1990-12-04

Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table in the House the annual report for 1990 on the Employment Equity Act, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


ORDER IN COUNCIL
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: 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 the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


PETITIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government response to 29 petitions.


[Stage Direction]
57TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 57th report of the Striking Committee.
This report deals with the membership of legislative committees and, pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), upon presentation such reports are deemed adopted.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to table an important petition today, signed by several dozens of Canadians, objecting strongly to the government's intentions to impose the GST on books.
Hope springs eternal with all Canadians that the government will come to its senses and abandon its project to tax reading. These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.
These petitioners and I would plead with the government to come to its senses and to not tax reading.


An hon. member:: Let's do it now.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing order 36, I, too, have the honour and duty to table more petitions from Canadians protesting against the government's intention to tax magazines, books and newspapers through their GST legislation, presently being debated in the Senate. We hope that is as far as the bill will get and that it will be defeated.

Routine Proceedings
The petitioners are from remote areas in Saskatchewan where reading is very important. These petitioners call upon the government to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, today I stand to table petitions signed by residents of Toronto, Ontario against the proposed goods and services tax to be applied to books and magazines.
The petitioners feel that this will make the industry very hard-pressed and that the dissemination of Canadian literature, in particular, to Canadians will be far costlier. It will prevent education and it goes against all principles of democracy and our own principles of educating our own people.
I would ask that the government please reconsider its stand and alter its goods and services tax or, perhaps, not pass it.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your kindness. I must say I appreciate your smiles of encouragement. As a former journalist, you will agree it is an absolute aberration to tax newspapers or any reading matter, whether we are talking about Canadians with a good education or even worse, Canadians who are trying to learn to read.
I got in touch with people in the Kitchener area, where this petition was circulated, and I spoke to a member of the library committee in Brantford, Ontario, who reminded me that now fines for overdue books would be taxed and explained that this would make the system very complicated. It is already a problem to recover overdue textbooks and books, but if we now have to collect a tax on fines-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I appreciate the hon. member's kindness, but speaking objectively, I must remind him that tabling of petitions should be more or less succinct, without engaging in debate. The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, very briefly, so that he can finish his petition.


Eugène Bellemare: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your kindness, and in concluding, I want to say that the obligation to collect a tax on fines for overdue books will be incredibly complex and a disastrer for Canada's libraries.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to rise, in accordance with the relevant standing order, to present a petition from 49 Canadians from across the country.
They feel that after 123 years of Confederation we have had some strange taxes in the country, but this is the first time we have ever contemplated taxing education and culture which are the corner-stones of democracy.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to abolish the GST but, if that is not possible, at least to abolish the GST on reading materials.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition containing several dozens of names which were very readily attained by a constituent of mine, Mrs. Margot Downing of Woodstock.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support Ottawa and Hamilton in their applications to obtain an National Hockey League franchise.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (ShefTord):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the hon. member for Mount Royal, I have the honour and the privilege of tabling a petition in this House from thousands and thousands of Canadians who want to ensure that reading is not taxed, and who humbly pray and call upon the government to read these petitions, if it can, before they are taxed as well. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I hope this petition will have a decisive impact on the government and cause it to reverse its decision.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to urge this government to give serious reconsideration to the tax on reading. I say to the government as the thousands and thousands of petitions continue to flow in that it really has to start to listen to the people. We have set up all kinds of commissions so that we know what the people think. Well, here is a perfect example. They want the Government of Canada not to tax books, to apply a zero rate of tax to magazines, books and newspapers and to exclude them from the GST. The dissemination of the printed word as a cornerstone of democracy, culture, and education in a literate and productive society will be negatively affected by the GST.


I am reading. I hope you are listening on the other side. I would reaffirm the historic principles they say are embodied in the tax-free status of the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations. The petition is signed by hundreds of petitioners, and I shall send copies to the members across the floor, particularly the ministers, so they can see that it was read fidelement.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise pursuant to Standing Order 36. It is an honour, duty and privilege to present to this House a petition certified correct by the Clerk of Petitions. These four petitions contain the signatures of over 100 concerned Canadians from the constituencies of Kitchener, Cambridge, and Guelph. In part of this petition we have heard about the tax the government wants to impose on the printed word. But the interesting part at the beginning of the petition where it states that the Government of Canada has seen fit since Confederation and without hiatus to apply a zero rate of tax to magazines, books and newspapers, and now proposes to include them in the goods and services tax is totally shameful.
These petitioners call upon Parliament, but in particular the government, to not tax the printed word.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and duty pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present this petition signed by people from communities in Saskatchewan such as La Loche and Saskatoon, people from Winnipeg, the Northwest Territories; Yellowknife, Rankin Inlet, and Lake Harbour.
These people are not happy with the answers so far with regard to the spill of radioactive waste water at Wollaston Lake last November. They think the major questions have not been addressed. Therefore, they ask the Parliament of Canada to immediately convene a comprehensive independent public inquiry into uranium mining in Saskatchewan in Northern Canada and to effectively involve aboriginal peoples and northerners in
Routine Proceedings
this inquiry and provide them with the resources to do so.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which I would like to present pursuant to Standing Order 36. It is against the taxing of books and urges the government to abandon the GST, at least with regard to books, but preferably to abandon the GST altogether. Why stop there? Let us go all the way.
I am pleased to present this petition in view of the fact that the Minister of Supply and Services is listening attentively and I know that he cares about people who are functionally illiterate and who need to improve their education. He has expressed an interest in that issue in the past and I know, of course, that he will want to associate himself with me and other members of Parliament who want the GST to be removed from books.
As I said, why stop at books? Why not just abandon the GST altogether? It is a lot simpler.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to present a petition. I would like to read it. It is a short petition addressed to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled.
The petitioners indicate in the recitals that the Government of Canada has seen fit since Confederation, without hiatus, to apply a zero rate of tax to magazines, books and newspapers and now proposes to include them in the goods and services tax.
The petitioners go on to say that whereas uninhibited dissemination of the printed word as a cornerstone of democracy, culture, education and a literate and productive society will be negatively affected by the GST application, wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.

Routine Proceedings
Mr. Speaker, I was able to read this because while I was growing up there was no tax on books, there was no tax on reading. Future generations of Canadians might not be able to stand in this House of Commons to read because this government is hell-bent on taxing reading. It ought to be ashamed of itself and it ought to withdraw the GST immediately.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 and present another petition, giving the earlier intervention of the Minister of Supply and Services. I am particularly pleased to note that this petition contains signatures from Dunrobin, Woodlawn, Kanata and various other community names with which you, Mr. Speaker, will be very familiar.
This petition is based on the fundamental belief that to enjoy one's free participation in a democratic society, access to information, knowledge and understanding are essential, and that the GST is simply another death blow on top of cutting grants to women's organizations to disseminate information and cutting grants to native broadcasting and newspapers to disseminate information.
The zero tax rate on reading is a democratic measure and the petitioners ask the government to return the zero rate to reading materials.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the persons who signed this petition must be cheering on the valiant Liberal senators who are fighting the government's goods and services tax in the other place. The senators are having a tough go of it having to sit night and day, but they are doing their best in the face of insuperable odds that this government has made by stacking the Senate with a bunch of Tory hacks.
What I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is these petitioners have signed this petition objecting to the tax on books and the printed word. They are opposed to that aspect of the goods and services tax.
I find it intriguing that I have not heard one petition in support of the goods and services tax presented in this House by one of the members opposite, and none against either. They obviously have been told by the government House leader that they are not allowed to present such petitions. Therefore, it falls on us on this side of the House to defend the interests of these thousands and thousands of Canadians who object to this tax and have
signed this petition asking Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 385 will be answered today.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	Since its inception, has money been given for Challenge Grants in British Columbia by the Department of Employment and Immigration, and if so (a) what amount (b) which electoral districts received funds?
2.	For each electoral district receiving funds, what was the (a) total amount (b) name of organizations receiving funds (c) amount given to each organization?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: 1.
Yes, Challenge grants have been given to the British Columbia region. Grants through the Challenge program are provided through its Business Drive for Jobs component.
a)	$44,780
b)	Nanaimo-Cowichan, Richmond, Vancouver-Centre, Delta and Vancouver-East
2. a, b, c)
Electoral District	$	OrganizationNanaimo-Cowichan	$5,600	Duncan-Cowichan Chamber of CommerceRichmond	$4,800	Richmond Chamber of Commerce**Vancouver-Centre	$5,680	Pacific National ExhibitionDelta	$15,000	Delta Chamber of Commerce*Vancouver-East	$13,700	Kiwassa Neighbourhood House**
* Project to begin January, 1991.
** Proposal withdrawn by organization after EIC approval of funds.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-88, an act to provide for the membership of Canada in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to participate in this bill. I do want to thank my colleague from Northumberland who, on Friday, when this bill was introduced gave our party's response and our willingness to support the bill in principle.
I notice that the bill was introduced on Friday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs has to do with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Again this shows the lack of commitment that this government has to many of the proposals put forth in this House.
Although we support this bill in principle, there are many questions that need to be answered before we would consider full and unequivocal support for Canada's participation in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. We have yet to be told who will be making the final decisions, who will be accountable to
Government Orders
the contributing countries, what Canada's role will be in terms of our contribution to the bank, where the money will come from, how this money will fit in with other programs directed at Eastern Europe and whether our contribution will affect our already deficient aid in the Third World.
Yesterday and today we have the Prime Minister of Latvia in Ottawa and tomorrow we will have the President of Lithuania in Ottawa. I am pleased that this time the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs are not afraid to meet these people. They still have not clarified whether they will be meeting these people officially or just as parliamentarians; I hope it is in an official capacity. These countries will be asking if they will be able to benefit from this bank. I notice in the bill in annex "A" the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is listed under recipient countries category "c" but we have no clarification whether the republics will be able to negotiate directly with the bank or will they have to go and negotiate everything through the Supreme Soviet in Moscow? When the world finally wakes up and recognizes that the three Baltic states should be given back their independence which they did have and which was taken away from them illegally, what will be their status in relationship to this bank because this is the kind of assistance that these countries can use.
These questions ought to be answered at the outset of our involvement so that mistakes that have been made are not repeated and changes can be made that would improve the over-all effectiveness of this initiative. We should be fielding questions and inviting comments from organizations and individuals who are already involved in ventures in Eastern Europe or those who at least have some knowledge of the cultural and social differences between east and west. We have those resources right here in Canada and although the Secretary of State keeps referring to Canadians of Eastern European origin in his press releases, we have yet to see any of the input taken seriously.
I should clarify at this point that I am not referring to those officials at External Affairs who carry out the minister's instructions. Considering what they have to deal with, they do an excellent job. I am referring to the vague rhetoric that these people get as directives, rhetoric that they somehow have to translate and finely juggle without additional budgets and without additional personnel into real programs. Where is the commitment?

Government Orders
This is not the first time that Canada has joined an organization simply to get the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs the headlines. Much fanfare surrounded our membership in the Organization of American States. What do we hear about that now? Absolutely nothing. There was no consultation prior to the decision and some nominal moneys were spent on joining. What have we done with our membership? Are we making an impact? Are we making a difference? Are we playing a more effective role in Latin America and the Caribbean since we joined? No we are not. And if we are, we certainly are not hearing about it. Canadians are not hearing about it. We are simply cutting budgets across the board and rendering the department impotent in every area for the sake of a few headlines. I wish this was not the case, but I am afraid if one looks at the confusion that already surrounds the existing programs for development aid for Eastern Europe, it is undeniable that this government is not interested in making a difference.
Look at what we have done to our Official Development Assistance. Not only have we cut back on our prior commitments, but we have imposed on the remaining funds conditions that are starving whole populations.
We impose structural adjustment. We insist they balance their books at the expense of food, shelter and health care. We tell them to modernize, to industrialize and to export. Then we have the audacity to tell them that we do not like what they are doing to the environment and threaten to cut back even more.
We suggest as an afterthought the concept of sustainable development and expect attitudinal and program changes overnight. Maybe we in the west are learning that this type of attitude is not working and that we are at the very heart of the cause of the increased poverty and political instability in these countries.
We cannot afford to make those same mistakes again, but if we look at the mentions made regarding basic human rights and sustainable development, we find only passing reference somewhere in the heart of the text versus being built right into an uncompromisable condition.
I know the presenter of this bill stressed how it would cover sustainable development in all transactions, but why was that not built into the purpose of the bill? Why is it hidden in section 1(7), one little phrase pertaining to sustainable development?
What we need is commitment. As is obvious to each one of us, that requires not only money but foresight, well thought out strategies, and objectives. Most of all we need follow through. How long will this bank be in operation? During its existence, do we envision its role expanding to embrace the co-ordination of the various aid programs?
Recently in this House we debated the future role of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe. We talked about the scope of the conference and how it included, among other things, an economic dimension. How will we avoid a duplication of the role carried out by the CSCE, the OECD, the IMF, and the World Bank?
Maybe the bank should be incorporated with the conference. It would seem that in this way duplication may be avoided. In fact a central forum for discussion and responsibility may clear up some of the confusion caused by other initiatives of other economic institutions.
I cannot help but feel that a streamlined, managed process would be much more effective not only in directing the funds, but in monitoring, evaluating and, if necessary, reconstructing aspects that may prove inefficient.
These types of suggestions should be made at the committee level, before the decision for joining the bank is made. I am sure many members of this House, especially members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, would make very constructive suggestions.
Ideally those suggestions would then be tabled in a report to the government, which would receive serious consideration and would subsequently be acted upon as we as a country consider joining this bank, but that is of course in a perfect world, especially where this government is concerned.

This government seldom consults with Canadians before making major policy decisions. In the event that it would ask for opinions from the public, it has been purely for political reasons, not paying any heed to the recommendations made.
I would like to conclude by urging the government, at the very least, to commit to this House that forums and round tables will be held on a regular basis so that there can be ongoing discussions to try to put some sense into all the various initiatives that we are involved with in Eastern and central Europe, hopefully with the result that there will be some real benefit from the Canadian contribution to the bank.
As I said, our party supports this bill in principle but, before giving it final passage, we would like many of the questions raised by my colleague from Northumberland on Friday, raised by me, and then raised further by my colleague from Mount Royal to be answered. I hope, unlike yesterday in the debate on Bill C-40 when the minister refused to get off his butt and speak to his own bill, that today the government will stand up and participate in the debate on Bill C-88. If it does not, we should then pull out of all activities in central and Eastern Europe and not make false promises to the people who are trying to get on their feet, people who have changed from communist forms of government to democratic forms of government, people whose economies for 50 years have been downtrodden and now want to make it. They do not want handouts. They want to become self-sufficient.
If the entire western world looks seriously at a proposal such as this bank, I think we can help the economic recovery in the Soviet Union and in central and Eastern Europe come to fruition much more quickly. And who will be the beneficiaries? Every person on this globe.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I was so impressed by the speech my hon. colleague made that I would call for a quorum count. I note there are not only ministers, but also members missing on the government side.
Government Orders
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There being a quorum, I shall now give the floor to the hon. member for Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am really quite pleased to rise this morning to speak to a very creative and innovative approach to enabling the newly emerging democracies of Europe to flourish and grow. To do so is really in the self-interest of Canada at the same as it expands and expounds on our humanitarian interest in the growth and development of this area.
There is a strong linkage between this bank and Canada's help and Canadian long-term interests with those of the newly emerging democracies to see them succeed and succeed well in the gigantic task of rebuilding toward tomorrow.
One of the things that Canada and these newly emerging democratic societies will have to take into account is that they will have to be able to compete effectively with the newly industrialized countries of the world, particularly Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan.
I have been privileged to be involved at the international level through the interparliamentary union with many of these countries in terms of policy decisions and political, economic, social and cultural developments. Those acronyms have become part of the lexicon of language to those of us who have an interest, not only in Canada but Canada's relationship with the rest of the world, the NEDS and the NICs of the world.
If that language creeps into the remarks I am about to make, I hope it will be quite clear that the NEDS are the newly emerging democratic societies in Europe, not to say that we are not interested in those that are happening in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the other parts of the world. Of course the NICs are the newly industrialized countries of the world.
I also want to point out that I was particularly privileged to be on a private trip to Germany to visit my son in northern Germany, in Wolfsburg and Brausch-weig, where he works with the Volkswagen people. The day I landed in Germany was the day the wall fell. I can only express my impression of the euphoria in that nation. I happened with my husband to get on a train.


Government Orders
By the way, we should only have such a wonderful train system. If we had not broken down our VIA Rail system, we could all have enjoyed the incredible transportation facilities that linked that country from east to west and north to south. It is true that one may compare quite well the size of that country, but if each one of our districts had that infrastructure we might be better served too.


Mr. Blais:: And the population too?


Sheila Finestone: It is too bad the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is so sensitive this morning. Go out and have a sweet cup of coffee.


Mr. Dick:: He is not here.


Sheila Finestone: Are you supply and services? He might be sweetened by this whole process.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You don't know much. You're cantankerous.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Dick, I do not know what portfolio you have, but go and have a cup of coffee and a little sweet sugar. It might help your personality this morning.
I was talking about taking this train with my husband. One of the things that was so personal-and I think it is so important to recognize it-was the impact of the breaking down of that wall.
There was a gentleman sitting beside us who was coming from Zurich, Switzerland. He was quite agitated and quite excited at the same time. He kept saying: "We've got to see where the wire starts, where the wall starts". As we were looking out of the window going north of Frankfurt, we could see that high barbed wire fence. We could see the towers with manpower overlooking these particular parts of the German landscape. Just the sense of the separation of people and families was difficult for me. This was my first trip to Germany and I had some personal problems, but I also had a sense of participation in history unfolding before our eyes.
Tears sprang to this man's eyes as he looked at that frontier. He said: "I am going to go to visit my family in Hamburg. I have had a call from them. I haven't seen them in 40 years". I could sense the emotion of this man.
Then, when I arrived in Brauschweig the following day with my son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren, we went into the centre of town. There were these cars, the Treblinkas I think they call them, little trebs, coming through by the hundreds from this northeast comer. We went to see the border crossing point and could see this huge wall that extended for hundreds and hundreds of yards and then the barbed wire fence that was linking this place. I chatted with the guards on both sides. We could see friendship between the two sides, even though they had been enemies just the day before. It was a very moving experience.
I went back just this past month to revisit for a second trip. There were no rights to cross just outside Wolfsburg. There was nothing in its way. We went to East Berlin, and the shops looked like those of West Berlin. It is true one could see the traces and one could feel that there was tremendous work to be done, but one could also sense that feeling of hope for a people.
It is very important that we use caution and care as we move in this direction. It is a very important role that we have as Canadians, as do other western democracies, to ensure that this is not just a pipe dream, that this is not just an euphoric moment in the history of time, but that we put behind it the substance and the thinking that is required to help these emerging democracies. Life is not easy there.
As I drove through the countryside of East Germany and through the countryside of Hungary, I could see that it was like the 1920s. The infrastructure was not there. The technology was not there. The buildings were ancient and in need of repair. By the way, we can also see that in other parts of the world, that is true, but we are concentrating our efforts and our hopes on implementing those matters which mean so much to us as a nation, as a people, and as written into the Helsinki Accord, with which I will deal in a moment.
This founding of the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development represents a very important step for Canada in terms of its economic support for these newly emerging countries. These kinds of initiatives are very rare in the history of nations and in the history of our world. Some examples are the Marshall Plan after the Second World War, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. We should be proud that Canada is playing a role in solidifying the foundations of freedom and economic opportunity with this bill.

I listened with great care to my colleague from Malpeque the other day. She pointed out that, as a Liberal Party, we have some reservations about the soundness of the over-all government's approach to this new and very challenging region and world economy.
I listened to the member from Parkdale-High Park as he raised some additional issues of concern. The government should pay attention because it is very important. Without question, the principle of support for Bill C-88 has been enunciated quite clearly by these colleagues. This bank will help spur economic opportunity and economic freedom. It goes a long way to renew human and political freedoms in Europe.
One just has to pick up this bill and read the introduction which is set out in the European banks' schedule. It is an agreement to establish the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It states who the contracting parties are, and I will come to that in a moment.
This bill, developed by the European nations and ourselves, states that we are committed to the fundamental principles of multi-party democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and market economics. That is very important. Where have we heard that before in a monetary situation and as a banking bottom-line principle? It is very exciting. It is interesting that we are going to be sending our Minister of Finance, rather than the Minister for International Trade to sit on the board representing Canada. That is also a new initiative.
The second paragraph of the Schedule says:
Recalling the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security
and Co-operation in Europe, and in particular its Declaration on
Principles;
There are four baskets in the Helsinki Accord. One of those baskets is significantly, that to deal with human rights. You would not deal with a country unless it respects and upholds individual rights, freedoms and liberty. I think that that is wonderful. To see this in a banking act is quite extraordinary.
Government Orders It goes on to say that:
Welcoming the intent of Central and Eastern European countries to further the practical implementation of multiparty democracy, strengthening democratic institutions, the rule of law and respect for human rights and their willingness to implement reforms in order to evolve towards market-oriented economies;
That means there has to be the kinds of communications and literature that will enable that to happen. I do not think they will be taxed like this government is doing with our literature.
It goes on:
Considering the importance of close and co-ordinated cooperation in order to promote the economic progress of Central and Eastern European countries to help their economies become more internationally competitive and assist them in their reconstruction and development and thus to reduce, where appropriate, any risks related to the financing of their economies;
This is very unique legislation. I am very excited to read this in a banking act.
The shackles of communist rule have been crumbling throughout most of Eastern European. Countries like Canada, who have benefited for more than a century from such freedom should help and support these newly emerging democracies. It is in our long-term interest to continue in this vein.
As well, we have incredible talent here in Canada which can give help and support to these countries, so that while we are pursuing the economic needs, we can take some comfort in the political gains that have already been won.
While we pursue the economic freedom of these people from Eastern Europe, we must remain optimistic by remembering just how far they have come in terms of the political freedom they have already won. There seems to be a tendency to forget the political gains that have just been won: political freedom, the right to speak one's mind, the right to associate, the right to disagree and, increasingly, the right to practise one's own religion. As we move forward and pursue the economic needs, we should keep that in mind. We have to remember that we cannot remain silent on any of the issues that would fight against the principles found in the Helsinki Accords. Silence might mean condoning actions which are unacceptable in the west.


Government Orders
Let us remember that up until a year ago we were still making the case for the kind of political freedom being enjoyed today on so many street comers in so many cities, towns and villages, behind that barrier we now hear so little about these days, the Iron Curtain. Although the need for jobs in factories, technology, and education, remains great, let us hope that building a strong economic foundation will banish into memory the days of stifling censorship, secret police, and underground movements which kept the hope of freedom alive.
Surely we can do nothing but support economically and politically the changes that create competing publications, a marketplace for ideas, the end to secret police arresting anyone with an opinion and the movement for more freedom, organization of elections and running in elections.
With the establishment of this new bank, the economic link between the Government of Canada and the governments of Eastern Europe, we will start to look at the relationships that our two peoples, through families and friends, have had for generations. In fact, I am told that one in 10 Canadians has origins in central and Eastern Europe.
Certainly that is the case in my riding, Mr. Speaker. We have people from all comers of the globe but, in particular, one will find people from Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, The Ukraine, Armenia, Germany, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. I hope that this government is profiting from the presence of these people, who came here mostly after the Second World War, and will be using their expertise, not just in language which enables communication, but in culture and in business expertise because that is what these people have developed. They have brought the desire to succeed to this country, at all levels. They are to be found at every level in this country, political, economic, and social. They have enabled this country to grow and flourish. Now they can bring that expertise to the Canadian government, to this bank, and to the industry which will be developed. I hope we do not forget these people or ignore them.
My colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque, has pointed out that there are some serious areas of scattered government approach. My experience has been with very consolidated approaches in the cultural domain and in communications. Radio-Canada International has been very helpful in assisting the communication industries of the newly emerged democracies of the east. It has hosted their broadcasters here, and has shown them
how the public and the private sector works and, to them, we owe a great vote of thanks. You, Mr. Speaker, the Ttble, and the House, have helped the political process, in terms of the work that is done by Mr. Philip Laundy and the Speaker's Office, in enabling the officers of the House to help those newly emerging democracies function. We have had groups here from Romania, Hungary, and Poland and we are helping establish that kind of work. I know that the parties are helping them to understand how political parties function, from the grassroots up and how one proceeds in the democratic process to have multi-party systems.
All these are very important initiatives and efforts. However, when it comes to loans, there is a problem. We commit food on the one hand, which is money. We commit money to the International Monetary Fund. We work through the World Bank and now we are going to work through this bank.
Canada does not have a lot of money, we have a lot of goodwill. Those banking institutions reflect the constituents' dollars, the dollars of people who live and work in Canada. The banks do not manufacture money; the banks use the money from the ordinary citizen to aid these efforts. It is in our interest, that is true, because when we have a stable world then we have a stable democracy and we can grow and prosper. In the meantime, these are dollars from Canadians, through Canadian banks, which will enable these things to happen.
I would sincerely hope that the concerns raised so eloquently by the hon. member for Malpeque and other speakers to this bill will be taken into account as well as the concerns about the government's scattered approach.
It is my sincere hope that what we are doing will make sense, that we will enable the economic, political, and social development and the rebuilding of the infrastructure in those countries that will help all the world, not just ourselves.
As I looked at the buildings in the east that need so much and as we hear and know about the initiatives that will be required, I hope that this creative expression in terms of culture, new enterprises and economic links with the west will provide the channels for ideas and help so the strong roots of democracy will develop in this region. This is why the Liberal Party supports this kind of initiative in principle, to help these countries and their economies come back to life after nearly half a century of stagnation and in many cases decay. We hope, as this process moves forward at legislative committee, that a more comprehensive plan will emerge from this government to help Eastern Europe today. It is only then that Canadians can be proud to lend their money with great


pleasure and joy so that the role we play in the emerging of a new Eastern Europe will reflect that of our own history of commitment to social justice, economic opportunity for the individual, freedom and human rights around the world.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a very short comment and ask a question of my colleague.
I have two concerns. The first is to ensure that as we direct, in whatever form, more assistance toward central and Eastern Europe, as we should, that at the same time we do not forget the other needy people of the world. There is a concern in the Third World that this might happen.
I am a member of iAssociation intemationale des parlementaires de longue franqaise and when we go to Europe, this is often a subject raised by our colleagues from the poorer nations. Those Third World nations need our assistance so very much. I think particularly of some of the African countries. I want to express first of all that concern and invite my colleague to comment. Second, if we can come back to the central and Eastern European region, these new emerging democracies- and some of them are not quite democracies yet, some are well on their way and others might get there-and I thinking of Romania, for instance, on which the jury is still out on whether or not it has succeeded. We hope, of course, that it still can. Romania, in particular, is one of the poorer nations of the new group of countries and very much in need of assistance. It certainly has not satisfied me yet that it is a democracy but hopefully, it will be on its way there.
The thought I had about central and Eastern European countries is that there is a responsibility incumbent upon all of us in the western democracies to ensure that we do everything we can to make those countries into democracies and to provide assistance so they do not fail in the process, particularly economically.
Government Orders
I cannot help but think of what is going on right now in the Soviet Union in respect to food rationing. I heard a comment recently on the radio about an interview with a Moscow woman who had gone to no fewer than 10 drugstores to find cough medicine for her child and had not been able to find any.
If we fail to provide assistance, and hopefully this will not happen, but one wonders if, through our non-assistance if we do not provide help, we are giving the opportunity for some other totalitarian group to seize power in those countries on the pretext that: "Democracy is obviously not working. Look at how badly it has failed you so far and the prospects of improving are no better."
Those are the two concerns that I had and I invite my colleague to comment on those.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. He always has both interesting remarks and intelligent questions to pose.
With respect to Eastern Europe, as a last closing remark on that particular issue, one of the concerns on the scattered approach that the government has developed is the fact that it will not know which door to knock on. Should it be the IMF door, the door that leads to the World Bank, or the door that is going to lead to the European Bank.
Yes, there are some problems and certainly we are well aware of what is going on in terms of food, medicine, and infrastructure, and it is a growing concern. It is such a new phenomenon that we are mobilizing as best we can and I hope as effectively as we can.
With respect to the Third World countries, it is very interesting to note that Canada became a partner of the Organization of American States and took up its seat which would enable our better input into the Latin American scene. I was pleased to note that.


Government Orders
I know quite well that excellent programs are going on and our help is being given through the IDRF, which is the International Development Research Fund, headed by Mr. Ivan Head.
I personally visited in the barios in the slums of Chile and saw an incredible project which is funded by Canadians on children's diarrhoea. The dehydration and the diarrhoea which is of long-term effect is one of the major causes of the high death rate among children in Third World countries. The research being done, funded by Canada and others, is very important and I hope we will keep that up. It was a veiy interesting look at how Chile and how Canada, in this instance, have worked together in the interest of the people malgre, comme on dit, given the political situation at that time.
I have visited and am well aware of the CIDA programs in places in Africa. When I was critic for the status of women and in Nairobi for the 10th anniversary, I saw some incredible projects which Canada is financing with respect to agriculture, with the integration of young women into the decision-making processes at different levels. I saw the work being done by Match-International which is a wonderful volunteer agency that builds wells, and helps small projects such as tie-dying in marketing and merchandising the products of women in those countries.
Yes, there is lots to do. There is lots to do here in Canada so that we can be economically stronger, so that we can then add more and help more, both through example as well as in concrete goods and services.
I think we are trying our best. There are still things to be done. The world is far from perfect and on this planet of ours some day, perhaps-

like the Little Prince, we will see a beautiful garden blossom.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Mount Royal mentioned her involvement in IPU. Could she share with us her position on the IPU and whether the IPU has discussed how to help the Soviet Union and eastern Europe in its recovery?
Briefly, I have a second question. She mentioned that in her riding, like mine, she has Canadians of Russian, Polish, Ukrainian, Yugoslav, Bulgarian, Hungarian descent and made an excellent recommendation to the government. Why not use their expertise because they know the culture and they speak the language? In her many years in the House, does she recall any examples of where the government of the day has actually used that expertise from her riding?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Mount Royal. You have two minutes.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member's last question, yes, I do know of some. Particularly in relation to Poland, one of my constituents has been very involved and very helpful as a matter of fact. Other constituents came during the elections to help in Romania, in particular, and in Poland and in Hungary. I do not know that we used their expertise in that case.
With respect to the international organization, I have been fortunate enough to have the support of my colleagues of the House and am the vice-president of the Canadian Interparliamentary Union. I take very seriously that commitment and I thank my colleagues for their support in that regard.
At what is known as the western caucus, the 12-plus, we have spent two full meetings looking at how we can collaborate and co-operate together in the interest of the emerging democracies. That is where I hear the word NEDS, the newly emerging democratic societies, and where I hear the new word NIC, the newly industrialized countries.
It has been my particular privilege to chair two committees. One was on the Bulgarian-Ibrkish situation, in fact, where I was asked to come back and monitor the borders because we did such a good job.
I have also chaired the decolonization committee on the world level, which has not been an easy thing to do, but I must say we have had great forward movement. We have seen Namibia, South Africa, and we are looking at the Malvinas in terms of the islands off of Argentina. There was an agreement on the western Sahara by Algeria and Morocco which was very moving and important. The nomination came from Turkey, supported by Indonesia and Iran.


I find all this ironic and wonderful. Yes, I have enjoyed very much IPU and yes, it is very interested in this issue.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to speak in favour of seconding reading of Bill C-88 and referring it to a legislative committee.
This bill would ratify Canada's participation as a founding member in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. This legislation raises many important issues and many important questions dealing both with economic policy and foreign policy. Today, I want to deal generally with the economic or financial issues raised by Canada's membership in the bank. I will leave foreign policy questions to other speakers from this side.
I want to say from the outset that we in the Liberal Party strongly support the principle of helping Eastern Europe reconstruct and develop. In this respect, we support the principle in Bill C-88. However, we are not satisfied with the government's approach to explaining to the opposition and to Canadians what this new regional bank will do for Eastern Europe and how it will change Canada's economic policy on this region.
The issue of keeping parliamentarians informed is crucial, because we have a duty to ensure that our approach to helping Eastern Europe is the best and most efficient one possible. The urgency and seriousness of the problems there require nothing less than our best effort. The government's financial situation also requires nothing less than a well thought-out plan.
Certainly, the events which have taken place in central and Eastern Europe over the past year or so have been remarkable. The year 1989 will long be remembered as the year of European revolution. The Berlin Wall crumbled, the Iron Curtain disintegrated, authoritarian governments collapsed, and a new Europe was bom.
New democracies are being created as we speak. These new democracies require new political, social, and of course economic institutions if they are to fulfil the promise held out by those remarkable events of 1989. Canada has a special relationship with the people of this region. We want to see them succeed in their task of building a strong and prosperous Europe.
Government Orders
Eastern Europeans themselves, to be sure, are working hard to realize their vision of a free and prosperous land. Internationally, countries such as Canada have a role to play in helping them to their feet, especially economically.
The Canadian approach has been somewhat scattered with respect to helping Eastern Europe develop and rebuild. With the establishment of this new bank, there will be no fewer than four different sources of Canadian funds flowing into this region: through the bank itself; through the G-24 group of countries; through the G-7 group of countries; and through bilateral programs.
The G-7, as we know, includes not only Canada and the U.S., but also Japan and other major industrialized economies. The G-24, of course, is a larger group and generally includes European, North American, and other countries that belong to the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development.
There are many questions that must be raised about the effectiveness of using such a scattered approach to development funding, such as how do we maintain control and co-ordination of these efforts.
We certainly have a lot of questions about this legislation. We are looking forward to reviewing it when it gets to a legislative committee. I must say that one of the reasons that we have so many questions is the government's apparent reluctance to inform adequately the opposition with respect to the bill. No effort was made on the government side to offer the traditional briefing for opposition members of the legislature. We had to ask for one. There was very little information that we received by way of background notes, and we also had to ask for those.
We understand that the creation of this new bank has occurred very quickly. Just one year ago, it was only an idea. Departments involved have been very busy co-ordinating Canada's participation, but there is really no excuse for not keeping the opposition informed.
As I said earlier, we certainly support the principle of the bill, of helping reconstruct and develop central and Eastern Europe. Nevertheless, we have a number of questions about this legislation. These questions deal with the reasons for creating a new bank specifically for that region and the government's approach to Canada's participation in that institution. I believe that these

Government Orders
questions must be answered, and the best possible approach must be taken by the government because of the tremendous importance that I attach to our efforts in Eastern Europe.
The remarkable events of this region are intensely personal for millions of Canadians who have roots there. Many have ties of language and family. Few other nations possess the web of intense personal connections to Eastern and central Europe which we have in Canada and, to some extent, in my province of Prince Edward Island.
In my riding alone, there are families who come from Poland, Ukraine and Hungary. In fact, one in 10 Canadians have origins in central or Eastern Europe. This gives us a special interest and a special capacity in helping these countries become prosperous and free.
We also have a large social and economic interest in the success of central and Eastern Europe. Canada's prosperity and our peace of mind depends to a large extent on this success. As a trading nation, for example, we are dependent on trade for 30 per cent of our economy. While most of this trade is with the United States, the markets of both Eastern and western Europe will be important to Canada's economic future. The unifying market of western Europe and the vast and untapped markets of Eastern Europe both hold immense economic potential.
This is why I raise many questions about this legislation, not because we oppose the spirit of helping the reconstruction and development of Eastern Europe, but because Parliament has a right to be informed and to debate fully Canada's economic strategy for this region.
The government's share of this new bank is worth about $460 million. Although the government says it will only have to pay about $150 million over five years, Parliament should be aware that we are looking at a potential investment of close to half a billion dollars.
These dollar figures themselves should highlight the importance of getting complete answers to these questions and others that Parliament may wish to raise.
The first question obviously is "Why a new bank"? Before Canada commits itself to participating in a new institution, with an expected bureaucracy of anywhere from 250 to 1,000 employees, dependent on your source, Parliament should ask why existing institutions cannot do the job.
There are several international banks and other financial institutions already established, such as the International Monetary Fund, the European Investment Bank, the Bank for International Settlements and the World Bank, which would seem to serve the purpose given to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development which this legislation is setting up.
The World Bank is actually the short name given to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, a name which suggests a purpose similar to that of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
I have heard several reasons why this separate bank is required. Some argue that these other international bodies are often dominated too much by the United States, while they note that in this new bank, the United States will only hold 10 per cent.
Some also say that this new European Bank will be able to develop an understanding and expertise with respect to Eastern European banking that no other commercial or outside institution could hope to match.
Finally, the argument is raised that institutions like the International Monetary Fund deal mainly with Third World countries and that their expertise is not really adapted to Eastern Europe.
I would like the government to explain, in the context of a legislative committee, why it thinks a new bank should be started from scratch. I want it to explain why an institution like the European Investment Bank, which is already operating in Europe, could not have a better understanding of the local economy than an institution like this European Bank, which is starting from scratch. As for American influence, the United States will be the largest single shareholder of the new bank. The American government has already played the central role in writing the bank's constitution.


A second question is not just why a new bank, but why a bank at all? In other words, now that Eastern European countries are opening up to private investment, could western companies and financial institutions not help these countries jump-start their economies? It is interesting to note that even before the dramatic effects in this region in 1989, official aid to the region, for example, loans guaranteed by government and government-established institutions had started to decline and the level of loans which were not guaranteed by governments started to increase. We are also seeing increases in the private sector investment in the region. As recently as the beginning of 1988, there were only 165 joint ventures involving western businesses in central and Eastern Europe. By the fall of 1989, there were 2,100. That is a large increase. In 1988, it was 165 joint ventures but in 1989, we had 2,100.
Now that Poland and Hungary have allowed foreign companies to own a majority of the shares in a project they are involved with, the number of joint ventures and private investment should increase.
Clearly, the government must explain to Parliament why some combination of these existing institutions and private investments would not be sufficient to help Eastern Europe before we give them the okay to create another institution with its large bureaucracy.
I would now like to briefly summarize and conclude. Not long ago, we observed Remembrance Day. Canadians could reflect on what is happening now all across Europe. In doing so, they could not help but acknowledge the historic role our war veterans played in making possible what we see today.
I would like to repeat my party's support for the principle of Bill C-88.1 want to emphasize that we in the opposition have a number of important concerns about how the government is going to participate in this new bank. We would like to see these concerns addressed in a legislative committee.
We believe that Canada has a special role to play in Eastern Europe and that our participation is necessary, not only for that region's success but for our country's long-term prosperity as well. I look forward to a thor-
Govemment Orders
ough and productive examination of this bill in committee.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Malpeque for such an in-depth analysis of this proposed bill.
We heard how the government side refused to share any information with the opposition. Yet, it wants speedy passage. I do not understand its strategy because if it wanted speedy passage, surely it would have shared full information with both parties on the opposition side.
My question is: Why does she feel the government wants to railroad this bill through so quickly? It was brought in on a Friday and there was no minister to introduce or explain it. There were no speakers put up and no questions were answered today. They are all sitting there like bumps on a log.
I do not know why they are sitting here. They should not collect their pay for yesterday and today. That is what taxpayers sent them here for, to debate important bills like this. Not one has opened his or her mouth. As I say, when they sign that monthly salary sheet, I hope they will deduct the appropriate salary for themselves in all honesty and credibility.
I ask the hon. member why she feels there is this urgency to pass this bill through and her frustrations of not receiving the information. Does she have any other concerns such as some of the money siphoned off for Third World countries? She mentioned all the existing financial institutions already. What about the loans to Eastern Europe that are outstanding?
I know she only has eight minutes to answer all of these, but I would appreciate her views on some of these questions and concerns.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
As I said earlier, it certainly has been very difficult to get information on this legislation. This is why I am really looking forward to getting it into a legislative committee. I have many questions that I want to get answers for. I look forward to that.
I also have some concerns. He has asked me if I have other concerns. Yes, I have, but I did not have time to address them in my main speech. I will address some of them now.

Government Orders
Certainly, I know that the government has said that the $150 million will not come out of the official development assistance budget. Does it represent $150 million that Canada cannot invest in regional banks that help poor countries in Latin America and Africa?
I think that question is very important, because the standard of living in those regions has actually decreased during the 1980s by 10 per cent in Latin America and 25 per cent in Africa. If we look more closely at Latin America, we see that its debt problems are sometimes far worse than Eastern Europe, except for countries like Poland and Hungary.
Some Latin American countries have debt to GNP ratios of four times those of Eastern European countries. That is a very high level of indebtedness combined with a reluctance to lend by private banks which lost a great deal of money in the regions during the 1980s making Latin America a region which appears to need our help at least as much as Eastern Europe, if not more.
That certainly is one of my main concerns that I want to address in the legislative committee.
Another question that I certainly will want to propose is what effect Canada's participation in this bank will have on our existing loans to countries in central and Eastern Europe. I think before setting up a new bank that will lend even more money to these countries, we have to ask how they are going to manage the old debt, and what is their capacity to handle new debt.
I think these are important questions because these countries already have incredible debt loads. As a whole, Eastern Europe has a gross debt of almost $100 billion. Poland alone has a gross debt of at least $40 billion and Hungary, more than $20 billion; Bulgaria, $9 billion.
Canada with at least $3 billion outstanding is Poland's fourth largest creditor. Canada also has agreed to reschedule part of this debt, representing a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in forgone payments.
Certainly the extreme economic problems in Poland and in these other countries demanded such extreme measures. I think before we go ahead and lend hundreds of millions more, Parliament should ask about the state of our existing loans to countries of this region.
We recognize the change of government in many of the east European countries but we also have a duty to Canadians to ensure that good money does not follow bad. When we are looking at the issue from the point of view of the lenders, we have to ask how Canada will manage and co-ordinate its aid to Eastern Europe.
As I noted earlier, there were at least three different ways, and with this bank four different ways, in which this government is giving aid to countries in this region. This scattered approach with regard to various types of departments and organizations is quite evident, for example, when one reads the press clippings put out by the governments of Eastern Europe. We had a press clipping on May 25, 1990 wherein the government announced participation in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and that the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for External Affairs were to play key roles.
Then, on May 29, we had a statement about the line of credit established between Canada and the U.S.S.R. Canada's trade minister announced a new agreement. There we had the involvement of another minister.
On July 4, 1990, we had the statement that Canada expanded assistance to central and Eastern Europe. Canada's external affairs minister announced new funding for this region through the G-24 group of countries.
Here we have ministers from three different departments and two different organizations, all making announcements that affect Eastern Europe. This seems to be typical of the government's scattered approach in this area.
I repeat, as I said earlier, my agreement with the principle of helping the newly freed countries of Europe to get on their feet, but I must say that before the House gives permission to create another level of aid to central and Eastern Europe, the government must explain how well its current system is working and how it fits into the setting up of this new bank. We should also ask how much of an investment the government thinks that our participation is going to be.
* *



I know my time is running short. The hon. member asked if I had any other concerns about this legislation. I hope that what I have outlined here has answered his question. I have other points which time does not allow me to elaborate on, but I will look forward to raising them in the legislative committee.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a unique opportunity for me to stand in this House to speak on a very important matter such as the development and reconstruction of central and Eastern Europe. It is for each and every one of us to play a part in seeing something come to reality such as the economic rejuvenation of central and Eastern Europe.
Many of us in our constituencies across this country have people who have come from Eastern and central Europe, namely Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria. They have come here at various times in our history to contribute much to the multicultural fabric of this country. Of course we have been pleased with the fact that they have brought their unique cultures and their energy to help us build our own country. We have been very fortunate.
I have been very fortunate in London, Ontario to have people from across central and Eastern Europe come who have come to our various communities to help build the country. Yet all of us, over the past number of years, know about the conditions their families and friends have had to put up with in Eastern and central Europe, the kinds of politics they have had to put up with, and the kinds of undemocratic principles that their governments essentially put upon them.
This really is a unique opportunity not only to help our own citizens in this country and their families and friends, but it is a unique opportunity for this country to do essentially what it did for western Europe. It is another opportunity to help, to put out a helping hand to Eastern and central Europe.
Therefore, it is a pleasure for me to stand and support Bill C-88, which will ratify Canada's participation as a founding member in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. With the historic crumbling of the east bloc military alliance and the fall of modem communism in the east central and Eastern European nations, Canada welcomes the creation of a new bank which we hope will finance the transition of Eastern
Government Orders
Europe from communism to capitalism. Now that we have taken down the fences that have divided us for so many decades, we must not turn our backs on our neighbours during this crucial and critical time in their existence.
Economic problems will plague central and Eastern European nations as they struggle to make the transition from a command economy to a totally private economy. This bank will not be the panacea, but it will be the spark toward international co-operation and development for Eastern and central Europe. Each and every person in Eastern and central Europe has gone through many difficult years. The road to recovery and economic prosperity, as we understand it in Canada, will not be an easy one for them. That is why it is essential to see this new financial mechanism in terms of being able to provide support to the governments that have now renounced their political and economic philosophies and to the people who overturned these autocratic and dictatorial regimes, in their efforts toward economic prosperity for themselves and their families. A strong Eastern and central Europe will make for a stronger world and a stronger Canada, because we will do an awful lot of trading and business with people from Eastern and central Europe.
Economic difficulties should not sabotage the historic changes that are currently taking place in central and Eastern Europe. The developed countries of the world are creating a bank that hopefully will act as the catalyst toward the evolution of economic development. Canadians welcome the opportunity to be part of this endeavour to aid central and Eastern Europe.
Bill C-88 is the enabling legislation for Canada's participation in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The bank will be capitalized, as we understand it, at $12 billion, contributed by 40 countries. Canada would contribute $30 million each year for five years. Even though this is not clear, hopefully the legislative committee, when it has the opportunity to study the bill, will ask some very pointed and direct questions of the government in terms of our true contribution.
That $30 million each year for five years will represent 3.4 per cent of the EBRD's capital base. This will ensure Canada at least a seat on the board of directors of the bank.

Government Orders
The EBRD is really the first major international capitalist institution that includes the Soviet Union as a full member. The bank is the only institution of its kind in which shareholders include governments of both east and west. Therefore it is a unique endeavour by the international community to co-operate in the reconstruction of central and Eastern Europe. Perhaps this may be a model by which the world can deal with other areas of the world in terms of bringing forward economic development and prosperity. It is an important first step toward integrating reform-minded eastern countries into the world economy.
The EBRD will direct investment dollars to the development of private business in those central and Eastern European countries that are reforming their political institutions. Only 40 per cent of the funds available from the bank will be available to government borrowers, as we understand it. This money can be used for the development of infrastructure, such as road, rail, telecommunications, and construction, especially transportation infrastructure necessary to carry their food to the marketplace so that the people of eastern and central Europe have food at the table.
By limiting the amount available to the government planners, the EBRD is trying to avoid the problems that arose in the 1970s when central and Eastern European countries directed their loans to unproductive enterprises that left them crippled with debt. As has been previously mentioned, Hungary and Poland are still struggling under the burden of these debt payments. Poland has the worst debt load, with payments on principal and interest accounting for 88 per cent of that country's exports in 1989.
Given that the debt problem in these countries is serious, it is heartening to see that 40 nations are willing to pool their resources in order to finance the economic changes that are taking place in central and Eastern Europe. I will give one example. Mexico, a country with a significant debt problem of its own, is one of the 40 investing nations that will participate in this European bank.
The goals of Bill C-88 are worth-while ones. However, there are a number of questions and concerns that this government has failed to answer. As members on
this side of the House have tried to point out to this government, it is rather curious that the government has had only one speaker on this bill. It essentially wanted to ram it through the House, without consideration by a legislative committee.
Let us hope that it is not this government's intent to pull the wool over Canadians' eyes with respect to their hard earned tax dollars going into this European bank. Hopefully the government really wants to get on with moving this legislation through in the most expedient way.
However, it is rather curious that the government has not at least answered some of our questions and concerns. As we have previously indicated, this House is in favour of this bill because it has some fundamental principles that we agree with. It is rather curious to see that the government has not tried to help us support it, but in fact it has tried to pull the wool over our eyes and in turn over Canadians' eyes.
The sole function of the bank, as we understand it, is to finance Eastern European countries and their fledgling markets. Canadians accept that such a financial institution will develop a specialized expertise and knowledge of the region which no other commercial bank or financial institution can match.
As my friend from Parkdale-High Park indicated, perhaps we ought to use the unique characteristics of our own country and the contacts of people living here who have bridges in Eastern Europe. In this way we can make sure that the dollars Canadians are contributing to this bank and through that bank to the people will go toward helping the men and women in those countries in terms of their own private economic development or private sector development which will hopefully provide the necessary jobs that eastern and central Europeans will need.
What is not clear is whether the work of the EBRD will be matched by work that has already been undertaken on a bilateral basis and by a number of other financial institutions. I think that point has been made over and over again. There needs to be a discussion as to whether or not we are creating another massive bureaucracy and whether or not we can truly co-operate and co-ordinate our activities in a number of ways to ensure that the dollars in the bureaucracy will not be eaten up by duplication and triplication of function and purpose.

