1990-12-03

['Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian Advanced Technology Association asked the government to adopt the following policy statement: "Canada must shift to a higher percentage of national investment in the production and marketing of advanced technology goods and services into the production of higher value-added products in all sectors and to the application and use of technology to build competitiveness and into the development of human resource capability to facilitate these shifts."\nThese are the indispensable steps to industrial restructuring to which the government has given lip service, while in fact adopting monetary policies that make them impossible to achieve.\nOral Questions\nCATA says that the finance minister must scrap his high interest policies now because not just the shortterm but the long-term future of Canada is at stake. With that New Democrats agree.']
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved: that Bill C-314, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is brought before the House today to remedy a situation that should have been corrected, but unfortunately was not, when the concurrent provisions of the Criminal Code were created in 1972.
In 1972, it was decided, after a long series of hearings before the Law Reform Commission, that under certain circumstances a judge, instead of convicting an accused, should be able to order and direct that the accused be discharged absolutely or on conditions prescribed in a probation order. The result of that discharge in effect was that there was to be no conviction at all.
Unfortunately, under the criminal records provision, we like keeping records on people. When we keep records, we can keep the record that they were discharged from their criminal charge. The judge ordered that they not be convicted, yet we keep a record that they were not convicted.
As a consequence, in order to get a clean criminal record, these people are now required, after five years- because they cannot do anything without a five-year wait-to proceed to the National Parole Board to make an application. Because the Parole Board is overstuffed with work and cannot get at its work, it takes a year and a half longer to get absolved of a conviction that the act says they were not convicted of.
So, we have the absolute stupidity of it all in the way the criminal record system operates. We have all sorts of people in our constituency, Sir, carrying with them a record that makes it difficult sometimes for them to get employment because they have a criminal record, or at least there is a record of their activities. Sometimes they have a difficult time with immigration. They have a difficult time generally because they have this record and we keep records of people who were not convicted, because the act says that the judge can discharge them and the judge has discharged them.
Let me read some of the debates that took place when this matter was proposed by the Hon. Otto Lang. I am reading from the Commons Debate of April 27, 1972, at page 1700.
First of all, we propose to put into the hands of judges and magistrates the power to give an absolute or conditional discharge to persons who either plead guilty or are found guilty by them. This, of course, means that the offender will not be convicted. This means that in certain cases, particularly of young offenders who have transgressed in a technical way without in any malicious sense having attempted to injure society, the judge or magistrate is given the power to use this approach instead of rendering a suspended sentence which might otherwise have been the next least severe penalty available to him.
That was the whole intent of the statute. I can go on further and tell you what the critic for the New Democratic Party said. Having analysed the bill, I found that no one from the Progressive Conservative Party spoke on this section. In the usual course, this was an omnibus bill

