comes in paragraph (b) and would change the wording to read the application of:
"space technology for non-military peaceful purposes".
That makes it very clear to the Canadian public, the Canadian taxpayers, just exactly what the purposes of the agency are, particularly in carrying out the objects. It states: "The agency shall". So it is very important that we have that wording added.
As we have learned before in this House legislation must be precise. The intent must be stated, not left to the interpretation of present or future ministers or the bureaucracy.
In particular, as we have learned, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, when questioned about this legislation and the purpose of the agency in committee, indicated that he was considering some military purposes for the agency. He described them as non-aggressive. If that is what the government was interested in doing vis-a-vis the agency, then clearly that should have been included in the objects and functions and included in the shall clause for what the agency shall be allowed to do. We simply cannot allow this kind of loose wording in either Clause 5 (2) (b) or (c) where my colleague has a similar amendment which would make it state: "To promote the transfer and diffusion of space technology for non-military peaceful purposes".
In assessing what any government is doing and where any government is going with legislation, it is very important that one look at what a government is doing, either intentionally or inadvertently. One can look at what is going on vis-a-vis Goose Bay, Labrador with the projected 65,000 low-level flights per year, if the NATO base were allowed to proceed.
Government Orders
One looks in my own backyard at IR-910, the 4,000 kilometre route which is for Stealth first-strike training and route development for the U.S. military, incursions by up to 25 U.S. nuclear capable war planes at a time, a corridor cutting a swath right across British Columbia. It is a route, I might say, that is not allowed in the U.S. There is no similar route in the United States. The Americans want to do the training and Stealth route development in Canada.
Also, IR-920 in Alberta, the Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan will have similar Stealth training for low level war games.
Most recently the Chilcotin low level U.S. war games took place over B.C. airspace, between September 22 and 24 of this year. These are tree top war games with supersonic aircraft flying at tree top level in British Columbia, without there ever having even been an environmental impact statement, a notification to pilots, or a notification to the public that these were to take place.
We see the tritium sales even by the province of Ontario and Ontario Hydro in locking up commercialized tritium sales to the United States for use as a key component in nuclear bombs. The facilitation by the Canadian government of military sales and technology exchange to global dictatorships, human rights abusers, and such weapons bazaars as Armex right here in downtown Ottawa gives one some idea of the kind of expansion into the whole world of military development and deployment this present government is so interested in.
One need only read the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States to see the provisions that are included there for technology transfers and the redevelopment of some parts of Canada's economy for military purposes.
This House should be dealing immediately and urgently with the proposal by the United States Government to go ahead with a contract in the middle of this month to develop a Trident nuclear submarine base just 40 miles from Prince Rupert, placing it in an area to make it an international nuclear target. There have been no environmental impact studies done of the proposal. It threatens and endangers 35,000 Canadians and is to be put in an area where there are only a few thousand American citizens.

November 3, 1989
Government Orders
Just a couple of days ago, knowing that this legislation might well come up, I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister and to the Rt. Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs, and in that letter I said:
It is extremely urgent that you take steps to advise the U.S. Government that Dixon Entrance right up to 54 degrees, 40 minutes, is Canadian water and territory and that no indent nuclear submarines can transit these waters.
The U.S. plan to construct a $35.5 million Acoustic Measurement Facility in Behm Canal (at the north end of Back Island) would lead to substantially increased dangers to the 35,000 Canadians in the area.
There has been no risk analysis or environmental impact done on the potential threat to Canada. These must be done and I suggest you take whatever steps are necessary to halt the construction of this Trident nuclear submarine base as it poses risk to Canadian health and security. It as well turns the northwest coast-
Meaning British Columbia.
-into a direct nuclear target.
May I suggest that the most likely route for access and egress to the Behm Canal will require the direct violation of Canadian sovereignty. Lt. John Williston of Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt has confirmed that there is no agreement for U.S. navy ships to use Canadian waters in the vicinity of Dixon Entrance.
The northern route along Prince of Wales Island is unlikely to be the Trident highway.
This project poses substantial risk to Canada. Far more Canadians than Americans live in the immediate zone.
I trust you will act urgently to halt this project and to advise the U.S. that no Tridents can transit Dixon Entrance.
Your prompt and favourable response is eagerly awaited.
This was delivered by hand to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who know full well that there are trial proceedings in Washington, D.C., going on right now before the Ninth Circuit Court, where American citizens, through various foundations, are trying to halt this development in the Alaska pan handle because no environmental impact studies have been done, no risk assessment has been done. We know that there are eight Tridents presently moving up and down the west coast of North America, working out of Bangor, Washington. The fact is that each of these carry at least 24 nuclear weapons. They have nuclear cores by which they operate.
If one looks simply at the number of accidents that there have been with Soviet nuclear submarines off northern Europe, Norway in particular, one can realize
that these are the kinds of measures you take in advance. You do these kinds of assessments.
I know the concerns of my constituents. We have in Masset, on Graham Island, the Island upon which my home is, we have one of the largest acoustic listening devices on planet Earth.


Mr. Edwards:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate the hon. member clarifying the relevance of what he is reading into the record and to the debate at hand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena has the floor.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that my cousin from the other side of the House had not been listening somewhat more carefully to what I have been saying. If one looks at the amendment being proposed, it is to clarify the legislation. The minister, in committee, indicated an intention to use the bill for what is not stated in the bill. The minister stated an intention to make use of the space agency for military purposes, something that Canadians do not expect, accept or support.
The reason I am pointing out what is going on in relation to this government's approach to military matters is that it is allowing our airspace to be used for Cruise missile testing, for Stealth bomber training. They are promoting a part of Canada for NATO low-level flights.
What we can see here, in tying it into my own constituency, is a government doing nothing to protect Canadian sovereignty from the transit of Trident nuclear submarines through Dixon Entrance and on up into the Behm Canal. We have the existing acoustic listening device at Masset which is now a joint Canada-U.S. operation. So there would be a joint military operation there.
If one looks at the policies of this Conservative government, it involves the substantial militarization of the submarine areas, the surface water areas and the land base. I do not even need to touch on the fact that we are in contravention of the Helsinki Accords with the development and testing of chemical weapons at a defence research establishment in Suffield, Alberta.
If the government is not given a very precise understanding in terms of wording in legislation it will pro-

ceed, in my view, to militarize at every single opportunity. I do not think Canadians want, in any way, to know or even to have the possibility out there that the new space agency might be involved in star wars or in any kind of space militarization or space military activity. Those are the reasons for my remarks.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the government's position on Motion No. 1, moved by the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Shuswap (Mr. MacWilliam), which adds the words "for non-military, peaceful purposes" to paragraphs 5(2)(b) and 5(2)(c). The government cannot accept the motion because the Agency's objects are stated clearly in clause 4 of the Bill. They consist in promoting the peaceful use and development of space. Consequently, adding the word "peaceful" to subsection 5(2) is redundant, especially since this provision specifically mentions the Agency's objects from the outset.
The terms "for peaceful purposes" are entirely appropriate, since those are the terms used in treaties on outer space.
Mr. Speaker, I would therefore like to remind the Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party and the Hon. Member for Skeena that according to the Canadian government's policy, also stated in clause 4 of the bill which provides for promoting the peaceful use and development of space, Canada is a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty which requires space to be used for "exclusively peaceful" purposes.
The terms "peaceful purposes" can apply to certain non-agressive activities such as monitoring compliance with arms control treaties, telecommunications and search and rescue operations. It is clear the terms "peaceful purposes" do not apply to aggressive activities such as the "militarization" of space.
Thus, the Agency can only exercise its duties in relation to matters concerning space that are not by or pursuant to law assigned to any other department, board or agency of the Government of Canada.
Section 4 of the Department of National Defence Act provides that the Minister of National Defence has the management and direction of all matters relating to
Government Orders
natioanl defence, including preparation for civil defence against enemy action.
Consequently, there is nothing in the proposed legislation that empowers the Agency to engage, in space, in activities related to the national defence of Canada, since this is an area that by law is assigned to another department, in this case the Department of National Defence.
Regarding the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mrs. Catterall), Motion No. 2, sub-section 5(2) on functions, adds a new paragraph, 5(2)(c):
assume all existing contracts, memoranda of understanding or
other arrangements in the name of Her Majesty in right of Canada
related to its functions.
This motion is not acceptable to the government because the new paragraph is redundant and in fact might cause confusion and create problems of a legal nature. It is unnecessary because all these obligations are obligations of Her Majesty in right of Canada.
It is the program or project that is transferred that determines whether a contract or other agreement is transferred or not. An agreement is not transferred automatically. It must be part of a program, project or other obligation that is transferred to the Agency.
Adding this clause might create legal uncertainty in cases where one party to a contract maintains that the contract now comes under the Agency because it relates to space, while in fact, the contract is still the respons-ability of another department.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we intend to vote against both motions.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on these particular amendments. Canadians have accepted the idea that the space agency is for peaceful and non-military purposes. That has been the basis on which the the planning was done for the space agency.
However, members of this House who have watched agencies develop relative to their responsibility to this government know that quite often they do not ultimately fulfil their mandates, particularly the aims as stated by the government in many cases. Consequently it is neces-

November 3, 1989
sary to put into the legislation very specifically the mandate of the particular agency.
The value of space research is inestimable because we really do not know how far it could go and how necessary it will be. But its value could be nullified entirely if it is taken over as a base for military research and military development rather than for research for peaceful and non-military purposes, as it was intended.
I recognize it as a partial commitment, but there is a commitment by this government to assist in star wars development. Many of our companies in Canada have accepted contracts related to the star wars project. That means there is already a suggestion that the space agency would assist in that development of the star wars structure in Canada.
Military one-upmanship leads to arms races, which deplete the resources of the world. We cannot allow the squandering of the brains, the talent and the materials to research that is attempting give one power of the world the upper hand militarily. We should not accept it.
Consequently, we obviously should not allow it to be the basis of an agency which can be used to develop the military might of a particular sector of the world. The mandate of the agency should have very specific wording about the aim of this agency. That is what this particular amendment intends to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, we shall now proceed to statements by Members. The Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis).


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, the goods and services tax will bring Canada considerable benefits. We plan to replace a tax system which has every defect imaginable.
The present tax favours imports, hurts exports, is narrowly based and an unreliable source of revenue.
The GST is modeled on a system in place in 48 countries. We studied the application of this system at length and adapted it to the needs and realities of Canadians.
Our objectives are clear: we want a strong economy, sound public finances and a fair and effective tax system.
The GST will-achieve three major objectives: it will contribute to deficit reduction and ensure that we can continue to pay for programs and services to which Canadians are attached, it will ensure that Canada can continue to compete effectively on world markets and it will ensure the basic equity of our tax system.


CANADA POST
M. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to object to the possibble privatization of Canada Post.
Canada has had mail services since the Union Act of 1840. Since Upper and Lower Canada united to form what has become today's Central Canada, we have recognized the need to maintain a public mail system bringing the whole country together.
As a mainstay of the country, Canada Post Corporation offers other means of consolidating national unity and I think it is essential to preserve its integrity even though it might make us a little less competitive at times.
Even western countries such has France, Holland, Belgium, England and the United States recognized the basic value of unity. Even Margaret Thatcher, a champion of privatization, did not dare tamper with the post office.
The Hon. Minister should do the same.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, on February 20 of this year, Photogravers and Electrotypers Limited of Rexdale, Ontario, locked out the Graphic Communication International Union members after demanding concessions at the bargaining table, claiming they were needed to compete under the free trade agreement. This plant normally produces the Sears catalogue but this year it is being printed in Salem, Illinois.
November 3, 1989

Two weeks ago the company demanded further concessions to meet those agreed to by the Illinois workers. This resulted in a 15 per cent reduction in wages over five years, a 10 per cent reduction in each of the first and second years, no increase in the third year and a 2.5 per cent increase in the fourth and fifth years.
The government has a responsibility to ensure that its election promises are kept, that a level playing field does not mean Canadian workers should be hammered down to American levels.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Brampton-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, recently officials from the Department of Immigration and some members of Parliament, including myself and representatives from the opposition, attended a public meeting where we were given a chance to listen to the concerns of refugees and immigrants.
With a large contingency present from the Sikh community, much of the meeting dealt with specific concerns of these individuals. It was a chance for us to gather together to discuss problems associated with the Canadian immigration process and to assure these individuals that the government continues to work at building a compassionate and fair immigration system.
I was most disappointed when opposition members used this meeting as a forum to bash government policy on immigration. Immigration is an issue where human emotion has an intrinsic impact requiring a delicate and careful approach on the part of government officials. If the opposition continues to misjudge the ability of constituents to see through these political manoeuvres, I am afraid they should brace themselves. With this kind of political misconjecture, members of the opposition should be prepared to sit in opposition for some time to come.


VIA RAIL
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, citizens in my riding of Northumberland and millions more across this country are stunned by the government's decision to cut essential VIA Rail passenger services. The Northumberland riding has had a 20 per
cent increase in ridership since the beginning of this year which levels out to 400 to 500 trips per day. VIA reports significantly underestimate the ridership levels. On the Corridor and Toronto-Havelock lines through my riding, the major destination point is Toronto where the routes provide essential service to commuters, students, seniors, as well as general public users. There is no alternative transportation service available.
When the Toronto-Havelock line was terminated in 1982, the federal Progressive Conservative Party provided the local citizens' group with $15,000 on a matching dollar basis to fight the decision in court. At the time, the PCs promised the citizens' group that if they were elected VIA services would be improved and run in a businesslike way so as to increase ridership. This citizens' group and many others realize they were deceived by this government.
With citizens across this country depending on VIA Rail passenger services on a daily basis, I believe that this government must put a moratorium on the proposed rail service cuts of essential services. Further, this government has a moral, if not a legal responsibility to assure constant rail passenger service.


SAFETY AT SEA
Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Recently, when the Auditor General tabled his report, Mr. Speaker, he blamed the coast guard for assigning without reason an ice-breaker to the Matane-Baie-Comeau area. I suggest he was wrong, for he has failed to take into account the fact that during the Winter, in addition to ensuring ice-breaking duties for shipping, this boat provides the area with important search and rescue services.
Following the judicial inquiry into the loss of the Hudson Transport oil tanker in 1982, the judge recommended that a specialized search and rescue ship be assigned on a permanent basis to that area.
We should remember also that, as recently as last Winter, a fire started on board the Star Rover ship in that area. A quick intervention by this ice-breaker was instrumental in saving the lives of the crew members.

November 3, 1989
In the area of safety at sea, the Government of Canada must assume its responsibility and not only carry out a simple accounting procedure, as the Auditor General did. An ice-breaker in the Matane-Baie-Comeau area is essential and it must stay there.


LAND CLAIMS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, more than a century ago First Nations from northern British Columbia, led by Nisga'a and Tsimshian chiefs, travelled to Victoria demanding recognition of title, self-government and negotiation of treaties.
Today, despite a common political position of the federal parties in the House of Commons calling for negotiation of aboriginal title and rights in B.C., despite the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Calder case in 1972 which gave rise to the federal comprehensive claim process, despite Section 35 of Canada's constitution which recognizes and affirms aboriginal title and rights, despite the rulings of the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal in support of the Gitksan Wet'Svwet'en and to protect resources in their territory, Victoria has yet to find the political will and backbone to enter negotiations with B.C.'s First Nations.
The Nisga'a has patiently participated for the past decade in a negotiation process severely delayed by Victoria and Ottawa. The Haida have been frustrated at every turn including South Moresby. The Haisla just last week raised a pole at a Kemano to warn Victoria, Ottawa and Alcan of their opposition to the destruction of their resources. The Tlingits of Taka River and the Tahltans wait for justice.
The First Nations ask for respect. The court-supported roadblocks and detours set in recent months by the Gitksan Wet'Svwet'en have halted logging activity. Now the federal Crown must act, not wait. Victoria must act, not wait. To wait will cause chaos.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, Carla Williams is back home. After 17 years of life in
the Netherlands which included sexual abuse by her adoptive father and subsequent shuttling between eight different orphanages, attempted suicide and a stay in a mental institution, the 25 year old from Fisher River Indian Reserve in Manitoba is back home.
Carla Williams is a painful example of how a government policy of the 60s and 70s that promoted foreign adoption of Manitoba children of native ancestry has often had negative results. Chief Louis Stevenson, chairman of Anishinaabe Child and Family Services, the native agency that worked hard to repatriate Carla Williams, has asked that a system be established to ensure that all other such native exiles who may wish to return home be given the opportunity to do so. He has also called for financial compensation for these persons who were wilfully dispossessed of their land, their culture and their heritage by a deliberate government policy. I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs to consult with his provincial counterparts and to communicate directly with Chief Stevenson to bring about this overdue corrective action.


NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, headlines today claim that Campeau Corporation has made application to build a 36-storey building at Kent and Queen Streets within the environs of Parliament Hill. The construction of the office tower would exceed the city's 45-metre height restriction. To allow this building to be built would set a dangerous precedent in the long-standing practice of protecting the vista of Parliament Hill and its surroundings.
While I understand that these buildings are important to the economy, it is imperative that the historical practice of protecting the view of the capital be maintained. These buildings such as the Peace Tower are a symbol of Canada. To have a 36-storey tower jutting into the view of Canada's most important national symbol would be a desecration of our federal land.
November 3, 1989

We must make every effort to protect the beauty of our nation's capital and continue the past practice of limiting the height of buildings within the precincts of Parliament Hill.


FISHERIES
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, the problems of the Scotia Fundy groundfisheiy are well known. Too many fishermen have too great a capacity to harvest too few groundfish. Clearly, our future lies in part in reducing our capacity, but is it reasonable to ask fishermen to stop being fishermen or plant workers to stop being plant workers?
Surely, our real future lies in encouraging and making it viable for significant numbers of our fishermen to pursue and harvest species other than those traditionally harvested by Canadians. Silver hake and dogfish are examples of two species for which there is specific foreign demand but for which there is inadequate harvesting and processing capability in Canada today.
I believe it is appropriate as part of the government's management strategy to make every effort to ensure that Canadians take full advantage of our Canadian fish resources. Accordingly, I encourage the special cabinet committee to establish or recommend the establishment of a special fisheries diversification fund to benefit and assist coastal communities in Atlantic Canada to adjust to the new reality of the Atlantic fishery as well as to maximize benefits from our fisheries resources through both diversification and maximum value added processing.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, the government has its horrendous revisions of the unemployment insurance legislation before the House at the present time. An outstanding injustice that has not been addressed by the Conservative government is the fact that the spouses of military personnel cannot collect unemployment insurance benefits when they are stationed abroad.
A Canadian base abroad is still a Canadian community. It is administered under Canadian law. Our Canadian nationals cannot get a job, for instance, in the West German economy by virtue of their being Canadian citizens. More often than not, employment opportunities are very limited on the base itself. Not only do they give up their jobs in Canada when they are posted abroad but they may end up jobless with no available unemployment insurance benefits. This is something that would not happen if they were stationed elsewhere in Canada, or in the United States.
This is an injustice that should be addressed by this government. However, considering the destructive, reckless and shoddy way that this government has treated the Canadian forces, there is probably little hope of it addressing this issue.


CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Minister of State for Housing and the department of housing for the dramatic increase in the limits available to co-operatives wishing to develop housing projects. These limits have been increased from 75,000 to 500,000 and will now allow many co-operative ventures in my riding to qualify to develop affordable housing which up until this time would not qualify. This funding is made available through interest free loans to the successful applicant co-operatives for costs for land purchases, regulations and actual construction.
Many areas of my riding in northern Nova Scotia are not high income areas and this new program, through Canada Mortgage and Housing, will be welcome. In fact, I am already receiving positive response.


FOREST INDUSTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, these days a job in the forest industry means that workers are in an occupation that is among the most dangerous in Canada. Forty workers a year are killed on the job. On Monday, a logger from Powell River, British Columbia, was killed in the same area that his brother was killed in just three months ago.

November 3, 1989
Oral Questions
According to the IWA, 75 per cent of accidents occur in non-union firms. There are no safety committees and WCB regulations are not followed. This situation has reached a critical stage and I call on the Minister of Forestry to use the powers given to him in clause 8 of the new forest department legislation to appoint a committee of workers, industry, government and compensation agencies to recommend measures to bring a halt to this carnage.


COOPERATIVE D'HABITATION DES MOISSONS
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to represent the Government of Canada this week at the official opening of the Cooperative des Moissons, a project for less advantaged families.
The Minister of State (Housing), the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Redway), asked me to congratulate, on his behalf, all those who helped build this splendid, 22-unit project, and especially the members of the Cooperative d'habitation des Moissons.
Under the Non-Profit Housing Program, the Cooperative will receive financial assistance estimated at $165,674 annually. This subsidy will be spread over a period of 35 years.
Furthermore, no cost mortgage insurance for the full amount of approved construction costs, namely $1,347,742 was underwritten by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, this housing project is another splendid example of what can be accomplished when people and governments work together to build decent housing at affordable prices.


LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my question in the Official Languages Committee on Tuesday October 31, the Chief Statistician of Canada said that Statistics Canada was not sure whether language would be included in the short form during the 1991 Census.
Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable, considering the importance of this kind of information in connection with section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which deals with the right to be educated in the minority language where numbers warrant. If we have to count these numbers, we should count them properly.
Furthermore, such a decision would jeopardise implementation of new regulations arising from the Official Languages Act, to establish significant demand, which I hope will soon be determined on by the Government.
Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada should change its position and reverse a decision that will be harmful to language minorities across the country, both in and outside Quebec.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I regret the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who has a lot to answer for. In his absence, I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister about statements made by that minister outside the House yesterday.
The minister contradicted what he had been saying in the House and what his officials had been saying and, in effect, substantiated what we have been saying about Senator Cogger's involvement with the Federal Business Development Bank.
On October 31, 1989, an official of the bank told the Canadian Press that the bank never did deal with Senator Cogger directly. In this very House on November 1, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion said about that matter:
Was there anything irregular? There was nothing irregular.
Now we know there was. As the minister himself indicated outside the House, Senator Cogger did work for the law firm for the bank.
When did this fact come to the attention of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and why did he not do the honourable and proper thing and come
November 3, 1989

back to this House to correct the misinformation given by his official and given by himself on November 1?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member yesterday in a scrum before the press was doing the honourable thing, he was being open with the media in saying what he understood.
What happened is that the hon. member was open and aired what he knew about this matter based upon what a middle-level official had told him verbally. Based on that, the minister said what, he did.
It turns out today that the information that he was given by the official is at variance with the facts. The bank will be issuing a statement about that today.
What the hon. member should realize is what we need is freedom to pursue this, freedom not only for the senator but freedom for those who are concerned about this matter, and fairness. This, therefore, should go before the senator's peers and before the appropriate committee. This we are doing. If you believe in that fairness and that freedom, you should support that too.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, we have our responsibilities in this place, and I understand the minister to be agreeing that we do. It is in that spirit that I am asking these questions.
We are entitled to know, after that admission of misinformation to the House, whether these mistakes, if I can call them that, being made at the Federal Business Development Bank in favour of this close friend of the Prime Minister are mistakes that are being made for the benefit of the Prime Minister's friend or whether there is a general laxity in operation at the Federal Business Development Bank.
In the same interview on October 31, the official of the Federal Business Development Bank said that the bank had been told by a lawyer that it could deal with the senator's firm whether or not one of its members was a senator. Who was the lawyer? Where did that legal advice come from? Why did the bank not come forward and correct that as soon as it knew that that statement was certainly not the law?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the course of these questions prove how impossibly unfair the hon. member is in pursuing this on the floor of the House. What must
Oral Questions
happen is that this thing be fully aired before a proper committee of the Senate.
On the specific point that the hon. member raised, the chairman and the president of the FBDB have made it clear from the beginning that billable work by senators is not to be done for the FBDB. This has been made clear from the beginning and they have made it clear to all of their employees.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking questions that should be directed to the senator. I am asking questions that should be directed to the minister who is a member of this place and is responsible for the operation of the Federal Business Development Bank, and where else should they be asked?
In the House on October 31, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion told us:
-the Federal Business Development Bank has hired the law firm of
Lapointe Rosenstein on many occasions going back over a couple of
decades.
Today in The Globe and Mail, a spokesman for the bank corrects that and says that the bank first used Lapointe Rosenstein for legal work in early 1985.
This is the place, and I am asking now of that minister, who gave the misinformation to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who told us the other day that work for Lapointe Rosenstein goes back a couple of decades? Where does that misinformation come from?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is trying to do is quote a middle level official against other officials in the bank. This whole thing-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Hockin: What he is trying to do is do something that should properly be explored in a Senate committee.
Let me answer his question directly. We know that the hon. member himself is a lawyer, has probably been a member of a law firm. This particular firm has dozens and dozens of lawyers. We will have to do a computer search to find out how far back individual lawyers did work for the FBDB.
You understand that when you act as an agent for the FBDB, it can be on a matter as small as a $10,000 loan to something large. That firm clearly is a major firm in Montreal. It has a number of partners who very clearly could have done work for the FBDB. They will have to search their files to see how far it went back. It is clear

November 3, 1989
Oral Questions
that they have done work for many years and certainly before 1986.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is about the same topic. I want to tell the minister who just answered that this is responsible government and we expect answers to be coming in this House and no stonewalling.
Two days ago, Senator Cogger apparently had not worked for the FBDB while he was a senator. Yesterday he had. Today again he has not. When are we going to get straight answers and why can we not have a full royal commission of inquiry to look into this thing? Why can we not find out the truth?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely hyperbole like that which does not do justice to the fairness and integrity of our legal system. If we are going to protect the freedoms of everybody included, to be fair to everybody included, we have to have a proper pursuit of this, not on the floor of the House but before the senator's peers, which will happen.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister who, this morning, has refused to answer practically any questions at all and even contradicted his own colleague who was answering questions yesterday.
I would like to know why yesterday, the Minister did not make a statement in this House to correct himself. Why aren't we given the right information? And I also want to ask the Minister what explanation he has for the fact that the Federal Business Development Bank's correspondence refers to Mr. Cogger as the Hon. Michel Cogger. Didn't the Bank realize that in this case, it could only mean he was a senator? Didn't the Bank realize it had violated the Parliament of Canada Act?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we know that in the operation of any law firm, and especially dealing with the Federal Business Development Bank which has millions of dollars worth of contracts, communications of all sorts come from various lawyers, small matters and large matters. This particular billing in fact was quite small. It would not necessarily be brought to the attention of the president or the chairman of the bank.
What the hon. member must realize is that what I have said today is that the evidence indicates that what the minister said yesterday in the scrum was at variance with the facts. The bank had looked at this and it does not have written evidence that what the minister said was true. Therefore, the verbal advice he was getting from a middle level official was not accurate.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question also is directed to the minister, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The statement of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion on October 31 was that the responsibility that he has, that this government has, is that the Federal Business Development Bank conduct itself properly. That was three days ago. Yesterday the minister responsible indicated that Senator Cogger had in fact been directly involved in contracts and had received financial benefit for those contracts from the FBDB.
I want to ask the minister who is now answering, how can we seriously accept the assurances of this government that this minister was doing his job when three days ago, he recognized he had a responsibility to get the facts and yesterday he misled the Canadian public? What is the specific answer? Did Senator Cogger at any point receive any financial remuneration whatsoever for work that he had done for the FBDB while he was a Senator, yes or no? Come clean with Canadians.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a highly misleading statement. He said that the FBDB paid the senator a certain amount of money. That allegation is totally untrue. All billings go to the law firm and he knows that. He is a lawyer. It is not fair and it is not just to allege otherwise.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, we still do not have a clear answer as to the fundamental issue here, which is whether or not Senator Cogger did in fact at any point, after he was named to the Senate, receive a financial benefit for work that he had done for the FBDB in contravention of Section 14. That is the question that the minister still is not answering.
My supplementary question is this. In view of the fact that a number of colleagues from the Conservative caucus, including the member for Matapedia-Matane, the member for Levis and others have chosen to absent themselves from the Conservative caucus as a result of investigations which are under way by the RCMP, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Prime Minister, if he is prepared to exercise some
November 3, 1989

leadership here, to recognize the deep concern of Canadians about public morality? Is he prepared to indicate to the House whether Senator Michel Cogger will follow the example of his Tory colleagues who are under investigation, do the honourable thing, and either resign or at the very least, get out of the Tory caucus while this is being investigated?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I must ask the hon. member, does he believe in fairness? Does he believe in justice? Does he believe in freedom to pursue a matter? That is going to be done, not on the floor of the House with these kinds of questions which are based on allegations that the hon. member knows are false or inaccurate. It will be done before the senator's peers at Senate committee. All of those questions will be answered there properly, and that is where it should be done.
The hon. member raises further questions in order to get all sorts of different stories running. All of this, in fairness to the senator, and in fairness to those who are interested in this, should be looked at before the committee of the Senate, and that is where it will be looked at.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it seems that there is one standard for some Tory members of Parliament and there is another standard quite different for buddies of the Prime Minister. That is what seems to be going on in the House.

My supplementary is a follows, Mr. Speaker. For several years we have been waiting for the government to table conflict of interest legislation. Bill C-114, tabled in February 1988, provides that a Member of Parliament may not use his position to try to influence, for the benefit of his own private interests, a decision made by another person. My supplementary is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
When will this Government table its conflict of interest legislation, especially considering the case of Richard Grise who was convicted of influence peddling, and also the government's other problems with public morality?
Oral Questions
When will the government finally table its conflict of interest legislation?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Very soon, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism in the absence of the minister responsible for the Federal Business Development Bank.
It is well known that the bank keeps records of lawyers to whom it contracts work out. Will the minister provide to the House the FBDB's current list of lawyers whom they use for this outside work?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I think that is the kind of question that should be a written question for the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ms. Clancy:: What's the matter? Didn't you understand it?


Thomas Hockin: The hon. member is trying to make a different point with his question here in Oral Question Period.
The fact is that the Federal Business Development Bank does a great deal of legal work. It needs agents for its work with people who come before it for loans. It also does corporate work. It also makes major inquiries into major policy questions. All this requires lawyers. It has a list.
A written question being more precise, we would provide that list.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, all we want is to get the facts, just a little information, and all we get is stonewalling.
My supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Now that the minister responsible for FBDB has confessed that Senator Cogger has indeed provided legal services to the bank after he was appointed a

November 3, 1989
Oral Questions
senator, is the government aware, or has it taken any steps to determine if there are any other government departments or agencies which have utilized the legal services of Senator Cogger or his law firm, Lapointe Rosenstein?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, this is the sort of unfairness, this is a lack of justice, this is a lack of basic liberty that is being promoted by the hon. member's party with the cast of these questions. He started with an allegation which he knows has not been proven. It is not clear whether Senator Cogger did any work for the FBDB after he was named a senator. We do not know that.^The Senate committee will tell us.
In terms of openness, the complete record on that is being made evident today through access to information. In addition, the lists have been available for years, and they are still available.