A number of financial agencies are actively involved in lending in the central and Eastern European region, as we know, today. The World Bank plans to lend up to $7.5 billion over the next three years. The International Monetary Fund is prepared to provide $1.5 billion U.S. in loan and stand-by agreements to address the debt problems. The OECD countries have pledged billions of dollars in financial aid to central and Eastern European countries. Therefore, we have a number of questions. Will the EBRD's activities interfere with these efforts in any way? Will the EBRD's activities affect the the amount of aid being made available by these other organizations? Is the EBRD simply a European-run financial institution that will mimic the functions of other international organizations?
These are serious questions which should be answered before Canada commits millions of dollars to this bank. If the government knows the answers to these important questions, why is it operating in a closet and keeping Canadians uninformed about their own investments? Hopefully the legislative committee will give the government and the people an opportunity to look through this window of opportunity in Europe that we all seem to agree is absolutely necessary.
The bank, as we understand it, with the staff of 1,000, will be located in London, England. A full time 23-member board of directors will manage the day-to-day operations of the bank, and will represent the shareholders.
As now planned, salaries paid to the directors and their staff will represent fully 25 per cent of the bank's salaries. Surely we want some definite answers to questions with respect to this area of the bill.
It would be a waste of time and money to create the EBRD if the aid from all 40 nations could just as easily have gone through one of the already existing international financial institutions. Guarantees should exist that the organization's mandate will ensure no duplication of effort.
As I said before, this is a unique instrument and a unique opportunity. Perhaps one could clarify and even use it as a role model in the future.
Canadians want guarantees that the functions of this financial institution will not be identical with any other already existing institutions. In providing this aid to central and eastern European countries, are we taking away much-needed assistance that would have gone to the developing countries.
Government Orders
As you know, Mr. Speaker, while this country talks generosity and caring, this government over the past four or five years has reduced its commitment to the developing countries around the world. Let us hope that the $150 million which has been pledged over the next five years is not going to be taken away from our programs and policies for helping those in the developing world.
Therefore, why is the government not being clear on this issue? We would hope that the government will be forthcoming during the committee hearings and address this important issue also.
Canadians also want to know where this money is coming from. Is this aid being taken at the expense, as I indicated before, of other countries?
Another issue that has not been addressed even though it is in the functions of the bill is sustainable development. I think my friend for Parkdale-High Park has indicated that if we are serious about the environment, if we are serious about the kinds of development dollars that will go to central and Eastern Europe, then surely the idea of sustainable development should be in the purpose of the bill, and not necessarily as No. 7 on the functions of the bill.
Surely we have matured to the point that sustainable development must be key in terms of development. Therefore, it must be made clear that any dollars that this bank will be lending to central and Eastern Europe will support a sustainable environment.
Currently central and Eastern Europe have a number of serious environmental problems. Those problems endanger the health of its own citizens and in fact of other citizens of the world.
Economic development of these countries cannot continue if it will ignore the environmental issues that are currently being addressed internationally. Economic development cannot occur at the expense of good health. Economic development cannot occur at the expense of the environment. Investments and loans should be tired to sustainable development. Hopefully, our person on the board of directors will carry that message strongly and firmly. Mr. Speaker, despite certain clarifications that I am sure will be addressed by the legislative committee, we have a unique opportunity to support the people and the grassroots movements across eastern and central Europe in the countries that in fact brought about the political changes, the changes to the governments of these countries.


Government Orders
The people of eastern and central Europe have suffered for 45 years under undemocratic, dictatorial governments. They need to be shown that the rest of the world is behind what they have done. It is these people who have borne the brunt of political and economic philosophies that have failed miserably over the past 45 years. One only has to witness the long lines to get food for the table of most of these central European countries. One only need look into the eyes of the people who have been deprived of hope, dreams and freedom for years.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see that the bill addresses and ensures that the contracting parties must be committed to democratic principles, multi-party democracies and human rights and other principles that this country believes in and was built on.
In addition, the bill in purpose and function addresses those certain principles that are absolutely important to the proper and orderly function of this particular bank.
Mr. Speaker, that purpose and those functions talk about sustainable development. I hope it is not merely the small print but really is the philosophy that will be taken seriously by the board of directors of this new bank.
It is important for us to offer that helping hand, not to make these countries and the people yet dependent on another group, but to provide them with the necessary assistance to help them help themselves. If they were denied freedom, hope, and dreams before, let them understand and know that we are there so that they can believe in hope, believe in dreams, and believe in freedom and democracy. This may be one small way of showing we are serious and are with them and are prepared to help and fight with them.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for London East for his excellent speech. The member has indicated in clear and unequivocal terms the reasons why he is supporting Bill C-88, an act to provide for the membership of Canada in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Unfortunately, due to arrangements that have been made by representatives of all three political parties not all of us will be permitted the opportunity to indicate the reasons why we individually support BUI C-88.
In the few moments I do have prior to members of Parliament dispersing to have their lunches in the opulent parliamentary restaurant, I would like to associate myself with the comments of the hon. member for London East and perhaps to put a very brief question to him with respect to this bill.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, and you are in another life associated with the Conservative Party, the government has chosen for some inexplicable reason not to participate in this debate. This bill was given first reading on October 22,1990. Here we are on December 4, 21 days to Christmas, about 15 shopping days left to Christmas, and-


Don Boudria: And a partridge in a pear tree.


John V. Nunziata: -the government is anxious now to have this bill sent to a legislative committee. Over the period of time since this bill was introduced in the House, the government has not provided the opposition with information necessary for the opposition to formulate its position.
Granted the opposition will have opportunities at the legislative committee stage to consider the full ramifications of this bill.
The government has in a very deliberate and inexplicable fashion failed to provide essential and vital information to the opposition. In order to secure the support of the opposition, the government ought to be more forthcoming not only with the Liberal Party but also with the New Democratic Party and the Bloc quebecois, the Reform Party, and the independent members in the House. They have the prerogative not to put up any speakers. We see a number of Conservative members in the House today. They have chosen to remain silent and not to contribute.
I would like to ask my colleague from London East, who has articulated my views to a t on this particular bill, to explain why the government is not participating, contributing, or co-operating in the passage of this legislation. As he put it, it is a significant step forward in showing how Canada is ready, willing, able and prepared to assist in the reconstruction and development of Eastern Europe. Canada has a significant role to play.


Canada has always been at the forefront in the democratization of Eastern Europe. Now Canada, with this bill, will provide for its membership in the European Bank for the Reconstruction and Development. Perhaps the member can, in the 30 or 40 seconds that he has, explain why the government is not co-operating.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I sometimes would like to be a fly on the wall of the caucus room of the government to see exactly how it thinks and operates. I am sure a number of Canadians would also like to do that. In fact, I wish I was their group therapy counsellor from time to time. I am sure that I could help them out.
There are two ways of looking at the question. One is that the government is very supportive and therefore, does not feel that it needs to do anything but allow this to go to a legislative committee, even though we were told that it did not want to do that.
Second, if we wanted to be cynical, some of us might think that this government is embarrassed by this bill and it really does not want to talk about it because it silently does not support the bank, and therefore support the people of central and Eastern Europe.
I tend to think that the government is veiy supportive. It has been curious that it has not stood up and really talked about this great opportunity for this country to wave the flag in central and Eastern Europe. You would have thought the members would be very proud to do so. I am hopeful that they will see the light, and at third reading, a great number of them will speak very proudly about their own bill and about the fact that Canada will stand with the eastern and central European people as they develop into a strong and democratic society.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board is producing a white paper on Public Service 2000 to be released in the near future and a new round of consultations will begin. The glaring question is: Will this round be the same onesided, cynical, dictatorial exercise the task force process has been?
I want to remind the government that any initiative to overhaul the Public Service will only be successful if the employees are on side, and if they are allowed to take their rightful places as partners in reform. PS 2000 is doomed to failure if the government continues to charge ahead with its own agenda, imposing on employees what it thinks is good for them. The government's patronizing "trust us, we know best" attitude only feeds employees' cynicism.
Since the Prime Minister sees such benefits in setting up committees, I suggest he turn over the white paper on Public Service 2000 to a special committee of Parliament for third-party review, as recommended by the Public Accounts Committee. Only then will PS 2000 be a truly democratic process.


VISUALLY IMPAIRED
Mr. Marcel R. TYemblay (Quebec Est):: Mr. Speaker, I trust you will forgive this departure from my usual modesty if I inform my colleagues in this House of an idea that, though I say so myself, is original, useful and humanitarian.


On November 26,1 had the pleasure of launching my new business card which has the distinction of being printed in French, English and braille. When I saw the reactions of the people at the Louis-Hebert Centre, a rehabilitation centre for the visually impaired in my riding, and especially after hearing their comments, I realized how moved they were by this gesture.
Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues would do well to follow this example and help the visually handicapped become more independent.


MADAM JUSTICE BERTHA WILSON
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and sadness that my caucus colleagues and I pay tribute to outgoing Supreme Court Justice, Madam Justice Bertha Wilson.
Time and time again this crusader used the law to benefit those Canadians who most need it, the traditionally discriminated against. She did not apologize for helping to feminize those aspects of Canadian law in which she found "gender-based myths, biases and stereotypes", and there are many. The flurry of sexist remarks recently spouted by male judges from the Northwest Territories to the Maritimes only bears out Madam Justice Wilson's observation.
That is why, whether or not the Prime Minister appoints a woman to fill her shoes-and he would be wise to do so-I call on him to see Madam Justice Wilson's retirement as an occasion to announce mandatory gender-sensitization training for all Canadian judges. This would be a real tribute to a woman of real vision.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, for a long time the GST has been criticized and treated with contempt, and this was largely because of a slur campaign conducted by Jean Chretien and his party members, in the Senate and the House of Commons, and the scare tactics they used.
However, we have seen some positive reversals of positions on the GST quite recently. For instance, the Consumers Association of Canada has just recognized the benefits of a tax that is both visible and fair. Furthermore, the Federation of Automobile Dealer Associations of Canada is circulating petitions asking Mr. Chretien and his followers to end the filibuster in the Senate because of the substantial savings they will enjoy under the GST.
And finally, quite recently, several senior citizens federations from Eastern Quebec have been circulating petitions in support of the GST. The idea is gaining ground, Mr. Speaker, that the GST will be good for everyone, for Canadians and for Canada.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, in Chatham, Ontario, yellow ribbons are being tied on trees and placed in restaurants until the Canadian hostages are home from Iraq.
Linda Titus from my riding has a brother, Jim Squire, who is a hostage at the Canadian Embassy in Baghdad. Linda is urging us not to forget the human element in the Persian Gulf crisis. She has written the Prime Minister and President Bush to do whatever it takes to help our hostages home.
We also praise the mercy mission by the three MPs whose fine efforts got five hostages out, while more than 40 remain.
As the world community combines forces to see a resolution, the yellow ribbons in Chatham signify to Jim Squire and the other hostages that "we haven't forgot about you". As the military build-up continues, I urge the government to remember the human side, the families and people like Linda Titus, who are personally affected by this crisis in a far off land.


TEXTILE AND GARMENT INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear that an agreement is expected in the textile and garment sector, at the GATT talks. This is a very important area, because the textile and garment industry, which is considered extremely vulnerable to international competition, generates 160,000 jobs in this country. It is the driving force of the economy in my riding, with 5,000 jobs involved.


Mr. Speaker, during these talks we must ensure that the Canadian position is harmonized as much as possible with that of the United States, since the industry faces three major trade challenges. It is already at a disadvantage because of our exchange rate, interest rates and inflation.
As a result of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States and elimination of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement by July 1991, the degree of integration of the textile and garment sector achieved at the GATT talks should guarantee producers a climate of stability so that we can safeguard our investments and attract new investment to Canada.


FORESTRY INDUSTRY
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, logging practices in British Columbia are so bad that a few months ago a forester from Europe was prompted to say that if such practices were adopted there, foresters would be put in jail.
Forests are not there to be plundered, leaving wildlife suddenly without food and shelter, and leaving rain to wash away topsoil and property, threatening human lives and highways. Forests are more than just supplies of lumber. Once cut, new forests take a long time to grow again and under certain conditions do not renew themselves at all.
When will decision-makers in forestry practise what they preach about sustainable development? When will governments learn to manage Canada's forest resources for future generations? When will the "cut and run" philosophy at last be replaced by the "manage and sustain" philosophy?


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Monique Tardif (Charlesbourg):: Mr. Speaker, at a press conference yesterday, the Consumers Association of Quebec acknowledged that the Canadian and Quebec GST and the accompanying tax credits will make the tax system fairer to many families.
For instance, a family with two incomes totalling $30,000 will spend $1,125 less in 1992.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, in a letter to Jean Chretien, Mr. Pierre Ratte, assistant manager of Que-Bourg Auto in Charlesbourg, focussed on the reprehensible attitude of Liberal senators and stressed that this legislation must come into force on January 1, 1991, as planned.
In the present economic situation, the delays caused by the Liberal senators have increased the level of uncertainty among business people and consumers and seem to make light of the substantial investments already made to conform to GST requirements.

Let the message go directly to the Liberal senators. It is the last chance for them to get back to Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol and, like Scrooge, stop blocking the delivery of GST rebate cheques worth $600 million to some eight million low and middle-income Canadians. It is time to act now for the economic benefit of all Canadians.


THE CONSTITUTION
Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are disgusted by the tactics used by the Prime Minister in trying to impose his constitutional solutions on the country. The scare tactics, the backroom dealing, the blackmail that was used to pressure Canadians into accepting a deal on which they had never been consulted-all of these have brought about the cynicism that we see in Canada today.

Yesterday's exchange between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition only reinforces this sense of malaise. The sight of two old buffaloes trying to gore each other makes me sad.
The old parties have never trusted Canadians to give them a say on their own Constitution. For 123 years Liberal and Tory executive federalism has assumed that only the elite count in this country. We have progressed from the royal decrees that used to issue from Pierre Trudeau to the Atlantic City tactics of the present Prime Minister.
The Liberals and Conservatives have played out their favourite games, one guy hiding under the pool table while the other one rolled dice. It is time they started to stand up for Canada first ahead of their schoolyard games.


CHILD POVERTY
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carle-ton released stunning statistics this fall. These statistics are based on the 1986 census before we entered this made-by-the-Tories recession. Things are worse than in 1986.
Fourteen per cent of all children under the age of 18 years in Ottawa-Carleton live in poverty without enough money for basic requirements. This figure rises to 24 per cent in the city of Ottawa and 31 per cent in the city of Vanier in my riding. Almost one in every three children lives in poverty in the city of Vanier.
Further, 29 per cent of all single-parent families in Ottawa-Carleton are poor, and among single-mother families, 33 per cent are poor.
As a long winter approaches and storms begin to howl around us, it is necessary to take steps to help these children and their families who live in poverty in the Ottawa area. To combat child poverty, the federal government should, first, reform policies to better support working families; second, establish a national daycare system; third, fully index children's benefits, including refundable and non-refundable child tax credits and the family allowance; and last, change its regressive child care expense deduction into a tax credit.


TRIBUTE TO MARTIN NOEL
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay tribute to our young university students, especially those in business administration, commerce and accounting.
I particularly wish to congratulate Martin Noel, of the municipality of Bemieres in the riding of Levis, who ranked first in Quebec on the examination of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.
My congratulations also extend to those who, directly or indirectly, helped him achieve this level of excellence.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the government a report by the accounting firm of Ernst and Young released yesterday which states something I and other New Democrats have been saying for a long time-the GST will be particularly harmful to Canada's north.
In conjunction with the Brunelle commission which will eliminate the northern tax allowance for thousands of northern communities, the effects of the GST will make living in Canada's north a very difficult task.
In case the Minister of Finance did not know, the cost of basic goods and services is much more expensive in northern Canada, which means that the GST will cost more to residents of the north.
In light of this report, I call on the government to scrap plans to eliminate the northern tax allowance for many northern communities effective January 1, and to scrap the GST altogether.


HOUSING
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that housing is the corner-stone of a decent and liveable city. I do not have to tell you that in the city of Toronto, we do not have enough decent housing that people can afford. Demand for housing has far outstripped the supply, particularly the supply of modest housing the people of metro can afford to buy or rent.


I am pleased to say that the federal government, through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, along with the Ontario government, are each giving the Housing Exposition Corporation, Housexco, a $40,000 grant to examine the feasibility of organizing a world housing exposition to be held in Toronto in 1997.
With the $80,000 in grant money, Housexco proposes to work with community leaders, builders, and architects to explore the idea that in 1997 Toronto could be the site of a world housing exposition that would show creative and innovative housing designs drawn from Canada and throughout the world.
Who in the world could question Toronto as the site of a world housing exposition?


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, landing fees at Pearson International Airport are a bargain compared to their international counterparts which charge from two to four times our price. But space, after all, is an airport's most valuable resource.
Several of my colleagues have recently risen in the House to ask the minister to decrease landing fees so that smaller aircraft from other regions of Ontario can continue to fly into Pearson. Where should the priority lie? It is not a question of big business rolling over the little guy. It is about common sense and developing alternatives. It is time to accept that Pearson can no longer accommodate all air traffic in the region.
I encourage the Minister of Transport to look toward the development of airports outside of Pearson, which will create an efficient aviation system and will generate additional benefits for the region. These airports are willing and, with the right development, capable of accommodating the air traffic that Pearson International can no longer serve. It just makes sense.
Oral Questions


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the deceptive practices of the government are disgraceful. Since tabling the Supplementary Estimates on November 23, the government has consistently stated that extra moneys were required to fund the gulf war.
The President of the Treasury Board has tried to suggest that everything in the Supplementary Estimates had been planned, including over half the money, $2.5 billion required to pay the additional interest on the public debt. Why was this required? Because the Minister of Finance in his budget speech ignored opposition advice that high interest rates would continue throughout this year.
Manpower Temporary Service, which prepares employment forecasts, says that predicted hiring trends in January, February, and March 1991 present the most dismal picture in its 13 years of conducting its employment outlook surveys. This government-induced recession, which the minister seeks to conceal behind a shower of press releases, is a disgrace that should be consistently exposed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In his announcement last Sunday, the Prime Minister indicated that he intends to set up a special joint committee of the House and Senate to look into changing the formula for amending our Constitution. Just a few weeks previous, the Prime Minister in this House announced the creation of a royal commission, headed by Mr. Spicer, to hear Canadians on the whole area and manner of constitutional change.
Does the Prime Minister's announcement last Sunday about setting up a new special joint committee of the House and the Senate mean that Canadians will not be able to express their views to the Spicer commission on the matter of constitutional amendment and the commission will not be able to consider this aspect of constitutional change? If so, is this not contrary to the spirit in which the Prime Minister spoke in this House when he created the commission headed by Mr. Spicer?

Oral Questions


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Not at
all, Mr. Speaker. In fact, when the Spicer commission was appointed, I think I discussed in the House a number of fundamental questions that I thought the commission would be interested in considering, some of the most fundamental questions of Canadian values and the matters that continue to bind the nation together. They ranged from institutional change which was strongly requested from western Canada to the appropriateness of the existence of a notwithstanding clause in a constitutional document which is designed to protect minority rights. These were fundamental questions that I thought, among others, would be examined by the Spicer commission.
There is nothing at all in that mandate which precludes the possibility of consideration there or opinions expressed there relating to section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982. But I always felt that it would be appropriate that that problem be given special attention. The idea of appointing a joint Senate-House of Commons committee to consider the matter and to invite participation, criticism, and observations from Canadians across the country surely is consistent with what my hon. friend and, I think, all members want, namely, the greatest degree of public participation in the parliamentary and constitutional process.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The
Prime Minister speaks of public participation. Will he assure this House and the Canadian people that Canadians will be able to appear as witnesses before the special joint committee of the House and Senate that he has proposed and that it will not be another closed-door operation? Furthermore, will he assure this House and the Canadian people that if Canadians are able to appear before the special joint committee and they wish to express their views on constitutional change, in addition to the matter of amending the Constitution and the formula for it, they will not be limited to that narrow question and will be able to express their views on the whole area of constitutional change and development for this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary committee will be established with a difficult question in mind. For those of us who have been through it, the question of amending a
constitution during the three-year time period raises a great deal of difficulties. This has been expressed by most, if not all, of the participants in constitutional reform over the last seven or eight years.
The object of the exercise is to deal specifically with this very serious problem, but committees of the House can establish their own rules. I know that no one is interested in cutting off anybody's input in regard to improvements to the Constitution or to the parliamentary process.
I understand that the House leader is meeting this afternoon with other House leaders to agree upon its composition and the manner in which it might operate. I am sure that all parliamentarians would welcome the input of Canadians both on this and on other matters.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, since the procedure for changing the amending formula for our Constitution requires the unanimous consent of all the provinces, how does the Prime Minister intend to go about obtaining this unanimous consent once the joint committee's report is tabled? Furthermore, does the Prime Minister promise to act on this report, in addition to giving it his approval, or is he going to shelve it as he did with the Charest Committee's report?


Martin Brian Mulroney: How, Mr. Speaker? I assume there are several ways to obtain unanimity. In 1987, we obtained unanimity when 10 provincial premiers, the Prime Minister and the three major parties in the House of Commons agreed to support the Meech Lake Accord. So it was practically unanimous.
The problem at the time was not how to obtain unanimity but how to preserve that unanimity over a three-year period, during which provincial governments might change. In fact, new premiers came on the scene and rejected the agreement approved previously by their predecessors. This is a serious dilemna for anyone who wants to see Quebec become part of the Canadian Constitution, on reasonable and honourable terms. Obviously, a different procedure is required. We obtained unanimity on the Meech Lake Accord in 1987. The problem was to preserve it, as changes occurred at the provincial level, and that is what the parliamentary committee will have to deal with.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The new initiative announced by the Prime Minister on the weekend did not, unfortunately, meet with the kind of unanimous support he hoped to see. In some circles there was even a certain amount of scepticism about this new government initiative. I realize the Prime Minister either did not have time or did not think it appropriate to consult the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the New Democratic Party on creating this new committee.
However, I would like to know whether he took the time to consult with some of his provincial counterparts, and more specifically, whether he received some indication from the Government of Quebec of its political will and its support for this new initiative by the government.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, our decision was based on a number of recommendations and observations that have been made by provincial premiers and members of this House for quite some time regarding the strictures of Section 38 of the present Constitution. For years, many parties have stressed the paralysis that ensues as a result of implementing this provision.
We had an example quite recently, and I am referring to last June, when we had a quasi-unanimous consent. One of the premiers refused to put the question to a vote before his legislative assembly. Hence the consequences we see today. We must avoid this in future, if at all possible. Because of this concern, which I am sure the hon. member shares, the parliamentary committee will start sitting as soon as possible.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows full well that over and above the amendment formula issue there is another basic question in the minds of Canadians from coast to coast, in Quebec, out west or elsewhere in the country: changing the distribution of responsibilities, dealing now with a new distribution of powers between the central government, the provinces, and even the municipalities. That is where the problem lies and I wonder why the Prime Minister would establish a parliamentary commit-
Oral Questions
tee to debate the amending formula when he should strike a parliamentary committee to look into the real, problem, which is the distribution of responsibilities. Why did he not appoint such a committee? Will he not reconsider his decision and make sure that the parliamentary committee tackles the real issue, that is the redistribution of powers between the federal government and the provinces?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend that indeed the country has to come to grips with a new and very important question of distribution of responsibilities. I share my friend's point of view. Still we must not lose sight of the fact that hardly a few months ago the five modest and minimal conditions spelled out by Quebec were consid-erd by some Canadian leaders as being much too revolutionary to be acceptable to the central government or to other provinces, and therefore that minimum was rejected at the time.
So we are looking at two issues, one fundamental, the other procedural. First of all we must deal with the procedural matter in the coming days, and I quite agree with my friend that in due time in the not too distant future the Parliament of Canada will have to deal with a much more pressing issue. Those people who barely a few months ago said that the Meech Lake Accord contained overly expensive conditions will now have to re-examine the problem from a different perspective.


POVERTY
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister said the number of children living in poverty has gone down. Yet ever more people across Canada rely on food banks to be able to feed their family until the end of the month.
Mr. Speaker, whatever the Prime Minister may suggest, one out of six children in Canada still lives in poverty. In Montreal, St. John's, Halifax, Winnipeg, the number of people lining up at food banks has increased since summer's end.


Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, because this situation is alarming. What will the Prime Minister do to avoid this catastrophy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend the Leader of the New Democratic Party raised this issue yesterday, and I would suggest that the statistics I gave concerning the downward trend in poverty in Canada are encouraging. Some 956,000 Canadians have benefitted from government policies and now live above the poverty threshold-333,000 women and 299,000 children. Can we do more? Yes, of course. As far as I am concerned, one Canadian child living in poverty is one too many. Our national commitment should be to do everything we can to make sure that our children grow up in economically sound conditions, and this can be done by eliminating problems associated with poverty.


THE ECONOMY
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with the Prime Minister that there is a need to have a plan to fight poverty in this country and to fight the recession in this country that this government's policies have created.
About a year ago I stood in this House and brought to the attention of the government that it must act immediately on behalf of Canadian farmers who at that time were facing economic devastation. Agriculture Canada has predicted a 25 per cent decline in farm incomes and a staggering 68 per cent decline in Saskatchewan alone.
If we are to attack poverty in this country and if we are to attack the recession in all of the sectors of this economy, will the Prime Minister start by committing his government today to a permanent sensible income support program for farmers, including debt restructuring? In the event of the collapse or the breakdown in the GATT talks for farmers, will he tell this House if he has a contingency plan for farmers as the U.S. does?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raised an important question, but I must remind her that a federal-provincial conference was held in Winnipeg a few weeks ago to look at all aspects of the Canadian farmers' income. In that regard, we have already put in place a plan for the Advance Payment Enhancement Programs and the farmers will receive money very soon.
We also launched two programs, Mr. Speaker: the GRIP and the NISA, that had been more than a year in the making as part of the comprehensive review of agricultural policy.
We had discussions with the provinces and we are about to sign agreements with each of the provinces that have agreed to share with us the long term financing of the programs, for the benefit of the Canadian farmers.
You must realize that agriculture is a divided jurisdiction. By that we mean that the provinces have to do their fair share. Over the past few years, we responded very positively to the farm producers' requests, Mr. Speaker. As we speak, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds are defending the interests of our farm producers in Brussels.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
There is a serious question about child poverty in this country. There is a serious question about the fate of farmers, whether we are even going to be able to have food self-sufficiency in this country. There is no question that the recession is deepening. Unemployment rates are predicted to climb to over 9 per cent.
When the Prime Minister looks at the figures which indicate that we could even be in a worse position now than in the Liberal-created recession of 1981-82, what is he going to do? What kind of a plan is he going to propose to get us out of this recession? Will he consider establishing an all-party committee to attack the recession in this country and to talk about a real economic plan for this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to my hon. friend that if she has any concrete ideas in regard to the manner in which the economy can be improved, the House and the government would be more than delighted to hear from her.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Stop the GST.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says: "Stop the GST". That is typical NDP. Anything to modernize the economy and to make Canada more competitive internationally, the NDP is against. That is why it is going to stay in opposition forever.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend does a very serious disservice to the House by suggesting that the difficult times we are in have equalled or surpassed the recession and depression of 1981-82.
We are talking right now about an 8 per cent or an 8.5 per cent unemployment rate, which compared with some 13 per cent or 14 per cent then; a 4.2 per cent inflation rate, which compared with 13 per cent or 14 per cent then; and a 12.5 per cent bank rate, which compared with 22 per cent and 23 per cent then.
What we have going now are some difficult economic times that we are in the process of working our way out of, while maintaining a non-inflationary climate. It is very important that inflation be wrung out of the economy because otherwise, if we followed some of the ideas of my hon. friend, the people who would be most hurt-


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is time. We should go on.



Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services.
The unemployment rate in the city of Cornwall has risen to 15.5 per cent. We all know that the Canadian economy is in a recession, the deficit is soaring, interest rates are high, and the GST will boost inflation further.
I want to ask the minister who represents eastern Ontario what new programs he is prepared to announce
Oral Questions
to help the people of this region who lost their jobs through the economic mismanagement of his government.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that in eastern Ontario alone over $20 million have been put into that region this last year for Community Futures.
We have had expansions at various areas in northern Ontario and eastern Ontario; northern Ontario thanks to FEDNOR and eastern Ontario thanks to a series of initiatives that have been taken by the department of industry, for example. We have the Goodrich expansion. We have high-tech expansion along the suburbs of the Ottawa perimeter. Above all, we have also created in eastern Ontario more jobs in the last two years than were created in the first two years of the 1980s.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: It is a disgrace, Mr. Speaker!
I will try again to ask a question of the minister responsible for eastern Ontario. We asked the government repeatedly to come up with an economic development plan for eastern Ontario. Given the 15.5 per cent unemployment rate in Cornwall, the loss of over 3,000 full time jobs in the communities of Cornwall, Hawkes-bury and Renfrew in the past two years, will the minister tell us when his government is going to implement an economic recovery plan for eastern Ontario?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks about Cornwall specifically. Under the Community Development Program and the Community Futures Program, approximately $12 million have been earmarked for Cornwall, Hawkesbury, Prescott, Russell, Renfrew, and the Smiths Falls area.
I can be more precise about ISTC programs. The department of industry has committed in the last year more than $18 million toward economic development in eastern Ontario. This is a good record, a record that this government can be proud of.

Oral Questions CIDA


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the absence of the minister responsible for international aid.
In its annual report CIDA has long claimed that its relationship with non-governmental organizations is based "on mutual respect and equality". Yet today one of its major suppliers, one of its major partners, the World University Services of Canada, was forced into receivership.
Since CIDA knew for several weeks of the difficulty this organization was in, will the minister please explain to the House why the government was not able to assist this organization through some difficult times?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, representatives of CIDA did in fact have extension discussions with representatives of the World University Services of Canada. We very much regret that this has happened to the organization.
The hon. member will understand that despite the closeness of our relations with non-governmental organizations and our determination to rely on them and to help them, we cannot take responsibility for the finances of independent organizations.
What we have done is work very closely to ensure that necessary steps are in place to ensure that students in Canada under WUSC auspices and WUSC volunteers overseas are not adversely affected.
If the hon. member has other practical suggestions as to steps that might be taken which recognize the independent financial status of WUSC Canada and other non-governmental organizations, I would certainly be interested in hearing them.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Although there is an independence involved in the organization, there is also a responsibility on behalf of the government to the Canadian taxpayer and a responsibility to the international aid community to protect the
reputation of Canadian groups. In this light CIDA failed to do both.
Will the minister reiterate his commitment that people working for this organization overseas will not be stranded and that students studying in Canada will be protected in terms of their incomes, air fares, and other expenses?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I reject the hon. member's observation about CIDA, as I am sure he will on reflection. I repeat the undertakings that I have given.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The minister knows that the federal government has just slapped massive new closures on the harvest and consumption of fish, shellfish, and waterfowl around six B.C. pulp mills due to dangerous levels of dioxins and furans, costing both jobs and food.
Since it is known that these poisons are dangerous, since there are 106 pulp mills in Canada outside British Columbia pumping the same contaminants into the water, and since these poisons are finding their way up to 1,000 kilometres downstream and in other areas of Canada, would the minister explain why it is that the public in no other province has been given similar health alerts to those given in B.C. last week?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I can tell you that this program has been done co-operatively with the province. It is a program that we are doing elsewhere in the country.
In the case of B.C., the decision was reached after the studies were concluded. We can also say that quite a bit of progress has been accomplished over the last few years, but these studies are coming at this point and we are taking steps to ensure that public safety is maintained.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I take it the minister is telling Canadians that the dioxins and furan levels in fish, shellfish, and waterfowl in other areas of the country are safe.

My supplemental question is for the same minister. Since the former Minister of the Environment promised this House on June 16, 1989 new pulp mill regulations "no later than 1990" and that "there would be no concessions for violators", how does the minister justify violating both promises and allowing all pulp mills to continue dumping poison until 1994, and loopholes for some that will carry them beyond 1994?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, we are not doing that.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In reply to a question yesterday raised in this House on user fees and extra billing, the minister of health failed to assure Canadians explicitly that these were not future options for Canada.
Would the minister now stand and explicitly assure Canadians that they do not have to worry about ever paying user fees and extra medical bills?
No evasive answer, please; just a simple reassurance to Canadians.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have missed the answer yesterday. The question was: "Did we have any plans whatsoever to change the Canada Health Act as it related to extra billing?". The answer was no.
What the Minister of Finance assured the House yesterday-and it was the assurance that I gave the House as well-was that there was a continuing, strong federal role for medicare for the future.
We believe that the system of shared responsibility for health care in Canada, where provinces have the priority and responsibility in terms of delivery of services but where national standards are met, is a good system for Canada, something that we are determined to preserve.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to hear that the minister is equally convinced of the virtues of medicare.
Oral Questions
Since the Canadian Council on Social Development in its most recent publication said: "Bill C-69, (forced by this government through this House last June 12), would accelerate funding cutbacks for medicare so that federal money to the provinces for this program would be reduced to about zero by the year 2004", thereby killing medicare, would the minister, to be both convinced and convincing to Canadians, pledge to this House today that he would prevail on his cabinet colleagues to abandon Bill C-69?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance made it quite clear yesterday, and it was quite unequivocal, that there was a continuing federal responsibility in the funding of medicare. We continue to feel that it is important for the federal government to be present and for national standards to be set. As well, we want to stress the fact that the federal government has shown leadership in a whole range of areas in order to protect the health of Canadians.
I was expecting, frankly, when the hon. member got up today, that he was going to ask a question with regard to the Gemini that was won last night by the Federal Centre for AIDS, among others for the superb video talking about AIDS, as an example of leadership that is shown by the federal government in health care.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. A report commissioned by provincial and territorial ministers and released yesterday confirms what northerners and my colleagues on this side of the House have been saying all along about the GST) the GST will unfairly punish northern residents.
Municipalities, schools, hospitals, small businesses, and consumers in the north will be harder hit by the GST than elsewhere in Canada.
Will the minister admit today that northern Canadians will pay more of this unfair tax, and will he agree to reduce this unfair tax burden on northerners by exempting northern energy and transportation costs from the GST?


Oral Questions


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the report here and I quote from it: "Most resource and export based industries in the north will gain from the zero rating of exports and the elimination of taxes on business imports".
They go on to say that these gains could, not be offset by inflation induced by the GST, a rise in the Canadian dollar or other matters.
But the conclusion we have come to is that the GST over-all, not focusing in on individual aspects of the GST but taking the over-all impact of the GST, is that it will be beneficial to those people living in the north.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. First of all, let us get it straight. There is not exactly booming resource development in the Northwest Territories at this point. Next, we live in a very pre-industrialized area so those tax credits do not really apply to the north.
My supplementary question has to do with the essential expenditures in the north on transportation, energy, and housing which will be more costly. As well, the tax credit is clearly inadequate for northern residents who pay 40 per cent more for the cost of living.
Will the minister admit that the tax will have an extra cost burden on the north, and will the minister take immediate action to exempt the north from this tax?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of projects that are quite healthy these days. We are talking about Norman Wells, Cyprus Anvil Echo Mining, and a number of other projects.
I am not suggesting for a minute that everything is going as well as my hon. friend would like it to go. What we are working on right now with the land claims, with the fact that the GST will reduce the cost of new investment, will make it easier to bring on new projects. These projects in aggregate are going to be major beneficiaries of the GST. It will generate income. It will generate new jobs. It will generate even greater activity. That is the impact and the benefit we believe the GST will have over-all on those people who are living in northern communities.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. Canada's position with respect to science and technology is already among the worst in the industrial world. Now Roy Woodbridge, who is the president of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association, has said that this government's high interest policy has made investment in new advanced technology almost impossible in Canada, and it is making it necessary for many high-tech firms to consider moving from the country, as many already have.
Now that the Minister of Finance has succeeded in causing a recession, is it also his intention to destroy the scientific and technological restructuring necessary for long-term industrial recovery?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement by my hon. friend would come as a very serious surprise to the 40 members of the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology with whom I spent three or four hours last week. They represent the research and development, business and university communities across Canada. They recognize that while Canada does lag behind some of our important competitors in terms of productivity and in some areas of research and development, they indicated at that meeting the remarkable strides that had been made by this government with Centres of Excellence, the Canada scholars program, and the general funding programs since 1984.
Bill C-22, for example, is a classic illustration where $1.3 billion of new investment will go into the pharmaceutical industries in Canada in research and development simply as a result of an important piece of legislation that passed this House and eventually passed the Senate. They indicated to us their desire to work closely with the government and with all parliamentarians to improve Canada's competitiveness. This is an important factor and I know that I can enlist the support of my hon. friend in that very important national objective.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it appears we are making some progress. At least now we are getting the top guns on the other side talking about science and technology. We hope that there will be performance.

Oral Questions
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is he familiar with the fact that two government reports have pointed out that in the Canadian automobile industry, first of all, there is a $1 billion deficit in the amount of R and D required to make the Canadian auto parts industry competitive and the second report points out that the reason for a lack of investment now has become the high value of the dollar.
Does this government have in place a program or a plan of action that will correct the situation that this government's monetary policy has caused which is hurting the development of research and development in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear part of that.


Some hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In the part that I did hear, my hon. friend expressed surprise that as Prime Minister I would be dealing with science and technology. I am the first Prime Minister to have created and chaired a National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. In fact, at most meetings they say: "Where's Howard?"


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister could answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In point of fact, Mr. Speaker, there are deficiencies in terms of Canada's competitiveness that the National Advisory Board has pointed out. We are working very closely with them and the universities and research centres to correct these. There are areas of deep worry in regard to our productivity enhancement programs across Canada. That concerns all Canadians because it involves our job-creation capacity which is of great importance.
They did point out the fact, and I know my hon. friend would want me to conclude by mentioning this, that in terms of the federal government's fiscal policy, Canada has with the exception of Australia, the most generous fiscal situation for the attraction of investment capital for research and development in Canada.


PORK PRODUCERS
Mr. Jean Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: My question is for the Minister of State for Agriculture. The entire pork industry in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region has fallen upon hard times and some 170 jobs are at stake. The federal government must act to save this industry.
My question is this: How are the discussions with the pork producers coming along? The idea of an exploratory market study was brought up, but it could take three or four months. What is being done to provide support to the producers and to the flour mills pending the results of the study?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, my colleague did indeed submit this question to us a few weeks ago. I have since met personally with producers from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. I met representatives-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Oh, oh!


Pierre Blais: I did. I think that I visited that area of the country more regularly than the members of the Bloc quebecois, Mr. Speaker. At any rate, I do not need to take lessons from them.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Blais: I do visit each area in Quebec and I think that our farm producers were never better represented than they have been by our government in the past six years.
Going back to my hon. colleague's question, representatives from the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, from Agriculture Canada and from the Farm Debt Review Board are presently in the Jonquiere area to get together with producers and look at the steps that could be taken in the short term to help them as we did in the past, Mr. Speaker.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.


Oral Questions
There has been much talk and attention on the current impasse between the European Community and other countries over subsidy proposals in the GATT negotiations. All Canadians are concerned about the implications for Canada should the current impasse continue.
What action is Canada taking to break the current impasse? What are the government's plans should these talks fail?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture called me this morning from Brussels where these talks are ongoing.
He, like a lot of others, is discouraged somewhat by the attitude of the European Community whose position, put on the table again yesterday, does not vary substantially from the disappointing position that it put out with regard to agricultural subsidies some months ago.
Last night, under the leadership of the Swedish minister who is chairing that subcommittee, there were a number of bilaterals in which our Minister of Agriculture is actively involved. We hope that this will break the deadlock of the unfair trade distorting subsidy attitudes that the community has adopted, which then provokes a counterpoint from the United States and places Canadian farmers in very serious jeopardy.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture is working very carefully with all of his colleagues from the Cairns group to provoke a new offer from the Europeans which hopefully will get us out of this unacceptable cycle of heavy subsidies with which Canadian farmers and the Canadian treasury cannot realistically compete.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, we have heard nothing about the discussions concerning supply-management, despite the fact that the European Community and Canada seemed to have a basis for agreement.
The European Community has said that it wants to have a definition of Article XI that would allow countries with production quotas to maintain import controls.
Given the similarity between the European and the Canadian positions on supply-management, what has the Prime Minister done to get his American friends on side?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Article XI was specifically discussed yesterday in Brussels. The Japanese, the Koreans, the entire Cairns group and most of the world's agricultural traders agreed with the position set forward by Canada in respect of Article XI.
That is the position that the Minister of State for Agriculture and the Minister of Agriculture worked out in intimate consultation with Canadian agricultural producers. This is the one we have been defending around the world, and this is the one that is now achieving a wide degree of acceptance at Brussels.
If we maintain that degree of solidarity, Canada will prevail with its important position.


THE CONSTITUTION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and concerns the mandate of the Joint Committee on the Constitution. Will the committee, to be at all useful, prepare, as part of its mandate, a process for negotiations with a sovereign Quebec? Will the committee consider how one-on-one negotiations would be conducted, as demanded by the Government of Quebec? Will the committee be able to determine who will speak for English Canada when Quebec makes use of its right to self-determination?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in my answers to the hon. member for Papi-neau-Saint-Michel and the Leader of the Opposition, I described what I felt was an acceptable mandate for the commitee. It is understood, however, that leaders of the various political parties will meet this afternoon to consider the details. Our purpose is to render more flexible a section in the Constitution which so far has tended to paralyze negotiations in this country. The ultimate goal, of course, for most members in this House is to find a flexible formula for the reintegration of Quebec as a full member of the Canadian family. All members in this House, with a few exceptions, support a united Canada.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer is pretty much the same as Jean Chretien's would have been.
What I want to ask the Prime Minister is this: Will he be realistic and give this committee a specific mandate to consider a scenario in which Quebec becomes master of its own destiny, to prepare English Canada for the reality he knows is imminent in Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, personally, as a Quebecer and as a Canadian, my position has always been that the best role for Quebec and for Francophones in Quebec- The best way to protect their aspirations is within a united Canada. That has been the case for 125 years. I think that if everyone showed a little more openness and leadership, this country would be able to find new formulas to protect and respect and promote this French fact which is very much alive and well on this continent.
Personally, with my colleagues from the various parties in this House, I wish to seek an appropriate and acceptable way for Quebec to say yes, of course, to Canada, and a formula that would enable Canada to say yes, once and for all, to Quebec.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Jean-Guy Guilbault: My question is directed to the Minister of State for Agriculture and concerns the GATT talks. The outcome of the present talks will have a major impact on the economy of this country and especially on agriculture. Some countries have threatened to leave the negotiating table if more substantial progress is not achieved. Could the minister tell us what Canada expects will happen during the next few days which are supposed to be critical?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister mentioned earlier, talks in Brussels have reached an impasse. Only two hours ago, the chairman of the GATT negotiating committee called another meeting of all parties to try and break the deadlock.
Privilege
Like the Prime Minister, I had a conversation with the Minister of Agriculture a few hours ago, and we are very hopeful, because I believe that all of us, with the support of farm producers- Canadian farm producers were briefed by the Minister of Agriculture a few hours ago and they all support us at this time. The Canadian position is a balanced one that is in line with the expectations of Canadian farm producers, and we all hope the deadlock will be broken within the next few hours, Mr. Speaker.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members, the presence in the gallery of Mr. Ivars Godmanis, Prime Minister of the Republic of Latvia, who is accompanied by Mr. Janis Jurkans, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, according to Standing Order 48(1), regarding a question of privilege, the standing order states, and I quote:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into
consideration immediately.
It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I gave you notice this morning about my question of privilege which pertains to two letters which I received this morning, bearing an Ottawa stamp of December 3, 1990. I sent these two letters to my constituents in Parkdale-High Park one year ago less two days, December 6, 1989.
The government boasts about Canada Post being in the black and about its efficiency and yet it took one year for my letters to get to Toronto. The resident had moved. It took one year for the letters to be returned to me.
My question of privilege is that my work as a member of Parliament is being undermined when it takes Canada Post one year to return my letters from my constituents. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look into this because this clearly is a denial of my privileges as a member of Parliament. Somehow, my frank was being totally ignored on these two letters.

Government Orders


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised a matter which I think ought to be of considerable embarrassment. I wonder if the hon. member would let me take a look at the material. I may even have to have a further discussion about the matter.
I will take it under consideration and I will return back to the hon. member of the House if appropriate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 3rd, consideration of Bill C-40, an Act respecting Broadcasting and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication, as reported (with amendments) from a Legislative Committee.
Mr. Speaker:: It being 3 p.m., pursuant to an order adopted on Monday, December 3rd, 1990, the House will now proceed to the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at the report stage of Bill C-40.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Shefford rises on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: In effect, you are asking the House to proceed to a recorded division under a consent given on December 3rd.
I should like you to look closely at the procedure and the text of this motion which was adopted to the effect that at this time, upon request from the whips of the recognized parties, the result of some divisions would apply to a number of motions, according to the agreement announced by the said whips at this time.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this type of agreement does not reflect at all the reality of the House. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to look into this very closely.
It may have been possible at a time when the three whips could get together as a privileged few and speak on behalf of ordinary members who, in some cases, were nothing more than voting machines. But this is no longer possible because there are in the House about a dozen members without any authorized whip to represent them.
Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look again at the value of motions of this type within the context of the House and its membership as it is now. I refuse to be taken for granted by the whips of those other parties who are not authorized to speak on our behalf.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations with the Whips. There will be ample opportunity for every member of the House to express their opinion on each of the motions. What the Whips have dealt with is the sense of the motion and about how many times we would actually have to collectively stand up.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you have called in the members and that we proceed with that 15-minute bell, at the conclusion of which my colleague across the way from the Official Opposition, will indicate the decision which the Whips are recommending to the House. If an argument must take place, that might be the appropriate time for it. I think we should proceed with calling in the members.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the government whip behaves as though he owned the right to vote of all the members of this House and as though the whip of the Official Opposition represented his party and tried to come to an agreement.
Mr. Speaker, what I am asking you to do is to look into the notion that we have to abide by the arbitrary decision of the Whips. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that I would not want to embarrass the House which is about to vote on such an important bill. I know that the Minister of Communication wants to use his time in Canada doing something other than spending his afternoon in the House. The fact is, however, that I feel this type of motion is unacceptable, in view of the current conditions prevailing in this House and I would not want ever again to be bound by such an agreement between three individuals who do not speak on behalf of independent members.



Government Orders
[DOT]	(1510)


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, let us not get carried away. Yesterday, in this Chamber, we gave unanimous consent to a procedural order. I will not comment on the attendance of the hon. member, but I know that I was here, Mr. Speaker, and that the House gave its consent, recognizing that there must be some arrangement on the question of voting. The question now is whether or not we should vote, and I think we should. Then, we will have to decide if the vote just held should apply to another one. We will see then, Mr. Speaker, but I remind the hon. member that whips-and I am one of them-are responsible for the orderly conduct of the business of the House.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Shefford the fact that the motion last night is totally consistent with the rules and procedures of the House. Perhaps he would want to read citations 78(1), (2), and (3) of our Standing Orders.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. members for their assistance to the Chair. The hon. member for Shefford is complaining.

He is complaining about the motions which, yesterday, received unanimous consent.