December 3, 1990
Private Members' Business
that covered a whole lot of other matters, including airline hijacking, and most of the attention of the debate was, of course, focused on airline hijacking.
I will read to you from page 1705 of Hansard of April 27, 1972 as to what the New Democratic Party said. Mr. Gilbert is, of course, now a judge of a court and he certainly was pretty interested in this particular matter. He said:
The Minister of Justice waxed eloquent with regard to the changes concerning conditional and absolute discharge, and 1 thought he was right in doing so, and taking a great step forward from the approach of suspended sentence to that of conditional or absolute discharge. This is a giant step forward. I was happy to see that not only if a person pleads guilty, but when a person is found guilty and a conviction is registered we will give the judge discretion to grant an absolute or a conditional discharge if it is in the best interest of the accused and is not contrary to the public interest. The result will be that in time the offence will be deemed not to have been committed.
We have here a situation where it was intended that there be no conviction and, clearly, no conviction registered. The matter came before committee. I will read from the meeting of the justice and legal affairs committee of this House on May 11, 1972. Mr. Lang appeared before the committee to explain the bill. He said:
These clauses allow the judge additional latitude where a person pleads guilty or is found guilty to discharge conditionally or absolutely. The person then is deemed not to be convicted with consequences which follow both for, say, the immigration law and sometimes perhaps for motor vehicle law in the provinces and in other places.
Mr. Gilbert replied:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the minister for introducing these sections. It is a great step forward and I think he should be recognized for having the courage and the progressive attitude that applies to these sections. I hope they work. I think he is very familiar with what has happened in the past even though the judge had the power to impose suspended sentence it still carried grave consequences with regard to a person's job or travel or bonding. This may alleviate some of those problems.
That is exactly what ought to happen.
It seems to me a travesty of all justice that a person goes before a court and that court says: "You may have sinned young man but go, there is no conviction against you. You are absolutely discharged or you are discharged conditionally on certain things happening." He walks out of the courtroom relieved. He may apply to become a police officer two or three years later. He cannot, because he has a conviction registered against him, even
though the statute says no conviction. He applies for a job where a bond is required. They draw a criminal record. There it is, large as life. Even though the judge intended no conviction, even though the Criminal Code says no conviction on those circumstances, there is no job and no future. That was exactly what this provision was intended to remedy.
If you could somehow clean up a matter like this easily, it would be fine. Our criminal record system requires you to appear before or make an application to the National Parole Board. That board is busy. It is overloaded with these kinds of cases. There has not been a single case since conditional or absolute discharges were imposed where the board has refused to remove the record of these convictions. The board treats them as non-existent. They were not intended to be there. The judge treated them as non-existent, yet our statute carries them on because somewhere along the line police departments and others in law enforcement like to keep records. It is time we stopped keeping these records. It is time the judge who is in charge of the case says that there be an absolute or conditional discharge and that should be the end of it.
This bill goes on to declare that there should be a record kept while the appeal is pending, if there is an appeal from the Crown. Of course, that should be there. After the period for appeal is expired, there should be no further blotch on the person's career. That was the intention of the statute and that is what ought to occur. One does not get an absolute discharge or a conditional discharge easily. You only get it under very rare circumstances. It is not the kind of thing that judges hand out willy-nilly .The judge wants to make sure, if there is a record, he can give a suspended sentence or a minor fine. They can handle it in all sorts of other ways. The intent of an absolute or conditional discharge is that people not be deemed convicted. That is the kind of thing this bill is trying to remedy.
This matter has caused me, as a member of Parliament, a lot of problems with my constituents.
When I spoke to the committee in terms of what bills should come up for voting, other members of Parliament on the committee, in looking at the matter, declared that
December 3, 1990

they had the same problem as I had. We are solving problems for our constituents who, somewhere along the line in their young lives, committed an offence against society and the judge gave an absolute discharge. They come into our office wondering why the system is destroying them. It was not intended to do so, and we ought to remedy that.
If the government wants to oppose this or delay the vote, we ought to look at that. I ask government members, why mouth speeches opposed to this, why not support it and get on with it, and solve the problem that we all face when people come to our offices in need of help?


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak today to this Private Members' Bill C-314.
This particular bill directs its attention to an area of criminal law that very much deserves our attention. The government has already introduced one bill in this session to deal with an aspect of the Criminal Records Act and with the period of time that a person must wait before he or she can apply for a pardon for a drug offence.
The intent of the member's bill is pretty clear. Where there is an absolute discharge or conditional discharge granted by a court, where the record of conviction or non-conviction would be destroyed so that that record does not dog the balance of the life of the person who went through the court process, it just means simple destruction and non-reference to it in the years to come. While I respect that intent, I can see some practical problems in implementation. I would like to touch on a few of those without in any way detracting from the integrity of the intention of the bill, and I believe it should be dealt with by the justice minister in this Parliament.
The first item is that the Criminal Records Act styles itself as an act to provide for the relief of persons who have been convicted of offences and have subsequently rehabilitated, et cetera. That is a bit of an illusion because the short name for the act is the Criminal Records Act. In real life, I suppose, it should have been called the criminal pardons act. When you look closely at this act, it really does not deal very well with criminal
Private Members' Business
records. It should not be called the Criminal Records Act. In fact, it does not even have a definition of the term criminal record. That is a very serious problem in an act purporting to deal with criminal records when it deals with pardons.
The result is that when you deal with criminal records in that act, or under the Criminal Code, you do not really have an idea of what the criminal record is. Is it the certificate in the original court file? Is it a secondary record that merely states the existence of a record? Is it a notation in an electronic file? Is it a statement in a police file? A statement in a police force's correspondence? Is it a computer record? Is it a secondary record that has been transmitted to a third party? How far down the line does it reach?
We have never taken the time to define that. It is an area that does cry out for our attention. We just do not know what we are dealing with here in terms of these records.
Not only do we not know exactly how that criminal record is constituted, but we do not have a comprehensive statute governed registry of criminal records in this country. We do have CPIC run by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, that does provide pretty reasonable information for police forces, but it is not the comprehensive registry I have just referred to.
I remember in my previous incarnation as a practising lawyer trying to get a record of a criminal record from a court in another part of Canada. I believe it was the province of New Brunswick. Eventually I found the record in a court in a small town in New Brunswick. I was fortunate in having a bit of an indication from the parties involved as to where I might locate the record, but it did not seem like much of a national system of criminal records to me.
How can we have a national system of justice when it is broken into 11 separate parts, and we do not have this comprehensive system or procedure for dealing with records? I submit there is a burden on the federal government to deal with that. It is an omission of ours as a country.
Two of the more dramatic manifestations of that lack of leadership and problems in the judicial system are the recent Askov decision where the Supreme Court of