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Some 1,500 parole officers and prison counsellors are on strike for the fifth day. Prisoners eligible for parole are being kept in jail.
Federal parole officers are paid 14 per cent less than their Quebec counterparts and 24 per cent less than those in Ontario. Does the minister think this is fair? If not, why is he letting this situation drag on and risking the security of Canadian prisons and communities?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, following the Conciliation Board report that was tabled last week, mediation was undertaken over the weekend. The mediation talks broke off on Sunday, and the union decided to go on strike Monday of this week.
During the course of the week I have been in close contact with the union to try to ascertain at what time we could get negotiations going again, with the hope of reaching a settlement that would be fair and satisfactory to both parties and that would be in keeping with the over-all settlement that was reached by over 155,000 public servants earlier this year. I am keeping in very close touch with the union. I will do so during the next few days, and hopefully we will get the talks resumed very quickly.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think the figures speak for themselves. This is an intolerable pay inequity. Because the government still cannot settle this labour
dispute after two and a half years, Canada's veterans have no one to turn to for help in meeting their social, health and financial needs, and access to alcohol treatment and child protection programs for native Canadians are suffering.
Just how long will the minister let veterans and native Canadians be the victims because the government seems unable to settle this contract? When will the minister act?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, if the union is prepared to sit at the table this afternoon I will have the table fully staffed on the part of the employer.
We are willing to negotiate at any time, at any place, at any moment, to get this strike resolved. That is the intent of this government. We will do it as soon as the union indicates that it has a willingness to sit down with us. We are prepared to sit down.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Earlier this week, as the Deputy Prime Minister will know, a senior environment department official testified at an environmental impact hearing on the Alberta-Pacific proposal for a huge new pulp mill in northern Alberta. As part of his excellent brief he said: "No other mill should be approved until we have enough information". The Minister of the Environment has declared his support for and accord with the views expressed by his official.
Will the government now exercise its authority and suspend all consideration of the Alberta-Pacific proposal, including environmental impact hearings, until studies of the cumulative effects of existing pulp projects on oxygen levels and fish in the Peace and Athabasca River systems have been completed and made public?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that an environmental review process is under way to gather precisely the information that he seeks.
It is true that a federal official has expressed concern with the scientific data presently available in support of this particular project. The provincial minister of the environment has expressed concern as well. Of course that is why we have a federal EARP process in which the province participates to find out all the facts and to determine what modifications to the project would have to be made to bring it into conformity with all the

Oral Questions
standards and regulations we have imposed on this particular industry.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the point is that until the cumulative impact studies are completed and made public, the hearings are not based on any necessary, essential information. The hearings are rendered thus nonsensical.
In addition to the government suspending those hearings at the moment, I ask: Assuming that the ministry agrees with its officials that "some of the other mills should be revisited to examine their cumulative effect", will the government order new hearings into previously approved projects, especially that of the Alberta Energy Company at Lesser Slave Lake?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, there is a parallel process under way. There is an EARP process under way with regard to the Al-Pac project, and there is a study under way looking at pulp mill affluence everywhere in the country.
The hon. member proposes to terminate these processes-


Ross Harvey: Suspend.


Frank Oberle: -or to suspend them in search of information. Why would we suspend these critical processes designed to seek the information the hon. member wants? We want this information as well.


Ross Harvey: You won't get half the information.


Frank Oberle: Perhaps the hon. member would listen. The more we can do to find information to back up the imposition we have already made on the industry in terms of sustainable development and the concept related to it, the better off we will be.
Instead of wanting to terminate or suspend these processes, why does the member not support them and provide evidence to the working tribunals?


CANADA POST
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation. In 1986, the federal government decided to cut back subsidies for postal services to northern communities, and did so without consulting northern Canadians.
Last night, we managed to obtain a three-month moratorium on an increase in commercial parcel rates that would have become effective on November 13 this year, according to a decision by Canada Post.
Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows: Could the Minister confirm to the House whether a task force will be appointed by the government, involving the Departments of Indian and Northern Affairs, National Health and Welfare and the Canada Post Corporation, in order to find a solution to this very serious problem that will affect all northern Canadians in 1990, and I am referring to postal rates for local air services?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I understand there is now a moratorium, and we intend to set up a task force in order to find a solution, and the Hon. Member will also have an opportunity to state his position.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, we have just been told that the parcel post rate increase will be delayed by three months, until January 31. The fact still remains that there will be a 32 per cent rate increase, or thereabouts, in the northern commercial freight rate to about 85 northern communities.
Because the cost of living in those northern communities is now two or three times higher than down here, is

November 3, 1989
Oral Questions
the minister prepared to ensure that we are not faced with a food crisis in the north after January 31, 1990?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I can just repeat to the hon. member what I said to my colleague from Abitibi, that is the moratorium is in place to allow a working group to try to arrive at a solution to these questions.
We would be very happy to get input from the hon. member.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: I would be happy to be part of that working group, however, there is still a 32 per cent proposed rate increase.
My supplementary question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As was mentioned earlier by the member for Abitibi, without publicity, without consultation, and without concern for the health and well-being of native and northern people, in 1986 the government decided to reduce its subsidy to Canada Post for this service by $3 million over the past three years. Will the minister today request his cabinet colleagues to maintain at least the present level of funding to the food mail service of $16 million?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, obviously the working group to be set up following the moratorium announced today will address those questions.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, but in her absence I would be pleased to address it to her parliamentary secretary. The subject is the refugee backlog clearance program.
The House will remember that on December 28, 1988 the minister, with great fanfare, announced her refugee backlog clearance program and stated three points: that it would begin immediately, that it would conclude within two years, and that it would cost $100 million. In the hearings of the subcommittee on immigration on May 9, May 11 and October 24, the minister's own officials contradicted her categorically with respect to all these statements.
My question is simply: Why is the minister saying one thing while her officials are contradicting her in committee?
What are the true answers to these three simple questions: when did the program start, when will it conclude, and how much will it cost?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, the program that was announced is fair and equitable and is intended to respect those who apply for refugee or immigrant status in Canada. It is a major reform we made and we do intend to keep our commitments. We are sticking to our timetable and when the Minister responsible for immigration makes a statement, she tells the truth.
So the system is fair and equitable, it respects the applicants and their cases are reviewed individually with the humanitarian approach that characterizes Canada's immigration procedures.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister indicated that when the Minister of Employment and Immigration makes a statement it is correct. The minister made the statement that the program would cost $100 million. Her officials have said, in fact only 10 months later, that it is going to cost $179,568, an 80 per cent increase from her estimate.
As well the minister said that the program would begin immediately, and that was on December 28, 1988. On October 24 in committee, Mr. Bissett, the executive director of the immigration department, said that Treasury Board always had a plan that the program would begin September 1, 1989.
My question is simple. Why is the minister saying one thing and her officials categorically contradicting her? How about an answer to that simple question?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, it is a fair and equitable program, a commitment that was made here in the House of Commons, a commitment that we will keep, by respecting the individuals and their financial ability. With the person-years allocated, we have the needed resources to keep to this schedule. We can keep the commitment in the time allowed and we will do so.
November 3, 1989


TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the senior minister from the prairies, the Deputy Prime Minister.
Is the minister aware that just a few days before the Minister of Communications lowered the boom on the prairie phone systems he received a compromise proposal from the three Conservative prairie governments?
Why did the federal government not even reply to the serious proposal those governments made to the minister? Is this what co-operative federalism is supposed to mean to the prairies these days?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, this question was raised several times and I can assure the House that since the Supreme Court decision on telecommunications, I have met almost all my provincial colleagues on several occasions. My department is negotiating and consulting with the telephone companies and provincial officials every day. We are continuing in that spirit. I believe consultation is necessary. It has already been announced and we are continuing with it, Mr. Speaker.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the minister who just replied.
I have in my hands a copy of the serious proposal those governments made a few days before the minister lowered the boom. He never replied to that serious proposal. That cannot be considered consultation.
I would like to know which of the three principles included in that document he categorically rejected. Was it that the prairie governments maintain control over a prairie phone service, that the prairie governments were willing to concede jurisdiction over interprovincial and international phone service to the federal government, or that the federal and provincial governments should share responsibility for making sure that local users not get clobbered in the process? Why did he not reply to that?
Oral Questions


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to know if the NDP has changed its policy, because it is the same party which always complains that the government does not provide enough federal presence in this country and that Ottawa should direct everything. Now when Ottawa makes a decision which might not be in line with the NDP's centralizing philosophy, but which is in Canada's interest, this party demagogically changes sides and takes another position.
Mr. Speaker, this position is very well known and we will consider it.


HOUSING
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Housing. Although the new regulations increasing the limits on proposed development funding loans for co-op housing are good news for my riding, will the dramatic increase in limits from $75,000 to $500,000 change the other criteria for qualification? Will low income regions receive priority in application consideration?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, the change in the increase in the proposed development funding is certainly going to be very helpful, as the hon. member has indicated, in his riding and I believe right across the country as far as co-operative housing projects are concerned. I have to tell the hon. member that the other criteria will not be changing.
As far as giving priority in the distribution of funding for co-operative housing units across the country, that process is done together with consultation with the Co-operative Housing Foundation of Canada. I am sure that that agency and the federal housing agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, will take into account the serious concerns of the hon. member, the people of his riding, and the people of other low income regions of Canada in arriving at that distribution.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Judge Batten of the Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan has ruled that the Bank of Montreal has been arbitrary and high-handed by changing a farmer's loan from a fixed rate of interest to a floating rate of interest and has ordered a refund of $11,246 plus interest for the last six years.
A few farmers like Mr. Raoul Blanchard of Duck Lake, Saskatchewan have gone to court and won refunds for these overcharges by the chartered banks, but thousands have not been able to or could not afford to.
When will the government get behind farmers and order banks to refund these overcharges?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course my friend across the way and I share in the concern about high interest rates and the proper application of those interest rates.
The whole issue of farm finance as it relates to the financing of farm operations and the adequacy of our programs, whether it be the Farm Credit Corporation or whether it be provided by the banks, is something that we are currently considering in a very comprehensive way.
I am sure the hon. member will be encouraged by the fact that when we release a policy discussion paper there will be included in the paper a very thorough chapter on farm financing and the future of the family farm. Hopefully we can consider some of those points at that particular time.


Maurice Brydon Foster: We look forward with great interest to that paper next Tuesday.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister be willing to direct the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to prepare a report requiring all chartered banks to give a complete and full report on all farm loans which have been switched from a fixed rate to a floating rate without notifying the farmer and on the amount that has been overcharged so that this whole scam which took place in
the early 1980s can be exposed and proper refunds provided for?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member recognized that this took place in the early 1980s when the party of which he is a member was the Government of Canada. It did nothing at that particular time. As is so often the case, it is quick to criticize things that occur, but it did very little when it was in office.
When we came into office we established the farm debt review process which has worked very well. It has acted as an intermediary between banks and other financial institutions and the farmer. The 70, 75 or perhaps even 80 per cent record of success is testimony to the fact that we have provided the kind of mechanisms necessary to deal with these particular issues.
I will certainly take the hon. member's suggestion into consideration. Maybe it will not require an ordering. Maybe the banks would be prepared to do that on their own. I will certainly undertake to look into it.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The Grand Chief of the Mohawk Council of the Akwesasne, Mike Mitchell, faxed a letter to me yesterday pleading for multi-departmental government assistance and intervention at the highest level to deal with an explosive situation which exists at Akwesasne, and he stated:
We are faced daily with providing law enforcement at the border, in the waters, preventing the encroachment of the gambling activities and generally containing any potential violence.
What is the government prepared to do to assist the Grand Chief in ensuring that these people can live with the security and peace all other Canadians are afforded?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the question I missed whether that letter was addressed to me and faxed to the hon. member. What I understand from the hon. member across the way is that

it was addressed and faxed to the hon. member. I would appreciate being given a copy of the letter.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, we are obviously very concerned with the situation in Akwesasne. I understand there are already some discussions with various departments of this government on the very serious incidents that are occurring there. We will obviously continue to monitor that situation and will intervene as much as we can.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the letter was not addressed to the minister because the chief took the opportunity to brief the members of the department on the issue concerning Akwesasne.
I know that the chief is not unappreciative of the efforts today. However just yesterday he wrote:
Our border rights and related problems are not even being discussed at a high enough level and unless we have recognition of those rights, the abuses will continue to mount. The anger I am feeling needed to be shared-I sometimes feel that I am left alone to hold back a forest fire that is threatening to consume all of Akwesasne.
Mr. Speaker, through you I ask the minister what immediate action he is prepared to undertake on behalf of these people. This situation is indeed critical, and I know he realizes that.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I sometimes feel alone too when the letters are not addressed to me and they are asking for my intervention.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: You got lots of letters.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Obviously, as the House knows and as my hon. colleague knows, we have been having some discussions with Chief Mitchell. Other departments have been having those discussions also, and we intend to pursue them.


PRISONERS OF WAR
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, with the approach of Remembrance Day we had an example last Sunday of the crassest and most outrageous kind of journalistic sensationalism in The Toronto Star.
Allegations were made in that newspaper concerning allied troops, including Canadians, who were captured and held as prisoners of war by Germany during World War II. The Toronto Star cites American researchers who
Oral Questions
claim that thousands of Canadian, American, British and other Commonwealth prisoners held in camps liberated by the red army at the end of the war were never released by the Soviets.
I would like to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence, or whoever is responding on her behalf if she would report to the House on what the government has found out on this matter.
Is there any scintilla of evidence that Canadian prisoners of war were held by the Soviet Union after World War II? What efforts have the government made to gather such evidence?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, further to the report published in the newspapers that some Canadians might have been imprisoned in the Soviet Union, the Secretary of State for External Affairs asked his officials to meet with a senior member of the Soviet Embassy to ask him to begin a serious investigation of these allegations.
To date, the Soviet Union has no evidence to support these claims, but has told us that they would investigate and inform us as soon as possible to allay our concerns.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the other problem is that this is going to cause a great deal of unnecessary anguish to thousands of people in this country who had a loved one declared missing in action and presumed dead or who did not survive a prisoner of war camp. They are now wondering whether that loved one might still be alive.
Would the Associate Minister of National Defence or the Minister for External Relations request the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to investigate this matter and to call on these so-called researchers and investigative reporters to appear before the committee and to put up or shut up?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree with the hon. member that stories like these do cause a great deal of distress. His suggestion is an interesting one. I am sure

Routine Proceedings
that he can make it along with us to the chairman of that standing committee.
I would like to add that in addition to getting copies of the report, to which the member refers, and reviewing it; within the Department of National Defence we are going back over all our old records from World War II to see if there is any evidence at all that there would have been any Canadian who was not accounted for. I would like to assure the member that to date there certainly is no evidence in that regard.
I think it might also be helpful in understanding this issue to say that, as the member may be aware, some of these allegations may have been based on some misinformation, some messages that were sent at the end of the Second World War which implied that perhaps some Americans and British were being held in the Soviet Union. This was at the end of May, 1945. That message was then counteracted within the week to say that that was was not the case, that in fact the message was referring to Soviet personnel who were perhaps being held in some of the western countries. Some of that may have been the cause for this misunderstanding. But I can assure the hon. member and the House that we will pursue every avenue possible with respect to this concern.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 73 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ORDER IN COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and
Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government pursuant to Standing Order 110(1).


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in both official languages.
Very briefly, your committee considered the Order in Council appointments of Keith Spicer, Chairman of the CRTC. We also considered the appointments of Mr. Gerard Veilleux, President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Patrick Watson, Director of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the first woman to the National Film Board, Mrs. Joan Pennyfather.

Your Committee has examined the qualifications of the persons named and finds them competent to perform the duties of their positions.



CRIMINAL CODE


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-43 , an Act respecting abortion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


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:: Call in the members.
Before the taking of the vote:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan on a point of order.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the government has indicated to its members that some of them will be free in this particular vote. I would therefore respectfully request that you take the vote row by row, rather than in the normal manner.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The practice of the House is to vote the way that we generally do, that is, by party. The only way to modify that procedure would be by unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. The vote will proceed as usual.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that the bill be read the first time and printed.


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:: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.



ABORIGINAL LANGUAGES FOUNDATION


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: for leave to introduce Bill C-269, an Act to establish the Aboriginal Languages Foundation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to introduce this bill. It is a bill proposed for the purpose of establishing an Aboriginal Languages Foundation, to assist by the way of various activities and programs the revitalization, regeneration and maintenance of some 53 aboriginal languages which are unique and distinct first Canadian languages.