The hon. member may not be happy about it, but the fact of the matter is that the House passed the motion unanimously and I am not at all sure that there needs to be any further discussion about it. As a consequence I must proceed.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[DOT]	(1530)
And the division bells having rung:
Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous order which was adopted yesterday, there have been discussions among the Whips of the three respective parties, and there has been agreement that a vote on Motion No. 1 would apply to Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10,12, 13,14, 15,17, 18,19, 20, 21, the amendment to 24, 24, 26, 27, 30, 32, 34, 36, 40, the amendment to 42, and 42.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The first question is on Motion No. 1. The result of the vote on this motion will apply to Motions No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24 and amendment, 26, 27, 30, 32, 34, 36, 40 and amendment, and 42.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 317)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Anawak
Arseneault	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	Bellemare
Benjamin	Black
Blackburn (Brant)	Blondin
Boudria	Butland
Caccia	Callbeck
Catterall	Clancy
Copps	Crawford
de Jong	Dingwall
Finestone	FI is
Fontana	Fblton
Funk	Gagliano
Gauthier	Gray (Windsor West)
Harb	Harvard
Heap	Hopkins
Hovdebo	Kaplan
Karpoff	Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Du ndas)	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee	MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Mac William	Manley
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	McCurdy
Mifflin	Milliken
Murphy	Nault
Nunziata	Pagtakhan
Parent	Parker
Peterson	Proud
Rideout	Rodriguez
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Speller	Tobin
Volpe	Walker
Wood	Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69 Anderson	NAYS Members Andre
Attewell	Beatty
Bernier	Bertrand
Bird	Bjomson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blenkam
Boyer	Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
Charest	Clark (Yellowhead)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Cole


Government Orders
Collins	Cooper
Corbeil	C6te
Couture	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Domm	Dorin
Epp	Fee
Felt ham	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene	
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Holtmann	Horner
Hudon	Jacques
James	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Koury	Langlois
Lapierre	Larrivee
Layton	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Porter
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tbrner (Halton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van De While
Vankoughnet	Venne
Vezina	Vien
Vincent	Weiner
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Worthy-114	Winegard


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: 
Government Orders
Vezina	Vien
Vincent	Weiner
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-114


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 8 standing in the name of Mrs. Finestone. The vote on this motion applies to Motion No. 10.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 319)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benjamin
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Caccia
Catterall
Copps
de Jong
Finestone
Fontana
Funk
Gauthier
Harb
Heap
Hovdebo
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas) Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee
Mac William Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Mifflin
Murphy
Nunziata
Parent
Peterson
Rideout
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Volpe
Wood
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Black
Blondin
Butland
CaUbeck
Clancy
Crawford
Dingwall
Flis
FUlton
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvard
Hopkins
Kaplan
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Manley
Marleau
McCurdy
Milliken
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parker
Proud
Rodriguez
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Tobin
Walker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
++NAYS
Anderson
Attewell
Bernier
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Boyer
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey
Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Corbeil
Couture
Darling
Della Noce
Members
Andre
Beatty
Bertrand
Bjomson
Blenkara
Browes
Cardiff
Chadwick
Clark (Yellowhead)
Cole
Cooper
Cote
Danis
de Cotret
Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Do mm	Dorin
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene	
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Holtmann	Homer
Hudon	Jacques
James	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Koury	Langlois
Lapierre	Larrivee
Layton	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Porter
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	TUmer (Hatton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van De Walle
Vankoughnet	Venne
Vezina	Vien
Vincent	Weiner
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Ass iniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Wmegard
Worthy-114


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare Motions Nos. 8 and 10 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 9 standing in the name of Mr. Waddell.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 320)
++YEAS
Allmand
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benjamin
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Caccia
Catterall
Copps
de Jong
Finestone
Fontana
Funk
Gauthier
Harb
Heap
Hovdebo
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas) Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee
Members
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Black
Blondin
Butland
Callbeck
Clancy
Crawford
Dingwall
Flis
Fblton
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvard
Hopkins
Kaplan
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) MacDonald (Dartmouth)


Government Orders
Mac William Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Mifflin
Murphy
Nunziata
Parent
Peterson
Rideout
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Volpe
Wood
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69
Manley
Marleau
McCurdy
Milliken
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parker
Proud
Rodriguez
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Tobin
Walker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 12 standing in the name of Mrs. Finestone.
The Elouse divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:

	NAYS	(Division No. 321)		
				
			YEAS	
	Members			
			Members	
Anderson	Andre	Allmand	Anawak	Attewell	Beatty	Arseneault	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)	Bernier	Bertrand	Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	Bellemare	Bird	Bjomson	Benjamin	Black	Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blenkara	Blackburn (Brant)	Blondin	Boyer	Browes	Boudria	Butland	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff	Caccia	Callbeck	'Casey	Chadwick	Catterall	Clancy	C harest	Clark (Yellowhead)	Copps	Crawford	Clark (Brandon-Souris) Collins Corbeil Couture Darling	Cole Cooper Cote Danis de Cotret	de Jong Finestone Fontana Funk Gauthier Harb	Dingwall His Fulton Gagliano Gray (Windsor West) Harvard	V.V >Della Noce	Desjardins	Heap	Hopkins	Dick	Dobbie	Hovdebo	Kaplan	Domm	Dorin	Karpoff	Keyes	Epp	Fee	Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)	Feltham	Ferland	Langdon (Essex-Windsor)	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)	Fontaine	Fretz	Lee	MacDonald (Dartmouth)	Friesen	Gibeau	Mac William	Manley	Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene	Marchi	Marleau	Grey (Beaver River) Gustafson Harvey (Chicoutimi) Hicks	Guilbault Halliday Hawkes Hockin	Martin (Lasalle-Emard) Mifflin Murphy Nunziata	McCurdy Milliken Nault Pagtakhan	Holtmann	Horner	Proud	Hudon	Jacques	Rideout	Rodriguez	James	Johnson	Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Skelly (Comox-Alberni)	Joncas	Jourdenais	Speller	Tobin	Koury	Langlois	Volpe	Walker	Lapierre	Larrivee	Wood	Young (Acadie-Bathurst)	Layton	Lewis	Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69	Littlechild	Loiselle	Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)	NAYS	MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay	Malone	Marin	Martin (Lincoln)	Masse	Members	McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)	Monteith	Moore	Beatty	Nicholson	Oberle	Bernier	Bertrand	.O'Kurley	Porter	Bird	Bjomson	Redway	Reid	Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blenkara	Reimer	Ricard	Boyer	Browes	Richardson	Roy-Arcelin	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields	Casey	Chadwick	Sobeski	Soetens	Charest	Clark (Yellowhead)	Sparrow	Stevenson	Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Cole	Tardif	Tetreault	Collins	Cooper	Thompson Tremblay (Quebec-Est) Valcourt Vankoughnet	Thorkelson Turner (Halton-Peel) Van De Walle Venne	Corbeil Couture Darling Della Noce Dick	Cote Danis de Cotret Desjardins	Vezina	Vien	Domm	Dorin	Vincent	Weiner	Fee	Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek	-Assiniboia)	Feltham	Ferland	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard	Fontaine	Fretz	Worthy-114	Friesen	Gibeau


V. '' A COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene	
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Holtmann	Horner
Hudon	Jacques
James	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Koury	Langlois
Lapierre	Larrivee
Layton	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Porter
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Turner (Halton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van De Walle
Vankoughnet	Venne
Vezina	Vien
Vincent	Weiner
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Worthy-114	Winegard
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 13 standing in the name of Mrs. Finestone.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 322)
++YEAS
Allmand
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benjamin
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Caccia
Catterall
Copps
de Jong
Finestone
Fontana
Funk
Gauthier
Harb
Heap
Hovdebo
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas) Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee
Mac William Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Mifflin
Murphy
Nunziata
Members
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Black
Blond in
Butland
Callbeck
Clancy
Crawford
Dingwall
Flis
FUlton
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvard
Hopkins
Kaplan
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Manley
Marleau
McCurdy
Milliken
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parent
Peterson
Rideout
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Volpe
Wood
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69
Parker
Proud
Rodriguez
Skelly (Comox - Albemi)
Tobin
Walker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
++NAYS
Members
Anderson
Attewell
Bernier
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Boyer
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey
Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Corbeil
Couture
Darling
Della Noce
Dick
Dnmm
Epp
Feltham
Fontaine
Friesen
Andre
Beatty
Bertrand
Bjornson
Blenkam
Browes
Cardiff
Chadwick
Clark (Yellowhead)
Cole
Cooper
Cote
Danis
de Cotret
Desjardins
Dobbie
Dorin
Fee
Ferland
Fretz
Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene
Grey (Beaver River)
Gustafson Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks Holtmann Hudon James Joncas Koury Lapierre Layton Littlechild Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Malone
Martin (Lincoln)
McDermid Monteith Nicholson O'Kurley Redway Reimer Richardson
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sobeski Sparrow Tardif Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-114
Guilbault
Halliday
Hawkes
Hockin
Horner
Jacques
Johnson
Jourdenais
Langlois
Larrivee
Lewis
Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacKay
Marin
Masse
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Moore
Oberle
Porter
Reid
Ricard
Roy-Arcelin
Shields
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thorkelson
TUrner (Halton-Peel)
Van De Walle
Venne
Vien
Weiner


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of Mrs. Finestone.


Government Orders
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 323)

Members
Allmand
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benjamin
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Caccia
Catterall
Copps
de Jong
Finestone
Fontana
Funk
Gauthier
Harb
Heap
Hovdebo
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas) Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee
Mac William Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Mifflin
Murphy
Nunziata
Parent
Peterson
Rideout
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Volpe
Wood
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Black
Blondin
Butland
Callbeck
Clancy
Crawford
Dingwall
Flis
Fulton
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvard
Hopkins
Kaplan
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Manley
Marleau
McCurdy
Milliken
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parker
Proud
Rodriguez
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Tobin
Walker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
James	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Koury	Langlois
Lapierre	Larrivee
Layton	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Porter
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tbmer (Halton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van De Walle
Vankoughnet	Venne
Vezina	Vien
Vincent	Weiner
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Worthy-114	Winegard


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 15 standing in the name of Mrs. Finestone.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(.Division No. 324)
++YEAS
Members
++NAYS
Members
Anderson	Andre
Attewell	Beatty
Bernier	Bertrand
Bird	Bjornson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blenkam
Boyer	Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
Charest	Clark (Yellowhead)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Cole
Collins	Cooper
Corbeil	Cote
Couture	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Do mm	Dorin
Epp	Fee
Felt ham	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)	Greene
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Holtmann	Homer
Hudon	Jacques
Allmand
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benjamin
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Caccia
Catterall
Copps
de Jong
Finestone
Fontana
Funk
Gauthier
Harb
Heap
Hovdebo
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas) Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee
Mac William Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Mifflin
Murphy
Nunziata
Parent
Peterson
Rideout
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Volpe
Wood
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Black
Blondin
Butland
Callbeck
Clancy
Crawford
Dingwall
Flis
Fhlton
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvard
Hopkins
Kaplan
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Manley
Marleau
McCurdy
Milliken
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parker
Proud
Rodriguez
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Tobin
Walker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)


Government Orders
NAYS	(Division No. 325)
Members
Anderson	Andre
Attewell	Beatty
Bernier	Bertrand
Bird	Bjomson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blenkarn
Boyer	Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
Charest	Clark (Yellowhead)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Cole
Collins	Cooper
Corbeil	Cote
Couture	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Domm	Dorin
Epp	Fee
Felt ham	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene	
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Holtmann	Horner
Hudon	Jacques
James	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Koury	Langlois
Lapierre	Larrivee
Layton	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Porter
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	TUrner (Halton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van De Walle
Vankoughnet	Venne
Vezina	Vien
Vincent	Weiner
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Worthy-114	Winegard


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 17 standing in the name of Mr. Waddell.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
Allmand	YEAS Members Anawak
Arseneault	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	Bellemare
Benjamin	Black
Blackburn (Brant)	Blondin
Boudria	But land
Caccia	Callbeck
Catterall	Clancy
Copps	Crawford
de Jong	Dingwall
Finestone	Flis
Fontana	Fulton
Funk	Gagliano
Gauthier	Gray (Windsor West)
Harb	Harvard
Heap	Hopkins
Hovdebo	Kaplan
Karpoff	Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee	MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacWilliam	Manley
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	McCurdy
Mifflin	Milliken
Murphy	Nault
Nunziata	Pagtakhan
Parent	Parker
Peterson	Proud
Rideout	Rodriguez
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Speller	Tobin
Volpe	Walker
Wood	Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69 Anderson	NAYS Members Andre
Attewell	Beatty
Bernier	Bertrand
Bird	Bjornson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blenkarn
Boyer	Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
Charest	Clark (Yellowhead)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Cole
Collins	Cooper
Corbeil	C6te
Couture	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Domm	Dorin
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene	
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Holtmann	Homer
Hudon	Jacques
James	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Koury	Langlois
Lapierre	Larrivee


Government Orders
Layton	Lewis		
Littlechild	Loiselle		
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)		
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay		
Malone	Marin		NAYS
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse		
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)		
Monteith	Moore		Members
Nicholson	Oberle		
O'Kurley	Porter		
Redway	Reid	Anderson	AndreReimer	Ricard	Attewell	BeattyRichardson	Roy-Arcelin	Bernier	BertrandScott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields	Bird	BjornsonSobeski	Soetens	Blackburn (Jonquiere)	BlenkamSparrow	Stevenson	Boyer	BrowesTardif	Tetreault	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	CardiffThompson	Thorkelson	Casey	ChadwickTremblay (Quebec-Est)	Timer (Halton-Peel)	Charest	Clark (Yellowhead)Valcourt	Van De Walle	Clark (Brandon-Souris)	ColeVankoughnet	Venne	Collins	CooperVezina	Vien	Corbeil	CoteVincent	Weiner	Couture	DanisWilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)	Darling	de CotretWilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard	Della Noce	DesjardinsWorthy-114	Dick	Dobbie


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 19 standing in the name of Mrs. Finestone.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
Guilbault
Halliday
Hawkes
Hockin
Horner
Jacques
Johnson
Jourdenais
Langlois
Larrivee
Lewis
Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacKay
Marin
Masse
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Moore
Oberle
Porter
Reid
Ricard
Roy-Arcelin
Shields
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thorkelson
Timer (Halton-Peel)
Van De Walle
Venne
Vien
Weiner


Government Orders
(Division No. 327)

Members
Lewis Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacKay Marin Masse
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Moore Oberle Porter Reid Ricard Roy-Arcelin Shields Soetens Stevenson Tetreault Thorkelson Tamer (Hatton-Peel)
Van De Walle Venne Vien Weiner -Assiniboia)
Wmegard


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 20 standing in the name of Mr. Waddell. The result of the division will apply to Motion No. 21.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 328)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand
Arseneautt
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benjamin
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Caccia
Catterall
Copps
de Jong
Finestone
Fontana
Funk
Gauthier
Harb
Heap
Hovdebo
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas) Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee
Mac William Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Mifflin
Murphy
Nunziata
Parent
Peterson
Rideout
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Volpe
Wood
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69
Anderson
Attewell
Bernier
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Boyer
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey
Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Corbeil
Couture
Darling
Della Noce
Dick
Domm
Epp
Felt ham Fontaine Friesen
Gray (Bonaventu re-iles-d e-la-Madeleine) Grey (Beaver River)
Gustafson Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Holtmann
Hudon
James
Joncas
Koury
Lapierre
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Black
Blondin
Butland
Callbeck
Clancy
Crawford
Dingwall
Flis
FUtton
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvard
Hopkins
Kaplan
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Manley
Marleau
McCurdy
Milliken
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parker
Proud
Rodriguez
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Tobin
Walker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
Layton
Littlechild
Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Malone
Martin (Lincoln)
McDermid
Monteith
Nicholson
O'Kurley
Redway
Reimer
Richardson
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tardif
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Worthy-114
Allmand
Arseneautt
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benjamin
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Caccia
Catterall
Copps
de Jong
Finestone
Fontana
Rank
Gauthier
Harb
Heap
Hovdebo
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas) Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee
Mac William Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Mifflin
Murphy
Nunziata
Parent
Peterson
Rideout
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Volpe
Wood
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Black
Blondin
Butland
Callbeck
Clancy
Crawford
Dingwall
Flis
Fulton
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvard
Hopkins
Kaplan
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Manley
Marleau
McCurdy
Milliken
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parker
Proud
Rodriguez
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Tobin
Walker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
++NAYS
Members
Andre
Beatty
Bertrand
Bjomson
Blenkam
Browes
Cardiff
Chadwick
Clark (Yellowhead)
Cole
Cooper
Cote
Danis
de Cotret
Desjardins
Dobbie
Dorin
Fee
Ferland
Fretz
Gibeau
Greene
Guilbault
Halliday
Hawkes
Hockin
Homer
Jacques
Johnson
Jourdenais
Langlois
Larrivee

Government Orders
NAYS	{Division No. 329)
Members
Anderson	Andre
Attewell	Beatty
Bernier	Bertrand
Bird	Bjomson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blenkam
Boyer	Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
Charest	Clark (Yellowhead)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Cole
Collins	Cooper
Corbeil	Cote
Couture	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Domm	Dorin
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene	
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hoc kin
Holtmann	Horner
Hudon	Jacques
James	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Koury	Langlois
Lapierre	Larrivee
Layton	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Porter
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tiirner (Halton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van De Walle
Vankoughnet	Venne
Vezina	Vien
Vincent	Weiner
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Worthy-114	Winegard


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 24 standing in the name of Mr. Harvard.
The House divided on the amendment, which was
negatived on the following division:
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Anawak
Arseneault	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	Bellemare
Benjamin	Black
Blackburn (Brant)	Blondin
Boudria	Butland
Caccia	CaUbeck
Catterall	Clancy
Copps	Crawford
de Jong	Dingwall
Finestone	Flis
Fontana	Fulton
Funk	Gagliano
Gauthier	Gray (Windsor West)
Harb	Harvard
Heap	Hopkins
Hovdebo	Kaplan
Karpoff	Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee	MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacWilliam	Manley
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	McCurdy
Mifflin	Milliken
Murphy	Nault
Nunziata	Pagtakhan
Parent	Parker
Peterson	Proud
Rideout	Rodriguez
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Speller	Tobin
Volpe	Walker
Wood Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69	Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
 NAYS Members
Anderson	Andre
Attewell	Beatty
Bernier	Bertrand
Bird	Bjornson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blenkam
Boyer	Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
Charest	Clark (Yellowhead)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Cole
Collins	Cooper
Corbeil	Cote
Couture	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Domm	Dorin
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene	
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Holtmann	Homer
Hudon	Jacques
James	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Koury	Langlois
Lapierre	Larrivee


Government Orders
Layton	Lewis		
Littlechild	Loiselle		
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)		
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay		
Malone	Marin		NAYS
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse		
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)		
Monteith	Moore		Members
Nicholson	Oberle		
O'Kurley	Porter		
Redway	Reid	Anderson	AndreReimer	Ricard	Attewell	BeattyRichardson	Roy-Arcelin	Bernier	BertrandScott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields	Bird	BjomsonSobeski	Soetens	Blackburn (Jonquiere)	BlenkarnSparrow	Stevenson	Boyer	BrowesTardif	Tetreault	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	CardiffThompson	Thorkelson	Casey	ChadwickTremblay (Quebec-Est)	Timer (Halton-Peel)	Charest	Clark (Yellowhead)Valcourt	Van De Walle	Clark (Brandon-Souris)	ColeVankoughnet	Venne	Collins	CooperVezina	Vien	Corbeil	CoteVincent	Weiner	Couture	DanisWilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	Assiniboia)	Darling	de CotretWilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard	Della Noce	DesjardinsWorthy-114	Dick	DobbieDnmm	DorinEpp	FeeThe Acting Speaker	(Mr. DeBlois): I declare the	Feltham	Ferlandamendment lost.	Fontaine Friesen	Fretz GibeauGray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene	Grey (Beaver River)	GuilbaultThe next question is on Motion No. 24 standing m the name of Mrs. Finestone.	Gustafson Harvey (Chicoutimi) Hicks	Halliday Hawkes Hoc kinHoltmann	HomerThe House divided on the motion, which was nega-	Hudon James	Jacques Johnsontived on the following division:	Joncas Koury	Jourdenais LangloisLapierre	LarriveeLayton	Lewis(Division No. 330)	Littlechild	LoiselleLopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKayYEAS	Malone Martin (Lincoln)	Marin MasseMcDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)Members	Monteith	MooreNicholson	OberleAllmand	Anawak	O'Kurley	PorterArseneault	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)	Redway	ReidAxworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	Bellemare	Reimer	RicardBenjamin	Black	Richardson	Roy-ArcelinBlackburn (Brant)	Blondin	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	ShieldsBoudria	Butland	Sobeski	SoetensCaccia	Callbeck	Sparrow	StevensonCatterall	Clancy	Thrdif	TetreaultCopps	Crawford	Thompson	Thorkelsonde Jong	Dingwall	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Timer (Halton-Peel)Finestone	Flis	Valcourt	Van De WalleFontana	Fblton	Vankoughnet	VenneFunk	Gagliano	Vezina	VienGauthier	Gray (Windsor West)	Vincent	WeinerHarb	Harvard	Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	Assiniboia)Heap	Hopkins	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	WinegardHovdebo	Kaplan	Worthy-114	Karpoff	Keyes	Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)	Langdon (Essex-Windsor)	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)	The Acting Speaker motion lost.	Lee Mac William Marchi	MacDonald (Dartmouth) Manley Marleau	(Mr. DeBlois): I declare theMartin (Lasalle-Emard)	McCurdy	Mifflin	Milliken	Murphy	Nault	Nunziata Parent Peterson	Pagtakhan Parker Proud	The next question is on Motion No. 26 standing in the name of Mrs. Finestone.	Rideout	Rodriguez	Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Skelly (Comox-Alberni)	Speller	Tobin	Volpe	Walker	The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:	Wood Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69	Young (Acadie-Bathurst)	
Government Orders (.Division No. 331)
++YEAS
Members
Lewis Loiseile
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacKay Marin Masse
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Moore Oberle Porter Reid Ricard Roy-Arcelin Shields Soetens Stevenson Tetreault Thorkelson Timer (Halton-Peel)
Van De Walle Venne Vien Weiner -Assiniboia)
Winegard


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: 
++NAYS
Government Orders {Division No. 333)
Members
Anderson
Attewell
Bernier
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Boyer
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey
Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Corbeil
Couture
Darling
Della Noce
Dick
Domm
Epp
Feltham Fontaine Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene
Andre
Beatty
Bertrand
Bjornson
Blenkarn
Browes
Cardiff
Chadwick
Clark (Yellowhead)
Cole
Cooper
Cote
Danis
de Cotret
Desjardins
Dobbie
Dorin
Fee
Ferland Fretz Gibeau
Grey (Beaver River)
Gustafson
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Holtmann
Hudon
Joncas Koury Lapierre Layton Littlechild Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Malone
Martin (Lincoln)
McDermid Monteith Nicholson O'Kurley Redway Reimer Richardson
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sobeski Sparrow Tardif Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-114
Guilbault
Halliday
Hawkes
Hoc kin
Horner
Jacques
Johnson
Jourdenais
Langlois
Larrivee
Lewis
Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacKay
Marin
Masse
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Moore
Oberle
Porter
Reid
Ricard
Roy-Arcelin
Shields
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thorkelson
Tb rner (Halt on-Peel)
Van De Walle
Venne
Vien
Weiner


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion negatived.
The next question is on motion No. 30 standing in the name of Mrs. Finestone.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
++YEAS
Members
Allmand
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benjamin
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Caccia
Catterall
Copps
de Jong
Finestone
Fontana
Funk
Gauthier
Harb
Heap
Hovdebo
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas) Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee
Mac William Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Mifflin
Murphy
Nunziata
Parent
Peterson
Rideout
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Volpe
Wood
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Black
Blondin
Butland
C allbeck
Clancy
Crawford
Dingwall
Flis
Fulton
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvard
Hopkins
Kaplan
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Manley
Marleau
McCurdy
Milliken
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parker
Proud
Rodriguez
Skelly (Comox-Alberai)
Tobin
Walker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
++NAYS
Members
Anderson
Attewell
Bernier
Bird
Andre
Beatty
Bertrand
Bjornson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Boyer
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey
Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Corbeil
Couture
Darling
Della Noce
Dick
Domm
Epp
Feltham
Fontaine
Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Grey (Beaver River)
Gustafson Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Holtmann
Hudon
James
Joncas
Koury
Lapierre
Blenkarn
Browes
Cardiff
Chadwick
Clark (Yellowhead)
Cole
Cooper
Cote
Danis
de Cotret
Desjardins
Dobbie
Dorin
Fee
Ferland Fretz Gibeau Madeleine) Greene Guilbault Halliday Hawkes Hockin Horner Jacques Johnson Jourdenais Langlois Larrivee

Government Orders
Layton	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Porter
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Turner (Halton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van De Walle
Vankoughnet	Venne
Vezina	Vien
Vincent	Weiner
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Worthy-114	Winegard
The Acting Speaker motion negatived.	(Mr. DeBlois): I declare the
The next question is on motion No. 32 standing in the name of Mr. Waddell.	
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:	
(Division No. 334)
 YEAS Members	
Allmand	Anawak
Arseneault	Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	Bellemare
Benjamin	Black
Blackburn (Brant)	Blondin
Boudria	Butland
Caccia	Callbeck
Catterall	Clancy
Copps	Crawford
de Jong	Dingwall
Finestone	Flis
Fontana	FUlton
Funk	Gagliano
Gauthier	Gray (Windsor West)
Harb	Harvard
Heap	Hopkins
Hovdebo	Kaplan
Karpoff	Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee	MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Mac William	Manley
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	McCurdy
Mifflin	Milliken
Murphy	Nault
Nunziata	Pagtakhan
Parent	Parker
Peterson	Proud
Rideout	Rodriguez
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Speller	Tobin
Volpe	Walker
Wood Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69	Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
++NAYS
Members
Anderson	Andre
Attewell	Beatty
Bernier	Bertrand
Bird	Bjomson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blenkam
Boyer	Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
Charest	Clark (Yellowhead)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Cole
Collins	Cooper
Corbeil	C6te
Couture	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Domm	Dorin
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)	Greene
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Holtmann	Horner
Hudon	Jacques
James	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Koury	Langlois
Lapierre	Larrivee
Layton	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Porter
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Thrdif	Tetreault
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	TUmer (Halton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van De Walle
Vankoughnet	Venne
Vezina	Vien
Vincent	Weiner
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)	
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Worthy-114	Winegard


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion negatived.
The next question is on motion No. 34 standing in the name of Mrs. Finestone.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:


(Division No. 335)

Members
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)	Benjamin
Black	Blackburn (Brant)
Butland	de Jong
Fhlton	Funk
Heap	Hovdebo
Karpoff	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)	MacWilliam
McCurdy	Murphy
Parker	Rodriguez
Skelly (North Island-Powell River) Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-21	Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
NAYS	
Members	
Allmand	Anawak
Anderson	Andre
Arseneault	Altewell
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)	Beatty
Bellemare	Bernier
Bertrand	Bird
Bjornson	Blackburn (Jonqui&re)
Blenkarn	Blondin
Boudria	Boyer
Browes	Caccia
Callbeck	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Cardiff	Casey
Catterall	Chadwick
Charest	Clancy
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Cole
Collins	Cooper
Copps	Corbeil
Cote	Couture
Crawford	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Dingwall
Dobbie	Domm
Dorin	Epp
Fee	Feltham
Ferland	Finestone
Flis	Fontaine
Fontana	Fretz
Friesen	Gagliano
Gauthier	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)	Gray (Windsor West)
Greene	Grey (Beaver River)
Guilbault	Gustafson
Halliday	Harb
Harvard	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hawkes	Hicks
Hoc kin	Holtmann
Hopkins	Horner
Hudon	Jacques
James	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Kaplan	Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)	Koury
Langlois	Lapierre
Larrivee	Layton
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)	Lee
Lewis	Littlechild
Loiselle	Lopez
MacDonald (Rosedale)	MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Malone	Manley
Marchi	Marin
Marleau	Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Mifflin	Milliken
Monteith	Moore
Nault	Nicholson
Nunziata	Oberle
O'Kurley	Pagtakhan
Parent	Peterson
Porter	Proud
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Rideout
Roy-Arcelin
Shields
Soetens
Speller
Tardif
Thompson
Tobin
Thrner (Halt on-Peel)
Van De Walle
Venne
Vien
Weiner
Assiniboia)
Winegard
Worthy
Government Orders
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sobeski
Sparrow
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek- Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Wood
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-159


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion negatived.
The next question is on motion No. 36 standing in the name of Mr. Waddell.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 336)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benjamin
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Caccia
Catterall
Copps
de Jong
Finestone
Fontana
Funk
Gauthier
Harb
Heap
Hovdebo
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas) Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee
Mac William Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Mifflin
Muiphy
Nunziata
Parent
Peterson
Rideout
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Volpe
Wood
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Black
Blond in
Butland
Callbeck
Clancy
Crawford
Dingwall
Flis
Fblton
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvard
Hopkins
Kaplan
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Manley
Marleau
McCurdy
Milliken
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parker
Proud
Rodriguez
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Tobin
Walker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)

Government Orders

(.Division No. 337)
Members
Anderson
AlteweU
Bernier
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Boyer
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey
Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Corbeil
Andre
Beatty
Bertrand
Bjomson
Blenkam
Browes
Cardiff
Chadwick
Clark (Yellowhead)
Cole
Cooper
Cote
Couture	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Domm	Dorin
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)	Greene
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Holtmann	Homer
Hudon	Jacques
James	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Koury	Langlois
Lapierre	Larrivee
Layton	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Porter
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Timer (Halton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van De Walle
Vankoughnet	Venne
Vezina	Vien
Vincent	Weiner
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-114


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion negatived.
The next question is on motion No. 40 standing in the name of Mr. Waddell.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
++YEAS
Members
Allmand
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benjamin
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Caccia
Catterall
Copps
de Jong
Finestone
Fontana
Funk
Gauthier
Harb
Heap
Hovdebo
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas) Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee
Mac Wiliam Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Mifflin
Murphy
Nunziata
Parent
Peterson
Rideout
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Volpe
Wood
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Black
Blondin
Butland
Callbeck
Clancy
Crawford
Dingwall
Flis
Fulton
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvard
Hopkins
Kaplan
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Manley
Marleau
McCurdy
Milliken
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parker
Proud
Rodriguez
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Tobin
Walker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
++NAYS
Members
Anderson	Andre
Altewell	Beatty
Bernier	Bertrand
Bird	Bjomson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blenkam
Boyer	Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
Charest	Clark (Yellowhead)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Cole
Collins	Cooper
Corbeil	Cote
Couture	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Domm	Dorin
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Holtmann	Homer
Hudon	Jacques
James	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Koury	Langlois
Lapierre	Larrivee


Government Orders
Layton
Littlechild
Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming) Malone
Martin (Lincoln)
McDermid
Monteith
Nicholson
O'Kurley
Redway
Reimer
Richardson
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tardif
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Worthy-114
Lewis
Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacKay
Marin
Masse
McDougall (St. Paul's) Moore Oberle Porter Reid Ricard Roy-Arcelin Shields Soetens Stevenson Tetreault Thorkelson Timer (Halton-Peel) Van De Walle Venne Vien Weiner -Assiniboia)
Winegard


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the amendment negatived.
The next question is on the amendment No. 42 standing in the name of Mr. Flis.
The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 338)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benjamin
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Caccia
Catterall
Copps
de Jong
Finestone
Fontana
Funk
Gauthier
Harb
Heap
Hovdebo
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas) Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee
Mac William Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Mifflin
Murphy
Nunziata
Parent
Peterson
Rideout
Skelly (North Island - Powell River)
Speller
Volpe
Wood
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69
Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Black
Blondin
Butland
Callbeck
Clancy
Crawford
Dingwall
Flis
Fulton
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvard
Hopkins
Kaplan
Keyes
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Manley
Marleau
McCurdy
Milliken
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parker
Proud
Rodriguez
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Tobin
Walker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
++NAYS
Members
Anderson	Andre
Attewell	Beatty
Bernier	Bertrand
Bird	Bjomson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blenkam
Boyer	Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
C harest	Clark (Yellowhead)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Cole
Collins	Cooper
Corbeil	Cote
Couture	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Do mm	Dorm
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)	Greene
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hoc kin
Holtmann	Horner
Hudon	Jacques
James	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Koury	Langlois
Lapierre	Larrivee
Layton	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Porter
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Timer (Halton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van De Walle
Vankoughnet	Venne
Vezina	Vien
Vincent	Weiner
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)	
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-114


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion negatived.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, considering that it was decided that some motions should be grouped for the question, I have no choice but to respect that decision. However, if Motion No. 14, which deals with an all-news service in French, had been put separately, I would have voted in favour of it.


Government Orders


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, since that same procedure prevented us from voting directly on some of the motions, I wish to advise you that I had to vote the way I did-and not specifically because of the national unity amendment-when, in fact, I would have voted in favour of Motions No. 8, 13, 14 and 15, as well as Motions No. 18 and 24.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I know they do not like it, but they should be glad to see democracy in action. I would have also voted in favour of Motion No. 42, Mr. Speaker.


Miss Grey:: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to express my regrets at not being asked as a member of the House about what I would feel.
I would like to change my vote. In the interest of saving time, I would like to have it on the record that I would have voted yes for Motions Nos. 19, 26, 27,32 and 42.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the discussions which have occurred with the whips of the three parties, I think you would find that there be disposition to move to Motion No. 33 at this time for a vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on motion No. 33 standing in the name of Mr. Waddell.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 339)
++YEAS
Members Anawak
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) Bellemare Black Blondin Butland Callbeck Clancy Crawford Dingwall Flis Fblton Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvard Hopkins
Hovdebo	Kaplan
Karpoff	Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Lee	MacDonald (Dartmouth)
Mac William	Manley
Marchi	Marleau
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	McCurdy
Mifflin	Milliken
Murphy	Nault
Nunziata	Pagtakhan
Parent	Parker
Peterson	Proud
Rideout	Rodriguez
Skelly (North Island - Powell River)	Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Speller	Tobin
Volpe	Walker
Wood Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-69	Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
Anderson	NAYS Members Andre
Attewell	Beatty
Bernier	Bertrand
Bird	Bjomson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blenkam
Boyer	Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
Charest	Clark (Yellowhead)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Cole
Collins	Cooper
Corbeil	Cote
Couture	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Domm	Dorin
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene	
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hicks	Hockin
Holtmann	Horner
Hudon	Jacques
James	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Koury	Langlois
Lapierre	Larrivee
Layton	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Porter
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	Shields
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Th me r (Hatton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van De Walle
Vankoughnet	Venne
Vezina	Vien
Vincent	Weiner
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard
Worthy-114	
Allmand
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Benjamin
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Caccia
Catterall
Copps
de Jong
Finestone
Fontana
Funk
Gauthier
Harb
Heap


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion negatived.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, again pursuant to the special order of the House, I think you would find that there is a disposition among the respective whips of the parties that Motions 39 and 42 respectively would be adopted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The next question is on Motion No. 42. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 39.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: A point of order. The member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I concur with my colleague across the way that the decision of the Whips was to adopt these two motions, No. 42 which would apply to No. 39, without a recorded division. We could then move to the concurrence motion.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motions Nos. 42 and 39?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motions Nos. 39 and 42 agreed to on division.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications) moved: that Bill C-40, as amended, be concurred in with further amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. members:: Now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to order made on Monday, December 3,1990, the bill will be read the third time now.
Government Orders
Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications)
moves:
-That Bill C-40, An Act respecting broadcasting and to amend
certain Acts in relation thereto and in relation to
radiocommunication, be now read a third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for many Canadians in saying that I am both reassured and very pleased to see Bill C-40, a new Broadcasting Act for Canada, receive Third Reading in this House. I know, because many Canadians have written to me from all across the country, urging Government to proceed rapidly with third reading and passage of this bill.
One such letter expressed, in my view both clearly and cogently, the most important reasons why this legislation should become law. The letter read in part and I quote: "Canadians want made-in-Canada programs; we want our special cultural differences and similarities promoted on radio and TV, not submerged; we want more Canadian programs, not fewer, for better choice; we want our Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and our CRTC to be strong and independent, with the public's interests given precedence."
I can think of no better summary of Bill C-49's objectives.
The Canadian broadcasting system is in a period of accelerated change. New technologies, such as high definition television, digital radio, direct broadcast satellites and fiber optics, offer the possibility of an ever-widening range of high quality programming services. Yet, the majority of these services are of foreign origin and the escalating costs of program production make producers think in terms of global rather than local or even national audiences.
Time and time again, and despite the wealth of foreign programming already available to us, Canadians have responded positively to those Canadian programs which are competitive with the best the world has to offer. And such programs are increasing in number and variety.
Canadian broadcasters are realizing that to compete with foreign services, they have to be different. To recapture their Canadian audiences, they have to offer programming of high quality. To quote Michael McCabe, President of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters: "In the one-hundred channel universe, you've got to be good or they'll switch channels".

Government Orders
Broadcasters increasingly are producing distinctively Canadian programs which will hold their audience and which are finding international as well as Canadian markets.
This Bill will encourage public and private broadcasters to continue to produce not only more but better Canadian programs. We believe that this is the most appropriate way to respond to the challenges facing Canadian broadcasting.
But there are other reasons why we need this legislation.
Bill C-40 will replace the outdated legal definitions in the current Broadcasting Act of 1968 with definitions appropriate to current, and hopefully future, realities in the broadcasting system so that the CRTC may regulate all types of broadcasting activities in the public interest without fear of its authority being challenged in the courts.
Technology always has been a driving force in broadcasting, but the only thing that really matters is program content; all the rest is housekeeping. Bill C-40 is the first legislation to fully recognize this truism of broadcasting policy.
The current Broadcasting Act ties the definition of broadcasting to over-the-air transmission, yet today most Canadians receive programming services by cable and satellite. Some of these services are not even directly available over the air and some are available only in return for payment.
Bill C-40 recasts the legal definitions in the Act to focus on the transmission of programs to the public, regardless of the technology used. In this way, the bill establishes an appropriate balance among all the components of the Canadian broadcasting system.
I want to stress, Mr. Speaker, that the new definitions in Bill C-40 are intended to ensure that all Canadian programming services-present or future-will operate under comparable regulations and conditions regardless of the nature of the service or the technology used to transmit their programs to the public.
At the same time, however, the Broadcasting Act must recognize that the same technologies used to transmit broadcast programs are also used to deliver other kinds of services. Broadcasting legislation should not become an intrument for inhibiting the evolution of services which do not properly fall within its scope.
Bill C-40 is about television and radio programming. These activities have traditionally been regulated because they are cultural in nature and they provide a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of Canadian identity and cultural sovereignty.
Information-based services such as shopping and real estate services, data base services, home security services and the like are of a different nature. Most are not now regulated. Furthermore, unlike broadcasting, the vast majority of these new services are not of such a high cultural impact.
By dealing with the transmission of programs to the public, rather than on a particular technology, this bill gives the CRTC clear guidance about which activities are to be regulated, such as broadcasting. It also gives the commission the latitude it needs to determine how best to regulate those undertakings which eventually become involved in different types of activity.
The technologies used for broadcasting and telecommunications are converging rapidly. Bill C-40 recognizes this reality and gives the CRTC the powers it needs to regulate broadcasting well into the twenty-first century.
The bill also recognizes that newer technologies allow programming services to encode their signals for distribution to paying suscribers only. For this reason, it provides a right of civil action against theft of encoded signals, a provision which has found support from the cablevision and satellite direct-to-home television industries.
The CRTC has served Canadians well. Under its supervision, the broadcasting system has witnessed extraordinary growth. The commission has tried to ensure that the range and variety of Canadian programming kept pace with this growth. More recently, the commission has taken initiatives to streamline its activities and lighten the regulatory burden.
The CRTC has largely deregulated AM radio, recognizing the particular problems of that important medium; it has introduced new approaches to the regulation of Canadian content on television, and it has launched major reviews of the regulations governing FM radio as well as cable rates. These activities are commendable. Bill C-40 will enable the CRTC to serve Canadians even better. It will encourage the commission to take initiatives and give it more flexibility to find innovative and


creative ways of pursuing the objectives of the Broadcasting Act with a lighter regulatory touch.
Bill C-40 also will change the commission in several ways.
The bill gives to the Governor in Council authority to issue broad policy directions to the CRTC and will establish clearly the Government's role in setting general guidelines for the broadcasting system on broad policy matters.
Additionally, the bill will allow restructuring of the commission, bringing more openness and accessibility to its public hearing process and greater sensitivity to regional needs.
CRTC decision-making will be decentralized so that panels of commissioners appointed to public hearings across Canada will no longer only hear the matters before them, but also reach decisions. Broadcasters and the public attending these hearings will know that the commissioners they address will be those who decide the issues before them. This is in keeping with the basic principles of justice. The Government recognizes, however, that the commission's mandate requires its decisions to reflect country-wide policies and objectives. For this reason, the bill requires that panels of commissioners shall consult with the commission to ensure consistent interpretation of broadcasting policy and regulations.
We believe that decentralized decision-making with mandatory consultation, provides for an appropriate balance between, on the one hand, a more open, accessible and efficient regulatory process and, on the other hand, consistent interpretation of policies by panels of commissioners operating across Canada.
In the same spirit, the establishement of regional offices of the CRTC provided for in this legislation will foster a greater sense that all Canadians have access to the commission and that it is aware of regional issues and concerns.
Through its decisions, the CRTC affects individual Canadians directly. Its regulations and decisions determine the range and even the selection of programming services Canadians can receive and the cost of receiving
Government Orders
those services. Accordingly, we believe that the CRTC should have a regional presence in Canada.
Recently, the former chairman of the commission, Keith Spicer, supported passage of the Bill, saying that, on balance, the result will be very positive. "In practical terms", he said, "C-40 will give the CRTC much stronger and more credible enforcement powers."
Mr. Speaker, I now turn to the centrepiece of Canadian Broadcasting Policy, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. As the national public broadcaster, the CBC, under this bill, will remain a strong and independent voice and the foremost producer of Canadian radio and television programming.
The bill reformulates the CBC's mandate to place greater emphasis on the distinctively Canadian character of CBC programming.

For the first time, this mandate includes specific references to the important role that the CBC has in reflecting Canada, in providing English and French programming services, in meeting the needs of official language minorities, in reflecting Canadian society in all its aspects, in actively contributing to the flow and exchange of cultural expression, and, in all these ways, contributing to a shared Canadian consciousness and identity.
Certain critics have lamented the removal of the phrase "national unity" from the CBC's mandate. Yet, there can be no doubt that the objectives which I have just stated will indeed contribute to Canadian unity. For how can there be unity without the flow and exchange of cultural expression, in English and French, among all the component parts of Canada, as is foreseen by this bill? How can there be unity without a shared awareness of Canadian identity?

Bill C-40 reinterprets the objective of Canadian unity now in the CBC's mandate in terms which are more appropriate to a truly independent public broadcaster.
In considering this issue, Mr. Speaker, an all-party committee of this House unanimoulsy concluded that: "there must be no suggestion in the act that the CBC has any obligation to serve as a propagandist, even for a cause as legitimate as national unity."

Government Orders
I believe that this was and remains the right conclusion. If there is any doubt that an objective to promote "national unity" could be interpreted in a political way, then such wording has no place in the legal mandate of and independent public broadcaster like the CBC.
Most comments, including those of the new president and of the chairman designate of the CBC, concur that the new wording is a significant improvement. As to the CBC's operations and administration, Bill C-40 rationalizes the corporation's management structure, by separating the quite different functions of president and chief executive officer from those of the Chairman of the board of directors. In addition, the bill clarifies the nature of the CBC's accountability to Parliament while, for the first time, stating in law the CBC's journalistic, creative and programming independence.
Among its many other benefits, passage of this bill will allow the chairman designate to assume his long-delayed rightful title and responsibilities at the head of Canada's foremost cultural institution.
Mr. Speaker, I launched the long process that has led to third reading of Bill C-40, with the appointment of the Caplan-Sauvageau Task Force on Broadcasting Policy in May 1985. It was one of the first iniatives I undertook as Minister of Communications. Mr. Speaker, the government has had occasion to say before that Bill C-40 is fundamentally a consensus document. As we prepare to vote on its third reading, this bill has obtained the support of the CRTC, the CBC, most private broadcasters and a wide cross-section of the Canadian public. It is high time that this bill was passed into law.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what our Minister of Communications had to say. I certainly would hope his introductory remarks would be listened to with a great deal of care and then be analysed.
I will leave that analysis to the people of Canada, to the instruments that are to put into effect this particular bill, and I believe time and history will prove that the words were right. The message was right, but the application of the message is sadly lacking. And so it is
with a sense of sadness that I stand to speak at third reading of this bill.
It is a very important bill. It is a very important instrument and I would, in the time that I have, do a review and an analysis of where we are in the broadcasting industry, the broadcasting services in Canada. The purpose of Bill C-40 was to update the 1968 Broadcasting Act and is essentially identical to Bill C-136 which died on the Order Paper prior to the 1988 federal election.
The legislation had its genesis in the task force on broadcast policy. It had extensive review by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture with hearings across this land. It resulted in four reports containing recommendations for new broadcasting legislation. The committee and the members of that committee listened to the people, and our report reflected the people. We on this side of the House spoke for the interested parties, while from the government benches we heard barely a word; the parliamentary secretary and now, for the first time, a speech by the minister.
While no persons on the government side spoke to or supported this bill, I have been privileged the other way. In fact, I have been more than privileged. I have been well treated by the members of my caucus.
Bill C-40 was introduced for first reading, I would remind this House, on October 11, 1989. It received second reading in December 1989, was studied in legislative committee from January to March, 1990. It was reported to this House on March 20, 1990, and it languished on the Order Paper until October 31 when it was finally called for report stage.
Rumours that were spread by the government about delays, dilatory amendments, filibustering by this side of the House, were unfounded. I would venture to say they were a gross exaggeration, in fact, if not untrue.
The real story of this bill was the reluctance of this government, the reluctance and lack of commitment by its cabinet, and by its members, and opposition by many of the backbench to the contents of this bill. Otherwise why did we have all those zipped lips where no one stood to speak, support, or defend the minister and his bill. I think that was eloquent silence that indicated a lack of support.


The reluctance on the part of the government because of the badly flawed state of this bill is one thing, I would remind the population and the involved and interested parties, many of whom called me and agreed with me when I explained the process, that I should continue the good fight. They recognize, as this House should recognize, and as the public recognizes that the government controls the action in this House, determines the calling of the bills and the procedure of the bills. We, on this side, do not have control of the legislative agenda as much as we would like to do so.
When Bill C-136 died, Liberals had hoped that the new Minister of Communications would have taken time to reshape a new bill and put his own imprint upon that bill. Again, because the government delayed, Bill C-136 came in at the last minute and it died on the Order Paper. We had hoped that when the minister put his own imprint on it, he might fix the major flaws. Not only has he not done that, he has shown absolutely little interest in this bill. He did not speak at second reading. He appeared briefly at legislative committee and never uttered a sound at report stage to defend his bill. He made up for part of that in a very eloquent speech to defend his point of view right now during third reading. That is the only time we have really heard from him in this House.
Liberals are pleased to see the following provisions included in Bill C-40, from Bill C-136: Women, children, cultural minorities, aboriginal peoples and the disabled are specifically mentioned in the legislation and the need to portray more accurately the multicultural and multiracial nature of our society; 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 and thereby stealing intellectual property, creative products, which is so much a key to the well-being and the functioning of this system; provisions making educational broadcasting an integral part of the law.
Liberals are particularly pleased that the government accepted the following Liberal amendments: recognition of community broadcasting as one of the elements of the Canadian broadcasting system, along with the public and the private; mandatory requirement that the Canadian broadcasting system be owned and controlled by Canadians; that the programming of Canadian broadcasters also include children and reflection of the multiracial
Government Orders
nature of Canada, ensuring that television and radio more accurately portray the reality of Canada in its multiracial as well as the multicultural nature.
There are flaws that remain, however. Earlier I presented on behalf of my party a range of substantive amendments which we believe necessary to make this bill the legislative instrument required to meet Canada's needs in the future.
A number of the amendments we proposed in Bill C-40's predecessor bill, C-136, were accepted, and some during legislative committee study of Bill C-40. We appreciate that. Nevertheless, the changes which have been accepted do not address some of the most fundamental concerns which we have raised throughout this debate.
Let me just remind you that the concerns we have about this bill include, in addition to those I wish to concentrate on today, many additional important policy matters. Among them are the following: we do not ensure that federal jurisdiction will not be challenged to the changes in definition section; the need to make provisions for broadcast programming in representative native languages, as well as increased access to post-captioning for the hearing impaired; the urgent requirement to avoid unfair competition and conflicts of interests by incorporating in the law provisions limiting the role of cable television systems to providing programming complementary to that offered by licensed Canadian stations and networks; the act fails to provide obligatory priority for the carriage on cable of public sector broadcasting services in both English and French, including those provided by both federal and provincial-public broadcasters; recognition of the National Film Board in the Broadcast Act, providing electronic window for Canadians to access our Crown corporation National Film Board productions, financed by our taxpayers' money; assurance of managerial freedom for the CBC.
Let me step back for a moment and look a bit more at the bigger picture, focusing on the specifics I wish to address.
In our modem communications age, the role and impact of broadcasting cannot be underscored enough. It impacts everything around us. It is the way most people get their news and information. It is how many of us get much out of our entertainment. It is a source of educational learning and provides support for our multicultural and ethnic diversity.