December 3, 1990
Private Members' Business
Canada decision is causing indirectly, or even directly, the dismissal of thousands of criminal charges in the province of Ontario. There has been no action or response on the part of the justice minister here in this Parliament. The other one is the Charles Ng case, and it is not the only one, where after the expiry of two-thirds of the man's sentence under a section in the Immigration Act, the man could easily have been deported. But no, that was too easy for us. We let the man serve his whole sentence. Even now, his sentence is complete and we keep him in protective custody while we try to figure out if he can be extradited.
There is a clear abdication of responsibility and leadership here in the justice field in governing the interplay of the Extradition Act, the Immigration Act and the Corrections Act.
Going back to the member's bill, as to the issue of destruction of criminal records, aside from the absence of a definition of what a criminal record is, the member's bill provides a right to an individual to be present when the record is destroyed. I would submit if that is an absolute right, then the bill should be dealing with how we go about contacting the individual. If you cannot get the individual there to view the destruction, do you delay the destruction until you find him or her? I submit that some people in this country who do have criminal records can be very difficult to locate. They have learned to do that. That is another minor problem with this bill.
Last, the reference in the bill to section 736(3)(c) of the Criminal Code dealing with autre fois convict produces an odd result with the way this bill deals with that section. The purpose of that plea of autrefois convict is to provide to an accused a package plea to show the court that he or she has already been convicted of an offence arising out of the same facts, in fact the same offence. If one is discharged of that conviction, the act deems you not to have been ever convicted. The section proposed by the hon. member would prevent one from pleading autre fois convict later. That takes away the benefit of the plea which should be there for all of us. I do not think that was the intended result. Whether or not one has actually been convicted or discharged, one still has to have the right to plead autre fois convict. That is another minor problem.
In summation, I thank the member for his obvious caring about this issue and for his constructive approach to rectifying an area of omission in our criminal records and criminal justice system.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very brief. I have to assume that government members are prepared to allow this private member's bill to pass at second reading and to go to a legislative committee, as I think it should. First of all, I commend the hon. member for Mississauga South for bringing forward Bill C-314.
The purpose of this bill, according to a notation in the bill itself, is to provide where a person is discharged under the Criminal Code in respect of an offence that all records relating to that offence must be destroyed. I also agree with the member who brought the bill forward that it is long overdue. This kind of rectifying legislation should have been brought forward by governments back in the 1970s, let alone the 1980s and now here we are in 1990, the beginning of a whole new decade.
I too have had some experience as a member of Parliament in trying to assist constituents to get pardons for a non-crime, as it were, as the hon. member so ably described in his opening remarks. It struck me at that time that what I was doing was not only a waste of time for me, but it was an unnecessary worry and burden for the constituent. That constituent had already been discharged from any criminal liability at the time by the presiding judge, and yet his or her record or non-record in the criminal records files had continued for years. We in the New Democratic Party welcome this bill this afternoon. We sincerely hope that it will pass. Obviously no vote is necessary. We are not going to talk it out, because there is no point in talking it out if we want it to pass.
I am still very concerned-and I know this is not totally relevant to this bill-about the length of time it takes to achieve pardons from the National Parole Board for relatively minor offences that took place many years in the past. It is an absolute shame that for a minor offence a citizen of this country, even if convicted, has to wait a minimum of five years before he or she can initiate this time consuming procedure to obtain that pardon.