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

Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present to the House pursuant to Standing Order 36 a number of petitions representing the signatures of approximately 13,000 citizens of Alberta. The petitioners are of the opinion that the RCMP dress uniform is a symbol of Canadian tradition and culture and should remain unchanged.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have today the duty to table some 10 petitions asking this Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax on the basis that the federal government, the present Tory government, has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 31 new tax increases since it took power in 1984; that the present federal manufacturers' sales tax has already been increased by the federal government from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent; that the Conservative federal government wants to impose on Canadians a new general 9 per cent tax on goods and services. This new tax will be hidden, as we know, from Canadians and will be applied to virtually everything that moves.
The imposition of this new general goods and services tax will cause serious and unfair hardship to low and middle-class Canadians. The imposition of this tax will create an onerous burden on small business.
The people who have signed these petitions pray that the House of Commons call upon all members to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition from people in The Pas, Flin Flon, Snow Lake and Cranberry Portage in my riding, in addition to people from Prince Edward Island indicating their opposition to the government's goods and services tax.
They reject the current proposal and call for reform of the current taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.
They want to ensure that if and when there is broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, this reform not be an opportunity for the government to impose a massive tax grab. They wish the House of Commons to cause the govern-

Routine Proceedings
ment to cease with the proposal that will shift the tax burden to the ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of real tax reform.
I want to indicate that in addition to this petition I and the New Democratic Party leader from Manitoba, Gary Doer, gave to the office of the Minister of Finance
30,000	cards against the goods and services tax this morning.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition which is in proper form.
It has to do with the government largely closing down VIA service. It is signed by Canadians predominantly from eastern Ontario, but a strong predominance of those people are from my own riding of Leeds-Grenville. They object strenuously to the discontinuation of service that VIA has been providing.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: It is my
honour and duty to present on behalf of a number of petitioners, mostly from Manitoba, a petition which asks the Parliament of Canada to maintain VIA Rail in its present national network, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment, to pass a passenger train act giving VIA Rail a firm legislative mandate and, finally, to have a revised costing arrangement to be arranged with the railway companies.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 which has been certified correct as to form and content.
The petitioners from various points in Ontario say that the government has failed to provide the resources necessary to fulfil its promise of improved passenger rail service.
They call upon Parliament to maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail service in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient, environmentally sound and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from Canadians, pursuant to Standing Order 36. These Canadians are opposed to the Government's plan to cut VIA Rail service.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the duty and the privilege to present a couple of petitions on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about the goods and services tax.
I stand pursuant to Standing Order 36. These petitions have been certified correct as to content and form by the clerk.
The petitioners point out that under the GST there would be an onerous burden put on the shoulders of Canadian taxpayers. They also point out that it would be, in their opinion, an unprecedented tax grab on Canadian taxpayers, and that it would cause higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of 700 petitioners.
This petition reads that whereas on June 23, 1985, 329 innocent civilians, mostly Canadians, lost their lives as a result of a terrorist bomb explosion aboard an Air-India aircraft; and whereas extensive media research prominently broadcast on TV and radio has shown that this heinous crime was preventable. There were eight warnings, including a test explosion that pointed to impending disaster; and whereas Canadians have been clamoring for a public inquiry to come up with a recommendation that would prevent similar disasters, but last year an identical terrorist bomb destroyed a Pan American jumbo jet in Britain.
Recommendations from a Canadian investigation could have averted the Pan American tragedy, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to give Canadians a commitment to hold a Royal commission of inquiry into all facts surrounding the Air-India disaster of 1985. This is presented by petitioners from the city of Nepean and also from the city of Ottawa.

November 3, 1989
Routine Proceedings PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to rise to present five petitions on behalf of music teachers and the parents of some of their students.
The petition points out that music educators are active participants in the education departments in every province in Canada preparing students to enter the university faculties of music, and that with a sales tax on music lessons Canadian children will suffer, talent will be undeveloped and the future of Canadian music, both nationally and internationally, will be jeopardized.
They are pleading with the government to consider music studies as an educational process and therefore not subject to tax.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour and the duty to present a petition certified correct by the clerk of petitions.
It is signed by 55 constituents of Hamilton West and other parts of Hamilton who humbly pray and call upon this Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: I also, while I have the floor, have the privilege pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition certified correct by the clerk of petitions signed by some 35 Canadians who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada not to cancel in whole or in part rail passenger service in Canada.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by the residents of Hamilton Mountain.
These petitioners are against the Conservative Government's proposed 9 per cent goods and services tax. These petitioners humbly pray and call upon this House to reject this 9 per cent goods and services tax that is proposed.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and duty to present a petition which humbly prays that this government not cut in part or in whole rail passenger service in Canada. For many it is an
essential service. Many people in Canada depend upon VIA Rail passenger service for their livelihood.
Canadians have demonstrated in many ways their concern about the cuts. Tomorrow in my riding there will be a public meeting to back up the signatures that appear in this petition and the many others from across this country.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions in connection with the goods and services tax. Both petitions, which contain approximately 60 signatures, are signed by residents of my riding. One of them is interesting in that it is signed entirely by the residents of an apartment building at 2233 Eglinton Avenue in my riding. Both petitions call upon Parliament to unequivocally and categorically reject any attempt to bring in a goods and services tax.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of 35 residents of Kingston and the Islands who call upon Parliament to reject the government's proposed goods and services tax. The tax is perceived to be unfair and inequitable, and the petitioners request that Parliament reject any bill that proposes such a tax.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions to table today. The first is signed by 29 residents of Burnaby, British Columbia, from the Chelsea Housing Project No. 8. These residents, who are senior citizens, are very concerned about the government's plan for VIA Rail. The petitioners call upon Parliament to maintain the existing VIA network, upgrade VIA equipment and guarantee VIA sufficient support to carry out its mandate to provide passenger service.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from two sources, a total of 96 residents of Thunder Bay who are concerned with the government's plan for a goods and services tax. A number of members are from one of the women's organizations in Thunder Bay and are employees of the Canadian Grains Commission. They have all signed the petition that rejects the GST as being very unfair to lower and middle-income families. They point out the government is now trying to tax reading, haircuts, diapers, coffins and home heating fuels, and as northern

November 3, 1989

residents they are very concerned about the impact on their ability to survive.


Mr. Lyle Dean Mac William (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present two sets of petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36. The first set of petitions is signed by residents right across this country of ours who have recognized the difficulties that have arisen as a result of this government taking a broad axe to VIA Rail service, and have also recognized the fact that a one-third of one per cent reduction in our prime interest rates could have saved the same amount of money that the cuts to VIA Rail have imposed.
The petitioners have asked that the government maintain, improve and modernize VIA Rail services in those areas of the country where it can provide a more rapid, economical, safe, convenient and, I might add, environmentally sound and energy efficient alternative to other means of transportation.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Another set of petitions, Mr. Speaker, that I have to present today again are signed by people throughout this country of ours. These signatories are concerned about the economic impact that the proposed goods and services tax measures will impose upon ordinary Canadians from Victoria to St. John's. The petitioners are asking the government to ensure that if and when there is a broad public consensus on a sales tax measure to replace the current manufacturers' sales tax that this reform not be an opportunity for the government to imposed a massive tax grab on the Canadian people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the House will give consent to revert to introduction of Private Members' Bills for the member for Kingston and the Islands. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Routine Proceedings



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ACT


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: for leave to introduce Bill C-270, an Act to amend the Department of Agriculture Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to delete Section 5 of the Department of Agriculture Act. The Auditor General in his report this year to Parliament stated at page 88:
In our view, the government's extensive and varied use of section 5 of the Act presents a threat to Parliament's role. Parliament should be given the opportunity to review the Act and decide whether section 5 should continue to be used in this manner.
It is for the purpose of complying with the suggestion of the Auditor General that I have introduced this bill. I hope the House will have the opportunity to decide whether this Act should continue to be used in the way it has been in the past on the debate on this bill.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 127 and 131.


Mr. Karpoff: In the Toronto housing project known as the Prince Charles project, were required contracts for consulting fees filed with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and, if so (a) did these contracts specify what work was to be performed (b) what was this work (c) was it carried out (d) what sums were paid (e) to what person or persons?


Alan Redway: No.
There was no requirement to file a contract for consult-

November 3, 1989
Speaker's Ruling
ing fees, as the project was built by a "turnkey" contract, where all costs, including consulting fees but excluding the mortgage insurance premium, were part of the contract between the non-profit group and the developer, Tridel.


Mr. Heap: 1.	Are all country profiles complete and available to Immigration and Refugee Board members and adjudicators?
2.	Do IRB members have at their disposal case overviews from the refugee documentation centre and, if so, are these being put to use?
3.	Are IRB members familiar with the country reports on human rights violations issued by Amnesty International?


Hon. Barbara Jean McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. Yes.
2.	No. Case overviews are not prepared by the Documentation Centre of the Immigration and Refugee Board; however, the IRB is developing a data base so that interested parties may have access to decisions of the Convention Refugee Determination Division and abstracts of reasons for the decisions.
3.	Yes.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-16, an act to establish the Canadian Space Agency and to provide for other matters in relation to space, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and on motions Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The first grouping involves motions Nos. 1 and 2 that will be voted on separately. The first question is on motion No. 1.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


SPEAKER'S RULING-MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next grouping will involve motions Nos. 3, 8, 9 and 10. They will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows: Motions Nos. 3 and 10 will be voted on separately. An affirmative vote on motion No. 8 will obviate the question being put on
November 3, 1989

motion No. 9, and a negative vote on motion No. 8 necessitates a vote on motion No. 9.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-16 be amended in Clause 16 by striking out lines 19 to 40 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The Treasury Board shall implement for the Agency a classification plan for the scientific, engineering and related technical professionals that is based on the competence of the person to be employed rather than on the description of the functions to be carried on by such person at the employ of the Agency".


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been considerable discussion on Motion No. 8 and I did address it in my comments on the motions generally. I am prepared to withdraw this motion. I think there is unanimous consent to substitute a slightly revised draft. I am not entirely happy with this. It has put a time limit in there that I think is unnecessary. However, it is a substantial improvement over what is now in the bill. In the interests of having protection for the employees, I am prepared to move a motion with the wording that is acceptable to the department.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Ottawa West to bring in a new motion at this time?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation ]


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on the same point of order.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, after discussion, we shall support the new version of Motion No. 8 moved by Mrs. Catterall.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 8 is withdrawn.
Motion No. 8 withdrawn.


Marlene Catterall: Motion No. 8A
Government Orders
That clause 28 of Bill C-16 be amended by striking out lines 5 through 8 on page 9 and substituting the following:
"28.(1). Where a position in the Public Service of Canada is transferred to the Agency within ninety days after the day on which this Act comes into force, the incumbent of the position continues in the position in the Agency, unless the incumbent otherwise elects prior to the transfer, and any person so continuing is"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow Mr. Manley to move Motion No. 9 on behalf of Mr. Pagtakhan?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. John Manley (for Mr. Pagtakhan) moved:: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-16 be amended in Clause 28 by striking out line 7 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"service of Canada within one hundred and eighty days after".


Marcel Masse: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-16 be amended in Clause 28 by striking out lines 16 and 17 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"immediately before the appointment, and any person who was so subject".


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I wish to briefly comment on the amendments to the space agency bill before us today.
We all recognize the importance of establishing a space agency. The comment that I would like to make is in relation to the process that was used. First, it took approximately two years to allow this bill to come before the House which caused a great deal of indecision on how this space agency should be implemented and on the jobs of the people who were involved.
At times it appeared to pit one municipality against another as to the location of the space agency, and at other times it appeared to become a political football. That is what was so terribly wrong in the process which was so important. I hope that it never happens again because it did nothing but cause ill feeling. It caused problems with our scientists and with our astronauts. It is the process that I am really speaking against. I hope that we as members can recognize the importance in moving

Government Orders
quickly on legislation and determining what is best for our country and what is best for whichever program comes before this House.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with Bill C-16 to establish the Canadian space Agency. We have a number of motions and amendments which I strongly support, including the following:
-That Bill C-16 be amended in Clause 5 adding immediately after line 26 at page 2 the following:
"(c.l) assume all existing contracts, memoranda of understanding or other arrangements in the name of Her Majesty in right of Canada related to its functions;"
Also, Mr. Speaker, motion no 3:
-That Bill C-16 be amended in Clause 16 by striking out lines 19 to 40 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The Treasury Board shall implement for the Agency a classification plan for the scientific, engineering and related technical professionals that is based on the competence of the person to be employed rather than on the description of the functions to be carried on by such person at the employ of the Agency."
Also, Mr. Speaker, motion no 5:
"The principal office of the Agency shall be at such place in Canada as may be designated by the Governor in Council."
Concerning Motion No. 8 which was withdrawn, I find it regrettable that the Government has chosen to be political and to indulge in patronage with regard to the site of the Agency. It is a pity that this jewel of the scientific world should have become a subject of controversy, that the choice of its site should have been a travesty of the decision making process, pitting various municipalities, centers and towns against one another. I suggest that, in this Canadian Parliament, every effort should be made to unite this country instead of dividing it. I think that when the time came choose a site for the Canadian Space Agency, the whole process was abused. In short, I am very disappointed because of the bias involved in the selection of the site.


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


Marlene Catterall: I rise on a point of order. I wonder if government members could clarify the intent of motion No. 10 and whether it is redundant if motion No. 8A is adopted.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, since we are debating Motions Nos. 3, 8, 9 and 10 I take this opportunity to explain the government's position on all these motions.
First, with respect to Motion No. 3 about clause 16 concerning employees, the government cannot agree because the effect of this amendment would be to repeal the provisions of the bill which provide for special employment conditions for Canadian astronauts.
This suggestion is unacceptable because if we want to provide the best possible opportunities for our astronauts it is imperative that we offer them special working conditions, for their duties are unique.
Pursuant to this amendment, we would create a classification plan "based on the competence of the person" for all professional employees of the Agency.
Although this formula has its good points-it was used in the case of the National Research Council, considered as a "distinct employer"-it would not be appropriate in this legislation. Should this kind of arrangement ever become necessary, it can be achieved through administrative channels.
To sum up, the special provisions of Bill C-16 are aimed at tailoring the employment conditions of astronauts to their unique duties. They provide additional conditions which otherwise would not be offered. Never will they be used to deprive these people of any right whatever.
Therefore we cannot accept the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mrs. Catterall).
With respect to Motion No. 8, Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to support the new version advocated by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West and we will vote in favour of the motion.
Motion No. 9 has to do with clause 28 and relates to presumption. The amendment reads as follows:
service of Canada within one hundred and eighty days after
November 3, 1989


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: On the amendment to Motion No. 8, which is the amended Motion 8(A) I believe, it would be very helpful if members of the New Democratic caucus could actually receive a copy of the wording of Motion 8(A).
In hearing the amended motion presented, I do not believe that we have any difficulty with it, but I would like to receive a copy of the exact wording so that we can make a determination at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A copy will be supplied to the hon. member immediately. The Chair will give the member a couple of minutes to read the motion.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.

November 3, 1989
Government Orders


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions No. 3 and No. 10 will be voted on separately. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 8(A) obviates the question being put on Motion No. 9. A negative vote on Motion No. 8 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 9.
The first question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 8(A). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Because of the result of the vote on Motion No. 8A there is no need to vote on Motion No. 9.

On a point of order, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Mrs. Duplessis).


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we do not support motion no 9. Even if it is not put to a vote, motion no 9 as introduced is not acceptable to the government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Anyway, it is not before the House.
Motions Nos. 6 and 7 will be debated together but voted on separately.