Government Orders
Of course, with its power to reach instantaneously into millions of homes from coast to coast to coast, if you want to express from Labrador to Victoria, B.C. and up through the great north, Mr. Speaker, we can reach there in a single moment.
Its potential for supporting our sense of shared values and national unity is fundamental to the role of broadcasting, especially in the trying times we find ourselves in today.
Historically, broadcasting has always been recognized as not just another industry like cars or clothing; instead, it is the central vehicle through which Canadians communicate with one another, a major instrument for Canadian creative and artistic expression in the arts and entertainment and an essential means for providing a Canadian perspective in news and information programming.
It is a powerful instrument that defines us among the nations of the world. Broadcasting has been so important because, as has been said so often, we have a very large country. We are geographically very far apart. We have different languages and different cultures. Our economic problems are difficult because our population is relatively small compared to that of our land mass.
We are strung like lights across the borders of this land and do not spread into the interior in very large numbers. We do, therefore, form a very small market and we need one another. We need to know and appreciate one another in spite of these differences and in spite of these distances.
Broadcasting is our powerful link in this respect. News and information programs are indispensable in keeping us open-minded and informed about what is going on here and around the world. Stories, fiction and drama, deal with our past, our emotions, our dreams, our passions, our weaknesses and our strengths as people and as individuals while they form our thoughts and our attitudes toward the future.
Broadcasting is a powerful means of communications, not just with adults but also with children for they spend about 24 hours a week in front of the television screen. After all, children spend more time in front of that little box than in school. I know they often refer to it as the "boob tube".
It may not be as important as all of our universities and our entire school system, but it rivals their impact on time, interest and attitudes of our children. I often wonder what will be the thinking pattern and the appreciation of my grandchildren about their Canadian heritage.
Will they be North Americanized or will they remain proud, strong Canadians, knowing and understanding their roots and moving this country forward? Stories help see behind the appearance that make us different and help us to understand our disparities and our similarities. For children they explain the past, the world around them and stir the imagination for the future.
We also need to have fun together. We need to laugh together. I am not suggesting that we legislate fun or laughter, nor am I suggesting that we can legislate good novels, plays or short stories. We do not have to.
We have much talent in every part of this land and we shine across the globe. Any country, and especially a great democracy like ours, should quite naturally encourage its print or television dramatists and other story tellers. One of the ways of providing that encouragement is to ensure that the private sector broadcasters as well as the cable system and the CBC, the national broadcasting service, have the funds and the economic wherewithal to play their part.
There is also a need these days to call for reconciliation and national unity in Canada. Quite rightly so. Yes, there is a need. I believe broadcasting can be one of the most effective means to help Canadians better appreciate their distinctiveness, their differences, and respect and love all aspects of our daily life; not by preaching and not by keeping all others out, but by telling their stories, showing their talent with sensitivity, with understanding, with its character, and with its particularity. What we need is imagination.
The challenge of broadcasting is it reflecting Canada to Canadians, which we tried to find in this bill, to reshape our Canadian broadcasting system for the 1990s and into the next century. The whole point was to enhance our ability to reflect Canada to Canadians. That is the whole point of a Canadian broadcasting bill. This is


not the North American broadcasting bill; this is the Canadian Broadcasting Act.
The paragraphs of the proposed Broadcasting Act restate the 68 principles which have been enduring and endured: "that the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians so as to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada". They newly add that the system should "encourage the development of Canadian expression, providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity, displaying Canadian talent in entertainment programming, and offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view".
Throughout this bill it is clear that as Canadians we will continue to require, as we have for decades, that broadcasting stations and networks both provide programming that is Canadian in its character and that will be owned and controlled by Canadians.
Where will these nice words really take us? How have the 68 promises been enacted? Unfortunately not in terms of making broadcasting the effective tool for the development of Canadian identity that could have been realized. Some have said that all we had to do was not to develop a new bill and spend millions of dollars in so doing, that all we needed to do was to apply the 1968 Broadcasting Act and tell the instruments that were to apply it that this time we really meant it. We have not done that. While we have been developing this new act, we have diluted certain very important aspects.
Let me tell the House what the 1968 act allowed, because we did not apply its thought and its meaning. The result is that in total a maximum of 4 per cent to 5 per cent of the stories presented to Canadians, jointly on both English and French public and private sector networks, is Canadian. It is only 4 per cent to 5 per cent; no more than one in twenty. Almost 95 per cent of them is American. That is what we see on our television screens; that is what our children see.
I am not suggesting that watching American programs is wrong, not at all. There are just as many-in fact there are more-wonderful, excellent programs being produced across the United States, but there are also poor products. They are often called in the industry schlock. There are poor products on many channels. There are in Canada as well. I do not think our percentage is any worse than that being produced in the United States.
Government Orders
What I am saying is that Canadians watch Canadian productions, but they do not watch them as much because they do not have the selection or the choices they really would like to have. I would say that when we get Canadian products Canadians watch them because they are good. In fact, many do not even realize that they are watching good, solid Canadian productions: Street Legal, E.N.G., Love and Hate, Neon Rider, Max Glick, or the ever popular Degrassi High or The Road to Avonlea. In French-

-Les Dames de Coeur, Lance et compte, Lesfilles de Caleb and many more.

In looking at another aspect with respect to the new technologies, the question is: Who is going to control this system, the technology or the Canadian people? Ownership and programming content are not the only fundamental issues which the new broadcasting bill must address if it is to prove effective in the future.
As the former Minister of Communications pointed out, broadcasting has been changed enormously by evolving technologies since the 1968 Broadcasting Act was passed and will continue to change. Among those technologies are satellites, fibre-optics, cable, and even the VCRs which we all plug in and rent films for. With the arrival of satellite communication and other new technologies, the distinction between different media and the boundaries and frontiers between nations have become blurred. Broadcasting has become global. Europeans are now addressing this issue, both at the Council of Europe and in the new cultural commission which has been established in Brussels, the new capital of Europe. Once it was organized within countries and regulated because of the finite spectrum of wave bands.
Mr. Speaker, as a former broadcaster, I am sure you are aware of and appreciate the dilemma that this technology has presented. The new technologies destroy the rationale for the distinctions we had before with the wave bands. Above all, they make possible the distribution of signals and programming. These new technologies are being built by the few, the sky barons, as the media call them. Through mergers and takeovers they are fighting for control of what the world will see, read, and hear in the coming century. That control includes the creative artists who define and describe the images we will see. The control extends, therefore, to the

Government Orders
imagination of individuals. It affects how we will see ourselves.
Therefore I believe that the content of programming becomes key. As we see technology ever developing and further globalization during the next decade, we will no longer be able to regulate Canadian content on our airwaves. The window of opportunity is very small. If we want to establish a firm and solid base on which to grow in the future, the infrastructure must be in place, and now is not too soon. Canadian programming is going to have to compete, not only with American, but with Australian, British, French, Belgian, and Italian. Subtitling will become part of our normal day. As I said, we must create opportunities so that Canadian programs will be developed and will help define us on the world screen.
Part of the solution lies with the development of the public and private sector, which have important, complementary roles to play in the Canadian feature film industry and in the area of regulation before these sky barons and skypix take over. In addressing the issue of the present and the future of our system, the crucial test will not just be the extent to which the provisions of the 1968 act are retained. The key test will be the extent to which in a more complex situation we continue to retain control by Canadians over the system and to provide a reasonable balance between Canadian and foreign programming.
There are two quite different and quite separate aspects of this issue of foreign versus domestic programming balance. First, what proportion of the programming offered by individual stations or networks should be Canadian? Second, what proportion of the programming offered by distribution undertakings such as cable systems should be Canadian?
This question of how Canadian the programming offered should be was much simpler in the past. The 1968 act provided that each broadcaster should use predominantly Canadian creative and other resources. At that time it was not considered necessary to deal with cable television. Until the early eighties, not so long ago, this provision was interpreted to mean that over half of the programming provided by each station or network
should be Canadian. In light of the lack of clarity in the law and the financial difficulty for some services of providing predominantly Canadian programming, the CRTC allowed a number of such services to operate with more limited levels of Canadian programming.
In response to this situation the standing committee proposed two changes. The first would clarify the meaning of predominantly Canadian so that it would be obvious that it meant 60 per cent or more of the programming provided should be Canadian; not just the channel, but the content of the channel, the programming.
The second proposed change would permit the CRTC to exempt from this requirement specialized, limited audience services for which such a requirement was just not practical. When Bill C-136 was introduced, this recommendation was rejected, and again in Bill C-40. Subsequently, in response to extensive criticism from many quarters including the CRTC, the government amended the clause to reintroduce the concept of predominantly Canadian.
However, the redrafting has been done so badly that it remains unclear whether the intent is that the programming provided by Canadian broadcasters should, unless subject to exemption provisions, be predominantly Canadian programming.
Given the importance of this provision, the bill should not be passed, in my view, without further amendment. If it is not amended to require that programming be predominantly Canadian, there will be no legislative basis for the CRTC to maintain such requirements. This is a very straightforward drafting issue.
If the government indeed agrees that such a requirement is justified, it should have amended the bill to make this clear. Or, tell me: Do you think it is possible that it was fear of American reprisals under section 2005 of the free trade agreement? Was that the reason for fuzzing the issue? I wonder whether I need answer my own question.


John V. Nunziata: Oh, please do.


Sheila Finestone: No, I am going to leave that to all of you. I believe it speaks for itself.
There is little point, however, in maintaining a requirement that most of the programming provided by individual Canadian stations and networks should be Canadian, if at the same time the programming content offered by the cable systems is to be overwhelmingly and increasingly foreign.
Thm on your set, go station by station, count the number of Canadian systems, and then count the number of American outside the three plus one, the national networks of the United States, CBS, NBC, ABC, and PBS. Just count them and see for yourself how the system has been diluted with access to an abundance of independent stations from the U.S.A.
Then look at the content of our Canadian CTV, Global, CBC, as well as some of the independents to see how many of those programs are duplicated on the Canadian channels. Their presence on the Canadian channels are quite welcome. They are important so that we have points of view from other parts of the world. We share in their fun, laughter, et cetera, but there is a reason that they are there. It is important that those channels be heard and seen. They also add to the Canadian programming content funds available for the promotion of Canadian programming. It is an important role. Duplicating that at different hours through other channels and other means is just not a constructive way to ensure Canadian programming.
Today, therefore, it has become evident that the role of cable is equally important as that of the programmers and the broadcasters to the maintenance of a Canadian broadcasting system. Choices on their system make the difference. Their contribution must go beyond human resources, hardware, and the obligation to provide for community channels. Quite properly the expanded choice offered by cable television has been viewed as positive to the extent that it actually made available to Canadians a wider range of programming that they had previously been able to receive only from off-air sources, and often not clearly or not able to receive at all.
Genuine increase in programming variety is clearly a good thing. At the same time, however, to the extent that cable systems were simply bringing in programming already available from Canadian sources, as I said before, and undermining Canadian broadcasters, the way cable has functioned was and is of concern. There are a
Government Orders
number of measures, particularly simultaneous program substitution, that have been enacted to partially offset these negative effects. There has been virtually unanimous agreement that a new act must at last provide the CRTC with a proper legislative basis for regulating cable television.
Indeed, the communications minister has emphasized again and again that a major inadequacy of the 1968 bill was its failure to deal adequately with technology, particularly with cable. Yet the government has, against the unanimous advice of both the 1986 report of the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy and the Standing Committee of Communications and Culture, failed to provide any effective legislative basis for the operation of cable systems in the future.
The simple amendments that we as a party brought forward could have easily remedied this issue, but the government and particularly this minister were too stubborn to admit that they were wrong. That deficiency in the legislation has the potential to completely undermine all other provisions in this important legislation. It is in fact the Achilles heel of the Conservative proposals for this new law. This issue is so fundamental that I want to review the background to it.
After 18 months of extensive research and consultations with the public and the broadcasting industry, the government's $3 million Task Force on Broadcasting Policy reached the following conclusions: that radio and television, public and private, to the extent that foreign broadcasting signals are carried, should complement programming from Canadian sources, any kind of new programs. We recognize that an exception must be made for the at least 17 foreign television signals that are already an established part of the system. In other words, we have grandfathered what exists today. We are not changing that which is available. However, the presence of a particular foreign signal in the system should never be allowed to preclude the development of new Canadian services. Priority must always be given to the development of our own broadcasting services.
In the public hearings which our standing committee held, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the CBC and the Canadian producers expressed strong support for the approach the task force had proposed. You, yourself Mr. Speaker, were a member of that committee. The test in the future of whether to permit the importation of any additional foreign service should

Government Orders
be that it actually adds something significant to the mix of programming available to Canadians.
Specifically, the test proposed was that the service should offer programming complementary to that already available from licensed Canadian broadcasters. In response to this recommendation the CRTC has stated that "it agrees generally with this recommendation", while the Canadian Cable Association said that it agreed in principle. To the extent that they expressed concerns, these were related only to the carriage of stations already available off air. In the case of the CRTC, concern was also expressed about including in the new act provisions related to carriage of the foreign television signals in the Canadian broadcasting system.
In our judgment, this issue is at least as important as any other that has been addressed in Bill C-40, and as legislators it is an issue that now must be addressed. I want to emphasize here that the government is not assuming the CRTC will implement this reasonable and necessary policy of protecting our own Canadian broadcasting system. Instead, astonishing as it may seem, the Government of Canada has categorically rejected these policy recommendations, although they were widely perceived to be both moderate and essential to the maintenance of a strong and separate Canadian broadcasting system. Instead, the position the government has taken is that any restriction whatsoever on the entry into Canada of American stations and networks is in principle unacceptable. I call this Americanization of the Canadian broadcasting system.
This position, which is inconsistent with over 50 years of broadcasting policy, is clearly stated in the government's June 1988 response to the fifth, sixth and fifteenth reports of the standing committee. In responding to this recommendation the government has stated that, "The prohibition of foreign radio and television services other than those whose programming is complementary to that available from Canadian sources has not been included in the legislation, since it would unduly restrict Canadians' access to a new range of international broadcasting services". That is to be found at page 90 of the government response in June 1988.
Elsewhere the response states: "The government's policy is not to restrict access to foreign services". That is on page 28.
The government has explicitly rejected proposed amendments which would have implemented the unanimous recommendations of the standing committee.
We on this side of the House are not saying, Mr. Speaker, restrict access. What we are saying is that in our view new channels should add something new as a choice. What will this position mean in the future? It will lay the basis in Canadian law for allowing all American broadcasters to extend their reach into Canada. The result will be to make it far more difficult for Canadian broadcasters to acquire the right to show the best U.S. programming in Canada, even though it costs a heck of a lot less to buy it than it would for us to produce it.
Even when they are able to purchase these programs, it will reduce their ability to earn revenue where they could be found on other channels at other times. There is no exclusivity. There is no protection of their investment and that is grossly unfair.
Revenues from showing foreign programs are now crucial to the successful operation of Canada's private broadcasters. Just speak to CTV, Global, CBC and see what they have to say about this aspect of the lack of exclusivity of their purchases. The resulting loss of revenue will in turn undermine Canadian broadcasters' ability to finance Canadian programming.
The implications of creating a single Canada-U.S. market are obvious already in the film and theatrical business. In that sector there has been a continental market for decades. The Americans have seen us as their back yard. The result is that most of the revenues earned in the Canadian market flow south to finance more American films, while Canada's own film companies lack sufficient resources and, in fact, often lack sufficient window time and space to substantially contribute to financing Canadian films and the ability to distribute and market them effectively.


' (1650)   COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
The same thing will happen in the future if the government carries out its plan to give the U.S. broadcasters almost unrestricted access to the Canadian market.
Why this radical and far-reaching departure from a tradition of building a separate Canadian broadcasting system, a tradition begun in the 1930s by a Conservative government? Why the refusal to provide a sure legislative basis for maintaining and strengthening Canada's own off air broadcasting services, and developing a strong and separate system of Canadian pay and specialty services?
The only answer that can explain this decision by the government is surely that it knows that any new provisions which restrict the entry of American broadcasters into Canada would contravene the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. I think that is an answer to my colleague from York South-Weston.
That is the key. I did not want to give it away too soon. I wanted people to think about it-if it was not already self-evident.
We have of course already seen evidence in the areas of cultural policy of the way the government is acting since the signing of that free trade agreement. We saw the gutting of the Minister of Communications' original film importations bill, and we have Simon Reisman's public assurance that the revised and eviscerated bill has at least been made consistent with the free trade agreement. That, of course, is why the film legislation will do nothing effective to protect Canadian interests.
We know that the government suppressed an independent consultant's study of the sound recording industry which, in its leaked form, warned of serious consequences for Canadian song writers and performers and the Canadian record industry under the trade agreement. The consequences of a weakened Canadian record industry for Canadian content quotas in radio is obvious, but it is also obvious how wonderful it is for those outside of Canada, for foreign influence.
We have seen the government reject as well the central proposals of its own 1985 task force on film policy related to the use of the Investment Canada Act to strengthen Canadian ownership and control over film distribution.
Government Orders
Indeed, in the book industry, which after all is one of the basic and fundamental sources of material to produce film for VCRs, as well as stage productions for that matter, and where the government had already established a very strong policy in 1985 to strengthen Canadian participation in this vitally important book industry, we saw in the 1988 new American library decision, the abandoning of that essential Baie Comeau policy.
At the present time the government seems to be avoiding making decisions on a number of Investment Canada cases which will again test the 1985 Baie Comeau policy.
Will those decisions now wait until after the election in order to avoid the embarrassment of having a further withdrawal from protecting Canada's cultural sovereignty and identity? There is, of course, further evidence for this interpretation of the government's actions since other new legislative initiatives which might have contravened the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement have also been rejected.
For example, the government refused to include in Bill C-40 any requirement that foreign pay television or specialty services carrying on business through affiliates in Canada should do so through a Canadian entity licensed by the CRTC. I remind members of this House that this unanimous, all-party recommendation of the standing committee was endorsed by the Canadian Cable Television Association as well.
Failure to act on this recommendation will result in two classes of broadcasting networks carrying on business here: one, those which require a licence and must contribute to achieving Canadian programming objectives and those which can extract money from the Canadian market without a licence and with no obligation to contribute to Canadian programming. For them, Canada is strictly a cash cow.
The result will be a growing sense of unfairness and a resulting undermining of the legitimacy of the regulations applied to Canadian services. The result will also be a reduced ability to meet Canadian programming objectives.
It has been our view that anything that has access to our home television set should have been considered by the CRTC and exempted where deemed acceptable, but not necessary to contribute to Canadian broadcasting.
[Stage Direction]

Private Members' Business
That includes this new alphanumeric channels that we have got that no longer fall under the Broadcast Act.
There is a threat to federal jurisdiction and the national capacity of broadcasting in Canada. The combination of increasing pressure from American broadcasters for access to Canada, and an absolute refusal by the government to include in Bill C-40 any legislative basis whatsoever for limiting their access to Canada is a sure recipe for the rapid erosion of Canada's own broadcasting system.
The government has further weakened Canada's broadcasting system by putting federal jurisdiction over broadcasting at risk and by diluting the national structure of the CRTC. Let us look at this.
Since the 1930s, broadcasting has fallen under federal jurisdiction, reflecting the recognition that this is a prerequisite to maintaining an effective, integrated national broadcasting system. However, Bill C-40 redefines "broadcasting" to include hard wire or closed circuit services hitherto deemed to be under provincial control.
The bill also dictates that broadcasters and cablecas-ters should now have their services separated into programming and non-programming functions, a rejection of existing legal practice which argued that these changes could only lead to a questioning self-inflicted vulnerability.
Furthermore, Bill C-40 provides the foundation for an argument that a cable company may be subject to two regulatory regimes: one in accordance with which its broadcasting business is regulated, and another, possibly a provincial one in accordance with obligations to maintain different sets of books for different regulators, perhaps using different accounting practices, depreciation methods and cost separation techniques. This is all very costly, and add to that the GST, retransmission payments, and many other aspects and see what is happening in this field.
Second, with the passage of Bill C-40, all full-time CRTC commissioners, now known as the executive committee, will no longer be required for the taking of its decisions. This approach was known as collegial decision making and has been replaced with a concept that is called "who hears decides" whereby panels of three will be empowered to make decisions binding on the entire commission. The introduction of those who
hear decide-Mr. Speaker, did you want me to finish this?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the order adopted yesterday by the House provides that at five o'clock, the House shall proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business. At 6 p.m. we shall resume debate without interruptions.

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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   ENVIRONMENT AUDITOR GENERAL PROPOSAL FOR ESTABLISHMENT
Marlene Catterall: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing the position of Environmental Auditor General, whose purpose would be to conduct an audit of all government operations on a rotational basis to ensure that any activity, program or initiative of the government is conducted in a manner that is compatible with a policy of protection and enhancement of the environment.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move this motion today on an idea whose time has truly come.
The concept of introducing environmental audit as an integral part of government operations and decision making has been promoted and supported by, among others, the minister in introducing the discussion paper on the Green Plan, the consultation on the discussion paper, the Standing Committee on Environment unanimously, the C. D. Howe Institute, the Rawson Academy of Aquatic Science, the National Round Thble on the Environment and the Economy, and the Auditor General.
Like value for money or operational audit, environmental audit is an indispensable tool for management control of spending, for the effectiveness of the use of public resources, and for decision making. In addition,

accountability to Parliament and to the public on environmental matters simply cannot be carried out or ensured without environmental audit.
In times of tight budgets and rising public debt, environmental audit presents opportunities for substantial savings on government operating costs. As a new field of knowledge, environmental audit methodology has the potential to be a major international market opportunity for Canadian expertise and knowledge. As well, this initiative by government will ensure that businesses seeking to be more environmentally responsible and more competitive and productive in a global economy will have the tools they need to reach these objectives.
This year for the first time the Auditor General chose to address the question of environmental audit in the first chapter of his 1990 annual report to Parliament. The chapter is entitled: "Matters of Special Importance and Interest". In that chapter, on page 23, the Auditor General talks about "the protection of the natural environment, a prime example of the need for accountability". Ele talks about the responsibilities for protection of our natural environment as being major and shared, and that accountability for them should be exacted.
Section 1.46 states:
One can look at the environment as a fund: a fund of paramount importance to all. It is shrinking while the number of people who must share it is growing. The share of each person, especially those coming after us, is being reduced-for practical purposes it is governments that have been given the operating responsibility (for the environment)-
The federal government deals with national concerns for the environment-Parliament should expect governments to devise acceptable means of being held accountable for the conduct of its environmental responsibilities-
Here then is a case where government's accountability for-the total government effort on the environment-is more important than focusing on the individual performance of departments-
On the question of the environment, the Auditor General finishes up by asking, in terms of responsibility for Canada's environmental well-being: "Who is minding the store?" That is the purpose of this motion today.
I want to make a few other references and indicate to the House why I say that this is an idea whose time has come.
Private Members' Business
It was in late 1970, that the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States first asked for disclosure to investors of present and future costs of complying with environmental regulations. That was when companies had to begin doing environmental audits.
In 1986, New Zealand introduced the position of parliamentary commissioner for the environment, one of whose main functions is the audit and surveillance of government operations for their impact on the environment and holding government accountable for those operations.
In 1988, the enforcement and compliance policy accompanying the Canadian Environmental Protection Act recognized the effectiveness of environmental audit as a management tool for companies and government agencies.
In the spring, the discussion paper on the Green Plan stated with regard to about environmental audit that the objective "to make Canada by the year 2000, the industrial world's most environmentally friendly country" can be achieved if we lead by example. "As the largest single business in Canada, the government has important responsibilities related to the environmental impact of its own decisions. Good environmental management will increasingly make good business sense." It went on to state that "a number of businesses have already developed environmental audit procedures and put the question, should businesses and governments be required to perform environmental audits?"
The answer from the consultations on the green plan discussion paper was a resounding yes. The August report recommends that all government departments be required to undertake annual environmental audits and make the results public, which is exactly what this motion is proposing.
Those businesses, environmental organizations, and ordinary citizens with whom the government consulted again suggested that "all government departments should be required to conduct annual environmental audits and that the government should develop a code of environmental stewardship to govern the operations of all federal departments". The trend continues from there.


Private Members' Business
The C. D. Howe Institute, in its July publication, talked about the need for good information and cost benefit analysis for decision making to integrate economic and environmental considerations.
We had the Eco Source magazine in August, 1990, calling "the environmental audit the road map to a greener corporation". For the largest corporations in the country, environmental audit is fast becoming a senior management issue and that "companies are realizing they have to factor the environment into business operations. You'd have to be dumb to be in business in North America today and not be taking on these issues."
The certified general accountants' magazine similarly described the importance of environmental audit as an idea whose time has come. It stated that the "International Chamber of Commerce and various industry associations in Canada are exploring how they can best assist their members in the use of environmental audits."
Finally, in October, 1990, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, with the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Finance both present and not dissenting, recommended to government that an environmental auditor should be named. I emphasize again, Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Environment were present at that meeting when that recommendation was adopted.
The Rawson Academy on Aquatic Sciences, when it was before the environment committee on Bill C-78 on November 8 of this year, talked in very serious terms about the need for environmental audit, pointing out that such an office would be responsible for monitoring the performance of government agencies and departments according to designated standards of environmental protection or resource conservation.
Most of the sources I have quoted have been within the last year. There is an obvious ground swell of support for the recognition that, to truly integrate environmental decision making and economic decision making, environmental audit is an essential tool.
I will refer to only one last source and that is the interim report of the Standing Committee on Environment. The report is entitled: No time to Lose-The
Challenge of Global Warming. Recommendation 16 states that "the committee recommends that the Auditor General, working in conjunction with the Departments of Environment and Finance, establish an environmental audit function to ensure that all federal departments and agencies have implemented environmental assessment processes and to monitor the effectiveness of environmental programs".
Recommendation 17 states that "the committee recommends that all federal departments and agencies, as part of their budget submissions, report on the direct and indirect impacts of their operations on global warming and set annual targets for reductions".
These things cannot happen without the tools to let them happen. As the single-largest employer in the country, government must set the example. The green task force on the Hill, the Greening of the Hill, has been a symbol and a beacon to Canadians that we, as parliamentarians, are serious about our concerns for the environment and are determined to examine our own environment and to make it as friendly towards the survival of life on this planet as we possibly can. Canadians expect the same thing throughout government.
We cannot sit here and decide that we will impose regulations, laws, green taxes, and horrendous reporting requirements on everybody else in the country, and then exempt ourselves from what we require others to do at some cost to them.
However, I do want to point out that a number of sources have told us that what we are looking at here in environmental audit is not an expense, but a significant opportunity for cost-savings. I will give just one indicator. The DPA report estimated that in energy conservation alone, this country could save $150 billion.
Again, I quote from Eco Source magazine. "The new audit is a matter of performance. It examines the environmental details not normally of concern to engineers and lawyers, such as the lighting system, the heating system, recycling practices, purchasing habits, packaging systems, supplier and investment policies. The auditors check washrooms and cafeterias, interview groundskeepers and cleaning staff, and discuss packaging alternatives, employee car poolings, staff training programs, and codes of conduct."


In this government, we do not even know how much we spend on vehicles every year, how much we spend on gasoline, how much we spend on electricity, how much we spend on heating our buildings, how much we spend to have garbage carted away, and how much unnecessary money we spend on paper. We have no system of accounting for those things.
The Green Plan consultations talked about the importance of investing in technology. What better way than for the government, as the largest corporation in the country, to start looking at its own operations, getting its own house in order, looking at what technologies it needs to do that, and then being in the forefront of developing those technologies? Just as a customer for new products, the government has the opportunity to influence the marketplace in a positive way rather than imposing requirements and to ensure that the kinds of products and services that are developed will not only make government but the private sector more environmentally friendly.
Many companies want to be environmentally friendly, but especially the small ones need the tools to do it. Environmental audit in government can help those tools be developed.
I want to talk about environmental audit as a major international opportunity for Canada. As I said, in 1986 the government of New Zealand was the first, and is still the only country in the world, to establish environmental audit in its parliament. I want to quote again from Eco Source where it says:
No government standards exist anywhere in the world for
environmental audit.
It also says there are real commercial advantages in turning out a better than average environmental performance. Finally, it says that "the implications of a full-blown greening commitment on the part of a major multinational or government agency would be impressive, primarily for its ripple effect".
We have in Canada some of the best raw talent to develop the methodologies and techniques of environmental audit anywhere in the world. When New Zealand set up its audit function, it did so with the help of Canadian officials. We need to put that talent to work, develop skills and knowledge that will give us a major product to market internationally, to help other coun-
Private Members' Business
tries and private sector operations become as environmentally friendly as they can.
That is why I say to get into environmental audit is a major business opportunity for Canada.
I want to conclude by saying that we have been trying to tell households, individuals and companies how to be more environmentally friendly, how to cut down their use of energy, how to cut down their production of garbage. Now we are looking at regulations, legislation and green taxes. Why not lead by example?
In the 1970s we were forced into energy conservation, and now again in the 1990s the Minister of Energy is telling Canadians to cut back on the use of energy. What have we done in government to demonstrate how that can be done? The major need now is to do it in business, in industrial operations, not in households.
Certainly the idea of an environmental auditor as such needs more exploration. There are many options as to how environmental audit can be started and carried on. The establishment of a specific position may or may not be the best way to do it. But until we take the first step along the road to ensuring that every government department has the skills, the tools, the knowledge and the necessity to monitor its environmental impacts, we will not get anywhere. We will never decide how best to do it. We will never develop those tools of knowledge that our companies, our private sector, and the public sector at all levels of government need.
Next week the green plan will be tabled. I hope it will not ignore the advice it got from over $6 million worth of consultation. I will only point out that for less than half that amount, the office of an environmental auditor general could have been established.
I hope the government will include environmental audit in its Green Plan to be tabled next week. I would hope that if it intends to do so, it will make a point of allowing this motion to go to committee. All that needs to happen for this motion to receive further discussion and for us to start along that long road to being environmentally responsible as a government, as a Parliament, as a nation, is for government members not to continue talking until six o'clock.
If this debate ends before six o'clock, this motion can then be examined and acted on by a committee. We will have taken one important step down the road.

Private Members' Business
I ask members opposite who are going to speak on this bill to give serious consideration to speaking very briefly, allowing the debate to terminate before six o'clock and allowing this motion to go before a committee for study.


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, although I am not a member opposite in a geographic sense, I would have to say that I probably will be deemed to be a member opposite when I am finished speaking to this motion.
First of all, I congratulate the hon. member for putting her motion. I have the privilege to serve with her on the environment committee of the House of Commons where she makes a major contribution. Generally speaking, we and other members of that committee are in consensus not only about the importance of the environment to Canada and to the world, but also about the measures that we must take to enhance and protect our environment in this country.
I would have to say that, in reading the hon. member's motion to appoint an environmental auditor general, I believe as well intentioned as her resolution may be, in my view it goes in the wrong direction to the ultimate resolution of sustainable development in the sense that sustainable development means the reconciliation of both economic and environmental factors.
To isolate an auditor general strictly in an environmental sense is to miss the point that we cannot ignore the environmental without considering the economic and vice versa. In fact, I would refer the hon. member to a resolution in which she shared in our interim report on global warming, which was published just before the Geneva convention when, in recommendation 16, the environment committee said that we recommended the auditor general-


Marlene Catterall: I said that.


Mr. Bird:: Did you? I missed that.
Perhaps it is worth reading again, because frankly it underlines the weakness in the concept of an environmental auditor general.
It does recommend an auditor general who works in conjunction with both the departments of environment and finance to establish an environmental audit function. I do not think there can be any dispute about the need and the concept for an audit of environmental considerations, as is the case for an audit of economic considerations.
Again, I say that in the concept of sustainable development, the two very much go together.
I would also like to say that one of the areas that has been of concern to the environment committee and to another committee on which I sit, the forestry and fisheries committee, is the organization of environment departments themselves whether they are operating departments, regulatory departments or policy departments.
I think a general consensus has developed and is recommended in this report by the environment committee and also by the forestry subcommittee, that environment departments generally be policy and regulatory departments whose disciplines and policies permeate the operating decisions and criteria of all government departments wherever they may fall, be they provincial environment departments and other provincial departments, or federal government departments and the federal environment department.
The concept of environmental administration should be approached in very much the same manner that economic and financial considerations are approached in a policy and regulatory sense, and not in an operating sense.
I would like to refer to the forestry report in brief, if I may, because this report which addresses the federal role in the forests of Canada is very much an environmental document. It touches on the commercial importance of forestry, but it also underlines the fact that the forests are the essence of the environment of this country. It expresses concerns, as I have said, that environmental policies and disciplines should permeate every operating entity and every operating decision, just as do financial and economic considerations. But it also underlines the fact that operating agencies should conduct the operations.
There is an area of concern that I would like to mention in respect of the initiatives we are taking to enhance our environmental disciplines in Canada, specifically with respect to Bill C-78, which is itself a move in a direction of more intensive environmental audit. I have expressed a concern publicly in the environment committee, and I would like to express the concern again here today that the Department of the Environment, in its environmental assessment review process, does not become a master operator, a font of wisdom in all directions and in all disciplines.


I think it is extremely important that while the environment assessment review process addresses the environment broadly, those disciplines which are affected, such as forestry, fisheries, mining, energy or agriculture very clearly have a statutory obligation and a statutory right to be involved in the environmental assessment process, whatever direction it may take at any given time.
This government addressed the need originally for environmental assessment review guidelines with Bill C-78, to enhance those disciplines, to make not only the initiating minister responsible for environmental assessment of departmental actions, in whatever department they may occur, but also giving the environment minister the authority to oversee and overrule the environmental planning of specific initiatives.
The government has placed a great cloak of security around the environmental process in this country and I applaud it and support it while expressing the caveat that it contain very clear and mandatory provisions for the operating entities, professions and disciplines to be involved in their specific areas of activity.
Another area where this government has made significant progress and, as the hon. member has mentioned will make an announcement next Tuesday, is in the area of Canada's Green Plan. It was on March 29, 1990, that the Government of Canada released the framework for discussion on the environment which began the process of the Green Plan, called "Our National Challenge". Its long-term objective was stated to be to make Canada the industrial world's most environmentally friendly country by the year 2000. There is a lot of evidence that we are making progress in that direction. It was to do that by ensuring that the activities of business, individuals, communities and governments are consistent with the concept of sustainable development. I believe that it has done that.
Canadians responded to the government's invitation to that discussion and, during the first phase, more than 6,000 people attended 41 information sessions held across the country. They asked questions, expressed concerns and they identified needs for action. In phase two, more than 3,500 people participated in two-day consultation workshops, in 17 capital cities and major
Private Members' Business
centres in the provinces and the territories. I participated in one of those in Fredericton and I want to tell you that it was a good consultation. It was the kind of dialogue that gave you confidence that this government really is in touch with the people.
I believe that when we see the green plan unveiled next week, it will reveal that that, in fact, is what has happened, that there has been close, intensive dialogue, there has been effective consultation, and we shall have a national environmental plan, a green plan that will truly address the needs, the aspirations, the goals and objectives of all Canadians. Mr. Speaker, that is consistent with the undertakings and the obligations of this government.


Mr. Caccia:: Time is up.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: As much as my hon. friend may really hate to hear this, this government in its throne speech in early 1989 said, and it was a major pillar of the throne speech, that we were going to address the environmental imperative.
With Bill C-78, with the Green Plan, with the environment committee report, in which my hon. colleagues have participated, on global warming and on climate change, and in this excellent document which I would particularly recommend to your attention, Mr. Speaker, with the Commons subcommittee on forestry addressing the federal role in the forests of Canada, one that even my hon. friend from Ibronto would endorse, I am sure the government has truly endorsed, addressed, sustained, and is moving on an environmental imperative for Canada.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand to speak to the private member's motion put forward today by the member for Ottawa West. Her proposal to have this House and this government consider the advisability of establishing the position of environmental auditor general is a veiy welcome proposition to those of us in the New Democratic Party for many reasons. I think it is welcomed by all Canadians. There is no question that we have to hold the government and Canadians accountable for then-actions relating to the environment.


Private Members' Business
We do have, as the hon. member for Ottawa West said in her initial remarks, a government financial auditor to protect or at least alert the taxpayers to possible abuses by the government of taxpayers' dollars. We also need a government auditor, more importantly an independent auditor on the environment, to protect our air, land, water, and indeed our future from the activities of the human race that in the quest for greater development of this planet is in fact jeopardizing our future.
In June 1989, the New Democratic Party task force on the environment presented a report to the House entitled Towards a Sustainable Future. In that report there is a couple of veiy important quotes which I would like to put on record. One is dealing with why the environment is a difficult matter. It reads: "The existing relationship between the federal government and most development is fundamentally flawed. Despite the government's endorsement of the Brundtland report and the increasingly frequent addition of the words sustainable development to projects across Canada, government and industry have failed to act decisively on that report's recommendations. To date, the federal government has not implemented the policies, measures or targets needed to facilitate the transition to a genuinely sustainable society".
Later in the report Towards a Sustainable Future the New Democratic Party talks about the transition to a sustainable society as undeniably and enormous one. "Fundamental changes are required in the way we weigh costs and benefits to make decisions. The federal government must be prepared to demonstrate leadership in adopting these changes, not just in matters of national policy but in its own day-to-day operations. Implementing the Brundtland report entails more than just mouthing the words sustainable development and attaching environmentally friendly stickers to everything in sight".
The report envisaged a whole new approach to economic development, not just tinkering at the edges. The federal government must begin an immediate re-evaluation of all its policies and programs, asking if each is in environmentally sound. The federal government must also show leadership by ensuring that the federal government departments, agencies, and Crown corporations practise the principles of sustainability in purchasing, waste management, and other aspects of their operation.
Their compliance would be monitored by a federal environmental auditor.
Our recommendation is that the House of Commons immediately adopt legislation which would establish an environmental auditor to review the sustainability and environmental soundness of all federal projects and undertakings. That report, as I said, was tabled in the House in June 1989.
In May 1990 a regional conference at the ministerial level was held in Bergen, Norway on the follow-up to the report on the World Commission on Environment and Development in the ECE region. The following report was issued: "Action for a Common Future".
In that report they talked about the accountability of this process and the needs of the environment. I would like to quote from the report "Action for a Common Future" presented in Bergen, Norway. They talked about awareness of the public and public participation in the process of environmental assessment. One of their recommendations was: "To undertaking the prior assessment and public reporting of the environmental impact of projects which are likely to have a significant effect on human health and the environment and, so far as practicable, the policies, programs and plans which underlie each project".
They go on to say: "To reaffirm and build on the CSCE conclusions regarding the rights of individuals, groups and organizations concerned with environmental issues and, in addition, to safeguard the rights of individuals and concerned groups to have access to all relevant information and to be consulted and participate in the planning and decision making concerning activities which may affect health and environment, with reasonable access to appropriate legal and administrative remedies."
More important, they go to say: "To develop rules for free and open access to information on the environment. Such rules can increase public participation in the procedures to control pollution and prevent damage to the environment".
These matters, all very important to what we are talking about when we are dealing with the environment, will require the attention of an independent auditor. Only the Canadian government, through legislation here, can ensure that an independent auditor is in place.

Also at that conference in Bergen, Norway had a report entitled "Bridging the Gap: An Agenda for Action", drafted by the delegates of the Non-Governmental Conference on the Environment and Development held in March 1990. They had a number of recommendations, again stressing the need for awareness raising and public participation. Most clearly they said that the public is very important in all of this process and that "the full recognition and legal protection of the environmental rights of individuals, groups and organizations, including unrestrained access to environmental information, is an essential requirement for the achievement of sustainable development". In other words, there has to be someone who can have access to that information and can make it available to the public who is not tainted by industry or government interests.
"By 1992", this group suggested, "national sustainable development audits and progress reports should be prepared, publicly financed and published annually by an independent body". That means in every single jurisdiction, including Canada. These audits should focus on the quality of a nation's environmental health, its natural resources and endangered ecosystems and species. Resource centres and data banks should be established. All this could be done in Canada under the auspices of an environmental auditor.
As the hon. member for Ottawa West indicated in her remarks, the Auditor General, the financial auditor of Canada, has indicated a great need for environmental auditing in this country. In his report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1990, he has a scathing report on the Department of the Environment which should be examined carefully by an independent body whose interests lie with the Canadian environment.
All sorts of industry representations are made to government, but the environment needs a voice at the cabinet table and needs a voice to the public. The Auditor General said that the department's program evaluation coverage was inadequate and that it had evaluated less than 10 per cent of its programs. For example, it had not evaluated any of the Canadian parks service programs, even though it had half the department's person-years and a $387 million budget.
Private Members' Business
The Auditor General also talked about the Minister of the Environment being required to report annually to Parliament on the administration and the enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. No report has been presented from the time the act was proclaimed in June 1988 until June 30, 1990, when the Auditor General wrote this report.
I see you signalling my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I respect that. Thank you for much for the opportunity to address this important initiative. I wish the member for Ottawa West the best of luck in gaining support for this motion from the government side.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, but first of all, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Ottawa West.

She has put forward a very interesting proposition upon which she has already very clearly elaborated. In essence, she is telling us that the government, any government for that matter, would be well served by the services provided by an environmental auditor general who would, by virtue of the work carried out under such auspices, offer the government of the day a very important tool in the decision-making process. Nothing would be more desirable at this point when governments, ministers, and decision makers are embracing the concept of sustainable development than to proceed by adopting this specific proposal.
The hon. member for Ottawa West has elaborated on how the environmental auditor would operate. It is interesting to note that the Auditor General noted in his report: "Parliament should expect government to devise acceptable means of being held accountable for the conduct of its environmental responsibilities." This is in a letter that the member for Ottawa West has written, alerting us to her motion.
The Auditor General is very precise, accurate and timely in that particular remark. The private member's motion of the member for Ottawa West reflects that timing. We congratulate her and hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment will give us the good news that the government has no objection to having this method proceed to committee for an appropriate and thorough examination.


Private Members' Business


Mr. Geoff Scoff (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in debate on this private member's motion initiated by my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa West.
At first blush it is an interesting proposal. The member's motion requests that in the opinion of the House the government should consider the appointment of an environmental auditor general who would conduct an audit of all government operations on a rotational basis to ensure any activity, program or initiative of the government is conducted in a manner that is compatible with a policy of protection and enhancement of the environment.
It is not a bad idea, but let me make it clear that protection and enhancement of the environment are already high priorities of this government. Our record clearly shows our commitment from the passage of the Canadian Environment Protection Act in 1988, to the clean-up of orphaned waste sites, one part of which the Minister of the Environment announced in British Columbia just last week, and the soon to be completed negotiations on an acid rain accord with the United States. While our past actions are bearing fruit, we are now clearly looking to the future with the publication next week of the government's environmental Green Plan for a healthy environment.
Before we rush to create yet another new bureaucracy, we should review what we have in place now to ensure that environmental consideration are fully reflected in the decisions of government. The Government Organization Act of 1979 gives the Minister of the Environment the power to implement the policy of the Government of Canada with respect to the environment.
This act requires the minister to initiate, recommend, undertake and co-ordinate programs and policies to promote the establishment or adoption of objectives and standards relating to the environmental quality, or to control pollution; and to ensure that new federal projects are reviewed and assessed for their environmental impacts. That is a pretty wide-ranging mandate.
The Minister of the Environment is also required to provide the heads of departments, boards and agencies with advice on environmental issues and may, with the approval of cabinet, establish guidelines for federal departments, agencies and Crown corporations with respect to activities that have a potential impact on the environment.
In addition to the legislated base, the Prime Minister has clearly committed this government to consider the environment as a priority in all of its policy and program decision-making. The Prime Minister has played a key role in making Canada a world leader in promoting environmental concerns by, for example, ensuring a prominent place for the environment on the agenda of the annual meeting of the G-7 countries.
This government's commitment to the environment is also enshrined in legislation. Bill C-78, an act to establish a federal environment assessment process, affirms in its preamble a commitment to, and I ask the hon. member to listen carefully, "achieve an appropriate balance between economic development and the preservation and enhancement of environmental quality".
Bill C-78, the Canadian environment assessment bill will ensure that all federal departments and agencies conduct environmental assessments of all project proposals, for which they have a decision-making authority and gives the Minister of the Environment substantial powers to ensure that this process is fair, efficient, transparent and allows for a high level of public input into decisions of projects which have a potentially significant impact on the natural environment.
As a government we realize that the activities of government touch Canadians in many ways which are not directly linked to projects. That is why it is government policy to require that an environmental statement accompany any proposal considered by cabinet dealing with policies or programs which may have a significant effect on the Canadian environment.
Together, Bill C-78 and the policies of the Government of Canada will ensure that virtually every significant action considered by government will be reviewed for its environmental implications and that Canadians will have the right to either participate directly in the process or to have access to the results.
In addition to Bill C-78 and the policies of the government, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has the responsibility to administer the Canadian Environment Protection Act. This act gives the minister substantial power to establish regulations protecting Canada's air, water and land. More than this, the act creates for the minister the obligation to report to Canadians at regular intervals on the state of the Canadian environment. The next state of the environment report will be published early next year.

Environmental information is an area to which this government attaches a great deal of importance. During the process of consulting with Canadians as part of the development of the government's Green Plan, individual Canadians stressed repeatedly that a major priority of the government must be the regular provision and wide dissemination of readily understandable information on the state of the environment and how it is changing.
Canadians told us that they wanted a sound basis to make their own decisions about the environment. They wanted a basis to understand whether the actions they were taking as individuals would help to reduce environmental degradation. They want to be able to judge whether the private sector is doing its part to contribute to a healthy and sustainable environmental legacy for our children. Of course Canadians want to have a basis to make judgments about the environmental performance of their governments.
The routine provision of high quality environmental information will be a major commitment included in the Green Plan when it is made public next week. There is much work to be done in this complex area, but the government is committed to providing Canadians with the information they need to make informed decisions about their own activities and about the environmental performance of others, including governments.
In the view of the government, the measures we have already put in place and are contemplating as part of the Green Plan are, we believe, the best way to ensure that environmental impacts are always considered as part of the government decision-making.
In my view, an environmental auditor general would needlessly duplicate many of the functions which already rest with the Minister of the Environment. Such an institution is simply not an effective substitute for an environmentally aware electorate making fully informed decisions about government performance. This is true
Private Members' Business
accountability and we are committed to the public as auditors general of our environmental performance.


Yvon Côté: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in a debate that not only gives hon. members a chance to propose a number of concepts that are praiseworthy, attractive and generous, but also gives other members a chance to respond to the concepts that one of our members, in this case the hon. member for Ottawa West, has presented in the House today. Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the contents of motion M-456 are very interesting and attractive, and I would like to read the motion, and I quote:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing the position of Environmental Auditor General -
I am going to skip some of this, since the focus of our comments is now clear, and the motion goes on to read:
- to ensure that any activity, program or initiative of the government is conducted in a manner that is compatible with a policy of protection and enhancement of the environment.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting and attractive approach for anyone who is environmentally aware. The motives underlying this proposal are indeed generous and praiseworthy, and I believe we share those motives as a matter of principle. However, I am not sure it would be appropriate to proceed immediately to discuss establishing a position as novel as that of environmental auditor. I want to demonstrate that it is perhaps premature to develop and establish this kind of responsibility.
I was saying that the purpose of the motion of the hon. member for Ottawa West was to establish the position of Environmental Auditor General, whose main role would consist in monitoring the government's progress in protecting the environment. This is very attractive, I agree, but this concept would merely weaken the government's responsibility in a very important area, because the government already has well defined responsibilities in this respect. Authority is already well established at various levels and reflected in various position.

Private Members' Business
Establishing this position might involve bureaucrats identifying new and increasingly complex criteria and procedures, which only bureaucrats would be able to understand. We would be on the outside looking in, we who were officially appointed by the people to manage our public affairs which includes a responsibility for the environment where we have a major contribution to make. I do not think we should appoint an auditor now or even in the near future. I think that appointing an auditor general immediately would be putting the cart before the horse. It would be like hiring a truck driver without knowing whether he is supposed to drive a heavy truck or a light truck, whether he will carry bulk or people or whatever. Mr. Speaker, I think it is premature to commit the government to establishing this kind of position right away, because as you know, the environment is a very complex and very broad field. When we consider the scope of the operations the incumbent would have to administer, when we consider the scope of activities under federal jurisdiction, which means the government we represent, it boggles the mind.
I would like to take this opportunity to explain the problems this might create. As you know, the federal government's activities which are very wide ranging and complex employ as many as 585,000 Canadians. This means 30,000 buildings to manage, and these people with the federal government represent a market that is worth $10 billion in terms of consumer goods and industrial products, divided into over 17,000 categories. This is an enormous area the auditor would have to monitor, and he would not be an elected official. As a public servant, the auditor would not be elected, and he would be asked to manage all that and to set standards and have his own staff. I think it is clear that because of the scope and variety of the activities in question, the government's actions have a considerable impact on the environment. Canadians have every right to expect their government, and only their government, to act responsibly in protecting the environment.
Mr. Speaker, the government is no ordinary business. In fact, that is exactly why the impact of this government's activities on the environment is a factor that is beyond the normal scope of those activities. As a result,
the government must set rules and regulations that control the manner in which a large number of private sector businesses operate. And these rules and regulations which are all contained in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, determine those conditions. In addition, however, there are other acts, regulations and programs that, although they focus on a wider range of socio-economic objectives, nevertheless support the government's legitimate policies.
Considering the scope and the impact of government activities, what tools do we actually have to protect the environment? Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is quite simple. Protecting the environment must become a priority throughout the government. Through legislation, sustainable development should become the expressed goal of every minister in managing his department. The Minister of the Environment must have the necessary resources to be effective in his role.
You know, it is like safety and security, As long as we felt that safety and security was a matter for the police, there was a lot of insecurity. Today, we realize that ordinary citizens also have to be involved. We all have to participate and share the responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, the question is, how would an auditor, with complex legislation and public servants, be able to monitor Canada's environment and all government operations? I think the answer is pretty obvious.
Like my hon. colleague, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that this government has demonstrated its ability to manage the environment for a number of years, and especially during the past year, with the Green Plan and Bill C-78.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time for provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the Order is dropped from the Order Paper.

Pursuant to order made on Monday, December 3, 1990, the House will now resume debate on the motion of Mr. Masse for third reading of Bill C-40.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. 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 third time and passed.
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it was extremely interesting to debate on the environment that interrupted my speech. Certainly, it is a key player in every aspect of anything we undertake to do. The media and communicating those concerns are vital and key to an understanding by the population and by business people of the role that the environment plays in all our lives, whether one is young or old, in business or just at leisure.
I would like to welcome the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest, and congratulate him upon his daughter's recent marriage.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Finestone: He has today, I believe, returned from Australia and we welcome him. He will be probably the only voice heard from the other side of the floor, and a welcomed and knowledgeable one at that. Certainly his voice has been the one we have heard most consistently. We do congratulate him and welcome him back.
Previously, I was talking about the CRTC's executive committee and the collegial decision-making process on those issues of very serious importance to an even broadcasting environment across the land. This has now been replaced with the principle of "who hears decides", whereby panels of three will be empowered to make binding decisions on the entire commission. The introduction of the "who hears decides" concept, together with the ability of the cabinet to direct the CRTC to establish regional offices, will profoundly change the way the commission goes about its hearings and decision making.
Government Orders
The new regionalization concept, coupled with binding panel decisions, will erode the consistency, uniformity and quality of the decision-making process and could lead to the Balkanization of the CRTC.
Keith Spicer, the temporary chairman of the CRTC, who I believe will return this mandate later, appearing before the legislative committee, recommended against this approach. I know he changed his song. However, I think the circumstances on which he changed that song might well be examined. I will not go into that any further at this moment.
He said in essence at committee that "In broadcasting you have to look at the whole matrix of issues, many of them very subtle, cultural issues, and I mean regional cultural issues. It is not only a matter of law, it is a matter of common sense, sensitivity, as well as law. That is why in the broadcasting area we think it is much better to have one national consensus so that we can compare what we are doing in Newfoundland" to that which is being done in Saskatchewan or up in Iqaluit or anywhere across this land and to "make sure that all Canadians feel they are being treated in the same way. And at a time when there are some regional inter-ethnic tensions in Canada we ought to be looking for some of these mechanisms to have a strong national view, but with much greater sensitivity to regional concerns."
I think that that is happening, Mr. Speaker, and we do not have to change the mechanism to have that sensitivity to regional concerns. He went on to say: "We all know that this whole process is like squaring a circle, but that is what we are trying to do, and in our honest opinion we think it could be done better that way." The way it was done before, in other words.