December 3, 1990

We support Bill C-314 at second reading. We hope there are no hitches or glitches when it goes to a legislative committee, and we look forward to this bill becoming law as expeditiously as is humanly possible.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the hon. member for Mississauga South. I commend him for the time and effort he has put into preparing his bill for our consideration.
Before proceeding to the specifics of amending the Criminal Records Act, I believe members of the House would welcome some further background information as a basis for discussion. In Canada federal clemency powers are exercised by means of three distinct yet interrelated mechanisms: the royal prerogative of mercy, section 683 and section 686 of the Criminal Code, and the Criminal Records Act. Both the royal prerogative, which is exercised by the Governor General, and the Criminal Code provisions, which are exercised by the Governor in Council, are largely unfettered, discretionary powers which permit the application of exceptional remedies, pardons, remissions, or respite in extraordinary circumstances. Stemming from the ancient privilege of monarchs to dispense mercy in deserving cases, these mechanisms are used as a last resort to ensure that justice can be tempered with compassion.
By comparison, the Criminal Records Act formally recognizes that an offender has satisfied the sentence imposed by the court and has demonstrated substantially that he or she is a responsible citizen. As such, the pardon granted by virtue of this legislation seeks to remove the social and legal disabilities which flow from conviction and, at the same time, to symbolize the ex-offender's successful social reintegration.
An individual convicted of a federal offence may apply under the Criminal Records Act to the Solicitor General for a pardon after a waiting period following completion of sentence. The waiting periods are as follows for the various levels of offences. When an offender has been convicted of an indictable offence, he or she will not be eligible to apply for a pardon until five years have elapsed after sentence expiry. An individual convicted of a summary offence must wait three years before applying.
Private Members' Business
As the legislation now stands-and this is the object of the amendments today-those charged with summary or indictable offences, who upon being found guilty receive absolute or conditional discharges, are ineligible to apply for pardons until one or three years respectively have elapsed after the decision of the court.
I will be moving to these particulars a little later in my discourse. At the moment, after the application for pardon is received, inquiries into the behaviour of the applicant since the date of his or her conviction are made by officials of the National Parole Board, which as we all know is an agency of the Ministry of the Solicitor General.
The Governor in Council may grant the pardon acting on the recommendation received from the Solicitor General. A pardon has the effect of vacating the conviction. The applicant's criminal record is sealed, that is set apart, and cannot be divulged without the written approval of the Solicitor General. The pardon can be revoked, however, if the recipient is no longer of good conduct, is convicted of a subsequent federal offence, or obtained the pardon on the basis of knowingly concealed or fraudulent information.
To build on this background, I believe that we should have some concept of the significance of the legislation that the member for Mississauga South is proposing to amend. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I will outline the impact of the Criminal Records Act through a brief statistical account, because many Canadians have availed themselves of its provisions and many more will in years to come.
The annual number of pardon applications referred to the National Parole Board has risen virtually without interruption since the Criminal Records Act was proclaimed in 1970: from 380 applications in 1970 to 8,010 in 1981 and to some 23,000 in 1988-89. While some of the forms must be returned to applicants because they are premature or lacking essential data and others are ultimately discontinued as in cases of ineligibility, for example, the vast majority of legitimate requests are granted. This may simply indicate that those who correctly anticipate refusal do not apply, but approximately 98 per cent of all applications are approved. Notwithstanding the rapid increase in applications and the high grant rate, the number of pardon requests submitted represents a very small portion of the total population of ex-offenders eligible for pardons. Although an exact number of potential pardoned candidates cannot be

December 3, 1990
Private Members' Business
determined precisely, the RCMP reported last year that 2.5 million Canadians-and that is almost one in every ten Canadians- have criminal records. More than one-half of these represents summary convictions and is usually indicative of lesser crimes and infractions.
By the way, I did want to mention that many of us are unaware that pardons are obtainable through a somewhat challenging but nonetheless straightforward process. There are no exorbitant fees to be paid, and it is not necessary that an applicant retain a lawyer. The number of applications might also rise considerably, should these facts gain wider recognition.
A sample of National Parole Board files covering the 1976-1980 period has been analysed to provide a more complete description of pardons. In this sample group of 17,700 applicants, employment was the major reason cited for submitting an application. Some 48 per cent of applicants stated that a pardon would improve their prospects of gaining employment, advancement or security in their current job. A desire to start literally with a clean slate is an obvious consideration. The desire to achieve peace of mind is another, as indicated by the 84 per cent of applicants who were employed when their request was submitted since, in a majority of these cases, the employers were unaware of the applicant's criminal conviction.
To summarize, rather than trying Your Honour's patience and the patience of this House with an endless stream of numbers, the typical offence for which a pardon was requested was a property offence and the typical penalty was a fine. Some 52 per cent of the applicants had only been convicted once and a further 17 per cent had been convicted twice. However, during the sample period more than 2,000 pardons were granted after extensive investigation to persons with six or more convictions.
Nonetheless, applicants with several convictions or who had received sentences that entailed imprisonment were more likely to have been denied a pardon. Almost one-half or 46 per cent of all denials were for attitudinal reasons; whereas a much smaller proportion, 6 per cent, was rejected because of a recent conviction. Outstanding or repeated charges amounted to a total of 5 per cent or suspicion of criminal involvement amounted to 4 per cent.
As I mentioned, the Solicitor General on the advice of the National Parole Board, which is the agency that makes recommendations regarding pardons, is equally empowered to execute revocation. Of the approximately 17,700 pardons granted from 1976 to 1980, only 2 per cent were considered for revocation and, of these, roughly half were ultimately recommended for revocation. Although pardons can be revoked because the recipient is no longer of good conduct, the board in practice has based its recommendations solely on the occurrence of subsequent criminal convictions or repeated charges.
We have before us a proposition to correct potential and current injustices. I again commend the member who has brought it forward. To deal expeditiously and more or less automatically to remove the class of applicant designated by Bill C-314 from the pardon granting process would ease the burden on the National Parole Board whose efforts would be more productively directed to the consideration of cases of greater gravity.


Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the hon. member for Mississauga South on the impressive job he did in another area, as chairman of the finance committee. I would like to draw the attention of Canadians to the impressive amount of work done by the hon. member for a number of years on this committee, working steadily on changes to the entire Canadian tax system, to make it an instrument that will help the neediest among us. The abolition of tax shelters, Bill C-23, for instance, on the minimum tax for the rich, which met with the opposition of the Liberals and the NDP, all this was achieved thanks to the perseverance of the hon. member.
Mr. Speaker, regarding the Criminal Records Act, in 1969, the Ouimet Committee recognized the need for legislation that would ease the legal disabilities and social stigma of a criminal record for those ex-offenders who had demonstrated over an appropriate number of years that they could lead crime-free lives. The committee's recommendations were largely responsible for the enactment of the Criminal Records Act in 1970. This
December 3, 1990

legislation was subsequently revisited when examined in conjunction with the Criminal Law Review, approved by cabinet in 1981. Two important principles contained in the policy statement produced by this review were that the criminal justice system should be governed by economy, necessity and restraint, and that whenever appropriate, the criminal law should provide for opportunities aimed at the personal reformation of the offender and his reintegration into the community.
In the period following the promulgation of the Criminal Records Act, deficiencies in the system for granting pardons had been identified by the government officials responsible for the implementation of the legislation. It had become evident that not enough eligible ex-offenders were receiving pardons and that the system of application, review and decision was too complicated. Law enforcement officials, for example, were unhappy with the complicated system of having to apply for access to "sealed" pardoned criminal records. More recently, the Nielsen Task Force Report characterized the current system as "costly, cumbersome and counterproductive".
Reform undertaken in light of these criticisms would require balancing of the three competing objectives of providing relief from a criminal record to increased numbers of eligible ex-offenders, ensuring that the public is protected and creating a more efficient criminal records system. Moreover, the affected constituencies are varied and their interests conflict to a certain extent. These factors suggest that simple solutions are unlikely.
Most opinion expressed in consultations to date supports the view that the primary aim of the pardon should be the removal, as completely as possible, of all the negative consequences of conviction once the offender has paid the debt owed society and enough time has elapsed to establish, with some degree of certainty, his law-abiding behaviour.
It should be noted that the bill drafted by the hon. member for Mississauga South calls for the "destruction" of pardoned records whereas the existing legislation provides for "sealing" this information. This is a very important point, to which I intend to return. Consultations have also revealed support for increased granting of pardons in a more simplified process, as long
Private Members' Business
as there is not undue leniency or increased risk to the public.
The Nielsen Task Force on Improved Program Delivery in the Justice System examined the functioning of the Criminal Records Act, and included the scrutiny of eligibility criteria, benefits provided to the pardoned individual and access to and destruction of records. The task force recognized in 1985, when their study was conducted, that the existing method was slow-an average of 13 months per application processed; costly-91 person-years distributed between the RCMP and the National Parole Board; cumbersome-requiring a decision by the Governor in Council; and sometimes counter productive-after the RCMP had completed the necessary community assessment, employers, neighbours and relatives may have been given the knowledge that the applicant has a criminal record.
The possibility of cost reductions and savings of person-years as a consequence of implementation of a more efficient system of pardoning motivated the Nielsen Task Force to propose a "records management" approach. The task force report predicted that a saving of $2.4 million and 57.5 p/y's could be achieved under a system where the initiation of the records management process became an internal government responsibility without the need for a formal application from the ex-offender and where the criteria for eligibility for pardon was restricted, in all cases, solely to a specified number of years of crime-free behaviour in the community. This allocation of money and person-years was the total amount which the Parole Board had available for the delivery of its responsibilities under the Criminal Records Act.
It is difficult to determine the exact nature of all assumptions which were used to arrive at this estimate of potential savings. An approximation of resource implications of this magnitude could only be achieved under a system which precluded all community investigations. It is important to analyse the savings which could be achieved under the various options for reform which have been proposed. It is also important to ascertain whether the savings are for the government as a whole or whether costs are simply being shifted to other agencies, departments or governments.