Alan Redway: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-16 be amended in clause 19 in the French version by striking out lines 19 and 20 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"presidence du comite a l'un des membres de celuici"-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow Mr. Manley to move the motion on behalf of Mr. Pagtakhan?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Paul Manley: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-16 be amended in clause 22 by striking out line 5 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"place as the Minister may determine. Further, the Board shall meet at such time and place as may be determined by the Chair and not less than once a year to review the activities of the Agency in terms of the overall mandate of the Agency".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House for its co-operation, which allowed me to present this motion on behalf of the member for Winnipeg North, who was unable to return to Ottawa for the debate today.
This motion is to create an independent board, a board that will meet at least once a year to discuss matters of importance with respect to the operation of the agency. It is unfortunate that the board, although it is created for good reason, is there and left only to meet at the bequest of the minister whenever he happens to feel so inclined. The intent of the motion is to ensure that at least once per year this board convenes.
In addition, this provides me the opportunity to make some brief comments on the agency, and to express our concern that it has taken so long to finally come to the point where this agency is coming into existence. We hear so often of the government's concerns about financial matters and deficits, that we sometimes wonder whether its entire policy is not driven by fear of the deficit. Here is a very worth-while proposition that, when it is created, is going to streamline some government operations. Maybe in the long run, in spite of some of the initial start-up costs, it will actually save the government some money. In its deficit of ideas and
November 3, 1989

deficit of policy, it has taken the government forever to get this bill before the House of Commons and have the agency described, defined, announced and in place. It is unfortunate that we have had this lengthy delay.
I said on second reading of this bill that we can only treat with regret the manner in which the government allowed the creation of the Canadian Space Agency to become a matter which divided Canada instead of one which united it. Instead of being the crown jewel in our science and technology diadem, it became a symbol of division, a symbol of region fighting against region. Underlying that is this interminable and unfortunate delay.
We are pleased to be here to support this bill and to support the creation of the agency, to see it finally in place, but not without some regrets about what has happened over the time that we have taken to get here.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Motion No. 6 was brought in because in the original legislation before the committee we felt that the wording "chairman of the board" was not justifiable in light of the situation today, where we try to ensure that we have non-gender clauses in such legislation. It was felt that rather than use the term "chairman of the board" that the term committee members felt was a much more equitable situation. The difficulty arose in the French translation as to exactly how the non-generic term, if you like, "chair of the board", could in fact be interpreted. I believe this present amending motion has resolved that slight difficulty adequately.
My colleagues and I on this side of the House do support amending Motion No. 7. It was felt that leaving the discretion of the call of meetings for the space agency committee completely up to the minister in charge did not give a strong enough mandate to the members of that board. It was felt, and we agree, that there should be some definition of the frequency at which those meetings could be called upon the discretion of the chair of the board.
Government Orders
So we will be supporting both of these amending motions. I feel that they do go a long way to clarifying slight discrepancies in the original legislation.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, concerning Motion No. 6 put forward by the government, it is to clarify somewhat the amendment that was accepted in committee, since the original version seemed to indicate the chairing of the Space Advisory Board would be shared among board members. For greater certainty, the amendement specifies that one board member only will be selected.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, on motion no 7, clause 22, which deals with advisory board meetings, the amendment as proposed is hardly acceptable because it is in fact comprised of two aspects neither of which is warranted.
First, under that amendment, the board's chairperson shall call meetings to review the Agency's operations. As the Advisory Board has a mandate to advise the Minister on matters specified by the latter, the chairperson has no authority whatsoever to call a meeting that is not attended by the minister. It is the minister's responsibility to determine the dates and places of the Board's meetings, because of the advisory nature of the board. But that does not prevent the minister from consulting the chairperson on such procedural matters.
Second, under the amendment, the advisory Board would have the responsibility to review the Agency's operations at least once a year. There already exist a number of mechanism to review departmental operations, including the Estimates, the Agency's annual report and the Standing Committee of this House. This means that every member here will have an opportunity to attend the committee and ask questions.
Also, Mr. Speaker, it would be highly imprudent to imply through such an amendment that a body other than Parliament is responsible for the operations of some department. This is why, Mr. Speaker, we found it very difficult to accept and support Motion No. 7, and we will therefore oppose it.


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

Government Orders


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions Nos. 6 and 7 will be voted on separately. The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of this bill. However, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded divisions will stand deferred until six o'clock on Monday, November 6,1989.


BROADCASTING ACT
Marcel Masse: that Bill C-40, 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Broadcasting Bill we are debating today for the first time reflects our concept of both Canada and its communications. It shows our determination to make a choice that takes into account our technological and cultural reality, for francophones as well as anglophones. It also indicates our firm intention to give the Canadian people a broadcasting system worthy of their expectations and history.
First of all, let us retrace the development of our broadcasting system. How did it start? How can we define it? Since its beginning, Canadian broadcasting has had to adjust to Canadian realities: the proximity to the United States, a vast and sparsely populated territory, as well as the existence of two official languages. Every measure taken by public authorities since the turn of the century can be explained by these economic, social and cultural challenges, which lie at the root of the bill before us today. Today's hybrid system, where private companies and Crown corporations coexist, which is controlled by a public agency and which recognizes the existence of two cultural realities, is the product of geographical, political and historical circumstances whose basic characteristics have, in many respects, remained the same.
What has changed, however, is the technology of communications and the significant evolution of Canadian values. Our bill takes these changes into account and proposes to the Canadian people a system more in sync with today's world and better equipped for the future.
In 1919, the Canadian Marconi Company broadcast for the first time regular programming from Montreal. In the 1920s and 1930s radio stations sprang up all over Canada spurred by local or regional needs. A new communications era was opening up with its benefits, its challenges and its dangers. Even in those days the American influence was being felt in Canadian radiobroadcasting. For one thing, for all practical purposes a number of Canadian stations were little more than relays for American stations, some of which purposely set up shop near the border to expand their advertising market and thus deprived our stations of the revenue sources they would need to grow.
This invasion of the waves quickly made Canadians aware of the urgency to establish their own coherent communications system to promote our values. Responding to these concerns, the Government of Canada established in 1928 the first commission of inquiry on broadcasting under the direction of Sir John Aird. The analysis and findings of the commissioners confirmed the suggestion that most radio broadcasts originated from abroad and that Canadians wanted to have their own broadcasting system. The commission also wondered whether it might not be necessary to build a national network, all the more so since it had reached the conclusion that the private sector alone would not be able to fund and meet the requirements of a Canadian

broadcasting system. The possibility of a joint public-private sector endeavour began to gain support. The Aird Commission also advocated annual government grants for public broadcasting, setting as a technical objective clear reception in all inhabited regions of the country, which at the time meant a 200-kilometre wide corridor along the Canada-U.S. border.
Such were the first parameters of a Canadian broadcasting policy designed to meet the major challenges peculiar to our geographic situation and political context: Canadian or American programming; public or private capital; respective responsibilities of public and private broadcasters; commercial requirements of private stations as opposed to their cultural obligations; regulation of contents or total lack of control; and protection of economic interests or diffusion of culture. All these alternatives were already becoming so many factors of the whole problem.
As early as 1929, this awareness of the importance of promoting and protecting culture was particularly strong in Quebec. For instance, the Quebec Government, the only Government in Canada with a French majority passed broadcasting legislation, invoking provincial jurisdiction over education and culture. However, in 1931, the Supreme Court, considering the interprovincial and international nature of the spectrum, ruled that the Government of Canada had sole jurisdiction over broadcasting.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, it was not until 1985 that a joint Quebec-Canada Committee took into account the distinct identity of French-language radio and television in this country and set out to harmonize policy in this area.
In 1932, further to the conclusions of the Aird Commission, the Conservative Government under R.B. Bennett passed the Canadian Broadcasting Act which created a national broadcasting system and introduced regulations for the private sector.
The Canadian broadcasting system was born. Basically, it was to remain unchanged, with a public and a private system, both subject to government regulations. Subse-
Govemment Orders
quent broadcasting legislation was merely a refinement of the original concept.
In the following years, a number of essential principles were formulated as we developed our approach to broadcasting in this country: radio waves are public property and government-authorized users have responsibilities as well.
Financing must come both from public and private sources; programming must be high quality and have Canadian content; and ownership must be Canadian.
The same principles which applied to radio would also guide the government in the 1950s, when television entered our homes. More than 30 years after the advent of radio, history repeated itself: American television programs immediately found their way to Canadian viewers.
This was the situation in the fall of 1952, when the CBC started broadcasting from its television studios in Montreal and Toronto.
Both stations were broadcasting eighteen hours a week: Toronto in English and Montreal in French and English. Remember, this was 1952! This imbalance would be unthinkable today.
American studios, which had already amortized their production costs on their own markets, offered their programs to Canadian broadcasters at greatly reduced prices. Since our own productions had to be entirely financed by our own market, they could hardly compete.
This hard economic truth and its dire consequences led to widespread dissatisfaction. That is why in 1955, the government appointed a second Royal Commission of Inquiry on Broadcasting, the Fowler Commission, which this time recommanded appointing a Board of Broadcast Governors.
In 1958, under a Conservative Government, legislation was passed defining the mandate of the Board of Broadcast Governors. The Board granted licences to private television stations with affiliated status with the CBC. The dual system already in existence in the radio sector was also applied to television.
The same Board imposed Canadian content requirements on owners of private stations. This measure was not always successful, since private broadcasters were

November 3, 1989
Government Orders
torn between their financial commitments and social responsiblities.
This situation forced the Government to rethink its policy, and in 1968, Parliament passed a new Broadcasting Act.
This time, a regulating body with increased powers called the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC was suggested. But the legislation allowed private broadcast licensees more freedom of action in their efforts to achieve the Canadia-nisation of the airwaves.
For that matter, the CRTC has recognized over the years the fundamental differences between the Francophone and Anglophone markets. This was demonstrated very clearly in its decision concerning the specialized television network which called for different regulations in the case of companies broadcasting in French and those broadcasting in English.
Since 1968, Canada has changed and technology has improved. Already, in 1985,1 had come to the conclusion that the legislative radiobroadcasting policy and framework were somewhat inadequate to reflect the new realities of our time. So the task force on broadcasting Policy was set up to examine such issues as cable distribution, the independent production industry, public broadcasting financing, the private cable distribution regulating framework, the impact of new broadcasting technologies, as well as the social, economic and constitutional changes which had occurred since the radiobroadcasting legislation was adopted in 1968.
The task force confirmed the cultural supremacy of the Canadian Broadcasting System and recommended the recognition in both spirit and letter of the distinctive characteristics of French and English broadcasting. It insisted on the need for drama programs which would reflect the identity of the Canadian society in its cultural and regional diversity. The task force examined the new technologies which, although they can foster progress, can also be a disrupting factor for the legal framework defined over 20 years before.
Following a thorough review of the issue, the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture submitted
to the Government a series of recommendations for the drafting of a new legislation.
Later on, the Government introduced in Parliament a new bill consistent with the current needs and views of the Canadian society. The Senate failed to adopt this legislation, and election having been called.
Since last March, I have met with representatives of the cultural and broadcasting industries everywhere in Canada.
You will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to note first of all the major improvements over the 1968 Act: explicit recognition of the contribution of women, children, cultural minorities, native peoples and the disabled, as well as the need to reflect the multicultural character of our society more faithfully; recognition of the special characteristics of the French-language market; revision of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's management structure and of its accountability to Parliament; explicit recognition of freedom of expression and of journalistic, creative and programming independence; legal neutrality concerning distribution technologies; in addition, the CRTC, under the new provisions of the Railway Act, will take account of the requirements of the Broadcasting Act in regulating telecommunications; permitting cable companies to create programming, while granting the CRTC the power to arbitrate any conflict of interest situations which may arise and if necessary require cable companies to broadcast other specific programming services.
As for Canadian content, the CRTC will have the power to implement a new system to give broadcasters incentives if required. Note that for some time, broadcasters have been making additional efforts in this direction.
The Governor in Council will be able to give the CRTC general instructions, which must first be reviewed by Parliament.
The new wording will enable companies producing signals and their authorized agents, including cable distributors, to take legal action against those who pirate signals for commercial purposes and who steal their coded signals.
Furthermore, we will use this legislation to make the following changes.
November 3, 1989

First, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will actively contribute to cultural expression and to exchanging the various forms that expression may take, and this approach will also apply to its ancillary services.
Second, its president will be a member of the board of directors and will be appointed by order in council.
Third, educational programming, and more specifically programming provided through the facilities of an independent educational organization, will be an integral part of the Canadian broadcasting system. Priority will be given to local stations whose broadcasts will be transmitted by cable.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has decided to relieve the CBC of the obligation to promote Canadian unity and to substitute therefore the obligation to report on the cultural reality of this country. Unity can only come about as a result of a sense of shared identity. The role of our information media is to describe events, not to promote policy. It is therefore unthinkable that Canada should persist in obliging a government agency to promote an ideology instead of reporting on the actual situation.
That being said, I may note that conscience, a strong identity and quality have been the hallmark of the CBC since it was created in 1936. The Corporation made its presence felt across Canada and played an essential role in Quebec. It was in the forefront of social change, and has been a tenacious promoter of linguistic and artistic quality, which continues today. I have said many times that this Crown corporation should be the cornerstone of the expression of our cultural reality.
The proposed legislation defines the mandate of the CBC and clarifies its responsibility with respect to the need for Canadian, regional and cultural programming. The role it is asked to play today differs substantially from the role it has played in the past. As a public broadcaster, the CBC must offer Canadians what they are entitled to expect from a service financed with public funds.
One of the most complex aspects of this approach is probably how to meet these expectations. The CBC could do more if it had twice as much funding. I imagine the same applies to health insurance, environmental programs and all the other services offered by the
Government Orders
government. The truth is, we cannot afford this kind of luxury.
Because of budgetary constraints, the CBC has been very actively seeking advertising revenue. This approach has not been well received by private broadcasters and has certainly had an impact on programming. Of course, the CBC could decide, of its own accord, to drop advertising on its television network as it did on radio. This certainly deserves further consideration.
From the outset, our broadcasting system has reflected our Canadian values. The proposed legislation reflects the political and cultural changes in Canadian society, its confidence and its maturity. It will benefit the entire population because Canadians will have a broadcasting system that is more complete and closer to their reality.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to what the minister said and found his speech to be a well-thought out historical retrospective which indicated his understanding of the complexity of the public and private sector and the use of Canadian airwaves.
I wish to make a series of observations in the hope that the minister will listen and recognize these as constructive observations so that, hopefully, we will be able to unanimously adopt this bill at third reading.

In that respect, I am honoured and pleased to share with this honourable House and all Canadians what I think of Bill C-40, an Act to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act.
The bill follows directly from the Kaplan-Sauvageau Commission's report as well as from four reports tabled by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. Moreover, the Government already tabled a bill almost identical to the legislation now before us, but that twin died on the Order Paper when the 1988 election was called.
We Liberals believe that by reason of geographic, demographic and cultural conditions in Canada, the Government has a prime role in a cultural sector as strategic as communications and broadcasting, a prime and vital role. In order to grow as a distinct, sovereign and prosperous nation from coast to coast, we have had

November 3, 1989
Government Orders
to face on a daily basis the challenges of climate, geography and the permanent attraction of the powerful giant south of the border, our American cousins.
There is no doubt that without a constant and unflinching determination to be ourselves and the direct and constant involvement of our government, never would we have survived or would we have preserved our own identity.
The Canadian Government gave us such tools as a national railway system, a national Post Office, a national radio and TV network, a national airline and various other parts of a coherent infrastructure that is absolutely essential to the development of Canada as we now know it, or I should rather say, Mr. Speaker, Canada as we knew it yesterday because there is no doubt that this government has a deliberate agenda to dismantle that infrastructure. It is putting Air Canada on the block, it is crippling VIA Rail, it is severing in one fell swoop the links between small communities and the rest of the country, creating a stae if isolation that is totally at odds with the basic principles that allowed this country to advance and develop.
As Liberals, we are going to keep on the fight to preserve those infrastructures, because we are deeply convinced they are essential to this country's future.