Mr. Edwards:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to abuse the charity and goodwill which the hon. member for Mount Royal acknowledged when she welcomed me into the House. However, I did want to have some clarification as to whether the Official Opposition has signalled a departure from House practice in the use of a podium for a debate. I believe that the Official Opposition has denied the Prime Minister the opportunity to use a podium in this House and that indeed the House practice is that the only occasion on which such use is made of a podium is when the Minister of Finance is delivering the Budget.

Government Orders
What really piqued my interest was that I usually have an unobstructed view of this very distinguished member and I was deprived of this on tonight's occasion, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Unless the hon. member for Mount Royal wants to make a comment, the Chair would be ready to give the hon. parliamentary secretary the clarification he requested.


Sheila Finestone: I do have a comment to make, Mr. Speaker. I was offered to try this podium and, when I raised the question, I was told that the Minister of Justice used it the other day and even at an earlier occasion, I believe. I thought I was entitled to do the same, but if you think it is contrary to the rules, I will do without. I wanted you to know that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the Chair is now in a position to make a ruling. The House practice and tradition is indeed that none shall use such a podium but the Minister of Finance for delivering the Budget speech. Another member may have used it. Personally, I was inclined to be tolerant. However, another member having raised the question, I have no choice but to enforce the rules. I would therefore ask you to remove this podium and revert to the usual method.


Sheila Finestone: Since this government was never big on tolerance, I will respect your decision. I hope this will allow my hon. friend opposite to see me and hear me, but foremost, to listen to me because the problem with the government of the day is that it does not listen.


Mr. MacWilliam:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not intend to interrupt the member's presentation certainly any further, but I am more or less seeking clarification in terms of the definition of your ruling. As you well know, many members have used, for example, stacked books, just to place their reference notes on. I am not sure, in light of your ruling, whether in fact using those stacked notations are in fact a violation of the House. I may provide for you, Mr. Speaker, the fact that many of the provincial legislatures, including the legislature in British Columbia of which I am a former member, makes common everyday use of the podium simply as an
instrument to allow a little more flexibility in the presentation of written notes.
It is simply a matter of being able to have the notes a little more accessible to the glance of the eye as one is making those presentations.
So, I am somewhat confused in terms of your current ruling and whether in fact it rules out the use of any elevation whatsoever.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: You have to understand that, in such cases, parliamentary procedure and tradition are of the utmost importance, and usually hon. members are allowed extensive material. However, the House has been pretty strict on the use of lecterns, and once again, I am bound by the rules of this House. If the House wants to amend the rules, it can do so, but for now, according to parliamentary practise, only the Minister of Finance can use a lectern to make his speech.
Having said that, the House can make appropriate changes, if it so wishes, but for now, I must stick to tradition, according to which no one can use a lectern to make a speech at the House of Commons, although books and other reading material are allowed.
The hon. member for Mount Royal has the floor.


Sheila Finestone: I will use no material, and no books, just my hands.

If I ever get around to discussing the problems of the CRTC with "he who hears decides" between the podium and the interruptions and the arrival-not unexpected, I would like to say-of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications. It was not the surprise, it was just the pleasure of the arrival of the parliamentary secretary who fundamentally believes in this bill but who has certainly missed my opening comments when I indicated-


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: No.


Sheila Finestone: Oh, no? You were here to hear them? Then the hon. member knows the government has had since March to bring this bill in. The fact that his House leader did not was one of the problems in the pushing through of this bill and the zipped-lips across the way, with the exception of his.

To return to this whole question of the regionalization through the "she/he who hears decides," the CRTC is not alone in its concerns about this matter. As a matter of fact, I would quote Bernard Ostry of TV Ontario who told the committee that "the regionalization of the commission and the initiation of the 'she/he who hears decides' rule will lead to fragmentation of national policy and general confusion as to the guiding principles of regulation in all parts of the country".
CFCF from Montreal argued that with this particular rule "we are running the risk of contradicting one of the fundamental objectives of the system, to maintain a single system".
Let us look further at what is happening with the CRTC. This bill seriously jeopardizes its ability to carry out its role as an expert and an independent quasi-judicial body because it will grant new power to the cabinet while retaining an existing one. It would permit the cabinet to issue policy directions to the CRTC, but it would also retain the ability to set aside a decision of the commission on the basis that the decision derogates from the attainment of the objectives of the broadcasting policy or the objectives of a direction issued to the commission.
The Liberal Party argues that the dual powers of cabinet review over CRTC decisions and the power of general policy direction to the CRTC are excessive. These tandem powers allow for government interference particularly through the cabinet and that is most unhealthy. Whatever side of the House a minister comes from, they should be wary of this particular move.
Therefore, Liberals believe that the power of cabinet review should be removed to uninvite-if I may put it that way-political interference that would jeopardize the independence of the commission.
The commission and its predecessors were created precisely because it was recognized that there was a need for a body characterized by continuity of expertise and independence from everyday political pressures. As far back as 1928, the Aird Report noted that this independence also protected the government of the day from the political pressures inevitably exerted upon it as it ensures that the competing arguments put forward to the decision-makers are weighed as dispassionately as possible and in the interests of the communication system as a
Government Orders
whole, and are not dictated or influenced by parochial political pressures.
If there is a member of this House who understands that, it is the parliamentary secretary of the day who at the time of the all news channel hearings felt very compelled to push for an understanding of the proposal of one of his riding people, Allard in this instance, and so resigned as the chairman of the standing committee in order to promote his own constituent's interest. I understand that he felt both a sense of commitment and obligation to promote that particular presentation before the CRTC, but he had the good sense to resign from the standing committee. I do not know that this would allow ministers to resign from the cabinet as they are pressured in the interests of their own particular self interests.
Let us turn to the heart of the broadcast bill, which this government is cutting to the quick bit by bit. I do not know if four bypasses would even save or be able to reinstate the CBC to the power, influence and importance that it does hold within the hearts and minds of Canada as it links and communicates across this land.
Bill C-40 undermines the central role of the CBC as Canada's national broadcaster. On the television side, the CBC's traditional mandate to reflect all regions of Canada and to meet special interest or minority group programming responsibilities is assigned to the non-existent alternative programmer. However, while the bill permits the creation of this new national broadcaster, it does not mandate or require its creation, which appears very unlikely.
In fact, while the government said in June 1988 that the alternate programmer should be operational within two years, as of December 1990, which is here, not one single step has been taken toward its creation. Instead, the CBC, now stripped as well of its mandate to serve Canadian unity, continues to have its budget slashed out of all proportion to overall government budget reductions, thus cutting its voice and the potential for the extension of its voice across this land.
Cuts to the CBC with this Conservative government began in 1985-86 with $85 million; 1986-87, $5.6 million;
1987-88, $21.1 million; 1988-89, $5.6 million; 1989-90, $5.8 million; and for the year 1990-91, $25.9 million.

Government Orders
Last week, when I asked the minister to assure no further cuts to the CBC, he refused to say no. His only words were: "It is with great pleasure that I note the member's suggestion".
We know that when you start to cut, the retirement packages are expensive and difficult to manage. It becomes a rolling stone that cannot stop, which has a wide impact on us all, radio and television, French and English across this land. It is a very serious matter.
For six years the government has been using major budget cuts to force the CBC to focus strictly on programming for mass audiences, to expand its dependence on advertising and to radically cut its regional services. As well, there is the potential jeopardy to the maintenance of the parliamentary channel, to the northern service and to Radio Canada International.
The role of these non-mandated services is important in the spectrum of what we see on the sets that we turn on. This past week we have heard the challenge to their survival. CBC has been so badly wounded, so cut, that in trying to meet its own personal mandate it is going to have to cut services dramatically across this land.
One such service is that of the parliamentary channel, and I would invite the public to let their voices be heard if they want to continue to watch this House discuss and debate the issues of the day. Call for a parliamentary appropriation to ensure the survival of the parliamentary channel. Let the people's voice be heard. This government is mean-spirited. If it thinks that its popularity at 14 per cent can go any lower because their voice is being heard on the channel, that is a pretty sad reason for cutting the parliamentary channel. There are some reasoned debates that go on in this House. I must say from the mute forces across the floor these days, one would presume that they have already decided that the television service of the parliamentary channel is cut out, so they do not have to bother with any form of democracy or multiparty programming responses to the issues of the day.
That is a pretty sad commentary on democracy. When you let it slip, it can slip away. If it does, it is the fault of this government across the floor for its mean-spirited and unparliamentary approach to reasoned and sensible debate. It has not even opened its mind to the arguments that have come to them that are logical and well reasoned. Certainly some of them are.
With the passage of this bill, the CBC will no longer be required to contribute to the development of national unity. It has been dropped from their mandate. The parliamentary secretary loves to say that I voted against including the national unity in this bill. He, like many others on his side, forget to look at society and determine if they have done things inaccurately, incorrectly and be prepared to stand up and say: "I was wrong and we were wrong in that standing committee."
The illusion to this being a propaganda state like South Africa, which was used by the parliamentary secretary, is far from acceptable in thus House or as a description of parliamentary democracy or democracy as expressed over the last many years through CBC. I could go on and explain that this was propaganda. There were some things that took place that perhaps should have been cut out of the CBC, the Sault Ste. Marie being an example. But they were not.
Journalistic freedom has grown and is respected in this House and across this land. I think that illusion to propaganda is totally unacceptable, whether it comes from Patrick Watson, Jim Edwards or anyone else. It is an incorrect reading of the right to report and reporters to report. It certainly does not speak highly for respect for leadership across this land.
When Canadians are being pulled in so many directions over trade, the GST, the Constitution, just at a time when the government should be doing everything in its power to give each and every Canadian a sense of belonging and of participation, this is the wrong time to cut out national unity. What better role is there for the CBC as the country's national broadcaster than to help unify Canadians through understanding, through an accessible voice all through this land at this critical point in our history.
The Liberal Party's goal for Canada is developing the national personality, giving access to its expression, building a sense of national identity by giving access and consciousness to that sense. If building access and a sense of national identity and expressing one's personality does not develop a sense of national unity, then what does it do? We believe we need national institutions like the CBC, which is one of the few that are left after they have absolutely sabred most of them across this way, to weave all the regions and all the diverse participants in Canadian society into a unified voice.


National unity also means money behind infrastructure and money behind rebroadcasters. You, Mr. Speaker, come from an area and a lot of your colleagues are from areas where you need to have that kind of reinforcement of the voice across those wires so that they can reach the farthest reaches of this land. We heard from the English-speaking people of Sherbrooke where they cannot get a proper CBC voice because we need improvement of that service.
We heard in parliamentary committee of areas in this country-they are few-where they feel the loss of the Canadian voice as heard through the national broadcaster. How did that voice get there? We had a responsibility when we put CBC into place to put the kind of infrastructure that would lead to national unity so that we could build this sense of consciousness and national identity. There is something very nefarious when this government removes the national unity clause.
Recently, the Prime Minister highlighted the importance of national unity by saying: "Everything that we have accomplished as a country can be traced back to our sense of national purpose, to our national unity." If the Prime Minister believes this and says this with all this emotion and feeling, why has that not been carried through? Why has he allowed, at the table of the cabinet, the removal of national unity along with other very important aspects of this bill?
I think the lack of any ministers to sit in this House while the bill was being debated, the lack of any single, solitary person to sit behind the minister as he spoke and the lack of any voice from across this floor to support the government's bill in steering the debate of the findings after second reading in the legislative committee is indicative that either they were so busy with their GST and so busy with the Constitution that they paid absolutely no attention to the contents of this bill when it came to the cabinet for ratification, or they just do not care.
With respect to the two separate CBC standing committees, the government plan to create these two committees, one for English-language programs and the second for French-language programs, will only isolate Canadians from Canadians and create an atmosphere of two Canadas at the CBC.
Government Orders
The Liberal Party believes that dividing the CBC based upon language runs counter not only to the goal of national unity, national interest, national understanding or exchange but to the interest of all Canadians in both official languages which the CBC has always served.
I will not go into the detail of budgeting and the division of the budget, but certainly the sectors on both sides have gained rather than lost in that expression of voice.
The two separate standing committees for the CBC is not a new concept. It has its roots in a recommendation of the 1965 parliamentary committee on broadcasting. However, the Liberal government in 1967 rejected that recommendation.
I would like to remind this House that the Conservative government accepted that as that bill passed unanimously through the House. The Hon. Judy LaMarsh on November 1, 1967 explained why to the House of Commons this was not an acceptable procedure.
She said: "A statutory requirement that the board should split itself up into two would, in the opinion of the government, be undesirable. If the CBC is to be an instrument for the continuing expression of Canadian identity, it must have a clear identity of its own that is neither English nor French but is Canadian."
That is what we have lost, that whole mentality that it is Canadian, the role and function of the heart and soul of this bill, the CBC.
I would like to finish my remarks with the following observations. I really am quite sad. My heart is heavy because I believe that we have missed a wonderful opportunity. A most important cultural instrument in law has been lost. It will impact on our own artists, singers, dancers, writers, actors and our actresses.
It will be a negative, long term impact on this country, and that is what is so sad. There is no vision of this country by the government at this time.
Let me reassure the minister that when I said my heart was sad, it is in due measure to what he has done with this bill: Meechified it, balkanized it and ignored the importance of Canadian programming. I find that in contradiction to many of the things which he does in other areas.

Government Orders
I believe that many of the amendments that we have made were worth-while to make this bill fitting for the kind of Canada that we see and, when we look back on our history and down the road to where we were headed, the road to this day has been a very long one.
I would take up too much time thanking all who have helped make this process work for me, my party and, I think to be fair, in the interests of getting a better broadcast bill for all Canadians.
Indeed, I could not even attempt to count the witnesses I have seen, all the meetings I have attended, all the briefs I have read, all the submissions I have heard, all the lawyers who have offered their advice, all the representatives of industry who have done their lobbying, all the experts who have graciously come forward to make their contribution to the creation of a better broadcasting bill.
We also cannot forget the members of this House and the staff of the committees in this Parliament and the last Parliament on the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture and the legislative committees that joined us in this exercise. I would also like particularly to thank the parliamentary secretary, the member for Edmonton Southwest, whose knowledge of this bill, as government spokesman and previously as chairman of the standing committee, and explanations have been clear and unequivocal. He has the right to his opinion as we have the right to ours. He has been helpful on many occasions while maintaining full commitment to his government's points of view.
I want to thank Nancy Jean Waugh, who is my legislative assistant, for her hard work and dedication. She was diligent and gave great commitment, exemplary and of immeasurable help.
I should, as well, acknowledge all the Canadians who have been moved to join in this debate, writing to me and to members on all sides of this House about this chapter in the history of Canadian broadcasting that the government seems intent on closing today. They obviously cared enough about their country to sit down and write a letter about it.
The bill, as it stands, is seriously flawed. I want to bring to your attention what was said by Mr. Serge Gouin , President and Chief Executive Officer of Tele-Metro-pole. He says:
I therefore add my voice to those of all the other representatives of the industry who have come to you to express their concerns and to ask you to postpone passing the bill in order to ensure that the final version is in line with the conditions prevailing in this sector and represents a positive change rather than a giant step backwards.
In summary, the bill fails to address important policy matters. It could do more to ensure that our system better reflects Canada to Canadians in terms of greater Canadian content. It could do better to prevent global technologies from wrestling control of our broadcasting system away from Canadians. It should do more to avoid the North Americanization of all that we see on our screens. It should not allow the Balkanization of our system into regional ones. It should better entrench the CBC as our unifying, national broadcaster.
I and my party plan to continue our fight, a fight in which we said in the very beginning that if a new broadcasting bill was proposed by this government then it would have to be true to its its roots as we know it could be, and true to a vision of Canada that goes right back to the time when a Conservative government created the CBC.
This government has listened at times and, at other times, found it easy to say no. I believe it has made some obvious mistakes. This bill, to be very simple, is flawed. It is not true enough to ensure a Canadian system for tomorrow. But pass it, it will, for the last time I checked the government held the majority in this place.
I just want the record to show that I and my fellow Liberals did everything we could; studied the bill, listened to witnesses and proposed amendments, while trying to improve it, better support our shared set of values, and better enhance our shared sense of national unity and national purpose. If we have achieved that in some small measure then the effort has not been in vain.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this particular bill in somewhat of a pinch-hitting capacity because even though I am the newly appointed critic for communications, arts and culture, much of the detailed work in this piece of legislation, many of the reasoned amendments that have been put before the House that we have debated and discussed through the months, were essentially brought forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.

I want to say that a great deal of credit for the attempts to improve and strengthen this piece of legislation have to go to the hon. member for Port Moody- Coquitlam. He has a great deal of work and I hope I can do him justice in presenting the summary debate at third reading stage of Bill C-40.
All of us in the New Democratic Party were delighted when the government brought forward a broadcast bill, a communications policy, because we recognized for some time that there was a real need to upgrade, update, or modernize what was essentially an outmoded and outdated policy with regard to broadcasting in Canada.
We were excited about the prospects of the bill and even more excited about the opportunity to address many of the outstanding concerns regarding the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the CRTC, and native broadcasting. There are many aspects to this legislation. It is a large bill, a large piece of legislation. As we saw, there was some 42 different amendments, many of them proposed by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam on behalf of the New Democrats and many proposed by the Liberals.
At the outset I want to say that it is somewhat perplexing because we wanted so much to be able to support this legislation, to give it the strong mandate that we feel it requires. It was very disappointing-and I think I speak for all members of the opposition-to find that virtually every amendment, every reason to change that we tried to bring in through committee and through report stage debates, was essentially turned down. The government turned a deaf ear toward these amendments; not all 42 of them because some were actually the government's amendments, but certainly all of them put forward by the opposition parties.
It was very disappointing to find that a piece of legislation which could have been a hallmark of this legislative Chamber, a piece of legislation which could have set the future of broadcasting in Canada, had been left severely compromised because last night the government reacted with stony silence on the amendments and essentially voted every one of them down.
Government Orders
It is with some discomfort that we in the opposition, even though we so much want to support the legislation, find that we simply cannot do that without the amendments to strengthen it. I want to present the reasons for that.
Essentially the bill attempts to chart the future of broadcasting in Canada. It represents some very fine work by the officials in the Department of Communications, some very fine work by the standing committee, and some fine work by all those people- government members as well as opposition members-who have participated in its formulation at all stages. Yet, despite that and the prime opportunity that we have to make this a top notch piece of legislation, it remains essentially flawed. It is deficient in five crucial areas of broadcasting.
First, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is brought essentially under siege by this legislation. As has been mentioned numerous times in this assembly, the CBC through Bill C-40 is being leeched and it is being meeched. It is being cut back in its expenditures in terms of fulfilling a national mandate of communications in Canada and of binding this country from coast to coast to coast, and as a national voice, a national symbol of Canadian identity. It is being meeched. It is being divided into two realities: the reality of French broadcasting and the reality of English broadcasting, an essential duality in communications in Canada. We think that is wrong.
Second, with respect to the cable television industry, which is a virtual monopoly in Canada, under this bill the industry remains unregulated in terms of profits and the ability to import foreign programming, essentially the only monopoly in Canada that has absolutely no price structure regulation brought to it. We will speak more about that later.
Third, private broadcasters are still not doing enough in the creation of Canadian programming, and this bill does precious little to rectify that weakness in our communications policy.
Fourth, in terms of the weakness of this particular bill, through this legislation the government is threatening the independence of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC. The CRTC requires specific legislative remedies to give it the kind of direction and the kind of mandate it needs to set firm policies for the future. Instead, it is being weakened and emasculated by direct ministerial control.


Government Orders
Let me turn specifically to the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I want to say that the CBC is ideally suited to contribute to our goals of national unity. It is suited to developing a shared national consensus and a national identity. It plays an extremely important role in that regard. It is perhaps more difficult to see in central Canada but, speaking as a member who comes from the west, I can say that there are many areas in my province of British Columbia where the CBC is the voice of Canada. It speaks to the people in the hinterlands, in the communities that because of geographic location and what-not simply cannot receive other signals unless they are signals from Tijuana, Mexico or Los Angeles, California. It is the CBC that presents a distinct image of Canadianism from Victoria to St. John's. It is an extremely important function that this organization must fulfil.
This bill does not support that idea. The over-all strategy of this government toward the CBC has been characterized by funding cuts, by neglect of specific initiatives, and by the bifurcation of the management structure of the corporation, by splitting it into two entities, essentially. This legislation puts it clearly on that road.
The government has demonstrated an antipathy for publicly owned enterprises. We have seen this with the privatization of Air Canada, with the privatization of Petro-Canada, and with the move which is well on the way to privatizing our postal service. The government is quick to point out the weaknesses and just as quick to sell those enterprises off to the private sector.
As I speak this evening and talk about the future of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Canada, as we talk about the effects of the funding cuts facing the corporation and the impact that this legislation will have on the future of the CBC, I have been notified that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has just announced a major lay-off. That spells serious problems for the future of this industry and serious problems for the future of developing that unique Canadian identity. Exactly what the impact of those lay-offs will be, I do not have the details, but that announcement has just come through.
The government is prepared to cut, to privatize, to emasculate, but is it prepared to point to a successful, publicly owned enterprise and perpetuate that enterprise? This legislation, I submit, suggests that it is not.
The main threat to the independence and the integrity of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not a commitment to national unity, shared national consciousness and identity, not according to this legislation. The main threat to the CBC is inadequate funding, insufficient commitment to public broadcasting, and essentially an unwillingness to fund innovation through a publicly owned enterprise.
It comes down to the simple ideology of the government that everything in this country must be market driven, that there is no role for the government in terms of a vehicle for national unity if it does not fit with the bottom line structure of the market system. We have seen the result of a market-driven economy in our neighbour to the south. That is what makes Canada a uniquely different country from the United States. Thank God for that.
The CBC will, can and, I would submit, is doing what private enterprise either cannot do or simply will not do and that is its uniqueness. I think the quality of this publicly-owned enterprise is in terms of defining a sense of national unity, a sense of national identity.
I wonder whether this government will cease hindering the corporation as it seems wont to do and actually give it a hand. This legislation drags its feet in a commitment to public broadcasting. The CBC is a national and, I would submit, a nation-building institution. Through first-rate television, radio services and the all news channel, the CBC reflects a Canada that is more than simply the sum of the regions. The sum is greater than the simple addition of all the parts.
The CBC is a buffer against the kind of continentalism that has driven this government's ideological rigidity. In this continentalist view by this government, Canada's destiny lies in a continental bloc led by the United States. To that end our policy on trade, our policy on foreign affairs, our policy on defence have been harmonized with those of the United States in order to fit into this continentalist bloc ideology.

We have seen the process take place already with the advent of the free trade agreement, the artificially elevated high interest rates, the dollar inflating policies of this administration, the abandonment of a search for an independent foreign policy, and the lock-step with the United States on security issues.
The CBC is not easily harmonized with American institutions and that is what is causing some problems for this government. Its history, its development, its function, its mandate, its role do not fit with the concept of harmonizing with our neighbour to the south. The CBC is quintessential^ Canadian. It is a Canadian achievement and we should be proud of it. It evokes a Canadian style in broadcasting. It is not, I submit, a private enterprise achievement but it is a public one.
The CBC is not easily harmonized but it can be, and it will be. It is being underfunded. It is being organizationally neutered. It is being economically emasculated as a first step in its demise. The division of the CBC board into English and into French weakens the CBC as a national institution. If the government sees no value in a publicly-owned and autonomously operated public broadcasting service, then it will do what it can to lessen the distinctiveness of that service. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what is happening.
Under this strategy the national broadcasting service comes more and more to resemble the private networks, until essentially the rationale for having the service in the first place is lost and then, "what the heck, guys? We may as well privatize it". It becomes a distant memory.
The legislation advances a strategy that sees little value in public broadcasting and sees no point in perpetuating something that is vigorously and quintessentially Canadian.
I would like to turn to native broadcasting because I think that this legislation seriously erodes the initiatives in that regard. The objective should have been to strengthen aboriginal broadcasting provisions through this legislation. Many of the amendments we had proposed in fact pointed in that very specific direction. Those amendments were voted down.
This bill reads that "programming that reflects the aboriginal cultures of Canada should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available". Fine. But then this bill gives little priority to communications difficulties and realities of Canada's
Government Orders
aboriginal communities, particularly our northern communities.
The Broadcasting League noted that the government's proposal makes no provision at all for broadcasting services for aboriginal people. Examining the government record does not inspire confidence. The northern native broadcast access program funds 13 communications societies. Since it was established in 1983, it has had its funding cut, and cut, and cut again. The Northern Native Broadcast Access Program was created to ensure that northern native people would have fair access to distribution systems. This was given in order to maintain a native culture, a native identity, and to maintain the native languages. The aim was also to help create programming that is relevant to native communities and to reflect their concerns.
How has it fared? In 1983, the program was given a budget of over $40 million for four years. In 1985 and 1986, the government reduced the funding to $33 million. In 1987-88 and 1988-89 and, again in 1989-90, funding was frozen at $13.2 million, down from $40 million to $13 million. In this year's budget, the Conservative government cut back the program to $11.3 million. It has completely knee-capped this program. It has completely emasculated its ability to serve our native communities.
The proposed legislation reflects a basic lack of support for aboriginal communications. This government is attacking aboriginal cultural expression and is attacking aboriginal peoples at the worst possible time. The legislation simply does not go far enough in ensuring access and control of communications by our aboriginal peoples.
My time is limited but I want to make a few comments with regard to the cable television industry. Cable TV in Canada is a territorial monopoly but it is not regulated by other communications industries. The bill simply does not undertake to regulate the profits made by these companies in an industry that earns, on an average, 30 per cent of its net fixed assets annually. It is completely unregulated in that regard.
Does this bill provide cable television rates for Canadians that are just and fair? We submit that the answer is no. Many amendments were made to try to strengthen that part of the proposed legislation and all of those amendments were defeated.


Government Orders
I have much more to say in that regard but my time has almost expired. Let me just summarize. This bill charts the future of broadcasting in Canada but it is basically flawed. The course that this government has set is insupportable. National unity, cultural development and regulatory independence are not well served by this legislation. This country, I submit, is not well served by this legislation. The government has failed to provide a Broadcasting Act that Canada needs and needs desperately to survive.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap a question but, first of all, I would like to compliment him on the very nice job he has done in carrying through this very complex bill in the absence of the critic. I know that the critic was not pleased about not being in this House, but I am sure he will be very delighted to know that the hon. member has done a very fine piece of work and so I congratulate the hon. member. I know it was not easy.
I would like to know if the hon. member feels comfortable enough to answer a question with respect to cable, which was one of the very strong points raised by the hon. member's colleague, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.
Not many of the members of the New Democratic Party took the opportunity to speak to the bill. I know that my friend from Windsor and a few others did but certainly they were not overly numerous in their exercise of concern in this House. Could the hon. member tell us what is the view of the NDP in respect of cable? The hon. member was talking about the rates of return which they enjoy. I thought it was much closer to about 24 per cent but the hon. member says it is closer to 30 per cent and that is not net profits, either. What does the hon. member think would be the answer and what would be the best route to enable them to contribute more effectively to the Canadian broadcasting system?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very legitimate point. Because of the time limitations I did not have the opportunity to go fully into that matter.
I want to reiterate that the cable industry in Canada is basically an unregulated monopoly. Although we may have a slight dispute concerning the net profits received by the industry, I think my hon. colleague would agree with me that it does pretty well for itself. As a matter of fact, in the past 18 months alone, the increase in the price structure has been some 29 per cent. That is a very substantial increase in pricing.
We are saying that essentially we have a monopoly situation. Why do I say that it is a monopoly situation? Very simply, one cannot go into my riding or any place in British Columbia or Canada and start up a competitive cable company. You cannot do it. The cable companies that are serving that market virtually have a hammerlock on the market. Therefore, they become a monopoly.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. I think it makes everyone slightly uncomfortable when we hear talk of monopolies. Do not forget that our telephone systems province-wide are essentially monopolies. These are monopolies that are structured in terms of the pricing increases they are allowed to implement. We do not have this situation in the cable industry. Perhaps if we had some mechanism to tie it to a reasonable and justifiable profit margin, then we would not see the kind of price gouging that I submit we have seen recently with the industry. They are making a very tidy profit indeed.
In terms of consumers across Canada whose income levels make it very difficult for them to go out to see a movie or to spend their disposable income in entertainment because they have virtually no disposable income, cable television is one of the few tools that they have to relax and enjoy some culture with. It is very difficult for these lower-income people to afford those kinds of price increases.
In summarizing my comments, I suggest that because it is an unregulated monopoly, and because it has demonstrated its unwillingness to moderate its price increases, there should be a mechanism developed to establish some pricing guidelines as we have in other monopolies in Canada.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap for his very balanced presentation and to take this opportunity to welcome him to the role of official critic for communications and culture for his party.


He has already demonstrated a great interest in the issues and is seriously addressing them. He follows in the steps of two distinguished predecessors, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam and Lynn MacDonald, who was a member of this previous House and who made a real contribution towards the bill that we have before us.
I would like to ask the hon. member, with reference to the cable industry, an industry which, incidentally, I hold no brief for, because I was a conventional broadcaster. Back in those days, we considered them to be newcomers, and that was the kindest thing we could say about them. He is quite correct that they do enjoy a territorial monopoly and that they do not have the kind of rate regulation that public utilities have which, I understand, is the position his party is advocating.
I just wanted to reflect and pose a question to the hon. member. Is he aware that there are a great many very small cable companies in the country, as well as some giants? Is he aware of the efforts that cable companies have made in recent years with community channels and the preparations that they are having to make in allocating capital budget for upgrading of systems and preparations for HDTV?
I am familiar myself with a situation of a system in Hinton, Alberta where the regulator, in good faith, ordered the independent operator of a cable system there to wire four subdivisions with underground cable in anticipation of the growth of that community. The growth never came and that load had to be carried. Eventually, the operator had to sell to a larger cable company, a good operator, albeit, but it had to get out of the business.
I think it is, perhaps, unfair to generalize and the CRTC recognizes the situation that there are variations within cable companies. That is why it is so healthy to have an independent regulator so that it can distinguish between the situation of a very profitable, large operator and that of a small operator.
I am sure that the hon. member, coming from where he does, is aware of the contribution that small cable operators make to the broadcasting system as a whole.
Government Orders


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his very kind comments.
Understandably, he has recognized that, as a newcomer in this very complex area of legislation, it is difficult to be completely up to speed in all aspects of the industry. If I appear to stumble about somewhat from time to time, it is simply a matter of coming to terms with the many intricate details that the member has already pointed out.
To answer the member's question, first, yes, I am aware, of course, of the smaller cable companies whose profit margins may not be anywhere near the larger monopolies that we have such as Rogers Cable and what-not.
The bottom line criteria has to be fairness to the public. I am particularly concerned, as I mentioned, about the lower income Canadians who do not have the option of going out to see a movie or to a theatrical production simply because they cannot afford it.
What we have seen demonstrated by the industry, on average-and I am not pointing any fingers to any particular company or entity-are some very hefty price hikes. Perhaps some of those price increases have been justified. I do not question that, and there has to be flexibility allowed for justified price increases in terms of expansion of service and the upgrading of the technologies, et cetera.
I think the member would agree with me that, if the industry fails to demonstrate a sensitivity to the economic aspects of our Canadian life-style and to the fact that our lower income Canadians may not be able to afford those price increases, then it comes time for the government, through some mechanism-I am not sure exactly what mechanism would be provided-to be able to influence that price structuring to some small degree.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to participate in tonight's debate-

It is a wonderful opportunity. To me, it is closing the circle. When I first had the privilege of speaking in the House in November, 1984 I drew to the House's attention the need for a new broadcasting bill, one which would contain, among other elements, the power of direction of the government of the day to the CRTC, with appropriate safeguards.

Government Orders
I take some pride-and I am sure members opposite can share in that-in the realization that tonight we have before us the final stages of debate in third reading of a broadcasting bill. The previous administration sought perhaps to bite off more than could realistically be chewed at the time when it had an omnibus communications bill which did not pass when the Thirty-Second Parliament was dissolved.
Then, of course, in the Thirty-Third Parliament there was Bill C-136. Bill C-136 was the fruit of the labours of the Caplan-Sauvageau Task Force and the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in which the hon. member from Mount Royal laboured so diligently and made such a signal contribution, as did Lynn McDonald, the former New Democratic Party critic.
I appreciate the graciousness which members have extended to me in their comments about my involvement in this work. If anyone is going to "vix merbs" tonight I think it may be me because I left Sydney, Australia at ten o'clock this morning, Australia time, when I learned that there was a possibility of participating in this debate.
There have been reports in the press that the government had sought to delay this bill and I just wanted to allay those beliefs. That is speculation and I am happy to say that the speculation is totally unfounded. It is true that the bill was reported back to this House in March of this year. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, participated well in the legislative committee that dealt with the bill. We had a very distinguished chairman of the committee.
Then, of course, we entered into a phase of national debate, having to do with the very future of our country, focused on the Meech Lake Accord. I respect that the hon. member for Mount Royal and I hold totally different views on many aspects of that now defunct accord. It was not my decision, but in my judgement it would have been wholly inappropriate to have subjected the country to the kind of filibuster that was suggested would be upon us if that bill were put through the House in the months of May and June of this year, having to do with aspects of the bill which the hon. member for Mount Royal and others disagreed with profoundly.
So, we have the bill back before us now. We had two half days in late October in which we managed to get 12 per cent of the amendments dealt with at report stage and I must confess that before I departed on my family errand to Australia, I despaired of getting the bill through during the life of this Parliament, because of the sincere expression by members opposite that they wanted to "destroy a bad bill", to quote directly from one of them. I am grateful to the minister who was here last week and yesterday to shepherd this bill through report stage. I am sorry that I was not here to assist him in that regard, but he managed rather well I am given to understand.
When we were beginning report stage in late October, there was a rather strong barrage of support for the bill and I want to refer to one distinguished Canadian who said that there are both symbolic and practical reasons for passing C-40 now. Symbolically, it will send a much needed signal of hope to Canadians that parliament believes in some civilized future for the Canadian family and in a rich more realistic dialogue among Canadians who, at this time in our history, want to find again a sense of reconnection and mutual self-respect.
He went on to say: "In practical terms, C-40 will give the CRTC much stronger and more credible enforcement powers such as court orders and fines. Even though we maintain our position as to the tandem powers of direction and review, on balance I think the result is very positive. The regulatory watch-dog may have a slightly shorter leash in theory, but it will have much longer teeth." That is a quotation from Keith Spicer who, at that time, was serving as chairman of the CRTC. He made the remarks in Vancouver on October 26 of this year.
There was a good deal said by the hon. member for Mount Royal, in her very thorough contribution to today's debate, about a number of aspects of the bill. In particular, one aspect that piqued my interest was her despairing of what she saw as a lack of commitment to Canada in the bill.
I recall the labours of the standing committee where I think all of us were unanimously committed to seeing broadcasting policy and broadcasting legislation that would truly enhance the Canadianness of all of the components of the Canadian broadcasting system, public and private.


I think tangentially that this bill recognizes that a very significant portion of the Canadian broadcasting industry, the private broadcasting industry, including its cable component, has come of age and is pulling its weight with reference to a commitment to Canada. Time after time, with the cudgel behind the back, the regulator has been able to encourage through various creative suggestions private broadcasters to make a contribution to Canada.
I should add that many of these private broadcasters have spontaneously-and I think the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James can acknowledge this-made contributions to the Canadian broadcasting system, including some significant contributions made by broadcasters based in his own home city.
I feel that the letter, for example, which the hon. member for Mount Royal had published in The Toronto Star on May 17 on the opinions page, may have-


Sheila Finestone: You've read it.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Yes, I did and I responded to it, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, but I got a bizarre response from the editor of The Toronto Star who said, "Although your article has merit, it is not appropriate for our Op-Ed page at this time. We receive a great volume of unsolicited manuscripts and must perforce reject many." That was my response to my rebuttal of the hon. member for Mount Royal's contribution in The Toronto Star.
Seriously, she makes quite a number of charges in that particular article and she touched on some of them tonight in debate. I suggest that some of the comments that my hon. friend makes are based on an honest difference of opinion on what the bill provides. I would say perhaps even a misunderstanding of what the bill provides. In fact, the article in The Toronto Star suggested that there might be some sort of a conspiracy on the part of the government, perhaps connected with the free trade agreement, to gut the Canadian broadcasting system.
This new act is designed to increase Canadian choices, not to restrict them. Technological advances, including direct broadcasting from high powered satellites to which my hon. friend referred, have made available new
Government Orders
services over which the government and the CRTC technically have no control. Canadians are embracing that progress and, indeed, it has such power and momentum that in some situations no government or people can stop it, even if they wished to. Therefore, the role of government is then to provide Canadian choices, Canadian voices, in the words of the distinguished predecessor to the present Minister of Communications, the Hon. Flora MacDonald.
The hon. member for Mount Royal criticizes this bill for not restricting foreign access to the Canadian market. In doing so, I submit that she ignores the fact that the act gives the CRTC the power to supervise and regulate the entire Canadian broadcasting system, including those carrying foreign or other programming services. Under this legislation the only foreign signals which can be legally retransmitted in Canada are those authorized by the CRTC, which is also empowered to set the terms under which such signals are retransmitted. The CRTC will continue to control entry of foreign specialty services that compete with Canadian services.
In the past my hon. friend has suggested that foreign services be licensed by the CRTC. I should point out that no Canadian laws requiring licensing can apply outside Canada. If she were to achieve this objective, Canadian cable operators would be forced to drop all their U.S. signals or to ask foreign broadcasters to set up shell Canadian companies for the purpose of holding a licence. I do not believe that Canadians would find such a proposal acceptable.
There are many charges to the Canadian broadcasting system in this bill to reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences by serving the special needs of the region. Our national broadcaster, the CBC, is mandated to serve the needs of our official language minorities and to reflect the multicultural nature of Canada. That, I submit, enhances our Canadianism. As a matter of fact, we on the government side accepted an amendment from the opposition which even broadened that definition to include the multiracial aspect of our society, which is an important consideration when one considers the fact that we are dealing in large measure with television.

Government Orders
I would also like to mention a couple of points that are included in this bill to which the hon. member has not referred, and neither of the opposition critics have referred to this so far.
First, the private right of action for theft of signal is a very important aspect of this bill and something for which the industry has been craving and, indeed, those outside the industry have as well. I have in my hand an ad from the Hinton Parklander of July 30, 1990. The ad reads: "Farmers, ranchers and acreage owners; Live out of town? No cable TV? The home cable network invites you to a preview of rural satellite television. One hundred and fifty channels for $79.99 a month for equipment only. An open house will be held at the Hinton Legion conference room. Eight music video channels, 30 sports channels, 21 movie channels".
Many of these services that are being openly advertised are not available in Canada legally because the owners of those signals did not intend that they would be distributed in Canada except under proper business arrangements. This bill will provide a private right-of-action for the owners of those signals as it would for any Canadian owner of any signals for the unauthorized distribution, not the unlicensed, but the unauthorized distribution of those signals.
I also want to point out and to give reassurance to those members who have condominiums in their ridings that this bill does give the CRTC the option of declining to license a condominium operator of a system provided that that operator, in the CRTC's judgment, is playing within the rules of the Canadian broadcasting system.
The hon. Minister of State for Housing and other members, including the hon. member for Beaches- Woodbine, have drawn to my attention the concerns of condominium operators in the metro Toronto area, those who live at 75 Graydon Hall in Don Valley East and those who live elsewhere in that area. I want to give them my assurance that, to the best of my knowledge, most of these operators are now playing within the spirit of the Canadian system and there will be no need for the heavy hand of the law to come down upon them.
If, on the other hand, they are starting to do the kind of thing that is being promoted in Hinton by satellite
operators, obviously, they then become those who are playing outside the rules of the Canadian system and the powers will be there within this bill to act upon it.


Sheila Finestone: Isn't that the matter we have heard before?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker, the individual who appeared before us.
I would like to go quickly to some of the points made by my hon. friend from Mount Royal on the issue of they who hear decide. I understand her concern, but from discussions I have had with those inside and outside the CRTC, I am satisfied that not only the chairman of the commission but others within the commission now feel that the system can be made to work well as it is drafted now. The hon. member for Mount Royal was concerned about the cumulative effect of they who hear decide and the setting up of the regional commissioners. I believe her concern would be Balkanization.
On the surface there may be some cause for concern, but I believe that those within the CRTC and certainly those in government who would, after all, have the power to give some direction under this bill to the CRTC are determined to see that there will be consistency of decision-making but on the other hand that there will be the undoubted benefits of regional application and considerations when decisions are made.
We are committed to the unity of this country, but we also I think arrive at that unity through a sense of being treated fairly across the country. Fairness I believe has one of its roots in the opportunity to assess fairly, to judge sensitively local conditions and to apply consistent national policies in a regionally sensitive way.
The hon. member for Mount Royal was concerned about what she called the dual powers and advocated the removal of the cabinet review power while maintaining the power of direction. I do not think it is necessarily appropriate to rub in the fact that the hon. member did support the dual power when she served on the standing committee. But as she has said, circumstances change and re-evaluations occur. I take it that she has re-evaluated her position in this regard.

I would go back to what I quoted Mr. Spicer as saying, that there will be a slightly shorter leash, but the commission will have much longer teeth. I think that just about says it all.
The hon. member for Mount Royal suggested that the CBC's central position is removed from the broadcasting system. I am sorry that I fail to understand just what she is driving at. The CBC remains the public instrument of broadcasting in the country and whatever one may say about budget allocations and so on, I would point out that the most severe budget cuts ever in the history of the CBC occurred in the year 1982. In fact in real dollar terms since 1984, the CBC budget has been maintained on a slightly increasing basis each year.
Whatever one may say about that, I believe that the CBC's central position in the system is maintained and, in fact, the CBC has recently been showing some rather creative solutions to the problems that beset their system. I believe that once the position of Mr. Patrick Watson is legitimized through the passage of this bill that we will see a flourishing of the CBC. I have great faith in that individual as the chairman designate of the corporation and, indeed, in the president of the company, Mr. Veilleux, as well as in the board itself.
Mr. Speaker, referring to the question of the CBC committees of the board, I know that the hon. member for Mount Royal finds that as problematic as any aspect, including the national unity issue. But I would say to her once more, and I have said it many times, look at it as a creative exercise. Look at it as an opportunity to bridge the two solitudes which I know she and I agree desperately need to be bridged.
Finally, on the question of national unity, we cannot have unity in this country until we have a shared sense of national consciousness and identity. When I made my remark about South Africa-and by the way I have written to the South African ambassador saying that the use of the word totalitarian in describing South Africa is inappropriate because it is a multi-party state-the point that I was making is that a broadcasting system should never be a propaganda instrument of the state or have the least opportunity to be used or have used as such whether it has been or has not been.
Government Orders
I find that there are distinguished broadcasters in this country, including Mr. Spicer, who can give you arguments that this clause ought to be changed and that national unity does not belong in the CBC's mandate. This is based on his experience with Radio-Canada in the 1970s and we must go to basics and have national consciousness and the promotion of that identity as the fundamental basis of the CBC's mandate. Mr. Speaker, I, as an Albertan and as a proud Canadian, am comfortable with that.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say how much I appreciated the remarks of the hon. parliamentary secretary. I can say, with deep sincerity, that he is a gentleman to the core and that our dealings with him were always most pleasant. However, we are here to transact some very hard political business.
I have a couple of questions for the hon. parliamentary secretary but, first, I want to deliver to him, if he does not already know, some news. This is news to this House and news to the viewers from coast to coast. The news is this: the CBC is about to be savaged by another round of horrible cuts. As I speak, press reports are circulating that the CBC may undergo, and it will be announced tomorrow, cuts to the tune of $100 million. I am told by sources that the president of the CBC was on the phone all day, speaking to regional directors across the country. The president will be making a formal announcement tomorrow at a news conference. I am told that perhaps up to 10 CBC regional stations will have to be closed as a result of these savage cuts. According to the CBC's all news channel, some of the other regional stations will be turned into mere store-front operations. That is the magnitude of these cuts that are to be announced tomorrow.


John V. Nunziata: It is $200 million, John.


John Harvard: Now I am told by one of my colleagues that it could be $200 million. One hundred million dollars is horrible, $200 million is, in my mind, absolutely unthinkable.
According to what I have been told, maybe all of Radio Canada International will be chucked or at least a portion of it will be. I am also told that the CBC is almost bound to get out of the parliamentary service. The parliamentary service may be continued on by the hon. Mr. Speaker, but what I am told is that the CBC will be getting out of the parliamentary service.

Government Orders
I am told that if I live in a province with two CBC outlets, and I think of provinces like Ontario and Quebec, the hon. parliamentary secretary's own province of Alberta, and the province of Saskatchewan, four Canadian provinces which each have two CBC outlets, I am not going to be very comfortable because, from what I understand, there is going to be some kind of rejigging of the operations, a so-called rationalization that will devastate at least one of the operations in each of those four provinces.
As I lead up to my question to the parliamentary secretary, let me say this: I find it to be a cruel irony that, on the very day that the hon. Minister of Communications stands in his place and talks about strengthening the CBC, in a week when this House of Commons is on the verge of passing a broadcasting bill that is there ostensibly to strengthen broadcasting in the country, we are told that the CBC is going to suffer another round of savage cuts. That is an affront to every CBC-loving person in this country and there are millions; it is an affront to this magnificent institution that has made this country so great.
Ever since this government assumed power in 1984, it has made it a national pastime, a habit, that every time it touches one of our treasured national institutions, to demean those institutions, to diminish those institutions.
Do those people opposite find nothing sacred about this country any more? Is there nothing sacred about our institutions? Shame on all of them. Now that I have said that, I want to know: Are all these reports true?
The parliamentary secretary is in the upper echelons of government. I think it behoves him to answer these questions now.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: For a moment there, Mr. Speaker, I thought it must be 2.15 in the afternoon and that the hon. member had a rare opportunity to pose a question in Question Period, which is the proper spot for this question to be posed.
However, he raises some serious questions, and I will endeavour to answer them. I think it was significant that he said that the president of the CBC was to make some announcement tomorrow. If the president of the CBC is
making the announcement, obviously he is talking about a CBC decision. I think the CBC, being an arm's length institution which we all want to preserve, should be best positioned-


An hon. member:: He is with Treasury Board.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: No, he is no longer with the Treasury Board. He is president of the CBC.
I do not feel it is appropriate to comment on some speculative reports that may be on the air, in some newspaper, or wherever the hon. member has heard them.
There was an announcement before the standing committee the other day by the president of the CBC with reference to the parliamentary channel. I believe that what Mr. Veilleux said at that time was in line with recommendations by the Caplan-Sauvageau task force, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, as well as the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, and the McGrath committee. They all recommended at one time or another over a period of about five years that a more comprehensive parliamentary service should be provided and that the cost of providing such a service, including distribution, should be borne by the House of Commons. Except for minor changes in the CBC's packaging of the House of Commons service, no action has been taken on those recommendations over the five years.
Apparently, from the announcement that the president of the CBC made, the corporation is willing to continue providing distribution of the House of Commons service, but to do so would require Parliament to pay all costs, the same way it pays lot Hansard. In today's day and age, it is probably appropriate that it be done that way.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the parliamentary secretary, in light of the fact that he was out of the country, to know that that question was asked in the House yesterday morning. The minister, in response to my question as to whether or not the House of Commons would handle the parliamentary channel through its parliamentary appropriations, made an unequivocal answer. The answer was no.