December 3, 1990
Private Members' Business
The Nielsen findings, Mr. Speaker, are most relevant to the bill put forward for our consideration today. The possibility of streamlining the present pardoning process then explored was contingent upon an integrated country-wide system of record management. The hon. member for Mississauga South is calling for the destruction of the criminal records of those individuals who have received conditional or absolute discharges. I fear that the realization of the intent of Bill C-314 will run into the same problems as the Nielsen proposal for economy had it been pursued. Neither clearly defined central record-keeping functions nor a central file registry exist to administer criminal records in Canada. To be sure, the RCMP maintains a data bank that contains the records of all convictions for indictable offences. However, no such centralized system contains records proceeding from summary convictions, and Bill C-314 would entail the search for even more nebulous entities: records of conditional and absolute discharges.
Ideally there would be a registry that would include records of convictions for both summary and indictable offences as well as the class of record to which the currently proposed reforms refer. The registry would integrate the overlapping responsibilities of local, municipal, provincial and national police forces and the courts for keeping documents which refer to the investigation, prosecution and conviction of offenders.
The passage of Bill C-314 would have the effect that records thereafter: created through the direction by the courts for conditional or absolute discharges would subsequently be destroyed. Under the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, however, it might well be mandatory that the force of the amendments be retroactive. There are two ways in which the objectives of amendments as applied to existing records might be realized. In the first case, the current procedure of application for pardon could be maintained, but relief would be granted automatically and swiftly to those who wished to erase their records of absolute or conditional discharge. A "hands-on" involvement of government officials would remain a necessary part of the pardoning process. The other method of implementation would be the erasure of all records that fall within the categories in question. While the decision-making process would be replaced by the mere identification of eligible individuals, to be fully effective, it would be necessary to create the complex centralized system I
have mentioned because the records in question are not gathered within the confines of a single repository.
Mr. Speaker, I know that my time is almost up. I shall, of course, continue until you indicate that I have used up the entire period of time I am allowed.
It has been noted, Mr. Speaker, that the lack of public awareness of the pardon process and the very small percentage of potential beneficiaries who now use the provisions of the Criminal Records Act raise questions about the utility of the current law. If either procedure that I have mentioned was pursued to implement retroactively the amendments brought about by Bill C-314, the intent of the legislation could only be achieved through publicity campaigns: in one case, to educate the sizable number of Canadians that speedy relief had become available; and in the other, to notify those who might even be unaware of the existence of a negative record, that all had been forgiven.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure I will have an opportunity to get back to this subject again, and I should be glad to lay the last part of my speech on the table as an addition to this debate.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in participating in this debate. I must tell you that, when the Criminal Records Act was passed, about 20 years ago, it was felt that the consequences of a verdict of guilty which resulted in an absolute or conditional discharge should be dealt with as if a criminal record had been created, although no conviction was registered.
At the time, this process was considered necessary to ensure that information pertaining to conditional or absolute discharges could be identified and sealed in those cases where pardons were requested and subsequently granted. It is realized today, however, that the purpose of a discharge is to be less detrimental to the offender than if no discharge was granted. This decision is made by a judge having regard for the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission and whether the offender deserves this special treatment.
One can argue that the provisions of the current legislation that create the necessity of applying for a pardon for a crime that has not resulted in a conviction, have also created an anomaly which should be rectified. And this position, Mr. Speaker, is ably put forward by the Member for Mississauga South through the Bill before us to-day for second reading.
December 3, 1990