I believe the minister indicated that he understood very well. I am glad to see that at least the broadcast bill is not to suffer the same kind of indignity.
With respect to broadcasting in Canada our basic principles remain, those which were constant from the past. Broadcasting is a public service. There is a need for ownership and control by Canadians of the Canadian broadcasting system. There is also a need to make adequate provisions for the financing and broadcasting of Canadian programs of high standards from Canadian sources. Programs of similar standards should be sought from other sources.
The primacy role of the public sector is to serve both English and French speaking Canadians equally and fairly, as well as all regions of Canada. Providing for program exchange among the regions is important. The fundamental assumptions are that the airwaves are a limited resource that must be used in the Canadian
public interest. As well, the principle is that Canadians in all settled regions of this vast land and not simply those in the large population centres are entitled to a broadcasting service.
The stated principles set out by R. B. Bennett in introducing the first broadcast law in Canada which had the unanimous support of both opposition and government were in part:
This country must be assured of complete control of broadcasting from Canadian sources, free from foreign interference. Without such control broadcasting can never become a great agency for communication of matters of national concern and for the diffusion of national thought and ideals, and without such control it can never be the agency by which national consciousness may be fostered and sustained and national unity still further strengthened.
One of the main reasons for this approach was best articulated by the Aird commission which said on the central issue of Canadian programming:
At present the majority of programs heard are from sources outside of Canada.
The situation continues today. The commission continued:
It has been emphasized to us that the continued reception of these (ideas) has a tendency to mould the minds of young people-to ideals and opinions that are not Canadian-many persons appearing before us have expressed the view that they would like to have an exchange of programs with the different parts of the country-In conclusion, in a country of the vast geographical dimensions of Canada, broadcasting will undoubtedly become a great force in fostering a national spirit and interpreting national citizenship.
I would hope that our children and our grandchildren will end up having a sense of Canada and knowing to the extent that it is important who the leaders of this country are, without getting them mixed up with those of our American neighbour.
Those most important principles remain. They are in large measure reflected in the broadcast policy for Canada found in clause 3 of the bill. The 1968 act needed to be altered to reflect technological change. This the government has done. There is a need to examine the division of responsibility for broadcast policy and the role, management and control of the national broadcaster, the CBC, and the regulator, the CRTC, cable, and the private sector. This side of the House sees some crucial flaws that create the gap in the express need for a Canadian system, for Canadian content and for Canadian control as defined in the purposes and objectives of that clause.
November 3, 1989

The gaps, the errors or omissions, the mechanisms to set in place some corrective measures have been brought to the government's attention through many representations at hearings held across this country, and amendments were suggested. However, the government seems bent, in certain instances, on different directions. Errors of the past are not fully addressed. Remedial solutions are lacking in some of the key nerve centres of this new bill. This is regrettable, for we have this rare opportunity to fix it where it is broken.
The government seems bent on dismantling this country's infrastructure, and we on this side of the House will continue to fight to build and to maintain. My party believes that the development and maintenance of a truly Canadian broadcasting system is fundamental to the future of Canada. I believe the minister shares that point of view, for the most part, and I hope he will see the need for amendments that I am bringing to his attention right now.
As the minister knows, in 1989 Canada is a culturally occupied country. Some 80 per cent of our publishing industry is in foreign hands. Ninety-seven per cent of films shown in Canada are foreign. Eighty-five per cent of records and tapes are based on imported master tapes. In broadcasting, 71 per cent of all programs viewed by English speaking Canadians on television are American. The figure is much lower in French speaking Canada, but as the globalization takes place that too will be impacted.
The minister has given money and a great deal of attention to certain sectors, but here is where he can really do a job. This is where people watch and listen. Therefore, I would suggest that cultural survival will be perhaps one of the most critical problems our generation of Canadians will have to face. I believe that it can be achieved but only by using all the means at our command.
With Canadians spending 24 hours each week watching television and 18 hours per week listening to radio, what we see and hear on television and radio impacts on how we view ourselves and our world, and what our children are going to think. Broadcasting is the central vehicle through which Canadians communicate with one another, a major instrument for Canadian expression in the arts and entertainment and an essential means for providing a Canadian perspective in news, information and programming.
Government Orders
In addressing the broadcast issue of the present and the future, the crucial test will not be just the extent to which the provisions of the 1968 act are retained. The key test will be the extent to which in a more complex world we continue to retain control by Canadians over the system and to provide a reasonable balance between Canadian and foreign programming.
We live in a rapidly developing technological environment. The coaxial cable technology that led to the cabling of Canadian homes revolutionized broadcasting in the 1960s and 1970s, but that technology is now rapidly being replaced and challenged by the development of cheaper fibre optics installed by telephone companies and cheaper satellite communications being bought by individuals, as well as the growing number of Canadians who have VCRs.
We therefore cannot ignore technology, but we must use it creatively to improve the distribution while ensuring Canadian content through it. Jean McNulty, in a recent article entitled Broadcasting Policy in the Canadian Context, sums the situation up very well. She states:
Communications distribution technologies are seen as both potential
national saviours and potential Trojan horses.
It is in that light that we make certain observations and the content that is carried on those systems becomes of utmost importance. It is not counting the number of Canadian buttons pushed and saying that is Canadian content; it is the amount of real Canadian content.
While Canadians are technically well advanced in distribution technology, we are far less advanced in the areas of production and marketing of domestic content. This government must act to ensure domestic production. The government could start by reinstating the 100 per cent capital cost allowance of film and video production which was cut in 1987 to 30 per cent, resulting in significant cuts in production moneys available and in production, of course.
Recently we have learned that the Canadian audience share given to Canadian television stations is significantly lower than that which was sought. What will be the impact now upon the revenues from advertising? Will broadcasters lose resources that could have been earmarked for Canadian productions? These are part of our challenges.

Government Orders
Since Bill C-136 died we had hoped the new minister would have taken the time to reshape a new bill and to put his own imprimatur on the bill.
However Bill C-40 is not such a bill. It is still the hurried bill of a defeated minister with a few tinkered changes.
We had been hopeful that the new minister and the Department of Communications would have prepared a report on all the suggestions and comments that had been made by so many responsible individuals and groups, by so many experts, and at least explain why their concerns had not been met.
I acknowledge the positive and very carefully considered provisions of the bill and yet I wonder about its absences. On the positive provisions, this new bill adds the question of addressing women, children and cultural minorities. Aboriginal peoples and the disabled are specifically mentioned in the legislation as is the need to portray more accurately the multicultural nature of our society. Bravo.
The special nature of the French language broadcasting environment is recognized. The CKTC will thus be required to make these market differences and to take them into account when making licensing decisions. Originators of program signals and their authorized agents such as cable operators will be able to take action in the courts against commercial pirates stealing their scrambled signals.
Provisions have been included making educational broadcasting an integral part of the law and the Canadian scene. Local Canadian stations will be given priority status when carried by cable. There is provision that the president of the CBC be a member of the CBC board of directors and the definition of broadcasting has been changed to give the CRTC more flexibility in dealing with new types of programming services.
I now come to my critique. Bill C-40 drops the CBC's 1968 mandate to contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity. I heard the minister address this point. I do not agree with his observations.
The removal of the national unity reference I know was recommended by both Caplan-Sauvageau and by my own standing committee. The chairman of the committee at that time is sitting here. Caplan-Sauvageau and the standing committee had been concerned that this clause might interfere with CBC's ability to ensure that its programming reflect and interpret as fully, as fairly and as accurately as possible Canada's cultural, social, political, economic, linguistic and regional reality and diversity. I think that it did.
Pierre Juneau, former president of the CBC, told the committee that the phrase "national unity" had not caused any problems during his years at the CBC. The CRTC noted that its interpretation of the term never precluded a free political discussion from all points of view.
Last night, the standing committee reviewed the Orders in Council appointments of Mr. Keith Spicer, Mr. Veilleux, and Mr. Patrick Watson. All three indicated their support and recognized the importance of the broadcasting system as being a key agent for the development of national unity, a sense of shared experience and greater understanding of tolerance and exchange.
I would suggest to the minister that I would like to see the national unity clause put back. It should read something to the effect that the Canadian broadcasting system shall contribute to the development of national unity by providing a continuing expression of Canadian identity leading to the development of national consciousness.
I would like to point out another serious flaw, and that is the part-time position of the CBC chairman.

Perhaps the shell is more important that the content. And this is too bad! Because the content is just as important, and the chair-person or chief executive officer must take the time to look after that.

Mr. Watson told us that his work week presently needs nine days. I hope that in the future his work week would only need five days, but certainly not five part-time days. I think that was an error, and I hope it will be redressed.
This bill scraps last year's provision giving the board the power to appoint the president of the CBC subject to the approval of cabinet. Under Bill C-40 the president will be appointed by cabinet, a move which The Calgary Herald on October 14 of this year said made some CBC

supporters feel that public broadcasting would be more vulnerable to political control.
There has been a lot of discussion around the appointment of chief executive officers in arm's length Crown corporations, particularly those in the cultural milieu. The Nielsen report recommended that chief executive officers of national cultural institutions be appointed by the board of those agencies upon consultation with the minister responsible.
The Caplan-Sauvageau report supported the Nielsen recommendation. However the president and chief executive officers said they should be appointed by and be responsible to the board of directors in recognition of the principle of arm's length.
Our fourth report stated in concurring with the recommendation of Caplan-Sauvageau that:
Creative autonomy in a publicly funded broadcasting organization
is a precious commodity that must be protected not only from real
compromise but also from the slightest hint or appearance of
compromise.
This is not to say that the appointments were not fine appointments. They were. I would sincerely hope that the same appointments would have been made following consultation, but I think the provision is there. We may not some day have such an enlightened government able to find such competent people.
The additional flaws that I bring to the minister's attention are the recognition of Radio Canada International, the Parliamentary Television Network and Northern Services within the CBC mandate. This bill provides no recognition of those. Both Caplan-Sauvageau and standing committee recommended that these services be incorporated in broadcasting legislation.
I believe each of these services are key to Canada and that by stating them specifically within legislation official recognition and continuity of service are clearly confirmed by Parliament, whether under the public or private sector joint financing. That is not the issue. The issue is that those services are on our screens or in our radio system.
As to programming in representative native languages, the bill recognizes the right of Canada's aboriginal peoples to receive programming that reflects their culture within the Canadian broadcasting system. It does not provide for such services to be in representative native languages where numbers warrant and as public
Government Orders
funds become available. Liberals believe that support of aboriginal languages and through them the transmission of native cultures is so important that the new Broadcasting Act must provide such strong affirmation and the role of the CBC be reaffirmed in that area.
A further critique is that the introduction of that new alternative programming service is an idea that truly has merit. The need for increased cultural and artistic programming is real, but it is totally unrealistic at this time when the CBC is suffering major cut-backs and having difficulty in fulfilling not only its legislative mandate but its CRTC licence commitments. Further, why is such a service defined in the law? We have specialty services. We have pay television services. They exist and are not defined in legislation. Whose ego is to be served here?
Liberals are not saying no to an alternative service which could be very enriching, but the dollars are not there. This type of service should be addressed through the normal CRTC licensing process, including a full public hearing.
We have said that one of the most serious omissions is the extent of the ownership and control by Canadians. It fails to require that all broadcasting undertakings be at least 80 per cent owned and effectively controlled by Canadians, and that no single foreign shareholder may own more than 10 per cent of the shares in any broadcasting undertaking. That has been the concept behind the law since 1958. It was directed under a CRTC cabinet direction in section 22 of the 1968 act. I believe that such important Canadian ownership criteria should be written into that act now to ensure that the will of Parliament is understood for now and evermore. It should not be tampered with.
We believe that by writing this requirement into legislation an open, public debate would then be required before any changes could be made.
I also bring to the minister's attention the question of foreign networks. They certainly should be licensed. Cable networks like CNN, Nashville Network, Arts and Entertainment, about 17 or 18 of them, are doing business in Canada without being required to obtain a licence from the CRTC. However, Canadian satellite networks, TSN and Much Music must. Liberals find this to be unfair.

Government Orders
We believe the government should have provided the CRTC with full regulatory authority over any foreign service earning revenue from Canada with no obligation to contribute to Canadian programming.
When we looked at this issue in the standing committee we noted that CNN has penetrated Canadian households to the extent of almost 435,000 subscribers. Others have reached as many as 400,000, as opposed to some of our own Canadian networks that have not been able to meet that target as yet. I think that the importation of these services will compromise the potential for developing Canadian services in the future. These unlicensed services do not make any commitment to the Canadian good or to the Canadian programming goals. I think that there is something to be said about that.
In Bill C-40, clause 3(l)(s)(iv) provides cable the power to become programmers. While we believe that cable should be provided an opportunity to be a contributor to the Canadian broadcasting system, we note that there are dangers of unfair competition, vertical integration and conflicts of interest. We therefore argue that Bill C-40 should incorporate provisions that would limit the role of cable television systems to providing programming that is not already offered by conventional broadcasters.
We are not saying no to cable operators becoming involved in programming. We just believe the programming they offer should be different and complementary to existing programs. We also believe that their role should be more clearly defined with respect to community cable.
There is no serious provision in this bill for community broadcasting, which is now a significant part of the system. It gives access to community based groups and local stories that are not always on the public agenda. It reflects the dynamism and the vitality of the multicultural dimension of our local communities. It is a very important and distinct voice, different from that of the local independent or unaffiliated station to the national network.
It is a system that the CRTC addresses in a way that differs from its approach to either the public or the private broadcasting system. I would hope that we would broaden the definition of the system.
With respect to cable carriage of Canadian services, the bill does provide a framework requiring that cable give priority to the carriage of Canadian programming services and, in particular, the carriage of local Canadian stations.
This is a good start, but what does it mean? Could the weather channel, Vision TV or the home shopping channel be considered local Canadian stations? Does the priority mean channels 1 to 13 or 1 to 35? Would the community channel be considered local?
Liberals argue that the bill should in defining the essential role of cable systems require that in distributing Canadian radio and television services in French and English, both public and private, first priority be given to the public sector French and English networks and then the other public sector services, followed by provincial educators and certainly then the private Canadian broadcasting sector.
The programming is not defined as being predominantly Canadian. I find this unbelievable. The bill provides that each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use and in no case less than predominant use of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming. Presently clause 3(l)(e) only requires that the resources that contribute to programming must be predominantly Canadian but does not require that the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system be predominantly Canadian.
You buy trucks made in Canada for Canadians by Canadians, but you do not necessarily have to show Canadian content programs. I think that needs to be re-examined. It is really quite an amazing clause, and I sincerely hope the minister will look at how we can put the predominantly Canadian aspect back into this clause.
Again there are no limits placed on foreign services carried by cable. That is one of the major failures in this bill, to provide the CRTC with this strong legislative framework that would allow it, to the extent that foreign broadcasting signals are carried, to define them to be complementary to existing programming from Canadian sources. In other words, it should be different. It should allow those Canadian programs that are bought from Americans to have the exclusivity which they thought was purchased by the networks when they discovered that was not really so.
November 3, 1989

The following approach should be taken. First, to avoid disruption the act should make provisions for those foreign channels now carried to continue to be operated. In other words, grandfather what exists and that is it. Second, the test in the future of whether to permit the importation of any additional foreign service should be that it actually adds something significant to the mix of programming available to Canadians. Specifically the test should offer programming complementary to that already available from licensed Canadian program broadcasters. The ultimate effect is not to dilute the Canadian service.
There is no provision for non-simultaneous substitution, something I have discussed in the past and something I will come back to again. I do not think it is fair the way we expect our Canadian networks to purchase rights and then once they have those rights to be able to attract large advertising dollars. How can broadcasters expect to obtain the advertising revenue when they are not able to attain the total rights to those programs?
The status is unclear for MATY systems. I remind the minister that the previous minister had to stand up and make a million excuses and explanations as to what the circumstances were and in what state MATV systems would be found. Condominium and apartment residents have a right to know where they stand regarding the law. If they have access to a master antenna or to a satellite, are they required to be licensed? Do they pay a telecommunication tax? Do they pay retransmission rights? Under this bill there is no clarity as to whether MATV systems will be considered a distribution undertaking and subject to licensing by the CRTC.
If they are exempt, then let us say they are exempt. According to the former Minister of Communications they were exempt. Why not make that clear in the law? Liberals have argued that condominium and apartment residents have a right to know where they stand.
The last issue I would like to look at is that of the cabinet power of direction and review. The way this bill is written it will seriously jeopardize the CRTC's ability to carry out its role as an expert and independent quasi-judicial body because it will grant to the cabinet two powers: first, to provide policy direction to the CRTC and, second, to review CRTC decisions.
Government Orders
Through these powers the cabinet would have sufficient control to effectively supersede the commission, a method by which to have one's cake and eat it too. We have argued that the cabinet should be empowered to issue binding directions to the CRTC, but these directions should be restricted to broad policy matters in furtherance of the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. Furthermore, the direction should refer to the specific objectives in the act which they seek to further. As well, we believe that such cabinet directions should not have a retroactive effect and should not be issued in respect of a particular licence. Regarding the cabinet's power to review the CRTC decisions, we argue that it must be limited. We support the standing committee's view that the power of review be limited to two situations. First, where the cabinet determines that its direction has been ignored or misinterpreted by the CRTC; and, second, when a decision of the CRTC has national policy implications regarding the broadcast system.
At the end, if I have time, I am going to read into the record Mr. Spicer's very astute observations in this regard. I had forgotten that I wanted to mention that I am not particularly pleased with the seven-year term being turned into a five-year term. I think that what happens to the nominees of both the board of the directors of the CBC and the CRTC is that we end up of having the perception of arms length and independence being distorted.