As he continues to speak, I want him at least to be up to date with the information that has been given to this House in that regard.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I am grateful for that piece of information, Mr. Speaker, but I think my answer would remain the same, my response on the issue of the parliamentary channel.
If the CBC has made this decision with reference to the parliamentary channel-and I understand it has- then it is up to the House of Commons and the Speaker to decide what to do about it. It would be inappropriate for me to suggest to you, Sir, sitting in that chair, what the appropriate course of action would be. It is up to us on both sides as members of the House, with the assistance of the Speaker and through his wise judgment, to arrive at these decisions.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue this question on the parliamentary channel just a bit further.
As we speak, Canadians have the opportunity from one coast to the other and in the north as well, as I understand it, to watch the proceedings of Parliament live.
We on this side of the House consider it essential that Canadians continue to have the opportunity to watch democracy in action live, not that it makes for great television, but it permits constituents to view first-hand what is going on in the House of Commons.
His minister has unequivocally stated that the government would not subsidize or pay for this particular parliamentary channel. I would like to ask the hon. member, as parliamentary secretary to the minister, whether he considers it essential that this service continue to be provided. If so, is he prepared to speak to his minister and to the government to urge them to provide the necessary resources? He seems to be passing the buck, Mr. Speaker, to you and to the House, as if the Speaker has some oil well in the back of Parliament or some vault full of money. Ultimately, the taxpayers will have to pay for it.
Can the member indicate whether he is prepared to urge his minister and the rest of the ministers to provide the necessary resources to the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to continue this very essential service?
Government Orders


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the CBC does not want to continue to provide this service. It is clear that the position of the CBC has been for some time that the service ought to be in the hands of the House of Commons where it properly resides. Therefore I stand by my earlier statement that it is an appropriate decision for the House of Commons to make as to whether it wants to come up with the funds to provide the service.
The hon. member asked what my view was. My view is yes, this is a very worth-while service and it ought to continue. However, to ask the Department of Communications to cough up $4.5 million at this time to provide the service is perhaps inappropriate. It is really a decision of the House of Commons. For the Department of Communications to finance it, I think, would be an inappropriate exercise by the government of control over the affairs of the House of Commons.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to take part in third reading debate in the House of Commons tonight. It gives me an opportunity to place some of my thoughts on the record. I must say that I have expressed some of these thoughts in earlier debates, but I hope they are worth repeating.
Bill C-40 has undergone a long examination. There have been many debates. However, despite the fact that we have just heard from the hon. parliamentary secretary and despite the fact that we heard from the Minister of Communications earlier this day, there has been very little Conservative participation in debates on this bill.
To give some idea of how scarce and how sparse Tory participation has been in the debate, I want to remind you that yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we had six hours of debate. On many occasions we had some worth-while questions. Not one Conservative, including the Minister of Communications, stood in his or her place and responded either to questions or gave some of their thoughts or gave any support to the bill. I find that kind of non-performance-and that is what it is, a non-performance-rather disgusting.
If the Tories are proud of this bill-and when they do speak they claim that it is a good bill, that it is good legislation-I find it rather strange that they do not come forward and speak in defence of it.

Government Orders
Normally it is for us on this side of the House to say a few things positive about the bill, particularly at third reading stage. However, when the Tories refused to rise in their places and say anything about this bill, apart from a few exceptions, it made it even more difficult for us to come out and say something good about the bill.
There are some good things about the bill. It has been already stated that women, children, cultural minorities, aboriginal peoples, and the disabled have all been cited in this legislation. That is good. That is positive. I hope something very good comes of it.
My esteemed colleague for Mount Royal in Montreal has examined this bill in minute detail. She has done an outstanding job. She has absolutely no peer. There is no one who knows this bill like the member for Mount Royal.
I do not want to cover much of the ground that she has covered. However, I do want to spend some time on this matter of national unity as it relates to broadcasting in general and to this bill in particular. I want to do so because broadcasting is and can be a very powerful force for national unity. I really feel that this government does not understand that. It just does not understand the kind of instrument for national unity broadcasting can be.
If the government really understood about broadcasting and national unity, would it take away the national unity mandate from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? I think not. If the government had understood the linkage between broadcasting and national unity, would the government have gone ahead and divided the CBC board of directors into two standing committees: one for English and one for French? I think not. If the government really understood the kind of force broadcasting can be for national unity, would the government in this legislation, in this bill, attempt to balkanize and regionalize the CRTC? I think not.
I want to talk about broadcasting in general and television in particular, especially the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, because it really forms the very foundation and the fulcrum of broadcasting in this country.
The power of television goes well beyond providing information. I am talking about the kind of information
that we pick up on newscasts. Television does a very good job of imparting information. I am a great fan, for example, of The National on the CBC.
However, television goes well beyond that. It does a very good job, if it is given the opportunity, of really getting inside the psyche of this country, the psyche of Canadians and of reaching into what I would call the deepest recesses of our emotions, thoughts and imaginations. Television is good at reflecting Canadian culture in all its forms, in all its multiculturalism. It is very good at reflecting our values. It does a super job of showing our sorrows and joys, our loves and hates, our strengths and weaknesses, our disputes and agreements, our divisions and ties. I could go on. Television really does a good job of telling the story of the Canadian family, and I am talking about a family of over 26 million people.
If given the opportunity and the proper supports of government, television can do a much better job. What happens if we support television, especially the CBC, and we go out of our way, in particular, to support Canadian productions, drama, music, dance programs, and the like? I think if we do that it naturally follows that national unity will be strengthened. We are going through another what one might call constitutional spasm, a constitutional trauma, which we seem to go through about every 10 or 15 years in this country. I think it is partly because we do not know enough of each other and this is where broadcasting and, television in particular can help.
Let me raise some questions: Do we really know what eats away at those people in the province of Quebec who embrace what we call nationalism, who some would would call separatists? Do we really know the aches and pains of prairie farmers, particularly the current aches and pains? Do we know what goes on in the minds and the hearts, of fishermen on the east coast or the west coast? What do we know about miners in Alberta and British Columbia, woodworkers in Northern Ontario, single mothers in Toronto? I could go on and on.
Television should be given the opportunity, particularly television drama because I recognize there are severe limitations to information programming. I think government support is paramount in this area. If television is given the opportunity, we will get those inside glimpses of the Canadian family.

How can television do the job? It can do the job if we give it the proper supports, it cannot do it if we continually cut supports to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I spoke earlier about the news reports that are circulating tonight. I was told about an hour ago that the cuts would be in the neighbourhood of $100 million and now I am told they are around $200 million. I only hope that those news accounts are wrong, because the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will be absolutely devastated if $200 million is cut. It seems that the government just does not understand that the CBC is really an investment in Canadian unity. Yet, the government takes away the national unity mandate.
I respect the hon. parliamentary secretary because I take him as very sincere, but when he expresses this concern about the national unity mandate of the CBC somehow turning it into a propaganda machine, I find that just absurd. I find it difficult that the hon. parliamentary secretary, whom I respect, can even say that kind of thing.
If you ask the CBC to be this national unity instrument, you are not telling news editors and news directors to somehow warp the news, you are not asking these people who write the news to manufacture good, happy stories about the CBC. You are not doing that at all.
It seems to me that assigning a national unity mandate to the CBC is, first, recognizing that a public broadcasting system like the CBC can be a force for national unity and, that being the case, we must make resources available to it. In turn, this gives the CBC more clout. With such a national unity mandate the president or chairman of CBC could tell the government politicians that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot ask us to be a force for national unity and, at the same time, cut the legs from under us. You cannot do it. It is not consistent. If we are right in saying that broadcasting can be this instrument for national unity, how could the government, in am arm's length relationship, starve the corporation to the tune of say $200 million? I do not think it is possible.


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth):: They want to kill it, John.
Government Orders


John Harvard: Yes. One of my colleagues says that this government wants to kill the CBC and I, unfortunately, have to come to that conclusion. It certainly would be consistent with this government's behaviour because the CBC would not be the only institution that this government has harmed.
Taking away the national unity mandate is a serious mistake and it certainly sends out wrong signals to certain groups and individuals in this country who would be more than happy to see the country broken up.
When we talk about national unity and the government's role in that, we are not only talking about removing the national unity mandate from the CBC, we are also talking about the splitting of the CBC Board of Directors into two committees, one for the French language and one for the English language. The hon. parliamentary secretary spoke earlier about it.
Surely we must have one public broadcasting system that serves what is called the two solitudes in this country. Surely we must have a public broadcasting system that straddles the two solitudes but, somewhere at the top comes together under a board of directors, under a chairman or under a president who make the decisions for both French and English. Yet, you can be almost sure as God made little green apples that if the government goes ahead with these two committees, as it will, it will drive a wedge through the CBC. The two language groups will be driven farther and farther apart. I just cannot understand why the government cannot understand that. I believe it is the beginning of the end of the CBC as we know it and it is the beginning of two separate networks.
We have Radio-Canada right now and we have the English service, but they are really one because they come together at the top. I think the two committee system is the precedent that will result eventually in the two arms going separate ways, that these two arms of the CBC will eventually become separate broadcast arms and never the twain shall meet.
As I talk about this national unity matter as it relates to broadcasting, I also have to be concerned about the balkanization or the regionalization of the CRTC.
I listened to the hon. Minister for Communications this afternoon and, again, I take him sincerely. He talks about setting up panels. He who hears decides. He talks about increasing the regional sensitivity. I can understand that from one perspective; that if you have, for example, a panel that serves only Ontario or British Columbia, there is no doubt that in their own narrow parochial way, not in a denigrating way, they will know


Government Orders
their region and they will become very sensitive to that. That is fine in itself, but what about the bigger picture? Who is going to be concerned about all of the country? Who is going to be concerned about what I call the pan-Canadian view of the country?
I know it was already pointed out and the hon. Minister for Communications mentioned this afternoon that under the legislation the panels will be charged with the responsibility of consulting the full body of the CRTC. Somehow or other, through consultation, each panel will have this national view. So there will not be an inconsistency between a panel that is rendering decisions on matters relating to Quebec and a panel rendering decisions for British Columbia. I asked the question, Mr. Speaker. The legislation is not clear as to how they will consult, or how someone is forced to consult. What is consultation? Does consultation mean picking up the phone and saying "Hey, Joe, we have this matter down in Toronto. This is how it is going to go. What do you think of that? Good, wonderful, thank you". End of speech, end of conversation, end of consultation. I am perhaps a little sardonic in my description but I think my point is made. The legislation does not really define consultation.
Let me just finish by saying-and again I want to paraphrase the Minister for Communications- that the essence of broadcasting is programming and that the rest is really housekeeping. He is right. Mr. Speaker, you are a former broadcaster. The hon. parliamentary secretary is a former broadcaster. We know if you take programming out of broadcasting, you have nothing left.
It seems to me that what this bill fails to do is to address the very essence of broadcasting, which is programming. I think it does address the matter of housekeeping. I hope I am wrong. I would really like to see a proliferation of Canadian programming. We know that we are in a sea of American programming. We know that in many cases Canadian broadcasters, at least those on the private side, would find it financially impossible to continue without American programming. If we are
going to have the kind of broadcast system of which we can be proud, one that will truly serve this country, and when you serve the country you serve national unity-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired. But just like a true professional broadcaster, you brought it right up to the second.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see you in the chair tonight. I know you will listen attentively to the debate because you have a very deep concern about the issue at hand.
I want to add a few remarks to the comments made by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg. My hon. colleague and I have discussed this many times and we are of a like mind. I think his views tonight represent the views of someone that not only has been in the broadcast industry with CBC but a view from a Canadian who understands the role of the CBC and national unity.
One of the things I am really concerned about is the loss of the mandate by the CBC under Bill C-40 to promote national unity in this country. I have heard some members opposite, and I think the hon. parliamentary secretary inferred that this was a dangerous clause because it could lead to propaganda. I do not think that anything a Crown corporation or a public corporation can do to foster greater understanding between Canadians, no matter where they live in this country, should ever be considered propaganda. It is necessary education so that the tolerance we used to have as Canadians can return and grow and foster.
My hon. colleague from Winnipeg, in all of his speeches has certainly underlined that. He showed the bankruptcy of ideas of the government opposite and particularly the minister opposite, who I challenged the other night to stand up after I spoke and give a rousing speech about national unity, about Canada, because I could not find any other reason why a minister of the Crown would tamper with a clause that was benign, that was doing no harm and actually was doing a lot of good in the country.

Everyone knows that, when I get up to speak, I say I am from Atlantic Canada. I do that because I am proud of the fact that I am from Atlantic Canada.
There is something wrong here. The news that we have heard-and the rumours are rushing through the halls of Parliament here tonight-is that there are going to be major cuts in regional services to the CBC. I heard out in the lobby, and it is probably good conjecture, that there could be four stations closed down in Atlantic Canada.
I refer back to my colleague's comments about national unity. At the very time that there is a debate going on as to whether or not the country has the wherewithal to stay together, what in the name of goodness is the government trying to perpetrate, when it takes one of the few remaining vestiges of national unity and guts it? What does this mean? It has now used the lever of fiscal control before they brought in Bill C-40? It took the mandate away from the CBC for national unity. Now it is taking the resources away from CBC to perform that very necessary service of trying to represent all of the country.
My hon. colleague also talked about the panels that are being set up because they will be more regionally sensitive. I can tell my hon. colleagues in the Chamber that what I do not need to see on CBC in Atlantic Canada are more shows about Atlantic Canada. Atlantic Canadians needs to see CBC shows produced in northern Canada that are run on our national network, the CBC, so that we gain a greater understanding of the problems of the north.
People in western Canada do not necessarily have to become more sensitized to the fact of life of being a western Canadian. What they do need is to produce shows locally in their own stations in some small community where there is a CBC station right now, so that people in Ontario can learn to be tolerant and have a greater understanding of the wonderful diversity that is Canada.
I know that members opposite must be getting calls on this because members on this side are getting calls. I am just absolutely stunned, after the debate that has taken place, that the parliamentary secretary could possibly stand there and say he believes-and I am sure that he does believe-what the Conservatives are doing is in the
Government Orders
best interest of the CBC. What they have effectively done is neutered the CBC as a vehicle for national unity.
When I wake up tomorrow I hope that I do not find out that the comments to which my hon. friend alluded earlier, and the rumours that are bouncing off the walls here, that the CBC, because of the budget cuts which have been forced upon it, is going to be shutting down stations from coast to coast in the country.
I hope that those members opposite, who are in a position to change things because they are the majority in this place, have a good solid reflection of what the government through this policy is doing to the country and to the CBC.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, it is marvellous what broadcasters and former broadcasters can do with rumour and, I should add, unfounded rumour.


Ms. Clancy:: He's not a broadcaster.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: He ought to be one. He is not a humble Liberal.
Very quickly on the question of Conservative participation in debates on this bill, a question raised by my friend from Winnipeg St. James, I should point out that we spent just under 11 hours on clause-by-clause study of the bill. The member was there throughout most of it, if not all of it.
I answered every question that was put to me on behalf of the government. I then found that many of those amendments which I had responded to in full were withdrawn and then reintroduced at report stage. Therefore, I think there has been a very, very full government participation in debate on this bill.
With regard to the question of the national unity issue, I am compelled to quote very briefly from an editorial in The Toronto Star-a. newspaper which is not generally favourable to this government-which appeared exactly four weeks after the member for Mount Royal's letter was published on the opinion page. I quote: "A decade ago, CBC president A1 Johnson ordered CBC journalists to cover the Quebec referendum debate on sovereignty association as a news story and avoid the role of government propagandist. Johnson's fairness order respected a sound journalistic principle and was heeded. But it plainly disregarded the public broadcasters legal mandate to 'contribute to the development of national unity'."

Government Orders
It goes on: "Opposition Liberal critic, Sheila Fine-stone, has argued forcefully that it is wrong to drop the clause when Canada's future is in doubt, but she's mistaken. Canada doesn't need a cheerleader CBC. What it does need is a CBC with enough independence to tell the truth and a government with a thick enough hide to let it be told."
On the issue of the CBC's standing committees of the board, I wish members opposite would stop using the expression, "splitting the board". What is proposed is a unifying mechanism with standing committees of the board, on which the president and the chairman would serve. That is the bridging. Those are standing committees only.
On the issue of "he who hears decides", I feel compelled to point out to my hon. friend that the bill specifically requires that members of panels consult with the commission for the purpose of ensuring consistent interpretations of broadcasting policy and regulations. This will enable panels to avoid inconsistent decision making.
The chairman selects panel members and could decide that issues of national significance, such as network licences, would be decided by a very large panel, representing the commission as a whole. Decisions affecting regulations and over-all policy matters would continue to be made by the whole commission. That should allay the concerns about Balkanization.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, at long last, I am pleased to participate in this third and final reading of Bill C-40, a major and welcome overhaul of the 1968 Broadcasting Act.
As a broadcast journalist with more than 20 years experience before I jumped from the third floor parliamentary press gallery to the floor of the House of Commons in 1978,1 have listened with great care to the thoughtful contributions of my friends opposite during report stage of this debate. Indeed, sometimes I thought their interminable interventions got a might repetitive, but hon. members of both opposition parties hammered home their points with passion and eloquence.
I particularly want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Mount Royal-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: -and her cohort, the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James, and to the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, for their commitment to the preservation and strengthening of a distinctive Canadian broadcasting system.
Indeed, more and better Canadian programming designed to enrich Canadian life and, above all, to safeguard our precious Canadian identity is a goal we all share, regardless of party affiliation in the House.
No one, Sir, epitomizes the true spirit of the Canadian identity from both founding cultures' point of view than the minister in whose name this bill will soon become law, my friend, the distinguished hon. member for Frontenac. I am sure, as others have done, he would allow me to pay particular attention to the yeoman efforts of his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest, who laboured for months in committee and in the House to help fine-tune Bill C-40 to the flexible state it is in now and to pilot this piece of legislation to its worth-while conclusion.
Like others who have spoken in this debate, I could wax enthusiastic about all of the positive aspects of Bill C-40 which I consider to be tremendous improvements over the 1968 Broadcasting Act. We have here measures designed to bring both public and private players in the broadcasting system into line with the challenging new technological realities of the 1990s. There are measures here to portray more accurately the multicultural nature of our society and to enshrine in the legislation for the first time programming priorities for aboriginal peoples, the disabled, women, children, and cultural minorities.
Above all, I applaud the thrust of this bill to move the CBC toward more distinctively Canadian programming and especially measures to strengthen the CBC's management structure and financial accountability to Parliament. For obvious reasons, Sir, I am delighted that this bill guarantees the journalistic freedoms and artistic independence of the CBC.
There is so much good stuff in this new Broadcasting Act that time will not permit me to dwell at length on the merits which the Minister of Communications and others have so eloquently set forth in this debate.

Rather, as one of the final speakers on this third and final reading, I would like to take an overview of one fundamental and recurring theme throughout these many days of discussion about the Canadian broadcasting industry, namely the very real need to preserve a distinct Canadian program identity. When I say overview, I mean that literally.
I heard expressed many times, both in committee and privately, the hope that this 1990 version of the Broadcasting Act will serve Canadians for the next 20 years as well as the 1968 act did.
Well, in one key respect, I am deeply concerned that this act could last until about 1993. The overview I was referring to will be whoever owns and operates the satellite over the skies of North America. From the television standpoint, in a worst-case scenario, direct satellite-to-home broadcasting over 108 channels, such as that proposed by Rupert Murdoch and his consortium, could render the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission obsolete.
The 60 per cent Canadian content regulations, 50 per cent in prime time between 6 p.m. and midnight, could be meaningless. There is no way in the world any number of CRTC commissioners can regulate a Canadian broadcasting system in that environment, with every kind of high-definition programming in the world, covering every time zone you can imagine, available in high-definition television on a direct satellite-to-home basis, simply by buying a dish-a dish the size of your handkerchief-sticking it in your kitchen window. One can see the monumental challenge that this represents to this Parliament and, indeed, to the very soul of the Canadian broadcasting industry.
The 1993 doomsday scenario is the worst one, although I fear, not unrealistic. Let me back up for a moment and suggest that one of the most valuable features of this bill is the far greater flexibility that it endows to the regulatory authority in giving the CRTC more tools and more mobility to cope with this technology from the sky.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, as a former broadcaster and, more immediately, the spouse of a Canadian recording artist, I am keenly aware of the need for keeping the regulatory authority to protect and strengthen our Canadian broadcasting system.
Government Orders
Let me add parenthetically that, while any discussion about broadcasting invariably focuses on television because of its immediacy and its importance, let us not forget that radio is an integral part of our lives. Canadian radio, both public and private, is unquestionably the best in the world and radio serves Canadians well thanks to the vigilance of the CRTC. May the commission continue to ensure that the widest possible number of choices for Canadian listeners is maintained and the distinctive Canadian identity in radio, along with a viable Canadian recording industry, be central to the CRTC's mandate. Our AM and FM programming is too precious to be swallowed up in the profusion of American and other international signals.
Canadian television, however, is a different and potentially more devastating story. It is a serious issue, this survival of a distinctive Canadian television broadcasting system. In my view it is the greatest challenge of Bill C-40 and, ultimately, of this Parliament. Trying to ignore the phenomenal pace of technology, trying to believe that the Canadian television broadcasting system can remain hermetically sealed off from what is happening out there, and it is happening fast, is about as realistic as going back to rabbit ears and watching CBC English and French channels, CTV, and Global, and letting the rest of the world go by.
As I see it, there are two realistic options open to this and future Parliaments if a truly distinctive broadcasting system is to survive the tremendous competition, and this Bill C-40 touches on both of them. The first imperative is that Parliament will have the power to give policy direction to the CRTC for the first time. This is so important, particularly since cable television is now formally recognized in this legislation.
The bill will permit Canadian cable television operators to create programming services but now the CRTC can require the priority of carriage of local Canadian television services. This is a key step toward combating all that U.S. programming up in the sky. Once the entire country is cabled, then Parliament will have the power to see that our homegrown, Canadian programming is protected to the maximum extent possible. I realize that cabling this whole, far-flung nation, from sea to sea to sea, especially in the outer regions, is a long-term proposition. But it is not beyond the range of possibility to see the vast majority of Canadians reached by cable and that capability is already going ahead by leaps and bounds, even in beautiful downtown Hinton, Alberta.

Government Orders
In the meantime, we still have a chance to compete in this new world of sky channels on a level playing field. As Canada cannot ignore participating in an interdependent trading world, and we go it alone at our peril, so Canadian broadcasters cannot avoid the inevitability of having our product viewed around the world and, indeed, that is a highly desirable goal. Here again, Bill C-40, formally foresees this prospect in one of the most significant provisions. The bill gives the CRTC power to set up an incentive system to encourage broadcasters to produce more high-quality Canadian programming.
legislation from which the industry can base its activities. The Broadcasting Act sets objectives, guidelines, and the rules of the system. It is up to the players themselves, the broadcasters, distribution services, producers, consumers, and it is up to the CRTC and, above all, it is up to Parliament itself to make sure that this Broadcasting Act works in the name of a truly viable, Canadian broadcasting system. It may be that we only have two years to do it.
Every private broadcaster I know has his or her heart in the right place when it comes to wanting to preserve and promote a distinctive Canadian broadcasting system, but a Canadian programming strategy has to be rooted in sound economics as well as profound conviction. Any Canadian broadcaster I know would surely prefer our Canadian programming to be watched by 300 million viewers in preference to three million. Well, it can be done.
I have not got the time, in the few minutes remaining to me, to go into detail but I can see the very real prospect of a flexibly-minded CRTC allowing Canadian broadcasters to invest, say 20 per cent or 33 per cent, in European television; there would, of course, have to be some ceiling; and they may be able to invest in our system too. It could be a very positive way for the regulatory authority to use its loosely-worded incentive system to tremendous advantage, to allow a good deal of Canadian broadcasting to be profitably seen in Europe and elsewhere around the world. Because, in the short run, the only way to safeguard our distinctive Canadian programming identity is to make it good enough so that Canadians will want to watch it and others, around the world, will want to buy it, Canadian broadcasters want to produce more, first-class and relevant Canadian programming. With proper funding, they can do it better and better and better; we know that. Given the proper financial environment, we Canadians can turn out a product which can compete with anything the world can fling at us. This is our challenge and Bill C-40 is, in many ways, an important step toward reaching it.
The industry wants this bill. It knows and we know and heaven knows the hon. members opposite know that it is not perfect but it is a start. Officially, as of the vote tomorrow, Bill C-40 will be in place as a piece of


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to rise to pre-empt my question with a number of concerns I have about this broadcasting legislation, Bill C-40.
On February 22,1990, the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation stated, after a $600,000 cut was announced, that the $600,000 cut will have an immediate and devastating impact on Canada's leading aboriginal television network. It went on to say that some of the best aboriginal producers and journalists in Canada will be victims of this budget.
There is no where else for them to go. I think, with the rumoured $200 million cut for CBC-even if it is $100 million-the impact will be equally devastating. There is a lot of competition with regard to the opportunities that exist in the CBC.
For people who have numerous years of experience, the aboriginal producers and journalists are relatively new to this game. They are few in numbers. As we all know, many of the aboriginal people who are employed in the public services and in central agencies or corporations are small in number. They are very small and are grossly under-represented.
Having said that, I want to know how it is that if the hon. member across the way believes in the level playing field, he can support a bill that essentially gives no legislative reference for CBC northern services and that gives no legislative reference or base for use of aboriginal languages.


Is it that the government would be encouraging CBC to review and look at the viability of broadcasting in aboriginal languages, even in areas where there are many unilingual individuals who depend on that service in their own language? How is it that an individual who has as much pride in Canada as I do-his identity as a Canadian is very important-the member opposite, can support not having an amendment in there for CBC's contribution to the development of national unity?
I just feel that this is morally indefensible. It does not speak well for a government that should be supporting a mandate for CBC northern service. Every single job in the north is important. We are in an area with one of the highest unemployment rates. People who train in journalism in the north are very employable. They do an excellent job in the areas that they are employed in.
The majority of those people who get training in the north are aboriginal people. How is it that they can call this a level playing field? How is it that they can justify and morally defend a broadcasting act that basically negates a legislative base for CBC northern service, the use of aboriginal languages and also the development of national unity?


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Western Arctic for her very sincerely put question.
I just point out that the last time I looked at this new broadcasting bill, Bill C-40, I saw for the very first time that aboriginal language rights and programming is recognized for the very first time in a broadcasting act.
One of the significant guidelines to the CRTC through Bill C-40 is by way of policy directive through the commission to give absolute priority to aboriginal programming rights, particularly in northern Canada. I think that this itself is testimony to the far greater importance that this Parliament and all future Parliaments must place on aboriginal peoples and programming rights.
I sense a whole new thrust here, through Bill C-40, toward preservation of Canadian programming and nothing could be more Canadian than the aboriginal rights and languages of which the hon. member speaks so eloquently.
Government Orders
I think the parliamentary secretary covered this point very effectively, on the national unity aspect of Bill C-40. Many motions were defeated in the committee to include and incorporate the words "national unity". The phrase was deliberately removed from the CBC's mandate in this bill based on recommendations from the Caplan-Sauvageau Ihsk Force and the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. Both concurred that the phrase national unity implied a political bias which was inappropriate to a public broadcaster.
Again, let me just assure the hon. member for Western Arctic that the whole purpose of Bill C-40 is to do the very best we can. It is not perfect. Nobody is suggesting that this bill covers all bases and that it cannot be subject to amendment down the road, as a government or the CKTC itself sees fit, but let me just reassure her that the whole thrust of this bill is to preserve and protect a distinctive Canadian cultural identity and that, first and foremost, includes the aboriginal languages and peoples of which the hon. member speaks so proudly and represents so significantly in this House.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I put this question to the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth whose speech I admired and whose contribution to this whole process I have admired since the days when he was a journalist and, beyond that, to opposition critic and later parliamentary secretary for Communications. I know he still has his ear to the ground and it is a very well tuned ear. Is he aware that not only are there no CBC budget cuts contemplated by the Government of Canada, but that the Government of Canada will be putting some funds into the CBC and that that will be part of the announcement to be made by the President of the CBC tomorrow.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his question. I have been locked into the House of Commons all this afternoon and this evening and, like the parliamentary secretary, any rumoured cuts to the CBC, I believe, should be more appropriately dealt with by the President of the CBC when they hold their formal announcements tomorrow.
I am a fan of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and I regret, as we all do, cuts when they have to come to this magnificent symbol of national importance and national unity in Canada, but cuts may have to come. They have come and gone over the years, the CBC has still survived and I have no doubt that the Canadian

Government Orders
Broadcasting Corporation will survive as one of the finest corporations in the world. I applaud whatever the CBC can do and I know it will survive, cuts or no cuts.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I compliment the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth on his sentiment. I just wish that I could believe that it will be followed through. I, too, am a long-time fan of the CBC, but I have great fear for its future. I also say to both the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth, if the hon. member for Hamilton- Wentworth has his ear to the ground, his shoulder to the wheel and his nose to the grindstone, he may soon need the services of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier who, as you know, is a chiropractor. I want to talk about my sorrow at this bill and the fact that this debate is winding to its close on an issue of such incredible importance to all Canadians.
I have spoken several times on this bill, at the amendment stage, at second reading, and so on. I keep coming back to the question of the national unity mandate in the Broadcasting Act and national unity as a mandate for the CBC.
The first example that comes to mind is the question of two standing committees of the board of directors of the CBC: one in French and one in English. Why? With all of the difficulties we are experiencing in this country in understanding each other, why should our government legislate to make that understanding even more difficult? Why are we institutionalizing a particularly Canadian kind of apartheid within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and doing it at the behest of government? It is insanity. It is unacceptable, and Canadians do not want to see it.
The kind of cutbacks that we are looking at can result in the cancellation of the parliamentary channel. The cutbacks that are being reported by Newsworld, the cutbacks that are being reported by The World at Six-


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: That is false.


Mary Catherine Clancy: False, you tell me they are false? Perhaps the hon. parliamentary secretary can stand in this House and tell me that Radio Canada International is safe. Perhaps he can tell me that the parliamentary channel is safe and, most particularly, perhaps he can tell me that regional stations such as Charlottetown, Sydney, Yellowknife, western stations and Inuvik are safe. I do not mean just safe until tomorrow. I do not mean just safe until Christmas Eve or until old Christmas Day in January.
This is not some twelfth night safety we are looking at. We want to know that they are safe in some form of perpetuity. Safe is not safe for two weeks. We want to know they are safe. The parliamentary secretary will get his chance. We want to know that they are safe, and I will talk more about the dangers to regional programming.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Blame the CBC.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Yes, blame the CBC. Here we go with the old arm's length again.
According to clause 31 (m) of this bill, programming provided by the CBC is supposed to reflect Canada and its regions. We will no doubt hear from the parliamentary secretary during questions and comments. I look forward to that with great alacrity. However, tonight Canadians heard via the CBC, via Newsworld on television and The Word at Six on radio, that there was a very strong rumour that 10 regional stations were going to be cut.
Those of us in the Atlantic have a paranoia about this government. I use the word paranoia perhaps advisedly, because it is a well-known saying in Atlantic Canada that just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you. We have discovered that, to our sorrow.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Try western Canada.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Western Canada. If the gentleman opposite would care to come and spend some time in Atlantic Canada, he would know what true hardship is. I love western Canada and I greatly admire members from western Canada but, believe me, we can show the problems that government neglect or, God forbid, direct government action against you can do to your economy and to your faith in what government is supposed to do.
I want to talk about what could happen in Atlantic Canada. I will give one example. What if Sydney is cut? Sydney on Cape Breton Island, the home of my ancestors, the place where I first learned to listen to CBC radio as a small child. One of the things that comes out of CBI in Sydney is Celtic programming, part of the regional reflection provided by the CBC. A certain number of hours per week has contributed quite significantly to the Celtic revival on Cape Breton Island. Indeed, more people on Cape Breton speak the Gaelic than speak it in Scotland where it originated. It was carried on by oral tradition down through the generations and then with the help of the CBC and St. Francis Xavier University and the University College of Cape Breton, the language has been revived and brought back.


This is a wonderful reflection of respect for one of the many diverse cultures in this country.
The fact that it happens to be part of my culture is something that makes me feel very good. If CBC in Sydney is cut, what happens to that programming? Somehow I have the feeling that there are not a whole lot of Gaelic speakers floating around Jarvis Street in Toronto who would be prepared to take up the slack.
You may think I am being facetious here, but I am not. Aside from a number of members on this side of the House and even a few members on that side of the House, one of the ways that the Celtic culture has enriched Canadian public life is by producing one of the greatest political leaders in this country, who is currently showing his great political leadership and his tremendous support for the views of the Canadian people. I refer, of course, to the hon. opposition leader in the other place, Senator Allan J. MacEachen.
I am waiting for the parliamentary secretary when he gets his turn to tell me not to worry, that this is not going to happen, that Sydney is safe, that Gander is safe, that all sorts of regional stations are safe. I want to hear this and I will heave a great sigh of relief. Without these regional stations, how will the west understand the Atlantic?
The parliamentary secretary made it clear that he did not quite understand until I explained it to him. How will central Canada understand the regions? Who will speak for Canada in its diversity?
Diversity is not a dirty word. Diversity is a word that reflects our strength. It is not disunity. Two languages and many cultures are not disunity. They are not and do not have to be forces that break us up. They can be forces that bring us together and give us a magnificent cultural resources upon which to draw and with which to educate our children. I resent this deeply, that diversity should be looked upon as something that should then be compartmentalized instead of used to pull us together.
Government Orders
My life has been enriched by the CBC. It was enriched in childhood with programs like Uncle Chichimus-


An hon. member:: Chez Helene.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I am going to get to her, but not for a bit yet.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Just Mary Stories.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Just Mary Stories, absolutely. Maggie Muggins and Farmer McGarrity. Did you watch it too? Hidden Pages, with Beth Philanders, that introduced Canadian children to the great classics in English literature. I understand there were comparable programs in Radio-Canada to introduce children to classics in French literature.
On radio, even before the advent of television-I hate to admit that I can remember this, but I can-there was a program Cuckoo Clock House where children again were read to by wonderful actors who made the stories and the richness of our cultural past come alive to us. We hear about Susanna Moodie and we heard about Katherine Partrayal, women who helped build Canada. We heard about the great Entendent in Quebec. We heard about Jeanne Mance on these programs. We heard about Canadian history and that was a force for Canadian unity. I remembered when I was lucky enough to make my first visit to Quebec City in university. I remembered the stories that I had heard on CBC radio about the early days of Quebec being told to me as an anglophone child in one of the other regions of the country, and that made me know that Quebec was a very special part of my country too.
CBC enriched my life because as a small child home from school through snowstorms or through illnesses, I developed my lifelong devotion to news programs, listening in the early 1950s to a great big console radio and hearing the horrific reports from the wars in Korea and Indochina. This gave me and a lot of other people of my generation a life-long commitment to the cause of peace. That came from the CBC as well.

Government Orders
As a teenager I was becoming aware of my country and its differences, watching the various programs that came from different parts of the country, whether it was Land and Sea from the Atlantic, whether it was broadcasts relating to farms and agriculture from the west, whether it was programs relating to different cultural events in the north-not as many as we should have had but enough-whether it was Front Page Challenge or Hockey Night in Canada, it gave you a sense of being Canadian.
The CBC enriched my life when I was a graduate student in the United Kingdom. We would stay up- there were about 10 of us at the London School of Economics in the mid-1970s-to listen to Radio Canada International, because it was our connection to our country, to find out what was going on, to hear the day-to-day news of the country, and to listen to the hockey games. Also, because our friends from other countries came to listen, it gave a certain portrait of our country to others who got a better understanding in the international sense of what it was to be a Canadian.
Earlier the parliamentary secretary mentioned in his comments that A1 Johnson in 1980, under the national unity mandate, kept integrity in CBC's journalism and covered the issue of Quebec and the referendum fairly.
This does not surprise me. You do not need to take national unity out of the Broadcasting Act, out of CBC's mandate, to ensure that CBC will cover things fairly. I know the member for Hamilton-Wentworth agrees with that, but the mistake is that you are putting the cart before the horse. You are saying that national unity somehow hampers journalistic integrity. In all the years of the CBC's existence it has not done that. Why should it start doing it now?
Mr. Speaker, you know, I know, and every member of this House knows that no one wants the CBC to slant news. We do not want the CBC to interpret the national unity mandate in its news coverage. The argument that it would do so is specious. It is not fair or worthy of the kind of news coverage CBC radio and television have given us as Canadians over the years. It is not worthy of any member of this House, and I do not think any member of this House truly believes it.
What we are talking about in a national unity mandate has always been handled well within the context of news coverage. What really happens within the context of news coverage on national unity is that the CBC reports
events and thoughts of one region of the country to another and back and forth to the centre.
National unity also equals cultural programming in music, drama, and public affairs. It is in effect saying: "Winnipeg, this is what Halifax thinks", "Yellowknife, this is what Shawinigan cares about", "Vancouver, listen to what is irritating St. John's, Newfoundland," and today it is quite a bit.
I resent this evisceration of yet another cornerstone of our nation's infrastructure. I resent the pious mouthings of the government that by breaking down we improve. We have an expression in Nova Scotia that I think the rest of you in this country have heard: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Well, CBC ain't broke yet, try as some people have.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: It will be.


Mary Catherine Clancy: And Canadians do not want the government to fix it.
The member for Hamilton-Wentworth talked about competition and whether we can compete. I am astounded at this member who is a journalist and has been a journalist whom I have admired and respected and still do for many years. He is certainly much more senior to me. We can compete. We do compete. We compete now, and we compete internationally in every possible facet of the CBC's production. Degrassi High competes. Street Legal competes. CBC news and The Journal compete. Sports coverage competes. The world acknowledges that no one, for example, films and presents ballet better than the CBC.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Or hockey.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Hockey, of course. That goes without saying.
As the member for Hamilton-Wentworth said, CBC radio is the finest in the world. I agree, absolutely. I received what little journalistic experience I have had in training on CBC radio, and it remains one of the fondest memories of my previous existence.
What is this ridiculous contention that we are not competitive, that we need that ghastly phrase which I hope will soon be wiped from the Canadian lexicon, a level playing field. We do not need a level playing field. If we are at the bottom of the hill and they are at the top, we can still get over the top faster than they can. We compete. We do better.


I hate to sound like a Torontonian, but the CBC is truly world-class. Are we to give up our kind of programming for some sort of Bart Armstrong of Amprior or Roseanne of Rosedale? Is this what you want? Is this what competition means? Good heavens, Mr. Speaker, this cannot be true.
I said before I was going to mention Chez Helene. I have to admit that by the time Chez Helene came on television, I was a little too old for that kind of programming, but I frequently watched it with the children I baby sat, and I watched it later with my godchildren and other younger members of my family.
I think the cancellation of Chez Helene shows a particular tragedy in our Canadian communication and culture experience. Chez Helene was an example of how the CBC could be used for us to speak to each other. What better vehicle to promote national unity than to have small children right across this country start learning communication skills so that they can use those communication skills to talk to each other-the two major language groups in this country.
That is what we need to do, to settle this distemper of our times that we are living in. We need to talk to each other. We need to listen to each other. We need to understand each other's terms of reference. We need to understand each other's hopes and aspirations.
We particularly need to know that they are not very different, that what brings us together is so much stronger than what pulls us apart. What we need to know is that there are institutions that can help us do that. We know, because it has been proven, that the CBC is one of the institutions that has always helped us do that.
This is one of the most important bills that we will see in this House in this session. It goes to the very root and heart of what Canadianism is and it goes to the very root and heart of whether Canadianism is going to grow, thrive and blossom, or whether it is going to wither on the vine.
I do not want to see it wither on the vine. I know you do not, Mr. Speaker. The member for Hamilton-Wentworth does not; the parliamentary secretary does not; my colleagues on both sides of the House do not. We are all here in this Chamber because we want to see our country and its citizens enrich themselves and thrive.
Government Orders
It does that by knowing why we are here and not being afraid to say that national unity is not only something each one of us subscribes to; not only something that each one of us prays for every night; but it is something that we are prepared to look at our national institutions and say, "Yes, you have a mandate to assist and foster national unity for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast".
I hope, Mr. Speaker, in this year of grace 1990, words like that are not said too late. I hope that words like that will not fall on deaf ears.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to hear from our lady of sorrows, the hon. member for Halifax who was lamenting about the damage that could be done to national unity by Bill C-40.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this narrow-minded opinion is the manifestation of a Christian inspired cult.

That having been said, I think that it is up to the committees of the boards of the CBC. I stress that no one is proposing splitting the boards. I know the hon. member has studied the bill well enough to know that any such committees would be governed according to the bylaws of the corporation, and that they would be participated in by the president and the chairman of the corporation.
I would submit to the hon. member for Halifax that it is in those committees of the boards that we can best put our hopes for a restoration of programs like Chez Helene, or perhaps something more appropriate for today's time.
I was intrigued to listen to the hon. member, who brought back a number of memories of some of my favourite shows. Many of the examples,-with two exceptions- Front Page Challenge and Hockey Night in Canada are programs which have been on the air since 1968.
I picked that year very deliberately, not to get personal about ages here or viewing habits connected with ages, because we all age at roughly the same rate I think, Mr. Speaker.

Government Orders


Mary Catherine Clancy: Some of us started earlier.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Some start earlier.
The point is that the programs that my hon. friend referred to have not been on the air since 1968. It was in 1968 that the phrase "national unity" was put in as part of the CBC's mandate. We have not had a flourishing of the kinds of programs that show one of us to another during the run of the Broadcasting Act of 1968.
Obviously it has not been taken seriously by those who would want to unite the country. I put my question to my hon. friend: Is the problem not a lack of access to network time rather than anything else?
That was the finding the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture arrived at when it travelled the country in 1986 and 1987 holding hearings into broadcasting policy and legislation in this country. Would it not be sensible to have another look at the structure of the corporation and how it delivers its programs to see if there is not a better way of serving regional needs, perhaps through satellite to cable networks, showing the regions of the country one to another?
I would like to know whether the hon. member has, for example, examined the West German system where you can indeed, Mr. Speaker, see a regional service in one region and in another region. The common system is an alliance of all the regions. I wonder if the hon. member has examined that and whether she has another model to propose that would better overcome the regionality difficulty that we have.
The issue is not unity, because unity will flow from an understanding of each other. I think we are on the same wave length there. Unity will definitely flow if we understand and appreciate each other. When the Hon. Flora MacDonald, with her Gaelic roots, brought in Bill C-136 she put forward the idea that we should stimulate national consciousness and identity rather than compelling a commitment to national unity.
It was her authorship and not the current minister's authorship that brought about that change. Would she not agree that it is putting the cart before the horse to demand that national unity occur as a precondition when, in fact, you cannot even conceive of unity unless you have an appreciation one of the other.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, actually there are so many questions in the hon. parliamentary secretary's intervention that I am wondering if we can get unanimous consent to give me another 20 minutes. Just kidding.
I certainly will get to his comments and his question, but I also am a little disappointed because I did not hear a denial of the cuts to the regions. I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, all my colleagues in the House that I did say I was prepared to take his denial. We did not get it, and I guess here I am again being a typical Nova Scotian remembering that just because we are paranoid, it does not mean they are not out to get us.
I have actually seen the west German system. My German is not good enough to really make a comment. I have done some reading on the particular system. I think it is interesting, but I would not be prepared at this point to suggest whether that system could replace the system that has evolved.
I am not quite sure what the hon. parliamentary secretary was on about when he talked about Front Page Challenge and Hockey Night in Canada vis-a-vis 1968. The fact that the national unity mandate came into existence in 1968 does not mean that it was not being followed in spirit before. The problem with removing it is that when we take something away, particularly in these troubled times in this country, we are making a statement. Whether the government admits it, whether the parliamentary secretary admits it, we are making a statement that speaks volumes.
The former member for Kingston and the Islands is not here now. It is not the same time that it was when she brought in her bill. I am not discussing that bill. I am discussing this one. I think every one of us knows that the removal of the term "national unity" from the CBC's mandate has and will continue to have a pejorative for Canadians. It will continue to make Canadians say, "If the government does not believe that CBC has to have a mandate for national unity, what does that say for the government's view of this country?"
Are we a community of communities or are we a nation? I believe we are a nation. I believe we are a nation that is going through a very difficult time. I do not want us to be a community of communities. I want us to be a bilingual, multicultural, diverse, intense, exciting, flourishing Canada. I want us to be a country that looks after and fosters every Canadian's response to the communication and the culture of this country.


Government Orders
I remind the member for Hamilton-Wentworth that in spite of his comments about aboriginal issues, and the fact that he seems to think that this bill does so much, Motions Nos. 18, 19 and 20 were turned down by the government. Motion No. 18 says, "Broadcasting services reflecting aboriginal cultures and representative native languages shall be provided where numbers warrant". It was defeated. "Native cultures and representative native languages should be provided" was defeated. Motion No. 20, proposed by the New Democratic Party also relating to the protection and preservation of an aboriginal presence was defeated.
We can say many things but in our hearts every one of us knows the question is: is there a commitment to national unity, is there a willingness to stand up and be counted, is there a willingness to say, "This is what we want as Canadians"? I am afraid not, not in this bill, and that is very sad.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, it has been a long day for us all and I wish to thank you for providing me with this opportunity to participate in the third reading debate of Bill C-40. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, this bill comes to us as a result of the Caplan-Sauvageau commission's report, as well as four reports tabled by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
The purpose of the bill is to replace the 1968 Broadcasting Act, a law which no longer reflects the rapidly evolving nature of the communications industry. However, the bill is seriously flawed. As we have seen in the report stage debate, it is in bad need of amendments. Indeed, Bill C-40, if passed will seriously undermine Canada's national fabric and it will help divide and balkanize Canadians at a crucial moment in our history. Moreover, our broadcasting system will become one more casualty in the long list of Tory blunders. In fact, the new definition of broadcasting, contained in clause 2 of the bill, is defined broadly to include the transmission and reception of programs, other than by means of radiocommunication. In other words, the hard-wire or closed-circuit transmissions previously considered to be under provincial jurisdiction will now be covered by the new broadcasting law.
As well, undertakings by cable companies or broadcasters will be divided into programming and non-programming functions. This is a rejection of conventional legal practice which has regarded such undertakings as indivisible. You will surely agree, Mr. Speaker, that this change promises to be a source of major headaches in the future.
The 1968 Broadcasting Act required that the CBC, and I quote, "contribute to the development of national unity". We have heard a lot about that clause today and over the past days in debate. Unfortunately, all reference to this has been eliminated from Bill C-40. As Liberals, we believe that the developing of a national personality, identity, and consciousness are best brought about with the help of broadcasting agency, mandated to contribute to the development of national unity.
Given its geographic, demographic and cultural characteristics, Canada needs strong national institutions such as the CBC to weave all the regions and all the diverse participants in our society into a unified network. It is obvious that Canada could never have become a distinct, sovereign, and prosperous nation from coast to coast had we not had government involvement and institutions to help offset the permanent attraction of the United States.
As I said during the report stage debate, this country is the fruit of the efforts of our forefathers to build a nation, from east to west. To overcome the daunting task of uniting the country, successive governments gave us a national railway, a post office, a national radio and television network, a national airline, as well as a variety of measures which contributed to the development of the Canada that we know and the Canada that we love. A rapid overview of the institutions which I have just mentioned reveals nothing but the scorched earth which the Tories have left behind them.
Another serious flaw of Bill C-40-one which I might add also undermines national unity-is the creation of separate standing committees on English and French-language broadcasting at the CBC. The result of this change will only serve to isolate Canadians from each other. Furthermore, it is contrary to clause 3(l)(i) which confirms that the CBC programming should, and I quote, "contribute to shared national consciousness and identity".

Government Orders
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian government, back in 1967, rejected the concept of two separate standing committees at the CBC. At that time the then minister, the hon. Judy LaMarsh, explained why this was a policy of the Liberal government. She said, and I quote:
A statutory requirement that the Board should split up into two, would, in the opinion of the Government, be undesirable. If the CBC is to be an instrument for the development of national unity and the continuing expression of Canadian identity, it must have a clear identity of its own that is neither French nor English but Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree that the Conservative government could indeed learn a number of important lessons from this great Canadian. As a matter of fact, even new CBC Board Chairman Patrick Watson said to the standing committee last March that such separation would be harmful because it would be telling one and all that English and French programming would meet different needs and policies.
He went on to say, and I quote: "Such is not the case, and we want to be able to say that we do have co-operation, a series of policies". As we have explained before, one of the most serious flaws of this bill it that it refuses to acknowledge the various CBC services. That is the approach taken by the government and, this needs to be emphasized, it is contrary to the recommendations made in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture released in 1987.
Not only does the government refuse to acknowledge these services, but it has completely forgotten all about my own province, New Brunswick. This province is the only one in Canada which does not have its own televison station wholly owned and operated by the CBC English network.
This is why New Brunswickers have to be satisfied with listening to the CBC English programs over Saint John's station CHSJ.
Given the francophone and anglophone make-up of the population of New Brunswick and the mandate of the CBC, it does not seem very fair that the province not be allowed to have a network station. In fact the situation is clearly intolerable.
Even though the CBC appropriations have been slashed, the fact remains that New Brunswick still needs a CBC station. The federal government still has to show the political will to respond to that need.
Mr. Speaker, another harmful aspect of this bill is the Balkanization, so to speak, and regionalization of the CRTC. This legislation provides that the executive of the CRTC, that is to say all the permanent members, will no longer be involved in the decision-making process. Instead, his power will be put in the hands of groups of three people. Such decentralized and regionalized decision structure will result in a loss of national consciousness, political fragmentation between regions and the creation of an environment that will not be favourable to the development of a national broadcasting system.
Another serious shortcoming of this legislation is that it would foster the Americanization of our broadcasting system. As you know, Mr. Speaker, our broadcasting was always organized along an East-West axis to make it truly Canadian.
Unfortunately, Bill C-40 imposes no limit to the importation of bradcasting services from the United-States. That too goes against the recommendations of the Standing Committe on Communications and Culture.
As we have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this legislation contains several flaws. However, the amendments we proposed would have improved it considerably. The government, in its wisdom, did not see fit to accept these amendments and Canada stands to loose the most in the end.