It is my belief that in the absence of demonstrable harm to public safety, a pardon should be considered as a common procedure which follows a specified amount of time after a discharge has been granted. That this relief would be of direct benefit to those individuals whose reputations would otherwise be compromised is beyond question, Mr. Speaker. In addition, this procedure could result in a saving of resources for the National Parole Board which is responsible for advising the Solicitor General in regard to granting pardons.
It must be noted, however, that 80 per cent of applicants for pardons have more than one entry on their criminal record, which might, therefore, include a summary conviction, for example, as well as a discharge. The separation of the charges and identification of relevant offences to be dealt with would involve considerable time and a sophisticated records retrieval system. It might be anticipated that greater demands on the officials charged with the investigations prompted by applications for pardon-the RCMP, for the most part-would be increased substantially.
This is but one example of the problems now being considered by a committee within the Ministry of the Solicitor General involving representatives of the RCMP, the National Parole Board and the Police and Security Branch of the ministry secretariat, in consultation with other relevant Ministries and meeting under the chairmanship of the Corrections Branch of the secretariat.
The work of this committee-more properly designated the Criminal Records Management Review-involves reviewing two separate yet interrelated reform options. It will review past achievements and suggest future options for administrative changes to achieve greater efficiencies and savings in the process of granting of pardons and record keeping. It will also consider possible options for future legislative and programming initiatives aimed at better achieving the objectives of the Criminal Records Act.
Before you call me to order, Mr. Speaker, I think I could table the rest of my speech and ask that it be put on the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: No, please carry on.


Gabrielle Bertrand: If you tell me that I can carry on, Mr. Speaker, I will although I know that my time is limited.
However, I think that, before addressing the legislative changes which might be considered by the committee and those before us to-day, it would be relevant to review what has been achieved through positive changes in the administration of the Criminal Records Act. These reforms were prompted by earlier reviews of the Act, broad consultations and, in part, the recommendations of the Nielsen.


Mr. Speaker:: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being two o'clock, p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members.



Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean pork producers have recently been talking to members and ministers about the many problems they face when trying to maintain production. The fact that our region lacks slaughter houses and our remoteness from large centres does not help our pork producers whose production costs exceed sale prices.
The crisis is acute, Mr. Speaker, and the government should intervene immediately if we are to maintain a healthy sector in our region and save our pork producers. Mr. Speaker, since 170 jobs are on the line, allow me to draw your attention to an important point. There is no overproduction in our region, for we produce about 35,000 hogs a year and our consumption is up to 110,000.

December 3, 1990
Again I emphasize to my colleagues, the Minister of State for Agriculture and the minister responsible for regional development that urgent action is required.


PAPER INDUSTRY
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau -La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, the closure of the James MacLaren saw mill in Thurso, Quebec, leaves us unable to deal with the impact of the recession, the overly high interest rates, and above all a surplus of sawn lumber.
How come the company was unable to predict such a disastrous situation for Thurso area workers? A company spokesman simply told me that unexpected rising interest rates, contrary to what the Minister of Finance told us eight months ago, were the main cause of their deficit and that the company could no longer operate under the repeated deficits incurred by the mill these past few years.
I hope the saw mill workers will have the support of Employment Canada and benefit from retraining programs to help them find new jobs.
+ * *


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon -Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, today the GATT talks are heating up in Brussels. The next few days are critical to the future of agriculture.
Canadian negotiators should work hard to reach a settlement, but not at the expense of Canadian farmers. Despite a difficult growing season, high transportation costs, Canadian farmers have been able to produce a world class agricultural system. However, because of predatory practices by other countries, many of our farm families are having a great difficulty surviving from harvest to harvest. We want our rural communities to flourish, we want to stop farm bankruptcies, and we want to be as self-sufficient as possible.
We wish our GATT negotiators well and we urge the Europeans and Americans to be more flexible. Nonetheless, there is a chance that the GATT talks will fail.
We therefore call upon the government to be prepared to act very quickly to put in place contingency plans, should the talks fail. The U.S. farm bill contains contingency plans for a GATT failure. Our farmers deserve nothing less.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the 36th Annual North Atlantic Assembly was held in London, England, from November 26 to November 30. The conference was outstanding in that it was set in the atmosphere of the new openness which, in little over a year, has blossomed in Europe and around the world. In addition to the representatives from the 16 NATO member countries, there were delegations from five of the six Warsaw Pact countries, as well as from Japan and Australia, who had observer status.
Many frank discussions took place and major addresses were given by the Secretary of NATO, Manfred Worner, and also the foreign minister of Poland, Krzysztof Skubiszewski, the former President of Czechoslovakia, Al exander Dubcek, the Hon. Neil Kinnock, leader of the British Labour Party, as well as the Right Hon. Tom King, Secretary of Defence for the United Kingdom.
The assembly was the most successful ever held, and I believe reflected the new and growing realities of a post-cold war international order.
Congratulations are also to be given to our colleague, Bob Hicks, the MP for Scarborough East, who was elected a vice-president of the North Atlantic Assembly in London.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Etobicoke North, I would like to express my opposition to the plans to add three additional runways at Pearson International Airport, as outlined by Transport Canada on November 12.
December 3, 1990