Mr. Speaker, it is comforting to find that this time, unlike its approach to VIA Rail and other elements of our national infrastructure, the Government has not dismantled our broadcasting system. It shows that, even in this Government, a Minister can, if he wants to, protect our heritage and refuse to let economic forces undermine the foundations of our society.
Obviously, this Bill is not perfect and I urge the Minister of Communications to consider very seriously my previous comments. He must recognize that my approach is positive, constructive and, I hope, Canadian rather than partisan.
Like thousands of Canadians, I am concerned about our country's future. Every time I turn on the television and every time I go to a bookstore or a newsstand, that mass invasion of programs, books, music and magazines

Government Orders
makes me shudder. I wonder how much longer we will survive as a people and as a nation with a distinct culture in North America.
In general, when we talk about cultural survival, we think automatically of this country's francophones. In fact, French Canadians and especially Quebeckers have developed such energy, such cultural self-sufficiency that they are now better equipped than anglophones to face up to the cultural invasion we are experiencing.
Living in isolation on this continent as a result of their language, Canada's francophones have developed creative and other skills in producing their own songs, soap operas, literature and magazines. In short, there undoubtedly exists on this continent a distinct French culture which is neither a by-product nor an imitation of the French culture in Europe and elsewhere.

I recognize that there is still a need for financial balancing in Radio-Canada, CBC, and I think that with the enunciations in the new bill we can accomplish the equivalence that has been alluded to.

However, the situation is different in English Canada. Culturally, Canada is being invaded, dominated, and occupied by the States. Eighty per cent of our books, 71 per cent of our television programs, and 85 per cent of our records come from foreign countries. They are almost exclusively made in USA.
In the last two decades, Canada has become a leader in the development of telecommunications technologies. We are proud, in fact very proud of our success in that field, and we intend to increase our efforts and do even better.
Unfortunately, progress has been slow in the production area. Technically, we can say we are leaders in development, but culturally, we tag behind.
Mr. Speaker, I believe in Canadian identity. I believe that the links established between Western and Eastern Canada by our predecessors were and still are essential for us to be able do communicate. In learning about each other, Canadians can better understand who they are, they can see how different and independent they are of Americans.
The Leader of the Official Opposition has often described in the most eloquent terms the distinctive characteristics of the Canadian nation. This country is the product of combined British and French traditions. Our Constitution is based on peace, order and good government. We are a people which operates on consensus, moderation and balance. If we have opted for a mixed economy, it is because we felt that it is more conducive to social justice than the strict interaction of the market forces.
In Canada, we respect our aboriginal people we cherish both our founding nations and we encourage them to build for the future. Far from forcing them to conform, we provide them with every opportunity to maintain their cultural identity and thereby contribute to the great Canadian cultural mosaic. The new arrivals are for Canada a source of real enrichment.
It is beyond question that the implementation of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, plus the breaking up of our national infrastructures, plus the destruction of our regional development programs have severely weakened the East-West ties which existed ever since this country came into being, to replace them with increasingly subjugating North South ties.
As elected representatives of the Canadian people, our basic duty is to take all preventive and corrective measures which we fell are needed to ensure the survival and development of the Canadian identity, without which it would no longer be possible to differentiate between a Canadian and an American.
We should make a very special effort to ensure that our national broadcasting network fully plays the vital role in this offensive which is essential to develop our national identity.
Even if we could, we would not isolate our airwaves nor erect a barrier against satellite intrusion. We want to be open to the world. We want to be in tune with national events. We want to discover the universe and its inhabitants. Our approach to broadcasting, therefore, should be progressive, open, dynamic and profoundly Canadian. Generaly speaking, this bill goes in the right direction, but I nevertheless urge the Government, and especially the Minister, to closely study the changes which I have suggested, for they could certainly re-inforce our collective cultural future.
November 3, 1989


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, as the critic for the New Democratic Party on the issue of communications and culture, to speak on this bill.

I am happy to see that the Minister was here to listen to the speeches. Yet, I see no Oscar and I am anxious to see the Minister's Oscar.

That is why I call him Oscar Masse. I expected to see the minister with his Oscar here today, but perhaps he is hiding it from us.
We have seen this bill before. This is the broadcasting act that was passed in the last Parliament-well not quite, it passed this House of Commons, but it did not get through the Senate and therefore it never became the law of Canada.
We need a broadcasting act because the act that is still in force goes back to 1968. We have had a lot of new technology in the meantime, especially in the cable industry. So we have to update the act.
The previous process was a long one. We had numerous debates here in Parliament and we had long committee hearings. As a result of that process there were numerous amendments made to what I thought was a very flawed bill when the original broadcasting bill was introduced in the last Parliament. I was happy to see that the government accepted some of my amendments and other amendments that were put forward by different groups. We took a bad bill and we made it better, but not good enough.
This is very important. Adults watch television 24 hours a week, and our young people watch it even more. I will say something more about that in my speech later on. I think this is one of the most important bills that this Parliament could consider, so we have to take time with it and we have to do it right. We have to try once again to make this bill better.
There are some changes to this particular bill from the one we debated in the last Parliament. Let me just summarize those changes so that we know what we are talking about. The first one is that educational broadcast-
Govemment Orders
ers received a clause that they wanted, recognizing their integral role in the broadcasting system. This is something that we in the NDP proposed as an amendment at report stage last time and, naturally, we think it represents an improvement. I am glad it is part of the bill.
Second, local stations are given priority status on cable over satellite to cable services such as TSN and Much Music. That reflects the importance of local broadcasting.
Third, the job of the chair of the CBC is explicitly defined as part-time. That raises some difficulties which we can explore in the committee, which we explored last night when we had Mr. Patrick Watson, the new chair of the CBC board, in front of our committee. He seemed to define it as a full-time job but in the act it is defined as a part-time job. I am confident he will do a good job there. He is a distinguished Canadian. But we have to look carefully at this set-up between a part-time chair of a very conservative board of directors and a full-time president.
The fourth change is that more importantly, the definition of broadcasting has been changed to include SMATV systems in the broadcast act. This means that Bell, which is explicitly prohibited from operating under the broadcasting legislation, cannot operate such a service. This change should be viewed as positive, in my view, since HDTV, or the direct delivery of programs from a central bank to a particular television set upon request, could well be the wave of the future. This is really the future technology. It is important that the criteria of all types of broadcasting be applied to it as well.
In other words, in a few years you will be able to turn on your TV and phone in or press some buttons and call up, as we can here in our House of Commons system, a particular movie or program that you want to see. This is a tremendous tool to education. It could be a tremendous waste as well unless there is some regulatory criteria put on what you can call up. In other words, we want some Canadian content in that as well.
As I said, the previous bill was passed by the House. There were some amendments passed then. There are some good changes in this bill. The bill has been improved in the process but I believe that the bill is still flawed. I want to deal with some of the questions about

November 3, 1989
Government Orders
Canadian control of communications within Canada, because that is the key issue.
Karl Deutsch, the great social scientist, once noted that the test of nationhood is that more communications take place within a country than between that country and another country. In other words, we communicate among ourselves. By this standard Canada is not doing very well. Three per cent of our film profits stay in Canada. Three per cent of video cassette sales are Canadian made. Ninety-seven per cent are foreign-made. Our own publishers own only 30 per cent of the Canadian market. Seventy-seven per cent of magazines sold in Canada are foreign. Eighty-five per cent of records and tapes sold in this country are foreign. No other country matches the distributing situation we have in this country.
The extent of this problem is best reflected on television. Of the 52,000 hours of English language television programming shown in Canada annually, less than 100 hours are Canadian drama. Of the 27,000 hours of French language television, only 630 hours are original Canadian drama. That is not a very good record.
Francophone teenagers watch foreign programming 50 per cent of the time. Anglophone teenagers watch it 80 per cent of the time. So our young people are being inundated with foreign programming.
I am not one who believes that you should put fences along borders. I believe in having an international outlook. I like to think of myself as a Canadian nationalist with a strong international outlook. I think most Canadians think of themselves that way but I think we are in real danger when we, and especially our young people, are so totally inundated with foreign programming.
There was a report by a committee called the Caplan-Sauvageau committee. Gerry Caplan from Toronto and Florian Sauvageau from Montreal produced an excellent report. I will give you one quote from that report. I admit that I have stolen it sometimes and not really given them the proper attribution, so I will do it now.
They said:
The reasons for this problem are clear: the public sector which must
be the chief purveyor of quality Canadian programming is
inadequately scaled and funded; the private sector which should
complement the public sector is not doing its job.
If I can summarize that, partly in my own words, the private sector is under-funded and the public sector is not doing its job.
This government has not made it easy to change that situation. I will give you some examples; the trade deal. If I can summarize the problem with the trade deal, culturally, it is this. The government says nothing in the trade deal affects culture. However, in the trade deal the Americans are entitled to take equivalent commercial, if you like, retaliation. So, if you are minister of culture and you want to bring in some legislation changing that situation with film distribution, for example, or tape distribution or magazine distribution, you want to bring in some Canadian nationalist legislation, then the Americans will retaliate against, say, west coast fishermen. Then the west coast fishermen will come to you as the minister and say, "Look, we are getting put out of a job. You had better not put in that strong nationalist legislation." That is how it is going to work and that is why the trade deal affects culture.
The second indication can be seen in the government's approach. The Prime Minister went to France for the bicentennial. What did he do? He just stole out of the Toronto airport a Jean Paul Riopelle masterpiece and gave it to the French. They thought we were crazy giving one of our masterpieces to them. They do not go into the Louvre and walk around the world giving away their masterpieces.
The Prime Minister's action was just, well, we can wheel and deal with our own cultural artifacts. I say that was a sham and a disgrace and it indicated the approach of the Prime Minister and the government.
There is another recent indication of what his government is doing. The Prime Minister met with Robert Maxwell, the international publisher. I bet that meeting was about lowering the requirement on foreign ownership of newspapers. I believe it is 20 per cent. I stand to be corrected, but I think you cannot have more than 20 per cent. I bet, and I predict that there is pressure from Maxwell and there will be changes by this Prime Minister to open up our newspapers.
The fourth indication is on film distribution. Jack Valente, the lobbyist for Hollywood, the friend of American presidents, has the power, if you can believe it, to get the Canadian government to withdraw a bill that it was going to present to the Canadian Parliament. What was
November 3, 1989

the bill going to do? It was going to guarantee a bit of the slice of the pie for Canadian film distributors. Americans only have 97 per cent, they did not want to make any changes there. So this government, ready-aye-ready, withdrew the bill.
I got hold of its bill and I put it in as one of my private members' bills so that the whole country can see what the original bill was going to do and can see a perfect textbook example of how the Americans influenced our cultural policy and got the Mulroney government to withdraw a bill. That is the kind of thing we are faced with when we are dealing with this government.
Let me return to this particular bill and give some general criticisms of it. I believe, first, that the bill will lead to the increased North Americanization of Canadian broadcasting. We are in a fight to keep this country. It is not just Meech Lake that is the problem in this country, it is the rapidly growing loss of independence in this country through the free trade deal and through the way we are dealing with our own institutions in Canada, including Meech Lake.
The government rejected key standing committee recommendations to ensure a distinctive Canadian market. We believe that this rejection is linked to the trade deal. That is my first criticism of the bill and I will come back to that in more detail.
The second one is that the bill is a gift to the cable industry. Cable gets the right to originate programming far beyond its current community obligations. This mixing of content and carriage creates the potential for a clear conflict of interest. In addition, the government has done nothing to regulate outrageous cable industry profits. Cable is the only territorial monopoly in Canada whose profits are unregulated. The phone companies are regulated.
Finally, cable's right to import foreign programming as it sees fit is in no way limited. MPs in this House will tell you that people are phoning them and complaining about cable fees going up and about what is happening in terms of their dial. The cable industry is making a bundle off of them. They have a 30 per cent rate of return on
Government Orders
their profit. Canadians are starting to notice that because they are calling our offices.
Third, while the government has given a broad mandate to the CBC, the corporation has taken such a financial beating over the last five years that, in my view, it cannot realistically meet its legislative obligations in spite of what some of the witnesses said last night.
In the first four years of this government the CBC went from $905 million to $775 million in real terms. Now, with the budget last spring, there is a further $140 million cut-back over the next five years. We may have good people who are going to be in charge of the CBC, but they are going to have to produce loaves and fishes for the CBC, they are going to have to produce miracles. I just do not see how they can do it. The CBC needs money to operate.
The other day the minister announced that he would give some additional funds to the CBC, just like that, to help it over a little period. While we appreciate the CBC getting a little bit of extra money, this is a bad pattern. Last night, Mr. Veilleux, the new Chief Executive Officer, said: "We will try and cut back and if we need a bit more we will go back to the minister".
The problem here is that you open up the danger of political control of the CBC, in even subtle ways, when you have to keep going back for bits and bits of money. You need a five-year plan. That is what the House of Commons committee recommended, a five-year plan properly funded.
The fourth objection in principle is that every report on broadcasting in the last decade has decided that the private sector in Canada is not doing its job in providing a distinctively Canadian service and producing quality programming in Canada. That is the private sector now. This bill does little to change this except to provide the possibility of a performance incentive programming that practically everybody in our committee agrees will not work. The private sector keeps promising the CRTC, it keeps coming back to the CRTC and the CRTC lets it off the hook. If the private sector does not produce this Canadian programming, the CRTC should just take away its licence. Forget the performance incentive programs, they will not work. You must have a strict term. If you do not produce, we will take away your licence. In that way

November 3, 1989
Government Orders
we get the private sector in this country producing some quality Canadian programming.
Fifth, provisions dealing with broadcasting in representative aboriginal languages and for multilingual broadcasting are insufficient. We should look at this in the committee.
Sixth, the bill creates a so-called alternate television network. It is quite amazing that this bill creates a whole alternate network. What is this network? What is it to do? What are its responsibilities? It is not given any resource, so I believe it will never come into existence. It is a sham. We might look at that further in committee.
Those are some of the objections I have to the bill on principle and some of the areas in which I think it should be amended.
Let me go into some other details of the flaws. As I said, the bill leads to a North Americanization, especially in television, of our broadcasting. The government rejected two key amendments by the New Democratic Party that would say to American superstations on television, new stations if you like, that those stations could only come into Canada if they were complimentary to Canadian stations.
Let me explain that. They have to add something. If Canadian stations such as an entertainment network or an all news network already existed, then the American stations could not come in. That would require legislation protecting Canadian culture. This government will not do it because it is afraid of the Americans. It has a trade deal and it is afraid to do it.
I am not talking about ABC, CBS, NBC or the American public stations or the border stations. I am talking about these new superchannels which I believe could possibly run right over Canadian broadcasters and could in fact put a lot of our private broadcasters right out of business because I do not think our private broadcasters can compete with them. This is not a level playing field. I believe that is one of the flaws in the bill.
I asked the minister why the government did not accept these amendments. I believe the government is hemmed in by the trade deal, by its unwillingness to interfere with American industries, even cultural industries coming into Canada.
The second flaw in the bill was the cable industry being treated too well. I mentioned the right to originate programming. This was in opposition to all previous reports, especially the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, and to many of the witnesses that came before it. The cable industry has a real in with this government. I do not know what it is, but it must have a good lobby. It has certainly been protected in this bill. I wish my Liberal friends would look at that more seriously and not support the cable industry so absolutely in this area.
Another aspect that we have to look at in the cable industry, and we have to face this, is whether we are going to regulate cable fees. The telephone industry is regulated but cable is not. We are going to have one fibre optic line going into a household in the future, into a phone, into a TV or whatever, and we are going to have to come to grips with that. In some aspects, ironically, this bill is already out of date in many ways technologically before it has even come in because technology is moving so quickly. We have to deal with whether or not we are going to regulate the profits of the cable industry. I think we should.
I mentioned the underfunding of the CBC. I want to quote from a distinguished writer from Southam's, Jamie Portman, who follows this area constantly and is one of the best writers of it. He wrote in The Spectator, of Hamilton:
The government has ignored a recent call from an all-party Commons committee that it show its commitment to better Canadian programming by increasing its support of broadcasting by up to $250 million-
That is what Conservative members on that committee said.
-in fresh funding annually-in real dollar terms, the CBC's budget has shrunk by more than $150 million since the Conservatives came to power.
I will not stay on this. The fact is if you want the public sector to work, you have to fund it. You can have all these wonderful expressions, but if you keep cutting back the CBC dramatically like this, what you are going to see is commercials on The National. You are eventually going to see commercials with changes on the radio. You are going to see cut-backs in regional programming, which I think will be a real disaster. Do you remember what I said about Karl Deutsch saying that Canadians have to
November 3, 1989

communicate among themselves in different regions? If we cut back regional programming, we really cut back the essence of nationhood in this country.
The CBC has been asked to make 95 per cent Canadian content in drama. This is good. I mentioned earlier the figures about our sad lack of producing drama. You tell the CBC to do that on the one hand but on the other hand you do not give it any money. What are they going to do? Where are they going to get the money? They will get it from the regional programs. It is not going to cut back its headquarters on Bronson Street or its place in Toronto. It will cut it back in the maritimes, in my area of Vancouver or in the small areas. That is what will happen. The government has to approach this. The government cannot have it both ways. You cannot say the bill is strengthening Canadian broadcasting while at the same time taking money away from the CBC.
There is a problem in Quebec. The French service has to produce more programs on a smaller budget than its English colleagues. As a result, we see fewer and fewer French drama series. I quote Quebec's creative people, La coalition pour la defense des services frangais de Radio-Canada, who came to our committee and told us that they have to stay in their studios. They cannot present their viewers with varied settings because it is too expensive.
If you have to compete with Dallas, it takes money and it takes resources. Radio-Canada must have those resources to protect and enhance francophone culture.
Those are some of the flaws in the bill. I have summarized them, I think, as best I can.
Let me conclude by saying this. I have spent the last two months touring 16 cities in Canada-all the major cities in Canada.