In closing, I would like to just reiterate two major points. One is that we have heard a lot about national unity this evening and in previous debates. We have heard the position of the Conservative government and Conservative members talking about taking out the national unity mandate from the CBC. We have heard that it wanted it out because it was a propaganda clause and it did not think it was suitable.
We have heard the Liberal position, that we thought it was a must, seeing that the country was so divided and that it was good to see some national institutions trying to promote national unity.

The NDP. Well, we know it is just a tag-along party anyway and we would like to look at them as the great pretenders. That is what we do with them. We do not know what its positions are on national unity. It depends upon whether they are speaking in Quebec or outside Quebec. It depends upon whether they are speaking English or whether they are speaking French. It is very confusing.
I would speak a little bit about the national unity issue and whether or not it should be in the Broadcasting Act. I sat back here and asked: "What's wrong with a little bit of propaganda about national unity? What's wrong with an agency promoting national unity?"
We all know that the right hon. Prime Minister does not really want to come out and defend Canada in certain provinces. We know that he does not want to promote national unity in some cases. Is he now putting out that philosophy to his members and asking them to make sure that the institutions do not promote national unity either? Is this why they are taking the national unity clause out of the mandate of the CBC? I wonder about that.
The other question I want to address in closing is the government's strategy with regard to CBC. Whenever things get tough, it has a policy of saying that the CBC and the government are at arm's length and that it cannot do anything about it.
We have heard rumours tonight that there could be cuts of over $200 million to CBC. We have heard rumours that this would lead to cutbacks in the regional stations throughout Canada. In fact, the number 10 was used, four of them in Atlantic Canada.
I note with a little bit of sadness the strategy that the members from the government side seem to want to expound during difficult times and that is that it is not the government that is cutting programming at CBC. No, it is not the government. The CBC is making those decisions. Well, let us make it very clear. The government provides the funding for the CBC. The government is saying: "Your funds are being cut." The CBC then has to make a commitment with what it has have left to work with. That is what the situation is.
Government Orders
I will end on that note. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being so attentive. I hope in all wisdom that all hon. members in the House will vote against this bill.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Restigouche- Chaleur on his appointment as assistant critic for his party.

I very briefly want to correct the record, Mr. Speaker. I know the hon. member did not intend it this way, but the record needs to be corrected. The Prime Minister does want to promote Canadianism and national unity and his very actions speak to that. It was Caplan and Sauvageau who made the recommendation that the change take place. They were supported by a former CBC president, A1 Johnson, and by the standing committee, including the hon. member for Mount Royal.
On this question of these putative cuts, I think the record needs to be corrected as well, in that sense. The impression sought to be portrayed here tonight-and it is an unfortunate situation-is that the government has somehow intended, or will cut, the CBC's budget by figures of up to $200 million. That is absolute nonsense.
Whatever announcement the CBC makes tomorrow or tonight-whenever the CBC management chooses to make it-does not involve any government cuts in government funding. The only cut in government funding to CBC that is contemplated to take place is the $1.7 million in funding for the Persian Gulf activity of our armed forces. That was announced last week. I might say that CBC was less affected by that proportionately than many other government agencies and departments.
Those are my comments. I just wanted to conclude by again congratulating the hon. member on his appointment as associate critic for his party for communications.


Guy H. Arseneault: I have a few short comments, Mr. Speaker. I must thank the parliamentary secretary for his kind words, but there are two things that I want to reiterate. I suppose we could debate all night and I would not mind actually.


Government Orders
I am not going to debate the point about the Prime Minister. That is very debatable and a lot of people across Canada share my view. The hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned there was a recommendation in one of the reports which said that we take out the national unity mandate. It is fine to pick and choose here and there. There were many more recommendations in those reports that were never instituted. In fact, some of those recommendations were brought forth as amendments by the Liberal Party and the hon. members voted against them.
The other thing I would like to point out is in regard to CBC cuts. I guess we should look at the record of the government. The cuts were made in the last budget and what could be happening is the announcements are working their way out right now. The cuts were made in the past and now the CBC has to contend with those cuts. They find they are having a difficult time. The government is forcing them to cut back on programs by not giving them the proper funding.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for giving such an eloquent speech and for his very thoughtful comments.
I would like to ask him in comparison to the comments made by the spokesperson for the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, Mr. Ian Morrison, in an article he wrote indicates that 80 per cent of the time a Canadian child watches television is spent watching American programs. For almost as much time as that child goes to school he or she is exposed to a foreign culture, to someone else's values, to another country's views about what is right and what is wrong, to life in Los Angeles, New York, or Miami. Is that what we really want for our children? Absorbing the pictures, scenes, and viewpoints of another people is no way to build a sense of belonging in Canada.
All American television is not bad, but what about our own country, our dreams, our values? What about life in Halifax, Sudbury, or Edmonton?
He also suggests a necessary signal would be the appointment of new leadership to the corporation combining non-partisanship, public broadcasting experience, management flare, an ability to capture the public's
imagination. But much more important, the new leadership must be given the resources to fill the CBC's statutory mandate.
Having said that, I think in the appointment of the president, Mr. Veilleux, we have many of those qualities, but the only thing that is completely out of kilter with this whole suggestion is this. Mr. Veilleux is not being given the resources to see out the CBC statutory mandate. He is being put into a comer where he has threatened to cut the parliamentary channel. He has pressed the right buttons because this is a president who is very astute politically, who knows where the raw nerve of politicians and governments are.
I ask the hon. member what he feels about my suggestion that we indeed have the kind of leadership we need and the expertise and the valued experience of the president, Mr. Veilleux, but we do not have the commitment of government for him to see out that mandate of CBC.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Western Arctic for her comments and her questions.
I quite agree with most of what she had to say. When we look at some of the problems we are having in Canada today in national unity, part of it is a lack of understanding of other cultures that exist in Canada. Part of that lack of understanding comes from not knowing enough information.
Part of the information that come to our children come via television. I think it is very important that we get more Canadian programming. It is fine to say that 80 per cent of our viewing time for small children is Americanized. I do not want to put down the Americans, do not get me wrong. They have some good programs, but what about our own culture? What about the cultures of other people that exist in Canada? What about the far north, the far west? I come from eastern Canada. If my children cannot experience it in person, they should at least have the opportunity of being able to experience it through the media.
We are world leaders in telecommunications. We always were. I am afraid to say that with this Bill C-40 we are taking a step backwards.


Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: It gives me great pleasure to stand in the House tonight and give my views on Bill C-40, the Broadcasting Act. There is absolutely no doubt that we need to introduce new legislation to modernize regulations that affect that particular industry. The technology in this industry has advanced at an incredible pace in the last 20 years without any major reforms to the laws that regulate it.
I have to be honest and say that Bill C-40 will bring some good changes. However, it fails in many other aspects. I am specifically making reference to the elimination of the national unity clause for CBC, the creation of two programming committees for French and English within CBC's board and the duality of powers by the Governor in Council over the CRTC. These are three major concerns that I want to bring forward to the House regarding this bill.
The 1969 Broadcasting Act required that the CBC contribute to the development of national unity. This reference has been dropped in Bill C-40. I believe that developing its national personality and building its sense of national identity and consciousness are factors needed to build Canadian national unity. We need a strong national institution like the CBC to weave all regions and the diverse participants in Canadian society into one unified force.
Arguments have been made that the national unity laws will cause what the Minister of Communications called intolerable interference and a constrain on freedom of expression.
We have seen in the last year extensive coverage by the CBC on issues which have severely divided our country. Examples are the Meech Lake Accord, the Brockville incident and, obviously, the clause on national unity did not interfere in any way with the coverage CBC gave to these events.
Pierre Juneau, the former President of the CBC, said he had no trouble with the national unity mandate during the time that he held his post. I fail to see any credible reason for eliminating the present national mandate of the CBC.
The Chairman of the Communications and Culture Committee has said: "Removing the pursuit of national unity as an objective of the Crown owned radio and television network has a negative connotation about unity. Dropping such a phrase now would indicate we are
Government Orders
going in two separate ways. It would be most unfortunate.". He said that on May 9, 1990.
Now, if the government will not listen to the opposition or industry experts perhaps it should listen to the member of its own caucus and also the Chairman of the Communications and Culture Committee.
To remove the national unity clause is to say that there is no Canadian unity and, therefore, no common values that Canadians share from coast to coast to coast. I do not believe that that is the case. We certainly have our differences and that is healthy. However, the share of values that we hold as a nation have to be well represented through our national institutions and that is what CBC is, a national institution. Let us keep the national unity clause where it is.
I also want to state that I disagree with the creation of two separate standing committees on English and French language programming at the CBC. CBC executives have also expressed their disagreement with this form of management. Why create two committees to administer the CBC? While the CBC is trying to cut operation costs because of this government's budget slashing, I fail to see how this committee system will aid CBC management in its own objective of cutting costs. In fact, I think that it will probably cause an overlapping of work and increased administrative costs. I do not see any particular purpose to this two-committee system, other than it seems to continue promoting division within the country.
Patrick Watson, the Chairman of CBC, had this to say about the two-committee system: "This is perhaps the most outstanding and strongly felt concern of our board on the proposal that there be created a French and English programing standing committee within the board of CBC."
Gerard Veilleux stated the following regarding the same issue: "I do not know how to tell you that I do not look forward with a great deal of enthusiasm to having to split my staff, the staff of the CBC and Radio-Canada, and I say to you that this is very, very dangerous."
Finally, Keith Spicer, who said: "Personally, I would not be in favour of creating two separate committees." Therefore, I think at some point, in addition to a very strong, secure representative and representation of the English and French sides of things, we must have a national view as well.

Government Orders
The last thing Canadians need at this point in time is a further erosion of national institutions like the CBC which plays an integral role in unifying this country by promoting our common values.
I also object to provisions of Bill C-40 which will reduce the term of office for the president of CBC and the chairman of the CRTC to five years compared to the previous seven-year term. It is important that both these agencies keep their ability to operate at arm's length from the government.
Furthermore, a seven-year term brings more stability and consistency with both organizations. I believe that the seven-year term should be restored.
The government has also failed to ensure, in Bill C-40, the continued presence of the parliamentary service, Radio Canada International, an all news service and a northern service. All these services are important to a country which is geographically large and serves to unite Canadians from one region to another.
Furthermore, the submission is contrary to the unanimous recommendation of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in its 1987 sixth report. I am particularly concerned about the parliamentary channel which is considered a key window for Canadians to view Parliament and its proceedings.
Through this particular service, all Canadians have the ability to examine what their representatives are saying in our national forum, the House of Commons. I believe that it helps Canadians to better understand the issues and events that shape our country and our world.
Bill C-40 also fails to recognize the right to Canada's aboriginal peoples to receive service and representative native languages where numbers warrant and as public funds become available.
Liberals believe that the maintenance and support of the aboriginal languages and, through them, the transmission of native cultures is so important that the new broadcasting act must provide such a strong affirmation.
The northern services which extend to 98 per cent of all Canadians living in northern Canada is omitted from Bill C-40. In the northern region of our country, this channel provides services to 100,000 natives and non-natives in seven different languages. As well, CBC northern services produce recordings of native singers and musicians.
Many of the native languages and cultures are being forgotten and threatened by extinction. This government has the duty to do everything in its power to help aboriginal people to preserve and promote their language and culture. Also, I am particularly perturbed about the dual powers of review by cabinet over CRTC decisions.
This new power will jeopardize CRTC's ability to cany out its role as an expert in an independent, quasi-judicial body. If Bill C-40 becomes law, the cabinet will have the right to issue policy direction to the CRTC while retaining the right to set aside a decision of the commission on the basis that the decision derogates the attainment of the objectives of the broadcasting policy or of a direction issue to the commission.
Giving these dual powers to cabinet is potentially very dangerous to the Canadian broadcasting system. The power to review CRTC decisions puts the independence of the commission in jeopardy. It is extremely crucial for the commission to be independent and appear independent from any political interference.
It is not acceptable to leave the impression that the CRTC is being directly or indirectly controlled by the government. The commission was created because there was a need for a body to regulate in a consistent and non-political approach.
As far back as 1928, the Aird Report noted that this independence would also protect the government of the day from any political pressure inevitably exerted upon it as it ensures that the competing arguments put forward to the decision makers are weighed as objectively as possible.
If Bill C-40 is adopted, it will create a very dangerous precedent in the way the government establishes its relationship with organizations functioning at arm's length with the government.
I believe that the independence of the CRTC is seriously undermined through this legislation. The loss

of independence will result in a disruption of the present functioning of the system. The government is placing itself in a position that will promote the perception in the general public and in the industry of favouritism through political means. The public and the industry expect the CRTC to look at all views without interference. This objective is compromised under this new legislation.
The CRTC is strongly opposed to the dual power of cabinet. In its presentation to the legislative committee it pointed out the consequences of giving these powers to cabinet, and I quote: "The government of the day needs an independent regulator in broadcasting if it does not want to find itself besieged by long lines of petitioners and complainants who, perceiving the commission to have become a mere anti-chamber of power, would ignore the commission's public procedures in favour of lobbying within private cabinet corridors. It could also lead to a belief that decisions, some of them of fundamental consequences, are not being made in a dispassionate way, openly, and in the interests of the communications system as a whole, but are being dictated or influenced by parochial political pressures".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I apologize but I am not sure if the member intends to speak for 20 minutes or to split his time with his colleague.


Bob Wood: I intend to speak for 10 minutes and I would like to share the time with my fellow member from the Arctic.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: One moment please! I would like to make sure that this is understood. You want to speak for ten minutes and your colleague as well. In that case, I must cut you short and recognize the other member, if that is what was agreed. Does the House agree?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In that case, I recognize the hon. member for Western Arctic for a 10-minute period.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred to defer to my colleague because he is so learned and eloquent on the matters of broadcasting, being a former broadcaster, if one can ever be a former broadcaster, for that matter.
Government Orders
In relation to Bill C-40, I have three major concerns with this new broadcasting legislation. There is no legislative base because the amendments were defeated in three areas: the CBC northern services, no legislation or amendment for the use of aboriginal languages although there is reference in the text of the Broadcasting Act to it, and no legislation for CBC's contribution to the development of national unity. I find that quite sad and quite a sorry statement for the institution of national unity.
I would like to establish a case for there being an amendment with reference to CBC northern services. I cannot understand why there is no legislation for the CBC northern services. CBC northern services are responsible for CBC services throughout Yukon, Northwest Territories, and northern Quebec, over one-quarter of the land mass of Canada. What does that include in the Northwest Territories? Most communities in the N.W.T. receive both radio and television service. Anti D satellite capacity is leased by the CBC to cany radio and television signals for the Northwest Territories. Through CBC's accelerated coverage program, all communities with a population of over 500 now have a satellite receiving dish and low-level transmitter. Similar equipment is supplied to communities of under 500 through the Government of the Northwest Territories Department of Culture and Communications.
The CBC operates four radio production stations in the Northwest Territories. Programming is produced in Yellowknife for the Mackenzie region, Inuvik for the Mackenzie Delta, Iqaluit for Baffin Island and Eastern Arctic, and Rankin Inlet for the Keewatin.
Yellowknife, Inuvik, and Iqaluit produce daily northern newscasts and current affairs programs in English and a variety of northern aboriginal languages. General programming is a mix of northern and national production. The CBC access policy provides equipment, training, and access to CBC radio transmitters to allow remote communities to turn off CBC and substitute their own programming.
Some 30 community radio services are in operation. There is one commercial AM radio station in the Northwest Territories, in Yellowknife. A commercial cable television company also operates in Yellowknife with 10 channels supplied to subscribe to through satellite. Local programming is produced and pay television is available in Hay River, Fort Smith, Iqaluit, Inuvik who also have cable television. CBC television has northern production studios in Yellowknife, and national programming is uplinked from Toronto on two channels. Inuit Broadcasting Corporation with production studios in Iqaluit has been given access to the eastern Arctic,


Government Orders
Keewatin channel at various times during the week. Some programs are simultaneously broadcasted in English and northern native languages through the use of CBC Radio.
In the spring of 1981, native organizations in the western N.W.T. received CRTC approval to broadcast through the Cancom system. The Native Communication Society of the western Arctic in Yellowknife subsequently developed a training program for native people interested in radio and television. They now have a full-scale operational radio studio and full day broadcast, including three hours in live programming with the news and aboriginal programming.
Inuvialuit Communication Society in the Inuvik region established in 1983, has the television production studio in Inuvik and has broadcast through the CBC network since 1985.
With all this, the government does not believe legislation is required. This is very confusing for many people, with the amount of activity and the amount of resources that have been expended to train people to deliver programs in a very challenging field, the field of aboriginal languages. Even developing the terminology to accommodate modem concepts is being denied the opportunity to flourish.
My specific concern with regard to national unity is best expressed by one of my constituents who on July 24, 1989 wrote a letter to the Prime Minister. She wrote: "I am writing to protest the budget cuts to the CBC contained in your government's Budget". Even at that time, that was a concern. She said that the CBC plays an essential role in maintaining Canada's identity as a separate nation from the United States and that this role would become even more important as free trade erodes our identity as Canadians. "Please reconsider your intent to slash the CBC's funding and ensure the CBC receives the resources required to continue to act as a strong, cultural unifying force for Canada." This was put forward by one of my constituents.
I have received numerous concerns from my constituents, one of whom is a broadcaster and a person who works in the field of broadcasting. He takes much exception to the whole idea of privatization of CBC. This constituent is not only a broadcaster, but also an artist and has had the opportunity to express some northern interpretations of his artistic endeavours through a recording by CBC.
So have other renowned northern artists such as Charlie Panagoniak. There are many other young artists who I can think of from the communities who have had the opportunity to produce records and to express in their aboriginal languages the very essence of who they are in the songs and in the music of their people.
We have had numerous applications that have been put forward to numerous sources for moneys to produce recordings of Inuit music or Dene music that express the cultures of the north. These are the kinds of things that were supported by CBC. Many of the people who are trained and dedicated to the whole idea of broadcasting for the north are fearful if in fact there are cuts. I know that it is being denied across the way by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications that in fact there will not be those kinds of cuts.
Well, it is very good to hear because for many of the people who are trained and dedicated to working for the northern broadcasting service it is more than just a job for them. It is a labour of love. It is something they believe in and something they are veiy studied in. It is a commitment on their part to bring to southern Canada and to bring to northerners, not just news and information from the south but from the whole world. It is also a commitment to bring knowledge from the various parts of the north.
When we speak about the north, we are at the stage in development of the north that is very important. I guess we are on the brink of our true constitutional development, where northerners will take their true place in Confederation. There is lots of talk about many issues that are important to the north.
Who brings to the north the importance of what happens at the national level or what happens in the Persian Gulf? It is CBC. Usually it is CBC television and CBC radio. Who brings to the north the importance of what happens in one region? In Nunavut, it brings the news of what is happening with the land claims in the eastern Arctic to the west. Who brings the news from the west to the east? It is CBC. It has always been so.

In years gone by we have had limited capacity. We relied heavily on radio. Now we have CBC television broadcasting. Many of the communities get Newsworld. It has been a plus for northerners who do not have the opportunity to get out into mainstream Canadian society by way of travel, because it is very isolated and very remote. We have the opportunity through CBC to share with the rest of Canada what the north is all about and also to get the message to the north of what Canada is all about, in all parts of the country.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry but I cannot recognize the hon. member for Mount Royal because she is not in her seat.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say just a very few words in connection with Bill C-40, as it proceeds on third reading to final passage and on to the Senate.
You may not recall it, Mr. Speaker, because as I recall you were not with us during the last Parliament. However, all of your associates in the chair will recall very well the fact that during the last Parliament a very similar bill was put forward by the government with many similar provisions relating to broadcasting. That bill proceeded through the House, was finally passed by the House, went on to the Senate, and then, when the election of 1988 was called, it died because it had not been passed by the Senate prior to the election call.
That bill contained some provisions which caused some great concern to a good many constituents of mine, particularly residents of condominiums. They felt that the provisions of that former bill-and I must say that I agree with them-were discriminatory with respect to condominium owners because of the fact that they were treated differently than those who were the owners of single family detached dwellings. In fact they opposed that bill quite vehemently. They presented their views on many occasion, sometimes by letter, sometimes by telephone calls, and ultimately by representations before the
Government Orders
legislative committee that considered that bill, asking for amendments that would have placed condominium owners in the same position as those who were single family detached home owners.
Mr. Speaker, others who sat in the chair that you are sitting in at the present time,will recall that I took a very strong position on behalf of my constituents at that time. I too put forward amendments to that bill in an effort to try to bring about some changes which would put condominium owners on an equal footing with those in single family homes, to the extent that when that bill was at report stage and notwithstanding the fact that I was a strong supporter of the government and continue to be, I did not vote for the bill at report stage. Today we have a brand new bill before us but it has provisions which are very, very similar to the provisions contained in the previous bill that was presented before the Thirty-third Parliament.
I have a great many constituents who are very supportive of this particular bill. In fact, they have written urging me to support it. I have received some 18 letters with respect to this bill from people who are my constituents and who are also members of an association which you are familiar with, Mr. Speaker, known as the Friends of the CBC. Understandably, they want to see this bill passed because it has been a long time since we have had new legislation governing either the CBC or broadcasting in this country.
The previous Minister of Communications in the last government brought the bill forward because it had been years and years since we had had legislation to catch up with the many technological changes, if nothing else, that had occurred in broadcasting since the passage of the last legislation with respect to broadcasting.
Notwithstanding the support that this bill receives and the understandable feelings that we need new legislation, I still truly believe that the owners of condominiums have a legitimate concern with this bill, as they had with the last bill, concerning the impact of satellite receivers. With the prior bill and with this bill, condominium owners feel it is discriminatory and that they are not treated the same way as single family home owners.


Government Orders
If they are regulated under this legislation, they will have no alternative but to become captive receivers and captive subscribers to cable television, whereas the single family home owner is not in that position. If the single family home owner was regulated, he or she could very well drop the subscription to cable television, set up a satellite receiver in their own backyard and have no problems whatsoever.
Very kindly, the parliamentary secretary in his remarks this evening has pointed out that there is some protection, if not in the legislation, at least in the hearts of the government, the minister, the parliamentary secretary and the department for the condominium owners in this situation. I have no reason to doubt the words of the parliamentary secretary. I applaud his words and I thank him for them.
However, you and I know that he will not always be the parliamentary secretary, the present minister will not always be the minister and the present government will not always be the government. With great respect, I fully understand that with a democratic system, Mr. Speaker, from time to time-it may be a long time and, hopefully, as far as you and I are concerned, it will be a long time-one of these days there will be another government, another minister, another parliamentary secretary and who knows what their views may be.
And so tonight, while I speak in support of the bill, I want to voice my concerns and the concerns of my constituents who are condominium owners, and there are a great many of them. I want to point out as well with respect to the bill in the Thirty-third Parliament, there were some 266 individual residents of my riding who voiced personal concerns about that bill.
With respect to this bill, some 158 of my constituents in the York Valley condominiums in particular have voiced concerns. I want to put it on the record that they have very legitimate concerns. I will be continuing to work with the minister, the parliamentary secretary, and the government to ensure that their concerns are met and that the government continues to make sure that they are treated equally with other homeowners. Regardless of what happens with this bill, condominium owners will not have to fear discriminatory treatment and I will continue to work on their behalf.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the member talks about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its functions as a national entity.
I just want to point out that one of the main problems we have seen with respect to this government's direction over the last few years has been the consistent cutbacks to the CBC budget.
I point out that in 1984-85, the operations budget was some $943 million. In 1989-90, that has been cut to $812 million. In terms of the total budget, about $140 million will be cut over four years starting in 1990-91.
I want to point out that the CRTC said in its most recent licence renewal that the CBC could not fulfil its mandate at current funding levels. Since then we have seen further declines in the expenditures.
I would like to quote a comment from the CBC vice-president, Mr. MacEwen, who said: "You're right. We are getting squeezed each year. We have to factor in how we are going to do that. This year, which is 1989-90, they lost a 1 per cent real cut across the radio system. They managed to sustain their activity for one more year, but if we keep going, something is going to have to give."
As I mentioned to you earlier tonight, we heard announcements of major lay-offs in the CBC. I have the Library of Parliament at this time trying to find the details of just what are the extent of those lay-offs, but we understand they were announced tonight.
I would like to ask the member how he can justify the government's supposed commitment to a national broadcasting system in this country, a system that is responsible for defining our national unity and our national identity as a symbol of Canadianism. How can we continue to do this when in fact these substantial cuts in budget allocations to the CBC are being now realized in major job lay-offs? They are already short in terms of their ability to fulfil their mandate. How do you suppose they can continue to do it when they have to lay off even more workers?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the member's question. Regardless of my own personal views on the matter, and regardless of the member's personal views on the matter, he and I both recognize that there is a difference of opinion with respect to the budgetary matters relating to the CBC.


That was pointed out very vividly on November 27 in a column written in the Ottawa Citizen by Marjorie Nichols in which she said that this fiscal year the CBC's budget is $1.4 billion of which $1 billion is a direct grant from the federal treasury. To put the CBC into perspective, it costs Canadian taxpayers as much as the RCMP, which received $1.2 billion this year. Actually the federal police generates more revenue, $526 million, than does the CBC, $439 million. The 10,500 CBC jobs theoretically cost the taxpayers of Canada about $100,000 each. If the CBC were sold, many of those jobs would be transferred to the private sector. If the CBC were privatized, absolutely everybody would be better off.
Marjorie Nichols goes on to say: "Given the new broadcasting act that provides the federal cabinet with expanded powers over broadcasting, the need for action is urgent. For the sake of Canadian democracy, the CBC ought to be put on the auction block."
I do not think everybody agrees with Marjorie Nichols, but that is the view of some Canadians. There is a difference of opinion with respect to this matter, and I think that is what democracy is all about. We are here to debate the various points of view. Marjorie Nichols' opinion is one thing, and the hon. member's opinion is another.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could inform the House what radio or television stations are being closed by the CBC and how many people are being laid off by the corporation?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, it is very kind of the hon. member from Newfoundland to ask me a question of that sort. I am afraid I do not have those figures. Perhaps the hon. member has them himself, but I have to say that my concern with this bill does not really rest with the CBC although many of my constituents are most concerned about it. They want to see it continue and that is understandable.
As the hon. member knows, the CBC was put into effect originally by the Conservative government of former Prime Minister R. B. Bennett, and it has continued to flourish since that time. It continues to carry on its good work to the present time.
Government Orders
What I am really concerned about with this bill is its impact on condominium owners. The hon. member well knows that because he was here in the last Parliament. I am sure he sat there with bated breath listening to my comments.
He realizes as well that I have the same concerns with the impact of this current bill on condominium owners. I am sure that he applauds my actions, and that he agrees wholeheartedly with me. If and when he is ever part of a government in this country, I hope he will ensure that condominium owners are not discriminated against, but will be fully protected as single family detached home owners are.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I was in the prior Parliament with the hon. minister. I can recall with a great deal of precision many of his interventions which were very enlightened and very well formulated.
I also remember that Stan Graham and Jack Scowen who used to be in this House shared his views. Behind the curtains, we had many little conversations as to how we could have the Minister of Communications, the then member for Kingston and the Islands, Flora MacDonald, try to include this in the bill.
I bring to the member's attention that we did debate MATV systems, and those concerns for condominiums in this House under Motion No. 6 which the government, as you know, Mr. Speaker, did not accept.
I would like to believe that we could count on the goodwill and the interest of the government to ensure that condominium owners and private dwellings or apartment buildings, and the hotels would not have any further problems.
I would like to bring to his attention that, right now even though we have the private right of action in this bill for which I am very appreciative, in my own city in the Westmount riding there is a very large condominium and apartment complex that is at this very moment in CF Cable territory but is not using the CF Cable services.
CF Cable has been asked many times to come in because the MATV system is working outside of the law. The MATV system is bringing in HBO and ESPN, and all the programs that we say have no place on our system as we have complementary services. It does not bring in the parliamentary channel. It does not bring in many of the other services that are so important such as the educational channels, et cetera.

Government Orders
With what kind of sense of comfort does he feel that he can depend on the CRTC that never bothered to use the Holiday Inn decision that came down in Winnipeg effectively? There does not seem to have anything in this bill that would direct the CRTC at this time. Does the hon. minister think that he is comfortable enough with the new provisions under the private right of action that they can answer that question?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me if I feel comfortable with the situation as it now stands. I must say that thinking back to the situation in the last Parliament, I can recall many discussions with the hon. member then as the critic for communications, as she is now, on this very subject. My recollection is that she was not supportive of condominium owners at that time and, in fact, she voted against it. My motions that were put forward at that time were not supported by the opposition or we would have had a vote and I would have had a chance to get on the record formally on that issue at that time. I have the Hansard from those debates of August, 1988 right here, as a matter of fact, and I can tell you that I see no evidence that the hon. member was supportive at that time.
It is quite surprising now that she should be taking the position that there is some problem with the bill, particularly because I do not recall any motion that she moved. The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine moved a motion in support of condominium owners in the debate at report stage, but I do not recall any motion that the hon. member moved in support of condominium owners.
To the best of my knowledge, based on the comments she made in the past and the comments that I recollect she has made in this debate, she is not supportive of equal rights for condominium owners. I hope that if she ever gets a chance to form a part of a government that she will change her mind and be supportive of the rights of condominium owners and not discriminate in that regard.


Sheila Finestone: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not like to contradict my hon. friend, the minister, in the House, but it was with persistent questions to the minister of the day, both in committee and in the House, that we were able to get-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but this is a matter of opinion, not a point of order. I will therefore have to revert to debate.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on third reading of Bill C-40, an act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunications.
Before I proceed, allow me to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Mount Royal, for her leadership on this issue on behalf of our Liberal caucus.
This bill, in essence, should shape what we see on the television landscape in the future. It should make sure television will promote a sense of Canadian unity, a sense of our character as a people, of a people proud of our different origins and of a people with common shared values. But the bill is not clear in its vision and the government lacks the courage to commit funds to achieve the goal of promoting the Canadian nation on television.
This bill would have the power to change what Canadians see on their television sets. This is very important since broadcasting impacts on the way most people get their news, their entertainment, and then-understanding of our multicultural diversity. The medium of television should support a sense of shared values and a sense of national being. But there can be no genuine national being if we do not insist that the CBC is, at all times, to foster national unity. A renewal of this national mission as a mandate of CBC is vital to the continued survival of our nation.
Reaffirming national unity as a mandate is most relevant today, particularly when we witness segments of our country feeling alienated from each other and from a common whole. Our geography, our different languages and cultures and our common economic problems require a link if we are to continue to survive as a people and as a nation. Broadcasting serves as this essential linkage to bring together our aboriginal peoples, our founding settlers and our new citizens, adults and children, as Canadians.


Hence, I am pleased to see the retention in the proposed Broadcasting Act of the principle enunciated in the original Broadcasting Act of 1968:
The Canadian Broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and
controlled by Canadians so as to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the
cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada.
Unfortunately, only about 5 per cent of the programs presented to Canadians today on English television are Canadian in content. That is what we see, that is what our children see.
Since most of our children spend a lot of time watching television and learning from it, I fear that our children do not see enough programs that reinforce to them what it really means to be a Canadian.
Hence, ownership and programming content are two of the fundamental issues which a new broadcasting bill must address if it is to prove effective in the future. This bill fails in these twin challenges.
We have already seen the arrival of satellite communication and other technologies. The boundaries between nations have blurred. Broadcasting has made our planet truly a global village.
At the same time, there is palpable concern that these new technologies are being built only by a privileged few. This is not inherently wrong, but a danger lurks nearby. What the world will see, read and hear in the coming century could be coming from the hands of a few through mergers and take-overs. For example, new on-demand television services will likely fall in the control of a few, and if not licensed and regulated for Canadian content, would unduly profile and promote American and not Canadian programs.
Today, we have a watchdog organization that is supposed to ensure that the television medium is not concentrated in the hands of a few who can ignore important Canadian programming. That watchdog is the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC. But the CRTC has long been acknowledged as being somewhat of a toothless watchdog. Although it has the mandate to punish broadcasters who do not adhere to Canadian content standards by revoking their broadcasting license, the commission has never been strict with broadcasters who break the rules.
Government Orders
Bill C-40, instead of strengthening the watchdog duty of the CRTC, weakens that punitive power by adopting the approach of performance incentives. That is, it will reward networks who broadcast a sufficient number of programs with the stipulated Canadian content quota by waiving the annual license fee, which can be as much as one-third of a million dollars based on advertising revenues of $10 million. It will punish those who do not fulfil their obligations by making them pay part or all of the license fee.
But let us be realistic. The CRTC was always reluctant to use its power before, what reason do we have to believe that it will change now? Worse, the government will now have more veto powers over the commission's decisions. Hence, the networks can lobby the government to overrule unwelcome CRTC decisions. Besides, we all know that one-third of a million dollars fee is not enough to scare potential delinquent networks into showing more Canadian programs. These networks are some of the top money-making corporations in North America today. "The big networks can well afford to pay a $300,000 slap on the wrist", said Matthew Fraser of the Montreal Gazette in his column recently.
I believe the underlying issue behind this debate is money. Under Bill C-40, the CBC must "contribute to shared national conscience and identity", and make space for more cultural programs as opposed to commercial shows. These are admirable objectives, but I do not think the government has given much thought to the price-tag of its goals.
During its past four years in power, the Conservative government has cut $140 million from the already suffering network. Tonight in debate, we heard from the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James, based on some advance information he has, that at least another $100 million will be cut by the CBC affecting at least 10 radio stations, Radio Canada International, and the parliamentary channels.
One way in which the CBC has coped with these heartless cuts has been from the income the corporation gets from airing commercial programs. Now the government is telling the CBC to produce more cultural programs and move away from commercial programming. It costs a lot more to create a program than to buy one. One doubts that in this time of economic recession the government is going to give the CBC more funding in its next budget. I only hope that this pessimism would prove to be wrong.


Government Orders
Verily, I do not think the government is taking the important role of the CBC seriously. Telling the network to do more with fewer financial resources is unacceptable.
In conclusion, the CRTC and the CBC have very important roles to play in promoting a Canadian soul. The CRTC must be a watchdog with teeth. It must be able to ensure Canadian content quotas are filled and that the power of the television medium does not rest in the hands of a privileged few. The CBC must be given ample funding to produce good Canadian programming as well.
Bill C-40 does not properly address these issues. It should be a bill which promotes our sense of Canadian unity. We need a Broadcasting Act to make a difference to our airwaves. There will continue to be a deficit of programs showing who Canadians really are unless the government gives more power to the CRTC and more money to the CBC.
Canadians need to be shown the vision and the leadership with which to attain that vision. This side of the House is ready to form the government and to lead Canadians to a united country and people, linked via a new Broadcasting Act, an act that will broadcast to the whole world the true Canadian soul-united, caring, compassionate, and just.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his fine presentation. I think he had a lot of very salient points to make.
I was particularly interested in the comments he was making on the CBC and its mandated function to serve as an instrument of national unity. He referred to these consistent cutbacks, $140 million more dollars slated over the next few years, and now we hear earlier tonight of even greater cuts in the offing. He raised the question as to how the CBC can possibly fulfil its mandate when it is essentially being knee-capped economically by the government that is looking to emasculate the corporation in terms of the role that it has to fulfil.
I do not know whether or not the member was here earlier tonight when I was speaking, but we had learned of just recently announced lay-offs in the CBC.
They were announced tonight. We did not have many details at that point. A little bit more has filtered in. In my discussions with the Canadian Press I found that these cuts are going to result in the closure of 10 regional stations that will either close completely or will be reduced to storefront operations. These are regional stations, regional centres, which have fulfilled a very important function in getting the Canadian news out to the scattered regions of this country.
I would like to ask the member the question I have been trying to ask the government. They certainly will not answer me. Perhaps the hon. member from the Liberal Party would care to comment on how these cutbacks and resultant layoffs can possibly be helpful to a corporation that is struggling to fulfil the mandate it has been given when it already knows it is short of funds and now, obviously, short of manpower.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments and for his question. He has truly identified the hypocrisy of this government, on the one hand trying to tell us that it is promoting the broadcasting institution in our country, and on the other hand trying to amputate it by cutting the financial resources necessary to support such an undertaking.
I cannot help but fully agree with my colleague and his concerns and I hope that before we vote on this bill the government will make a commitment, renew itself, change its heart, restore funding to this institution so that truly we can promote Canadian unity in this country.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend's intervention in this debate and I thank him and congratulate him for it. It was very thoughtful and well presented. I hesitated even to make an intervention, but I do it in a spirit of collegiality. I think I may have misunderstood the hon. member.
What I understood him to say is that, in the context of the financial crunch in which the CBC finds itself with declining commercial revenues, the government was telling the CBC to program more cultural offerings.


Perhaps I have missed something, but I am not aware that the government has ever told the CBC what to program.
I wonder if the hon. member could answer that.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, what I meant when I said that the CBC must be mandated to have Canadian content in its programming is that with this kind of mandate it has to create new programs of Canadian content. As yet we have very little of that in Canada. That type of undertaking will need support from the Canadian government. That is what I meant, Mr. Speaker.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to one side of broadcasting and later about the erosion of the CBC.
Broadcasting is a powerful, unifying medium. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, is there anyone in this government who believes in the unity of this country? If so, why do they not stand up and defend federalism? Canada is falling apart, and nobody on the government side seems to care.
Mr. Speaker, withdrawing from the CBC's mission its mandate to promote national unity and to provide a forum for expressing our Canadian identity is only the tip of the iceberg.

Recently the Prime Minister highlighted the importance of national unity by saying: "Everything that we have accomplished as a country can be traced back to our sense of national purpose, to our national unity". If he really believes this, why did he remove the CBC's national unity goal? That is a quote from the hon. member for Mount Royal, who has led our party through this bill.
Why have we not heard of the Prime Minister going to his province and fighting for his country? He is willing to send Canadians to fight for Kuwait but he is too scared to venture into his own riding to fight for its place in Canada. The same goes for other ministers from Quebec. I find it completely reprehensible that ministers of the Crown have a half-hearted defence for the country they are sworn to defend and represent. I am tired of Conservative double-talk that tries to pander to both Canadian unity and Quebec independence.
Government Orders
The Conservatives and the New Democrats seem to be in the same boat on this issue. Their leaders cannot rely on their members from Quebec to stand up for their province's role in confederation. Mr. Speaker, I and my leader, the Hon. Jean Chretien, stand for a strong Canada with Quebec as a strong and prosperous partner in confederation. It would be a symbol of good faith to all Canadians, which includes the citizens of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, to reinstate the CBC's role of promoting national unity.
It is the legitimate interest of a national body, such as the CBC, to make sure that our country is united and strong. It is for this reason that, without this mandate, I cannot support this bill at third reading.

Mr. Speaker, is that the way this government expects to create some harmony? Is it because the country is in such a mess that the government insists on removing from the CBC mandate the development of national unity and the broadcasting of some sense of Canadian identity? Is it because this government no longer believes in Canada, that it is gradually removing the development of national unity from the mandate? Naturally, the Minister will deny that it is his objective, but the facts tend to show that the reverse is true.

At a time when Canadians are divided over issues such as free trade, the GST, and the Constitution of the country, the country's national public broadcaster should be the purveyor of national unity. If we are to have a national personality, we have to weave all regions into a unified force. It is not by cutting funds that this government is helping Canada stay together. But, could that be its hidden agenda, letting Canada split apart and saying, "we did our best", knowing full well that they did not?
It is indeed sad to see that while this country is on the brink of disintegration, its national leadership has shirked its responsibility of fighting for a strong and unified Canada. Instead of the Prime Minister going on the road to hear how this country feels, instead of him going into Quebec and fighting for this country, he has reneged on his responsibility. It seems that the Minister of Communications has shirked his responsibility as well. He has withdrawn from the fight for Canada. He is obliged, by his duty to this country, to fight for Canada's unity. It is for this reason that he must reintroduce the national unity objective of the CBC.

Government Orders

Mr. Speaker, how can the government ask the Canadian people to weave a stronger seamless web of national unity, when it does everything it can to tear it? Canadians are already offered very little cultural programming, especially outside Quebec. Does the government think that by cutting funds to the CBC and removing the development of national unity from its mandate, it will be able to offer better cultural programming to the French-speaking population of this country, and in particular better local cultural programming? Is the government genuinely interested in it or is it only a fagade?
Why now, Mr. Speaker? The unity of the country is holding only by a thread and it is now that this government wants to remove from the CBC's mandate the promotion of national unity and the expression of the forum to express Canadian identity. What is going on? What is this government afraid of? To take a stand?
Mr. Speaker, Quebec is already very seriously questioning its place within this country. If the state broadcaster is withdrawing from its promotion of national unity because this mandate is taken away from it, does that imply that this government has also decided to let Quebec go adrift? Is this the beginning of the quiet changes to allow for the possible break-up of this country?

It may seem like a small issue but it is with negative small issues that we break up a country. Liberals do not want this, nor do the Canadian people. You know who will be the person who is remembered for the dismantling of this country, this Prime Minister.
We need someone who will be committed to Canada. That is the Liberal Party and Jean Chretien. We can offer this vision to all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot from the members of the Bloc Quebecois. They told us that promotion of national unity is Canadian propaganda. I am sure the majority of Quebecers disagree with them. More than ever, Mr. Speaker, we have to create ties across Canada if we really care about this country. This move to take away the mandate for the development of national unity is a step in the wrong direction. We, in the Liberal Party, want to put the government back in the right direction. That is why we are absolutely against Bill C-40.

I would just like to touch on the gradual erosion of the CBC. The parliamentary secretary talked earlier about tax and sort of glossed over that there were not any, and that the CBC was servicing regional needs.
I quote the hon. member for Mount Royal again: "In 1985, this Conservative government began by cutting $85 million. In 1986-87, $5.6 million; 1987-88, $21.1 million;
1988-89, it came to 5.6 million; 1989-90, $5.8 million; and for the year 1991, $25.9 million".
When the hon. member for Mount Royal asked the minister to assure that there would be no further cuts to the CBC, he refused to say no. His only remarks to her were "It is with great pleasure that I note the member's suggestion".
One other point that the parliamentary secretary raised was the decision about national unity. I am not quite sure of his exact words, but he talked about the division of the board with a francophone committee and an anglophone committee. He said that this was approved by the chairman of the board. I wonder if he was talking about the chairman of the board of the CBC, Patrick Watson. I understand that when he appeared before the legislative committee, he expressed grave concern about dividing the CBC along linguistic lines. He is the chairman designate, and speaking with unequivocal and unanimous support of the CBC board of directors, he said: "Let me say that the board unanimously felt that this was both divisive in terms of the obligation of the corporation to be one".
I would be interested in hearing what the parliamentary secretary means when he says that we are not dividing the board of the CBC and that there were no parliamentary cuts planned. I hope the parliamentary secretary is right but we have yet to hear him say there will be no cuts. Could you please elucidate on this point?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, we have been speaking back and forth all night about the impact of the government's legislation and the impact of the government's continued expenditure cuts on CBC.
As we have been talking, the news has been filtering in and it has just become dramatically clear to us, startlingly clear to us, that the cuts that we are seeing take place tonight, that have just been announced, are the most severe cuts to take place in the history of the CBC.
It is estimated that the cuts are going to axe 1,200 people. They are going to eliminate local programs and are going to result in the closure of some 10 regional centres. This is just coming through the news now. The big loss will apparently be in local services. We already lost some 472 jobs earlier in the year. If the cuts go through, by next April a total of 1,600 jobs in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will have been axed.
The stations that will be axed, according to reports, are the regional stations in Calgary, in Saskatoon, in Windsor, Radio-Canada in Toronto, Quebec operations, the Goose Bay operation and operations in Newfoundland. It is a response to this government's $140 million cutting of the budget for CBC that is forcing the CBC board to have to take these kinds of drastic measures in order to make ends meet.
The argument that we placed earlier and the argument that is made ever more clearer tonight, is that this government is emasculating the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is essentially kneecapping it economically so that it can no longer fulfil its function. I wonder if my colleague who has just been speaking may wish to question the government as to how the CBC can continue to fulfil its mandate when this is the scenario that is facing the corporation right now.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, since I did not hear the news that were just announced-I hope that it is not the CBC-I am astonished. If the parliamentary secretary could explain another time what he meant when he said that there would be no cuts, because five minutes later, we heard that 1,200 jobs were cut and that 10 television stations would close. What does that mean? Could it be possible that he unintentionally mislead the House? Or
Government Orders
is he trying to make Canadians believe that the government is not really interested in national unity?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a question and I will, by way of question and comment, endeavour to respond to it. I did make it clear earlier this evening that whatever announcements CBC will make tonight or tomorrow-I do not believe any announcement has been made.


Mary Catherine Clancy: It was on the news.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Lots of things are on the news. That does not mean that they have been announced or that they are factual. Mr. Speaker, as an expert former newsman yourself, I ask you where in the world would news people be if only facts got on the news. There would be a lot of dead air. But, the fact of the matter is, as I understand it, and I believe the record should be very clear on this matter, although members opposite seem to enjoy suggesting that the government is proposing to apply some cuts to the CBC, the only cuts that the government has applied to the CBC since April of 1989 were the $140 million in the April 1989 budget and the $1.7 million last week to aid in the financing of the Persian Gulf operation.
Further cuts are not contemplated today, tomorrow, or in the foreseeable future. Indeed, if hon. members have the patience to wait for the announcement that it is believed will be made by the president of the CBC tomorrow, they may find that the government is assisting the CBC in its current difficulties.
Therefore I think it would be very inappropriate to cry havoc and raise alarms to the extent that it is implied that the government is butchering the CBC. The government is doing nothing of the sort. The government is endeavouring, in a time of difficult financial restraint, to nurture the CBC as best it can.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the cuts referred to by the parliamentary secretary are absolutely outrageous. It is an outrage in Canada for the CBC to be announcing tomorrow the closure of two operations in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Just imagine, a total closure of one station and a partial closure of another station. Of 10 cuts in Canada, two are in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Government Orders
Could the parliamentary secretary or the minister, if he intends to come along to the House, explain why the Government of Canada is allowing the CBC totally to destroy its service to a great portion of Newfoundland and Labrador?
We have taken more cuts than any other province in Canada. It is an absolute outrage. Somebody from the government side should make an announcement tonight that it is going to object to those cuts and it is going to cancel them.


Shirley Maheu: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because since it is our 20 minute period, I do not want to give the minister the opportunity to take the floor again.

He is the parliamentary secretary, I apologize.
We say that Tory times are tough times. When I listened to the parliamentary secretary talking earlier about no budget cuts, he was saying: "Don't worry, be happy". How can we be happy if indeed it is true that there are 1,200 jobs on the line and 10 stations? I hope for once the government will be ready to stop cutting and this time start giving a little.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: We are giving; we are not cutting.


Shirley Maheu: I accept that.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I realize the debate is getting rather circular, but many comments have been made reflecting the recently announced cuts which the media brought forward tonight.
The parliamentary secretary has essentially said that the government has had no part in these cuts. This is an argument that has gone back and forth between the two sides of the House tonight.
I wanted to make clear to the House and to the people of Canada that it was indicated in the newscast that these cuts were the response of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in terms of a necessary plan of action to follow through with the $140 million reduction in government spending the corporation must incur in the next four years. It is responding to this $140 million budgetary shortfall with these job cutbacks.
It was very clear tonight in terms of the newscast. I think the parliamentary secretary should reconsider the comments he has made in that regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary want to conclude his remarks?


Shirley Maheu: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I will recognize the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville for 30 seconds.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to put on the record again that the parliamentary secretary just told us that this government is not cutting but indeed is giving. Thank you again.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-40 and the essence and the soul of this country as seen through communications.
Just before my hon. colleague from Saint-Laurent- Cartierville finished speaking, we had announcements on national television. We had what I would consider to be a near disaster in terms of communications, in terms of the means by which we not only bring the country together, and in terms of how we give an indication to all Canadians nation-wide what we are about. We are also talking about letting go 1,200 men and women with great expertise and experience in the communications field, in the electronics field, and in all other fields central and integral to the development of a high-tech, ultra-modem communications system, art system, and dramatic art system which identify and express for Canadians that element of Canadianism. All those people will be let go. The parliamentary secretary said that the government- and I think I am quoting him correctly; the "blues" will bear me out-is aiding, not cutting funds to the CBC.
It is almost outrageous that we should hear those kinds of statements. His colleague, the former parliamentary secretary for communications, earlier in the evening said: "I regret that there will be cuts"-and again I am sure that the "blues" will bear me out-"but when they come it is because they have to come".