John Harvard: Are you running for anything?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, I am not running for anything. I am just telling the members what I saw.
Let me tell you a little story. On three occasions in Saskatoon, Charlottetown and Edmonton I kept running into American tourists in the hotels where I was staying. They were seniors from the States for a trip. I would say: "How are you doing? Where are you from?" "I am from Kansas-I am from here-". "How do you like it?" They loved Canada. What a country! It is relatively secure. The environment is good. People are friendly, efficient
Government Orders
and relatively prosperous. In each part of the country, while they are all distinctive you could see a common Canadianism. I wonder what created that common Canadianism in a country that is so huge. I think broadcasting played a big part. There are other parts, such as teachers in schools, education and so on, but broadcasting did a lot. Canadians could see each other and have that kind of common Canadianism that is there across the country.
I am optimistic about this country. I know we are going through a difficult period. I stood up in this House of Commons and voted against Meech Lake because I wanted to see a better deal. I am not anti-Quebec, as I heard some people in the Ontario legislature say the other day.

And I can accept Quebec as a distinct society. [English]
We also have to ensure a kind of equal Canadianism right across this country. We can do it. We have a great opportunity in broadcasting.
Remember what I said at the beginning. Think about Canadians watching 24 hours of television a week. Think about from where they are getting their information. Think about those young francophone teenagers who spend 50 per cent of their time watching foreign programs, while the English kids spend 80 per cent of their time doing the same.
We want an open system. But what we need to ensure by legislation is that there is sufficient and quality Canadian programming. As I said, the public sector is underfunded and Canadians have to realize that. They are not going to be able to keep up that standard.
Second, the private sector is not really doing its job, and this bill is not going to help. We had a great opportunity in this bill. We had solutions set out by the Commons committee, the former chairperson is in this House. We had a way set out.
Canadians must make a commitment in the 1990s to a national broadcasting system, to a renewal of Canadian culture, to a bringing together of Canadians, no matter from what part of the country. In this way the people will feel equal and part of Canada. We have to do it through our young people.

November 3, 1989
Government Orders
That is our vision of where our Broadcasting Act should go. That is why we will propose further amendments to this bill, to try, in spite of that government over there, to make it a more national broadcasting system that really works for Canadians.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by paying tribute to those who were the authors of this bill, including the member who has just spoken, and his predecessor Lynn McDonald, the former member for Broadview-Greenwood. They, along with John Gorm-ley, Bob Pennock, Jim Caldwell, the distinguished member for Mount Royal and the current member for Jonquiere were those who wrote the reports on the broadcasting policy and the broadcasting law. These were reports of the standing committee. Prior to that, of course, the Minister of Communications had commissioned Gerald Caplan and Florion Sauvageau to do their task force report. That really is the up-to-date foundation on which this bill is fixed.
The hon. member for Mount Royal said that she was looking for a bill that was not hurried. I believe she was referring to some of the activities of last year, and some of the circumstances of last year.
The industry and Canadians have waited. Since the Hon. Francis Fox introduced his first amendments to the Broadcasting Act in the early 1980s, Canadians have waited.
There is no wish on the part of the government to unduly rush this bill. There is a genuine commitment on the part of the minister and the government to make sure that this time we do it right.
There was a wag who suggested at a conference not long ago on the future of broadcasting in Canada that what we ought to do is to pass again the bill of 1968 and add a rider at the end, "This time we mean it". This time we sincerely mean it. We have been able, I think, to do many things which improve the bill of 1968 and the current law.
I will not respond in argumentative detail to the points that have been made by my colleagues opposite. There is another time and another place for that. But I would just touch on a couple of points.
I believe that the member for Mount Royal sincerely believes that circumstances have changed and that the unity clause thus ought to be rethought. I look forward to
engaging her in debate on that subject because I differ with her, but I respect her point of view.
I took note of the other criticisms she made about the changes in the bill and the shortcomings, as she saw them, of the bill. I give her my commitment that as we work together on this bill in committee, when it finally does go to committee, that her view will be heard and properly debated.
My friend, the NDP critic, has given us some predictable items I think. We have heard some of them before. But I want to point out to him that there are many things happening in Canadian broadcasting that are positive and, indeed, show the way toward the building of a genuinely strong industry, both in the public and in the private sector.
I had the opportunity on Monday of this week to visit Montreal and see the facilities of Videotron and the new video interactive television that has been in place since September 25.1 was very impressed not only with how it works but I was challenged by how, as a society, we are going to adapt to this new technology. Also, I was intrigued that the Videotron people had decided against creating any interactive games that involve the theme of war. That was, I think, not only an intrinsically good and sound decision, but it also anticipates what might be produced in that mode elsewhere outside Canada. It provided a strong alternative to that kind of game.
I congratulate those members of the Canadian broadcasting community and many others. There are many examples that can be cited, both public and private, of initiatives that have been taken that are distinctly Canadian and which are very, very constructive.
I am glad that the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam acknowledged the $81 million which was announced this week going to CBC to meet the unanticipated contract costs of recent labour settlements. I think that reflects the fact that this government is aware of the need for CBC to survive and flourish.
Also, I would assure hon. members that the government took careful heed of the interchange that took place yesterday between members of the standing committee and the chairman designate and the new president of the CBC as well as the new CRTC chairman. I thought that it was not only significant in the history of Parliament but also totally appropriate that a committee that is dedicated to communications would be dealing with the country's top communicators. It was a very, very
November 3, 1989

healthy interchange. I was impressed by the performance of all-indeed, by the costumes of most.
This debate is important to all Canadians because broadcasting is more than just a major industry. Radio, television, cable and satellite broadcasts help us to communicate as a people. They contribute to the development of our culture. They help us to interpret our common heritage. They shape our perspectives and ideas. They provide instant access to local, national and international developments.
Radio and television reach into the homes of virtually all Canadians. Like any other media, they offer Canadian creators a national stage to reach a national audience.
Of all the cultural industries, broadcasting has become the principal vehicle by which Canadian creators can reach Canadian audiences. While we are on the subject of creators, I think all of us on all sides of the House were impressed by the well organized lobby which visited us on Tuesday of this week, animated by ACTRA, the Canadian Conference of the Arts and 1'Union des artistes and by the response of the minister and the Prime Minister in making a commitment to produce, in the words of my hon. friend from British Columbia and of the Prime Minister.
For all these reasons, the broadcasting system has a vital role to play in the maintenance and enhancement of our cultural sovereignty and in the strengthening of our cultural identity.
The bill before us is designed to ensure that the broadcasting system will continue to play this vital role and that all Canadian broadcasters will contribute in an appropriate way to these fundamental cultural policies. In this respect, the bill addresses directly the major issues and concerns which were brought to the government's attention through one of the most thorough and public policy reviews undertaken by a Canadian government. These issues and concerns stem from two inseparable forces which, together, are changing the face of broadcasting around the world. One of these forces is
Government Orders
technology. The other is the trend toward international programming, or global audiences.
Satellites, cable, fibre optics and high definition television are changing the nature of broadcasting and expanding the potential for diversity and choice in programming services. At the same time, the globalization of broadcasting offers rich opportunities for co-operation and cultural exchange.

Still, Mr. Speaker, there is a paradox. Although these two forces offer the prospect of greater diversity, ever rising production costs and market pressures create a need for what might be called international entertainment programs which are totally alien to the cultural values of the various nationalities and which increasingly pervade the program schedule of broadcasters throughout the world because foreigners can buy them at cut-rate prices even if production costs are high.
Given the rapid progress of broadcasting techniques in this country, Canadians were among the first in the world to experience the impact of these forces and witness this paradox.
Before drafting the new broadcasting legislation, we decided that our goal would be to tackle the paradox of modem broadcasting in the Canadian context. To put it another way, we would draft a legislative policy and regulatory structure in such a way as to take into account and favour technological progress, while at the same time stressing the diversity and creation of Canadian programs.
For Canada's broadcasting system, that is the challenge of the coming century.

Our broadcasting system provides a truly remarkable range of radio and television signals. There are literally hundreds of radio and television signals, and cable television carries dozens of channels. The mix includes Canadian stations, both public and private, in English and in French, as well as foreign services. Yet despite this range of services our policy review revealed that Canadians want more real choice and diversity. Above all, Canadians want more and better Canadian programs, especially in prime time television and especially in drama.

November 3, 1989
Government Orders
The attachment to Canadian programming on the part of our French-speaking audience is established. But the issue is the inability of our relatively small audience base to support budgets commensurate with the production values of imported programs.
English-speaking Canadians are now beginning to turn more to our own dramatic programming when it is available and when the quality compares with imports.
Our challenge is to equip our system with the means to generate Canadian programming which addresses the needs of Canadians to see themselves on our screens, to see our stories and our creators amid the sea of imported products. Meeting this challenge is of critical importance for Canadian creators, for Canadian culture and for Canadian audiences.
To respond effectively to this challenge-the government must call upon all elements of the broadcasting system to contribute to Canadian broadcasting policy. The government believes that Canadians within the private sector must play an increasingly important role in the creation and presentation of competitive Canadian programs.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will continue to play its central role as the national broadcaster and as a vital instrument of national development. The recent appointments, as I mentioned earlier, of two outstanding Canadians to head the CBC, confirm the government's commitment to public broadcasting in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we are tabling this bill with the clear impression that we have accomplished an important task. Bill C-36, which the House adopted last September, was the result of a policy review which was unprecedented in terms of its scope and of the extensive public input it generated.
All points of view presented have been considered and all concerns and recommendations have been examined. The public hearings were beneficial to the Bill, which was amended in Committee and in the House before being passed by the Senate.
We believe that it is now time for these legislative measures to become law.

The improvements we have brought to the bill are not fundamental in nature. Its principal objectives remain unchanged.
The bill updates the language of the 1968 Broadcasting Act to recognize and embrace new technologies and to clarify the roles of private and public broadcasters, providing a new legal framework for the regulation of broadcasting. It gives expression to the responsibility of the broadcasting system to reflect the diversity of Canadian society. It recognizes the place and importance of women, cultural minorities, aboriginal peoples and the physically disabled in our society.
One of its important innovations is to recognize the different characteristics of French and English broadcasting in content, in impact and in environment.
The bill strengthens the ability of the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to regulate and supervise the broadcasting system more effectively and to foster the creation of more and better Canadian programs. It introduces measures which will make both the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the CRTC more efficient, more responsive to Canadians and more accountable to Parliament while preserving their independence from the government.

The first objective of our strategy, namely to update the legislative framework in which our broadcasting system operates, is critically important. The present Broadcasting Act is 20 years old and out of date. Its description of broadcasting is based on only one of the technologies presently used to distribute broadcast signals, while its statement of policy no longer reflects the constantly evolving roles and responsibilities of public and private broadcasters.
To meet the challenge of the next century, we have broadened the wording of the Act so that it applies to all broadcasting technologies and holds all broadcasters responsible for implementing Canadian broadcasting policy. We have reached this objective in several ways.
First, the policy statement in Clause 3 of the Bill clearly specifies that radio frequencies are in the public domain and that broadcasting provides an essential public service for maintaining and promoting national
November 3, 1989

identity and cultural sovereignty, regardless of the broadcasting method used.
This clause further says that the Canadian broadcasting system should safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic structure of Canada.

Second, in defining terms such as broadcasting the bill focuses on the activities of creating, presenting and distributing broadcast programs without tying these activities to a specific distribution technology. In this sense, the bill has been called technology neutral.
This marks a fundamental shift in the government's approach to broadcasting legislation. It is an approach that will allow the legislation to maintain its legal authority over all aspects of broadcasting in the face of future technological development and is therefore critical to our over-all strategy.
Third, the bill clarifies the roles of all the players in the broadcasting system, both private and public, and their responsibilities toward Canadian broadcasting policy.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is vital in this enterprise. The bill makes it clear that the CBC will remain the principal vehicle for cultural expression in Canada. It will continue to serve Canadians by providing a distinctly Canadian viewpoint and a broad range of programming including news, variety, drama and sports. The mandate of the CBC, as contained in this bill, expects that the corporation will continue to lead in providing authentically Canadian choices, particularly in popular drama, in both official languages.
But the bill also recognizes that the responsibility for Canadian programs is not that of the CBC alone. For the first time the bill attributes to private broadcasters specific responsibilities for the creation and presentation of Canadian programs. This is an important change. It recognizes the contribution that the private sector has made and should continue to make towards national broadcasting policy.
The bill also recognizes the unique contribution which cable and other distribution services are making to Canadian broadcasting. In defining a role for these services the bill acknowledges that they can and should, where appropriate, contribute to Canadian programming. For this reason, the bill provides the CRTC with the power to mediate disputes between broadcasters and
Routine Proceedings
cable distributors so that conflicts can be resolved in the public interest.
[Translation\
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in order to increase the diversity of programs available to Canadians, the Bill also provides for the creation of complementary broadcasting services to meet the needs which are not now being met by broadcasters of mass-audience entertainment programs.

The final point that I would wish to make is that this bill before us today is about to lead us to an assertion of Canadian consciousness and to Canadian identity. I submit the nub of the debate, once we get it into committee will be as to whether or not Canadian consciousness and Canadian identity must be the forerunner of what we all believe to be a desirable objective of our country, particularly at this time the objective of national unity. For, indeed, without a consciousness, without the reinforcement of that Canadian essence, unity will not come about.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the chief government whip on a point of order.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with representatives of the parties and I think you would find that there is unanimous consent to revert to Routine Proceedings for the purpose of presenting the twentieth and twenty-first reports of the striking committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twentieth and twenty-first reports of the Striking Committee. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the twenty-first report later. I would ask that we dispense with the reading of that report by the clerk at the table as that report concerns only membership changes to committees.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

November 3, 1989
Routine Proceedings


CONCURRENCE IN TWENTY-FIRST REPORT OF STRIKING COMMITTEE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I move that the twenty-first report of the Striking Committee be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to call it three o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 3 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 6,1989