Two hours later they came. They came with a slash. They came with a bang. Some 1,200 people, in addition to the 476 who have already been let go, will be let go by April 1, 1991 in order to make up a shortfall of $100 million, thanks to this government's lack of commitment, desire to kill the CBC, and any national means of communication, any national means of news, any national means of bringing Canadians together on a cultural point, on a news point, or on an information sharing point that was already there. The mechanism was there, and the government has decided that it is no longer worth maintaining.
We are seeing that through this Bill C-40. It is ironic that these announcements would have come on the eve of third reading of Bill C-40, which has been designed through this institution to bring awareness to all Canadians of the value of all institutions and instruments which make up our soul and our character. To have this kind of announcement tonight of all nights tells us that in essence what is being debated this evening is all for nought.
Parliamentarians will be unable to bring to the attention of all Canadians or convince them of the significance of this debate by bringing forth all important elements for consideration. In fact one of the lambs that will be sacrificed in these cuts will be the parliamentary channel, the vehicle for bringing our debates into the homes of each and every Canadian.
In addition, we can see from some of the cuts that the government is giving up on its sense of what Canada must be. I refer with great regret to one of the stations that will be cut. As a result of this government's action, one service that will no longer be available is Radio-Canada emanating in French from my own city of Toronto. There is nothing worse that one can say about establishing the whole concept of bilingual Canada, a Canada that is enriched by the differences that make up its whole, than to say that Radio-Canada will no longer be able to function out of the city of Toronto. It is a shame that this government would be associated with that kind of decision. It is an absolute criminal shame that the CBC would be put in a position where it has to make that kind of cut, because in addition to having to make up the shortfall of government finances toward the operation of this national institution, we learn through this report just
Government Orders
a mere one-half hour ago that we have to make up for a shortage of advertising revenues.
Advertising revenues that this government was mandating will no longer be allowed to go to the CBC because, of course, what we have to do is encourage the private local entrepreneur, the local broadcasters, who have been asking for that rich advertising dollar. I think it runs in the vicinity of $200 million in the province of Quebec alone and is at least equal to that throughout the rest of the country.
With the cuts we have seen this evening, we take a look at where we are going with Bill C-40. We can see that we are no longer engaged in an academic discussion. We are no longer talking about the esoteric merits of a communications system that may or may not satisfy the arts community, that may or may not satisfy those people who are in the broadcasting industry as journalists, as reporters and other announcers. No, we are talking about Canadians, each and every one of us, and when the government decides that it must take a cold, hard look which it suggests is the method with which it approaches everything because it is a good financial manager and, as a good financial manager, what it will do to make sure the bottom line is black. As always, what will happen is it will tear this country apart.
It was not that long ago that nations throughout the world decided that what they needed to do in the interests of establishing a national character is they would have to devote the energies and the resources of their nations toward the education of their people, to give them the sense of what each other was like. They did that through an education system.
They did it as well through a military system in order to bring people from various regions together through military service. They exchanged ideas, let everybody understand what the other was like. This gave them a sense of closeness through the regions, a sense of familiarity about culture. It broke down the barriers that come with linguistic differences, and encouraged and nourished and, in fact, cultivated all of those expressions of individual aspirations, community aspirations, regional and cultural aspirations that come through the expression of literature, prose, drama and theatre, all of those things which we would have hoped would have firmly imprinted themselves on the character of this country that we have all come to love.

Government Orders
We have all come to love this country, because for someone like me who had to come to this country thanks to the good decisions of his parents, but who now has his own children rooted deeply into the country and who now must decide on their own as to the Canadian character. Thanks to this government we no longer will have a vehicle to serve the interests that once were identified through an education system that would have imprinted a character.
Now, through this high-tech age, we see it is the communications system, a national system like the CBC that would have given us the opportunity, not only through the news, but through the arts, dramatic arts, prose and even through dubbing some of the productions emanating from the various regions, such as those from Quebec, southern Ontario and western Canada, and to be able to allow us to see each other as we are and as we would want others to see us and provide us with an opportunity to be sensitive to the issues of the day in Canada.
They are not only constitutional issues, they are economic issues, they are environmental issues. They are the issues that will determine how we will live in this country tomorrow and how we will see each other in the next century through that medium that could produce the appropriate documentaries, programs and bring together the experts who have the interests of this country at heart, to bring them together and to allow our children to allow us to be able to become informed and make the decisions that are environmentally appropriate, economically sound and culturally homogeneous for all of us, homogeneous in the sense of people who in their differences could still remain united. Mr. Speaker, the kind of cuts we have seen this evening bear out what Bill C-40 was intending to do, essentially balkanize and allow the regionalization of Canada by doing the same thing to the one system that held Canada together.
I do not need to remind my hon. colleagues on this side of the House. They have been most vigilant throughout this debate. I say that without appearing fawning, but most members in the House, not just from my caucus, have developed a great respect and admiration for our critic who has been absolutely terrific in bringing out all of those discussions, the technical components of this bill, and who has as well pointed out the philosophical repercussions of each and every one of the motions, of all of the changes, that are being applied through this bill.
Mr. Speaker, we are going to lose the opportunity, thanks to Bill C-40 and the government's action, negative, or inaction, which is at least dilatory, on issues that show the world what we as Canadians are. We have had some indication that perhaps, for example, Radio-Canada International might survive. We do not know for how long, but certainly it is a half-hearted commitment. It is no longer in the country's interest as far as the government is concerned.
Yes, there is the all-news service, but with the cuts we are going to find we will be unable to keep up with the demands and the rigours required in order to make sure that all Canadians receive the news on time, all the time, and in the fashion that would do professionalism honour, and in a fashion that would give an indication that the cultural differences, linguistic differences, regional differences, are put in the light which gives them the most favourable impression to all Canadians.
That is what has been missing in this country over the course of the last year and a half. We have not been given the opportunity to have the kinds of favourable impression we ought to have about each other, about each and every one of us, all of us, neighbours, friends and brothers and sisters in this country.
The government has not wanted to provide the appropriate legislative guarantees for such a mechanism. As I said earlier, it is interested more in ensuring that the regional approach to communication and through the ways we regulate, observe, and monitor that communication system, the CRTC, take place.
My colleagues have already pointed out how we have regionalized and balkanized the operations of the CRTC and we have essentially said we do not need nor do we want a national dimension to the kinds of decisions they will bring to bear on the broadcasting and communications system. I do not know how many ways that a parliamentary secretary, minister, or members of the government side can try to hide that fact, but the fact of


the matter is that when we no longer require a full executive of the CRTC to engage in decisions that relate to the communications system of this country, then we are essentially washing our hands of any kind of commitment that we ought to have to the national character of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I know you will be at one with me in this, a national character that allows for differences. It nurtures those differences and it recognizes that those differences actually provide energy and vigour to the character of Canada.
Bill C-40 for me, prior to hearing the cuts of this evening, already had meant that essentially the government, in addition to washing its hands of the duty, the obligation, the mandate to engage in establishing the national dimensions of this country was essentially opening the doors to what is already an insidious and all too pervasive effect on Canadian communication. That is the Americanization of both our culture, our language, our habits, and our views and perspectives on how the world should unfold, let alone how we as Canadians should develop our own potential. Colleagues on this side of the House have pointed out the vast majority of programming entering into this country viewed by our children. Maybe our children do not know enough yet, but at least we are in a position to make a choice. In making that choice we are offered few options; we have the American view of North America and we have the North American view of the world.
Thanks to Bill C-40, we no longer have the one unifying means, the financial resources and the mandate required to ensure that those resources bear themselves out in the kinds of programs that will give us a truly Canadian perspective, no matter from what region that Canadian perspective comes, a Canadian perspective nonetheless.
It has been of great sorrow to me to hear that the government, with Bill C-40, no longer feels that it is necessary to have any cautions in legislation to the infusion of more and more American broadcasting services, and yet there was a unanimous recommendation of the Communications and Cultural Committee of a mere three years ago that additional foreign networks not be allowed unless, of course, their programming was complementary to that of licensed Canadian services already.
Government Orders
No. It seems that the government is unwilling to strengthen the one instrument that would be there to enhance the Canadian character and in reneging on that opportunity it is essentially, deliberately weakening the possibility of a Canadian character.
We see that it is almost a logical consequence that the government would remove from Bill C-40 the national unity clause that was part of the CBC mandate.
I might remind the members, colleagues and one and all, those who feel especially strong about the CBC, about its potential. I do not want to get involved in the discussions of the mechanisms and the details one by one of the CBC programming and the hierarchy and the structure of the organization. I refer to the concept, to the potential that exists with that means of communication. That mandate that we are dropping from C-40 essentially told the CBC that it had to contribute to the development of national unity and to provide for a continuing expression of the Canadian identity.
By removing that clause, by no longer keeping us there, we are losing an opportunity to identify that Canada that is emerging. We are refusing to recognize the merits of those nations that have been part and parcel to the Canadian character as it has emerged through its first century of creation and, in fact, we are going to lose that umbrella organization that could reach out to all the emergence of a new Canada that is there, that is going to take its rightful place in the 21st century. Despite what this government would like to think, it is not the Canadian way to be immersed solely and simply in a parochial atmosphere of a North American environment with a very aggressive and very large neighbour. We have a country that is emerging because of the kinds of demographics that are allowing us to develop.
We have an opportunity to identify this new Canada. I cite, for example, just my own city of Toronto new Canadians see all of their news through three channels-Chinese, Portuguese and Italian. In combination, those three, on one local television area, represent more viewers than there are for the highest viewership of English language news. The CBC has an opportunity to focus in on that emerging type of Canada, to bring that and integrate it in with the already established mainstream cultures of Canada and, thereby, impress more of a new Canadian character on it. It can integrate the four

Government Orders
together, all the other new elements that come and without danger to each and any one of them, to give us an opportunity, through a vehicle such as the CBC, to learn more about each other, to identify each other, to familiarize each other with ourselves and to recognize all those common aspirations which we call Canada.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence who, in a passionate way, covered a lot of bases.
First, I would like to ask him: Who said Radio-Canada would not operate out of Toronto? Those were the words he used, that Radio-Canada would not operate out of Toronto. I think he will find, since our only currency in this place is credibility, that that statement is not credible and perhaps he should check again.
Again, I would caution that it is pretty exciting, when we have a broadcasting debate going on and there is a big broadcasting story out there, to bring it in here. That is part of the game. We do those things. But I think we ought to be careful about the rumours or the stories that we present as facts in this place, because maybe this channel is being watched too tonight. We should, I think, give the CBC a break in terms of giving it some credit for its capability in managing its affairs which is, what I think, it is in the process of doing at this particular time.
The CBC is not the only instrument for Canadianiza-tion. It is the prime instrument, but not the only instrument.
I listened with some wry amusement to my friend when he was talking about the necessity to dub shows. I am sure he really did not intend it this way, but he was talking about dubbing shows from Quebec so that they could be understood and appreciated in English Canada. He went on to say that perhaps some from southern Ontario and even western Canada could be dubbed as well. He did not use those words, but the implication was there. I think I do not need dubbing to be understood by the hon. member.
The Americanization of the country, he felt, through the airwaves, would follow from the Balkanization that
would exist within the CRTC. That is, I believe, the string of logic that we were offered and challenged to follow. More and more Canadian programs are being viewed and many of those are produced by the private sector. Most of them are produced by the CBC, but many are produced by the private sector. I think we ought to give credit where credit is due.
I give just one example which was originated, with the help of Telefilm, by a broadcaster in my own community and that was Bye, Bye Blues, one of the finest Canadian films to have been produced in recent years.
Finally, I do want to comment on the hon. member's challenge, which I share, and that is that the Canadian broadcasting system, as a whole-and he singled out the CBC-ought to reflect the new Canada and its various components. Well, there may be some things that the framers of this legislation-and I include my friend, the hon. member for Mount Royal, as one of the framers of this legislation.


Sheila Finestone: I'm feeling uncomfortable.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: She is getting uncomfortable.
There is one thing that we succeeded in doing and of which we can all be proud and it is that the system-not just the CBC, but all components of the system-is mandated by this bill to reflect Canada in all its diverse glory, but at the same time to stimulate a national consciousness and identity.
I come now to the multicultural reality of our country and the multicultural mandate which is imposed on the system, for the first time, in this bill. I would say, Mr. Speaker, not only in that which is portrayed on the air, in radio and in television, but more particularly and most significantly-and my friend from Mount Royal fought with me on this, and Lynn McDonald fought with us at the outset, on the same side I should rush to say-that the operations clause of this bill mandates that stations in their operations will also reflect the reality of the new Canada. That means that there is no escape byway of the floor of 100 employees such as with the federal employment equity legislation. There is no such floor. Every broadcast operation-be it cable, radio, television, or whatever-must follow the appropriate methods to make sure that the operations of that station and what goes on the air reflect the reality of the new Canada.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, one is almost encouraged by the manner, if not the content, of the hon. parliamentary secretary because he has essentially been saying this is a very credible bill. He has pointed out-and I want to start from the last point, to do him credit-that there is an element to the bill that is encouraging, and has been received positively by all members of the House. That is that the CBC be required to reflect the new ethnocultural, multicultural, multi-racial character that is Canada.


Sheila Finestone: In the private sector as well.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Yes, in the private sector as well, as my colleague for Mount Royal says. That is a positive step.
I know that the parliamentary secretary will recognize that by the turn of the century, close to 50 per cent of the population will no longer be associated with the initial two founding nations, in the constitutional sense, of the country. I know that there is much debate about that and that is why I say, in a constitutional sense. This is no aside to the groups of aboriginal Canadians who are very much a part of the Canadian character.
We have to move from that point which is acceptable and I thank the parliamentary secretary for having worked hard to ensure that that that be one of the items in Bill C-40.
On the others, I think we have to come back to a word that he used earlier on and that is the question of credibility. The government has its own vacuum of credibility when it comes to many of the issues that the parliamentary secretary is attempting to defend.
When I made reference to the newscast of about 20 minutes prior to my intervention, I have very good reason to believe that that national broadcast was based on information that all of us will share once again tomorrow morning. The retelling those facts as they were projected gives us an opportunity to enrich the debate. If some of those broadcast facts are not correct, then I think that the debate tomorrow will point that out, just as the debate today is pointing out all the vacuums and shortcomings of the government's position on this bill.
One of the things that is important for us to understand is that, if all of the consequences of Bill C-40 come to pass, as we have been given an indication that they are already coming to pass, we will not be favourably served by small private sector corporations that will fill in the
Government Orders
vacuums of CBC at a local level, if in fact they will have the potential for so doing. What will those people from Calgary, Comer Brook or Windsor do? They are accustomed to getting a first-class news service, a first-class exchange of the character of Canada. What will they do and to whom will they turn?
One can see that once we remove another Canadian channel, another component, a subsidiary of CBC, from our dial, the vacuum is quickly filled. It is a fact of life, because we live along the American border, that many of the American stations will receive much more attention than they normally would. We will suffer as a result because we will not have the same access to that which is essentially Canadian that we had a mere few hours ago.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
I am very pleased to speak on this Bill C-40, the new Broadcasting Act for Canada. I am pleased to participate in this debate, because it has taken the government several years to get to this point.
In 1985 the Ministry of Communications established a task force on broadcasting policy. Its report, also known as the Caplan-Sauvageau Report, was reviewed by the Standing Committee on Culture and Communications. That committee submitted four reports with numerous recommendations to the government for the drafting of the new legislation.
In the last Parliament in June of 1988, the government brought forward Bill C-136, but because a federal election was called Bill C-136 did not get through the Senate. Bill C-40, introduced in October 1989, is virtually identical to Bill C-136 which died on the Order Paper.
There is a general consensus that a new Broadcasting Act is needed. The current Broadcasting Act goes back to 1968. Communication technology has outpaced the 1968 act in many ways and in many respects. There is a need to take into account technological developments since 1968 and the present global realities.
This bill, however, is not perfect. It has flaws and deficiencies which my colleague, the hon. member for Mount Royal, has tried to correct by proposing amendments both in the legislative committee which studied this bill and at report stage over the past several weeks.


Government Orders
My colleague from Mount Royal, my party's spokesperson on the communications issue, has spoken ably and eloquently about the concerns we have about Bill C-40. I will touch on some of them briefly.
We are concerned about the possible constitutional challenges to this bill. We are concerned about the government's decision to drop the CBC's mandate to contribute to the development of national unity and to provide for a continuing expression of national identity. The government instead wants the CBC to contribute to national consciousness. That is a cop-out. This government is copping out on Canada.
It is no wonder this country has gone through so much constitutional agony and turmoil under this government. This government does not want the country's national broadcasting agency to contribute to the national unity. Unity encompasses so much more than a simple consciousness. We can be conscious of a lot without being unified.
We regret as well that this bill will not make Radio Canada International, the parliamentary television network, or the CBC northern service part of its mandate. Both the Caplan-Sauvageau report and the Standing Committee on Culture and Communications have recommended that these services be incorporated into new broadcasting legislation. Each of these services is a vital component of our Canadian broadcasting system and incorporating them specifically in this bill would have given them official recognition and a parliamentary confirmation of continuity.
I would like to take a moment to elaborate on the CBC northern service. This service is absolutely vital to the northern communities, some of which have no other available broadcast service. We do not want to see any reduction in the northern service. CBC's northern service covers the Yukon, N.W.T. and the James Bay and Nunavik regions of northern Quebec. The service spans four time zones and more than one-third of the total land mass of Canada.
There are 100,000 northerners living in the northern service region, most of them aboriginal peoples. Cree people constitute 90 per cent of the James Bay population. The Inuit are 85 per cent of the population in the Beaufort, Central, Keewatin and the Baffin regions of the Eastern Arctic, and also of northern Quebec.
In the rest of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, native people make up about 30 per cent of the population and are the majority in most of the smaller communities in the far north.
CBC northern service radio produces more than 200 hours of programs each week. Half of those hours are produced in seven aboriginal languages: Inuktitut, Slavey, Dogrib, Chipewyan, Inuvialuktun, Gwich'in and Cree.
CBC northern service television produces four weekly program series: Focus North, which is a weekly northern current affairs program; Denendeh K'eh, a multilingual Dene language program which combines life style features with topical current affairs; Aqsamiit, an Inuktitut language current affairs information program based in Iqaluit; and Maamuitaau, a Cree language program of features and issues produced by northern service in Montreal.
CBC northern service also assists six northern native broadcasting societies in distributing their programming. One is IBC, the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation for the Eastern Arctic, which just recently had a $600,000 cut to its budget and is now in danger of cutting more programming. It has already cut one regional office in Cambridge Bay in my riding. It is also in danger of cutting a veiy popular TV series which is produced in Baker Lake and is enjoyed by many, many children in the eastern Arctic because it is in the Inuktitut language.
We have also received support from various people from the north, including the regional director for the government of the Northwest Territories in the Keewatin region. He would like us to make sure that there are no cuts to any Inuktitut programming in the CBC northern service as well as other people from Iqaluit and elsewhere in the eastern Arctic.
These aboriginal communications societies are essential components of the Canadian broadcasting system because they do a lot to promote the cultural identity of the aboriginal people in the far north.
We appreciate the references made to the aboriginal people in the bill, but we fear this government is just paying lip service to aboriginal communications needs. We found two references to aboriginal people in Bill C-40. One reference says that the Canadian broadcasting system should reflect the special place of aboriginal peoples within Canadian society.

The second reference says that programming which reflects the aboriginal culture of Canada should be provided "as resources become available for the purpose". There are two points that I would like to make on this comment: Why has the government refused to include aboriginal languages in this bill? Why is programming reflecting aboriginal culture limited by available resources when throughout the last number of months the emphasis by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and by the Prime Minister of Canada has been that it is doing more for the aboriginal people than has ever been done. On the other hand the government is cutting aboriginal languages programming and also cutting the means of communicating among the aboriginal people.
I would like to comment that the National Aboriginal Communications Society's office had to close because of cutbacks.
Their Micmac News has been shut down. Those are some of the aboriginal means of communications which have been cut by this government.
This clause that I pointed out earlier means nothing in the light of massive cutbacks that the government made to the aboriginal communications in last April's budget.
I repeat: Budgets have been cut. Papers have folded. Offices have closed, and employees have lost their jobs.
The impact of the cuts have been devastating. Why did the government do this? We cannot believe this government is sincere about supporting aboriginal culture with this bill when it is directly responsible for the demise of several aboriginal media, since this bill was introduced in October 1989.
It is a sad but telling fact that the government restored almost all of the funding it cut to women's centres in last April's budget but would not do the same for the Aboriginal Communications Society.
Government Orders
I am glad that the women's centres got their funding back, but women voters outnumber aboriginal voters. The women had an ally in this instance in the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. She intervened.
Aboriginal people, unfortunately, had no such advocate. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who should have intervened on our behalf, did nothing. In fact, he said that aboriginal communications had enough funding. Meanwhile, they are closing their offices, newspapers, and programming on radio and television were being cut.
It is because of situations like this that aboriginal people have no faith in the government's words. This government says one thing and does the opposite. This government professes support for the aboriginal people out of one side of its mouth, while on the other side it is cutting and slashing that support.
In conclusion, I can only be cynical about this bill. I am cynical about this government's commitment to aboriginal communications, to the CBC and the CBC's northern service.
We want to see the components of our national broadcasting system protected and enhanced. We want to preserve national unity within the CBC's mandate.
The CBC has for years been a bond which linked us from sea to sea to sea, and we share it like we share no other Canadian Constitution. The railway went east to west. CBC went east, west and north. Removing national unity from the CBC's mandate is a big mistake.
I urge the Government of Canada to rethink its position through this bill, and realize that it helps in a small way in keeping national unity by retaining the promotion of national unity as part of its mandate.
I stress that the national unity component has to be retained because this government does not understand how to promote national unity. Its concept of promoting national unity is by rolling the dice. I do not think that is a very good way of promoting national unity.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments that my colleague in the Liberal Party has made with regard to the implications of Bill C-40 respecting the native broadcasting programs.


Government Orders
It is this, in particular, that I wanted to go into depth a little more with. Since the Northern Native Access Program was established in 1983, it has been cut back substantially. I should point out that it was created at that time to ensure that northern native people have fair access to the distribution systems to help maintain their languages, cultures and that programming that was relevant to native concerns to ensure that these programs could be produced and provided in the northern communities. When it was originally created, it had a budget of almost $40.3 million over four years. In 1985 and 1986, this was reduced to less than $34 million and in subsequent years was reduced again and again. The
1989-90 funding was frozen at $13.2 million and now in this last hatchet job to the program, it has been cut back to $11.3 million. We have seen a drop from $40 million for the native northern broadcast access program to $11.3 million, an incredible decrease in expenditures for what should be a priority commitment of this government in terms of allowing the expression of a native identity in our north country.
According to the Nielsen task force when it made comment on the program, it stated with regard to the program: "It shows promise as an effective tool for meeting special native broadcast needs and should be continued".
I just want to quote comments made by the Waterways Native Communication Society when they were discussing with the communications committee on a previous bill, Bill C-126, but it reflects on this particular bill. They noted the importance of having a native communications system in the north. They said:, "It is the Waterways' view that there needs to be more aboriginal language productions, programs produced by aboriginal people for aboriginal audiences. Special emphasis must be given to the production of children's programming. The production of more aboriginal language programs should at least begin to counter balance the heavy influx of irrelevant southern programming".
That is a pretty significant statement. In reference to that statement, and also in reference to the drastic budgetary cuts that we have seen take place, I want to ask the member, because I think he has perhaps very particular knowledge of the impact of these budgetary cuts, just how specifically can he see the latest round of cuts and the over-all strategy of sort of economically strangling this northern native broadcasting system?
How does he see it impacting with this Bill C-40 legislation?


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. One of the things that we have often heard in this House through my colleague from Western Arctic and myself as well is the danger of something like 38 aboriginal languages being forgotten because of the assimilation of the English and French languages. I would like to stress that there are a few languages that have a very good chance of surviving, of which Inuktitut, my language, is one. However, that too can be in danger of going if the aboriginal language programming by the CBC is cut any further.
As my hon. colleague pointed out, a cut of something like $28 million in a seven year period does not only reflect that it has gone down to $11.3 million. Over the years the cost of living, the cost of services, everything has gone up but the funding has gone down. As much as we appreciate the hard work that our regional directors in the north in the aboriginal communities have done to ensure aboriginal communications programming within the CBC within their ability to promote aboriginal languages, it is getting extremely difficult to keep going, especially among the communities which are a minority within their province or within their regions. We are very lucky in the eastern Arctic that we are a majority and, unless there are more drastic cuts in the CBC northern programming-which I would dearly hope not-we have a good chance of keeping on with our Inuktituk programming.
As I pointed out earlier, programs that are closely associated with the CBC northern service have been cut because of the government's willingness to cut, through the Secretary of State, the programs that were very popular among the children. I again would like to refer to that children's program and another program where there was a character called Johnny in the IBC program. It is in danger of being cut as well.
As I pointed out earlier, there has been offices closed. I, again, thank the hon. member for his question and I would like to stress how important it is that not only should the government not cut any more, it should raise the funding to more acceptable levels within the aboriginal communications societies and communications programs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Malpeque.


Catherine S. Callbeck: I appreciate this opportunity to participate in this very important debate on Bill C-40, an act that removes the CBC's mandate to promote national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity.
Throughout my lifetime and, I am sure, for generations, dating back to Confederation, Canadians have often posed the questions: What is a Canadian? What is our identity? Are we any different from the British or the Americans? What is there to being a Canadian, and what is it that binds us together?
These are questions on which a thesis could be written and they are questions to which certainly I cannot do justice tonight in this short period of time, but I would like to share with this House some of my thoughts on Canadian identity and why it is essential that we continue to protect and promote it through vehicles such as CBC.
We are certainly unique from all other peoples and all other nations. For instance, there are few Canadians who would accept being considered one and the same with Americans. Now this should not be mistaken as anti-American. It is simply that Canadians consider themselves somehow distinct from our neighbours to the south.
Canadians have a reputation for being a tolerant people, exacting, even welcoming diversity, a people who love the land and the outdoors, a nation that promotes individual freedom yet respects the rule of law.
Some people have said that Canada lacks a common culture or identity because we are too diverse. I disagree with that statement. In fact, I believe that diversity has traditionally been a major component of our identity, while tolerance is our Canadian way of life.
We have heard an analogy of the quilt made of rags. Alone, a rag does not produce warmth or protection from the elements. When each rag is sewn together by a common thread to make up a quilt, what was once a pile of rags is now a quilt capable of keeping a child warm and secure on a cold winter's night. Like that quilt, our country is made up of many diverse cultures. When these cultures are woven together by a common thread, they make up one of the most beautiful countries of the world. However, if one removes that common thread,
Government Orders
the quilt will fall apart. If we remove the common threads that hold us together as Canadians, we may well cause our country to fall apart.
CBC is a common thread that links Canadians together across our land. Because of our geography, there are few means at our disposal to link the dairy farmer in Prince Edward Island with the plight of Pacific coast fishermen, the lumberjack in British Columbia to the fishermen in my riding in Malpeque, or the anglophone Albertan oil rig worker with the francophone shopkeeper in Quebec, northern Ontario or New Brunswick.
If it were not for the CBC in my riding of Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, Islanders would be less likely to identify with the concerns and problems of other Canadians. In fact, we would be less likely even to be aware of those problems.
As The National news on CBC unites Canadians from coast to coast, in my province of Prince Edward Island the supper hour show Compass links Islanders from North Cape to East Point, the farmer from Clyde River to the business person in Charlottetown, the fisherman in Rustico to the tourist operator in Brudenell. What I am really saying here is that it creates a better understanding, a sense of community, where disparity seems to be the order of the day.
The province of Prince Edward Island is completely surrounded by water. Besides the ferry and the airplane, perhaps our most important link to the rest of Canada is the media and the CBC. The CBC provides Islanders with a national and provincial perspective on the issues of the day.
The federal presence in our province has already been diminished by the policies of this government. The Tories have already taken away CFB Summerside. They have closed some of our rural post offices. They have abandoned the CN freight rail services. They have cancelled our direct flight to the nation's capital from Prince Edward Island through Air Canada. They have cut our ferry subsidies which link us to the rest of the country. They have cut transfer payments to the province, reducing the federal commitment to our schools, hospitals, and social services. Now they want to remove from the CBC its mandate to promote national unity, which in this time of intense parochial and regional disparity may have the effect of further isolating Islanders from the rest of the country.


Government Orders
This government which has jeopardized the future of our country through its leader's roll the dice approach to national unity now wants to further put at risk our ability to come together as Canadians. The approach that this government has taken with this legislation is indicative of the government's over-all approach to national unity and its abdication of responsibility and leadership. Removing the promotion of national unity from CBC's mandate is not required, is not desired, and its timing could not be worse.
I am proud tonight to say that the Liberal Party is opposed to removing CBC's mandate to promote national unity. I thank you for the opportunity to stand in my place tonight to state my views on the ramifications that Bill C-40 may have for the people of Prince Edward Island and for all Canadians.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on third reading of this bill respecting broadcasting and to express my concern about this bill, as I did very briefly last evening at report stage.
In my view this is a most ill-conceived measure. We recognize in our party that the bill contains some good points. We needed a new Broadcasting Act in Canada, and this bill provides some assistance in that regard. However, there are serious shortcomings in the bill that we as an opposition, and particularly the hon. member for Mount Royal, has sought to correct by moving numerous amendments to this bill.
Today we witnessed the spectacle of the government voting down every one of those amendments. None was agreed to today; they were all voted down. Only amendments to this bill proposed by the government were accepted. I think I am correct in saying that, in every case. I find that a shocking contempt of Parliament, a shocking abuse of the rights of members to participate and discuss government measures and to try to correct them.
Certainly there is lots to correct in this bill. Even the parliamentary secretary, who I know missed that because he was very busy with other matters, would agree with me that this was a very high-handed approach on the part of his minister. Throughout the debate at the report stage, the minister refused to participate in the discussions, refused to propose the government's amendments by way of explanation to the House, and refused to comment on the very reasoned statements and speeches made by members on this side of the House. I think it showed a contempt of Parliament that we have not witnessed in this House for many years, and I am disappointed that the government took that approach.
Another indication of that contempt, I submit, is the requirement that we be sitting here at this hour of the night discussing this bill. The rules for parliamentary debate are pretty clear that the House normally adjourns at six o'clock. We were unable to obtain agreement from the government that a reasonable amount of time, that is more than one day, would be allowed for third reading debate on this bill. It was made clear that if we could not make such an arrangement time allocation would be used, and so we agreed to it.
As a measure to allow members on this side who wanted to express their concerns to participate in the debate, we had a motion passed yesterday. The government said: "We will agree to allow you to sit after six o'clock. You can debate this bill to your heart's content, but there will be terms".
What were the terms? Let us just look at the little motion passed in this House yesterday afternoon by unanimous consent. In part it read:
That on TUesday, December 4, 1990, the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, with quorum calls and dilatory motions not receivable during such period of continued sitting-


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: They wanted to get it out of the way.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: What does that mean? What does it mean that there will be no quorum calls or dilatory motions? What it means is that the government does not have to ensure that there are 20 members in this House to keep the House sitting. That is what it means. That is why there is almost no one here. It also means that government members can all go home and go to bed, because they are not interested in participating in the debate. There has only been a handful of them participating tonight. I congratulate the parliamentary secretary for his efforts in that regard. He is the last one here. I congratulate him for participating, and I am glad he did, but his colleagues might have and they chose not to do so.


The reason they chose not to do so was that they did not want to sit here and listen to the criticisms of this bill, which this opposition is entitled to bring forward and raise in this House. Members of the government have fled because they do not want to listen to those criticisms. I submit again that that displays an enormous contempt of this institution, an enormous Tbiy arrogance of the worst kind.
They do not want to listen to criticisms. They say: "What we have proposed is perfect or as close to it as we are going to get, and no one in Canada can tell us that this could be improved in a way that we have to listen to or that we will make any changes". That is exactly what has happened.
The hon. member for Mount Royal has tried to make changes and even members of the New Democratic Party have tried to make changes. We have proposed amendments to this bill, and the government does not even want to sit and listen to the discussion. The government says: "You people can talk until nine o'clock tomorrow morning, all night if you want, but we are not going to be here and listen to you. You cannot move a dilatory motion, so there are no naughty tricks you can play on us. There are no quorum calls, so our members go home and go to bed", as they have done, "nothing can happen that will upset the House. It will continue to sit and we will not lose our bill".
That, Mr. Speaker, is contempt of Parliament. It is a disgrace. It is unfortunate that the opposition, in order to get its day in court on this bill has to agree to those kinds of terms and conditions to keep the government happy, to allow us to have a fair and reasoned debate.
I want to turn to my concerns about the changes this bill proposes to the CBC, particularly to the division of the CBC into two parts, the English wing and the French wing. That is exactly what the government has proposed in this iniquitous legislation.
This government is the architect of disunity in Canada. Never ever, since the conscription crisis in 1917 has there been so much discord and disharmony in Canada as we have today. The sole reason for that discord and disharmony is the actions of the Prime Minister and his cabinet who are incompetent, who are divisive, who have no idea how to govern this country, and who, since June, have
Government Orders
been sitting here twiddling their thumbs, wondering, "What do we now?". They have no more sense of direction than the man in the moon.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: The roll of the dice.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The roll of the dice signifies their policy. They divide the country. They pit region against region. They are tearing apart the federal government. They will give anything to the provinces. They will sell us all to the United States. They have done it all. They have done all of it in the name of trying to govern the country. They say they are a government. I say they are a disgrace. They should resign immediately because they are such a disgraceful government.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Are you having trouble keeping a straight face?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I have no trouble keeping a straight face on that one. The parliamentary secretary thinks this is a joke. This government is a disgrace.
As I say, the amazing thing was to listen to the Prime Minister in Question Period yesterday. I could quote him, Mr. Speaker, but I will not.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Please do.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He was trying to blame Jean Chretien, the leader of the Liberal Party for discord in Canada. Of all the outrageous claims! Everyone else is to blame except the Prime Minister. It was the Prime Minister who weakened this country. It was the Prime Minister who started dismantling the federal government.
Let us go through the list of organs of the state that have been dismantled under this government. VIA Rail, slashed and cut. It was one of the first national enterprises we ever had in Canada.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: In 1977.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: 1997, my foot. VIA Rail was established by Sir John A. Macdonald, the Father of Confederation. It was built as a term of Confederation. VIA Rail has been slashed and cut by this government in a way that it has never been slashed and cut before.
Petro-Canada is now being sold. We have the bill before this House. It will be back here shortly, if it is not now. Fire sale prices for selling off the national assets of Canada for which Canadians paid millions of dollars.

Government Orders
Air Canada. Canada's national airline that provided essential transportation services across this country-sold off. The Post Office. Rural closures right across the country-slash, slash, slash, cut out rural services for Canadians. It created two classes of Canadians, those who in live in urban municipalities with door-to-door delivery and those who deal with supermailboxes because they live in new subdivisions; and those in rural Canada who had their service slashed and cut. That is what this government is doing.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: That's harmonization.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member for Okanagan-Shu-swap says it is harmonization. It may be, but it creates a great deal of disharmony in the country. I am sure he would agree that that is so.
Then we have the free trade agreement where everything is sold to the United States. Give away our energy resources. Give everything away. I could go through that at length, Mr. Speaker, but I will not-


Sheila Finestone: Even our water.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Even our water, as the hon. member for Mount Royal says, is being given away.
Then we have the Prime Minister giving away the CBC by slashing and cutting. We heard about the cuts tonight. Ten stations across the country about to be closed and the parliamentary secretary says that these are not cuts. He says the government is giving.
I am afraid that his trip abroad has deranged him. He must have got something mixed up because when we hear these rumours on the radio, on the CBC particularly, they invariably turn out to be true, it seems to me.
I have hardly ever heard a CBC news account of rumours and stories about government cuts and slashes that have not turned out to be true. Usually they are on the light side. Usually the cuts are worse than were proposed in the story. If we on this side have been wrong in talking about the cuts tonight, we will hear about it in the morning. I hope that the parliamentary secretary will stand up and apologize to the House tomorrow if, in fact, all these cuts and slashes that have been announced tonight happen. I look forward to hearing him eat his words if that is the case.
Finally, if that list of destruction of federal government programs is not enough, then we can turn to the Prime Minister's roll of the dice for Canadians last summer. Thlk about hypocrisy, talk about blaming the leader of the Liberal Party, who is not even a member of Parliament at the moment, for the problems that Canada faced last June.
The Prime Minister is the one who had the responsibility to lead this country, but he insisted on raising the stakes. Instead of saying yes, there may be a problem with the Meech Lake Accord we have negotiated, we may have to try and do something else, he said, it is sign or else. That was his message. That is what drove the wedge between the premiers. That is what so sowed disunity in Canadians hearts, because they said they are being forced into a take it or leave it proposition in respect of their Constitution and they did not like it. Canadians from coast to coast were up in arms about it and the Prime Minister kept denying it. He said everybody supports this.
There was serious disunity on the issue, but the facts never bothered our Prime Minister. He says, "I am not bothered by the facts, I don't care what Canadians think. All I care is that I got the votes from the premiers, they all signed, they have to then follow through and it is sign or else, it is sign or else!" He said it for weeks and weeks and weeks, right up until the last minute and then he did his roll of the dice and it did not work.
Now he is saying the reason it did not work is because of Jean Chretien. What did he do, weight the dice? What did he do, jump on the dice when they were in mid-air? Did he catch them and throw them another way? What utter rubbish! Yet the Prime Minister has the nerve to stand in this House, of all places, and make that kind of palpable nonsense of a statement.
The parliamentary secretary says it is quite true. I think he needs his head examined, because I do not think there is another reasonable person in this room who thinks that that is quite true and I ask him to find one. Find another person in this room who agrees that the Prime Minister's statement is true. The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap does not think so. The hon. member for Mount Royal does not think so. I am sure that the Speaker, learned as he is, does not think so. So who does? No one else thinks so. The parliamentary secretary is outnumbered and outvoted on that one.


In my submission, the government is absolutely incapable of achieving or working toward national unity in Canada. This bill is just another example of its abject failure in that regard. What the government has done by this bill is say that it is not going to even try to pull Canada together. It is not going to even try to keep the national broadcasting system of Canada as a national institution. It is going to divide it in half along linguistic lines, just what Canada needs. Instead of trying to create a bilingual, bicultural country that operates as a national unit, it is going to divide the CBC so that one group can speak one language and listen to broadcasts in one language and the other can do the other. It will simply tailor the broadcasting systems to suit the audiences and forget the idea of a national audience of national appeal, of a national system, of a system that tries in some small measure to unite the two language groups so that we share the common culture, we share some common values, we share some of the advantages of having two languages and two cultures operating in a country. I am not meaning to exclude any others by that statement.
This government is incapable of that kind of vision. It is incapable of that kind of understanding of Canada, if you like, and it has been an understanding that has been ingrained in thousands of Canadians for all of my lifetime. I have no trouble with the concept. I think it is a great concept. I think it is a great country we live in, but this government seems hell bent on breaking it up. Their whole attitude is cut services, break the federal government down so that Canada's constituent parts can go and do their own thing, weaken the ties that bind us from east to west, weaken the national ties that help hold us together through things like the CBC and let every province just go off and do its own thing, do it with the United States so everything will be north and south, forget about the east-west tie, make all trade deals south of the border and do not worry about trading with the other provinces. We are not concerned about a lack of free trade between the provinces is this government's approach. Why should it care? Because it is quite prepared to have us do all our trade with the United States, that is why.
It is quite prepared to say: "Well, if Americans come in and buy up all of Canada that is too bad for Canadians. It is the best thing because it is the marketplace at work". That is its approach.
It is not the right approach. It is not the way Liberal governments have done it and they have been in power for most of this century and have done an extremely good job of governing Canada.
Government Orders
What we have had since 1984 is the destruction of the fabric of Canada that has been built up through generations of governments in the past. The hon. member who is here must know that the CBC was, after all, a creation of a Conservative government, one of the few on the list. Nevertheless, it is there.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Unemployment insurance.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member says unemployment insurance. I do not think he is right in that. I think he will find that unemployment insurance was in fact done by a Liberal government. My recollection is that the amendment to the British North America Act as it was at the time which made unemployment insurance possible for the federal government was in fact passed at Westminster as a result of a request from this Parliament when it was under the control of the Liberal government. I believe it was in 1949.1 may be wrong in my date. It was certainly post-war and it certainly was not a Conservative government. The first one after the war in my recollection was in 1957, and we all know what a disaster that government was. It was the worst one we have had in Canada before this one.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Almost as bad as this one.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Almost as bad as this one. To look at it from the other perspective, as the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap has so ably put it. It is almost as bad as this one.


Sheila Finestone: He doesn't agree.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. parliamentary secretary looks as though he does not agree. Probably the realization has just hit him as to how bad this government is. I am glad he has been sitting and paying such close attention to my speech so that message can sink in.
Mr. Speaker, I think my pleas in this case are falling on deaf ears. I would like to say "no ears" but the parliamentary secretary is here and I appreciate that. But I am afraid that even he will not be able to convince the minister that urgent changes are needed to this bill if it is going to be acceptable.

Government Orders
We can only hope that when the bill gets to the other place, if and when it passes on the vote tomorrow-and perhaps some of his colleagues will see the folly of their ways and vote with us to defeat it-we can hope there will be significant changes made by the other place and the bill will come back here and we can adopt those changes.
Sober second thought, Mr. Speaker, seems to work in some cases and possibly, although this bill has been before this House since what, March?


Sheila Finestone: March 19.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You would have thought that the government might have drawn a sober breath some time between March and now and realized that this bill needed change and might have adopted some of the amendments we proposed, but it has not worked.
Perhaps in the other place reason will prevail and we will see some significant changes to get rid of the more odious provisions in this bill, particularly the one that, in my submission, will lead to further division and discord in Canada by dividing the CBC effectively into two corporations. I submit that is not in the best interests of Canadian unity. It is not in the best interests of Canada. It is not in the best interests of the CBC, and it is definitely not in the best interests of a government which believes that Canada is worth saving as a single entity.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I do not know quite where to begin but I am going to tiy to respond to some of the points my hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands has made.
It was his predecessor from that constituency who essentially was the architect of the bill that is now before us, and a wise and sage minister she was.
It is not proposed that the CBC be divided into two parts, and I think the hon. member knows it. The CBC is proposed to have two standing committees of its one board of directors, in each of which committee would participate the president and the chairman, in order to bridge the two solitudes in this country. That is the sole and only purpose of that particular proposal in the bill.
I did not say that cuts would not be happening to the CBC tomorrow. What I did say is that the government was not imposing any cuts on the CBC. In fact the government would be helping the CBC financially in the dilemma that it is now confronting.
On the question of national unity we heard again, Mr. Speaker, the line tonight that he or she who opposes the idea of liberal and socialist interventionism and statism is somehow not patriotic. That, Sir, is just unworthy of response. It is contemptuous of millions and millions of Canadians who have shucked off the idea of statism and intervention and say: "Let us stand on our own two feet in the world" and, yes, in partnership with the United States if we choose but not if we choose not.
Timing to the question having to do with the conduct of this bill through its various stages in our Parliament, I will not go through the history of it again because I have done so already tonight. However, to have it proposed to us that it is a shocking contempt of Parliament to allocate seven hours to third reading of this very significant bill is an unfair accusation. This bill, in the mother of Parliaments, would have had two or three hours maximum, but this is not the mother of Parliaments. This is a Parliament where the opposition has the maximum opportunity to make its point, and I think that nourishes democracy.
I find it rather strange and somehow shocking and disappointing that the hon. member who holds a responsible position within his party and who is something of an expert in the rules of Parliament has abused the terms of an agreement which his party entered into. He is abusing the very terms of an agreement which his party entered into. He suggested that the government has fled because it did not want to hear the arguments of the opposition.
I have already gone on record tonight as having said that I responded to every one of the opposition amendments fully. I explained and defended fully every one of the government amendments in the 11 hours that we spent going through detailed clause by clause study of this bill. Many of those amendments, in fact the vast majority of them, were withdrawn after that agonizing process had been gone through so that they could be reintroduced at report stage to tie up the business of the House further, after the issues had been thoroughly aired.

We have had this described by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands as somehow constituting Tory arrogance, this allocation of so much quite properly to the study of a bill and the opportunity for the opposition to have its views made known on the bill and its provisions.
I knew the Tory great-uncle of this man. He would be spinning in his grave to hear history being rewritten and redescribed as it is being described here today. That distinguished great-uncle of the member for Kingston and the Islands married a lovely lady who remains my constituent in her late nineties. She is the daughter of the founding premier of the province of Alberta, a Liberal premier who later saw the error of his ways and became a distinguished Conservative.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's sentiments in respect of my relatives who live in his riding, but I assure the House that there will be no spinning in any graves except for the misconceptions that the parliamentary secretary is spreading.
Let us turn to one of the points. I do not want to deal with all of them. My arguments stand firmly on their own two feet.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: You cannot remember them.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: There is that difficulty, but never mind that. The fact is that the parliamentary secretary suggested in respect of the committee that he spent 11 hours slugging it out, as I admit he did. He worked. There is no question that when the parliamentary secretary is here he works. He worked away in this committee, slugging it out for 11 hours discussing these amendments. That may be so, but the fact is that those hours were spent when the committee was in clause by clause study. From what the hon. member for Mount Royal has indicated to me, that was in closed session.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: No, it was open.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It was open but, as the hon. member knows, very few people attend those sittings. The committee hearings were not televised. Debate on report stage of this bill was on national television, so Canadians could see what the government was planning to do to the CBC. They could see what the government was planning to do by changing the rules under the Broadcast Act. That was the purpose of bringing the amendments in the House of Commons, so Canadians could see what was going on and make a public display of the despicable way the government is acting in respect of this bill and in
Government Orders
respect of the CBC. That is why it was done this way and surely the parliamentary secretary knows that.
Yet, he says that seven hours of debate on third reading is generous. Rubbish, that is generous. This government, since this Parliament began, has taken it into its head-and the government House leader is largely responsible for this-that it somehow can limit debate to whatever it thinks is appropriate.
We can hear the government House leader say: "I think more than one day on that bill is too long." That is his view, but that is not our view. It was not our view when we were in government.
We gave the hon. members opposite all kinds of time when this party was in government. I have read Hansard where debates went on for weeks and weeks and weeks.
The hon. member for Saint-Denis is here. He can testify as to how many weeks the Conservative Party, when it was in opposition, dragged out debates-weeks and weeks.
The hon. parliamentary secretary thinks that seven hours is excessive. He said they would not allow seven hours in the U.K. Big deal. I do not care whether they allow seven hours in the U.K. As I said, this is not the United Kingdom. This is Canada and the hon. member should learn the difference. He cannot always cite the other for examples of how it works. The United Kingdom's parliament is a unitary parliament. There are no provinces. There is no provincial legislature. It passes all the legislation that we do in all legislatures and here for the whole U.K. It is a different kettle of fish. It is a different ball game and the hon. member should realize that.
The second point I wanted to make was that he suggested that somehow I was critical-I have forgotten his words-and that I did not agree with the agreement we had already agreed to.
I am saying we agreed to it because the choice was to have a two or three hour debate or have one that went on into the night. That is why I criticized it and I was very careful to criticize it on that basis. I am not being critical because we got the time or because we agreed to take the time. I am being critical because what we are doing to get the time is saying: "We will suspend all the normal rules and you guys do not have to stay around and listen. We just want to have our day in court and have our chat."


Government Orders
The attitude of the government is: "As long as you just want to talk, we will let you go. But if we have to sit here and keep order in the House and maintain an interest in the debate, then we do not want any part of it and we will not agree." That is the approach of the government, and I am saying that is a bad approach and it shows arrogance, Tory arrogance, pure and simple. It is arrogant, with respect, Mr. Speaker. It is arrogant.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: For only one minute, the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the debate tonight and watching the debates with regard to Bill C-40 take place over the last number of months, it is all becoming very clear what the government strategy has been.
We were debating Bill C-40 back in the spring when suddenly it was pulled. It was pulled when the government went into the Meech Lake crisis. I think it was pulled very specifically because the government did not want to be criticized for doing exactly what it is doing, undermining the national unity clause with this legislation.
Suddenly, it went silent and remained silent until the dust settled, until Meech was settled, and until Oka was over. Then, it brought it back in, only to pull it again and to bring it back in a third time. Suddenly, there is such a rush for debate that we had to cram it all into a few days.
The government sat absolutely silent during that debate yesterday. Not even the minister would stand up and defend the amendments and defend the legislation. We got absolute silence. Only tonight did we get the parliamentary secretary commenting, to his credit.
What has been the strategy here? What is the hurry for this sudden rush to put this bill through? It became clear tonight with the recognition of the fact that we have 1,200 people being laid off in the near future with the cuts to CBC, the cuts that had been instituted by the government. That was the strategy. They wanted to ram this legislation through to get it out of the House, to be dispensed with, so that when the cuts came down, when the axe fell, it was already finished.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Thirty seconds, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap. There was an attempt by the government to hold this legislation back last June when it knew that it would be disruptive to national unity. The parliamentary secretary knows that was the reason it was held up last June.
The attempt was to jam this thing through tonight before these cuts got out. The government knew the cuts were coming. It may be that it was the CBC that did the cuts, not the government, but the only reason the CBC did them was because the government reduced the money it had available. It is as simple as that, and that is what has gone on. For the parliamentary secretary to suggest otherwise is palpable nonsense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate? Since no other hon. member wishes to rise, pursuant to the order at adopted on Monday, December 3rd, 1990, the division on all necessary question to dispose of third reading of Bill C-40 is deemed to have been deferred until 3 p.m., Wednesday, December 5, 1990.
Before I conclude, I wish to thank all the support staff who have worked very hard until this late hour.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Saint-Denis rises on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish, at this late hour, to thank you for chairing so patiently this very long debate.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It now being 12 minutes past midnight, pursuant to the order adopted on Monday, December 3rd, 1990, the House adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 00.12 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 5,1990