Although aware of the need to address the future transport requirements of metro Toronto, the citizens of Etobicoke North and other areas around Pearson International Airport have already sacrificed more than their share in terms of their quality of life.
In March, 1990 the residents were informed that, pending the outcome of an environmental assessment, Transport Canada proposed two additional runways at Pearson International Airport. Now, not eight months later, the residents have been informed that three additional runways are contemplated. It is evident that Transport Canada has no equitable, long-term plan for metro Toronto's transport needs, merely a series of ad hoc expediencies which serve only to aggravate the fundamental problems.
I call upon Transport Canada to re-evaluate plans for Pearson International Airport so that the residents of Etobicoke North and surrounding areas are not being asked to carry a disproportionate burden of future metro Toronto transport requirements.
H4 H*


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, Alberta's diversification efforts are working. According to a survey of private sector forecasters, Alberta can expect real growth rates of about 2 per cent in 1990 and 1991, about double the expected national rate.
A major reason for this growth is that diversification efforts are succeeding. There are now 750 technology intensive companies in Alberta and they employ 78,000 people. They also generate more than $4 billion in annual revenues. Manufacturing output is expected to increase by 3 per cent both this year and next and exports in goods and services are expected to rise 8.2 per cent in 1990, and another 6.3 per cent in 1991. This will translate into increased employment opportunities.
The federal government's Western Diversification Initiative has assisted in this growth. Above all, it has put the decision-making powers in the hands of those who know best, the people of Alberta.
5. O. 31 VIA RAIL


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, for too long VIA Rail has been a half-measure of a company whose corporate motto has been, "Yes, but-".
Yes, it exists, but it has no mandate.
Yes, it owns equipment, but it owns no track.
Yes, there is service, but, in many cases, only on some days, and with unreliable equipment and agonizing delays.
Yes, it runs a transcontinental service, but not where there is real demand, and not along the historic Canadian route.
Yes, VIA is running, but it is not running to win. It is not designed to.
That is why we have launched a national campaign to get Canada back on track.
Canadians will remember the broken promises of the government and they will remember what the Liberals and their recycled leader did to VIA when they were in power.
Time is running out. The fight to put Canada back on track has started, and we are not going to stop until Canadians have a national rail passenger system and a government that we can be proud of.


INCOME AND POVERTY
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, data released Thursday by Statistics Canada on income and poverty has revealed positive news for Canadians.
When the Conservatives came to power in 1984, there were four million Canadians living below the poverty line, which, for example, was just over $20,000 for a family of four in an urban area. Today, there are only 3 million people living below the current poverty line which, for the same family of four, is $24,706. This means that one million Canadians have been able to move out of the poverty levels in the past six years.

December 3, 1990
For Canadian families, the government's policies have also meant that the percentage living below the poverty line has decreased from 13.5 per cent in 1984 to 9.6 per cent in 1989. This drop also corresponds with a $5,000 increase after inflation in the average income for a family of four from $45,000 in 1984 to just over $50,000 today.
These statistics clearly illustrate our government's strong commitment to helping those less fortunate Canadians find their way out of the despair of poverty. We still have a long way to go in our efforts to eliminate poverty in the country, but these statistics show that the Conservative government is indeed on the right path to achieve this goal.


GUN CONTROL
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, once again this past weekend, a semi-automatic rifle was used in Vancouver to kill two men at a public meeting, while the government has put its gun control bill on the back-burner.
On December 6 this week, we will remember the 14 women who were selectively massacred with a semi-automatic weapon in Montreal one year ago. In April, the Minister of Justice went to the Ecole Polytechnique where she was presented with 25 boxes of petitions with over 500 names asking for stricter gun laws. She promised legislation but now we are getting a study instead of a law. We do not need another study to tell us that semi-automatics should not be sold over the counter like fishing rods.
Whenever we have tightened our gun laws, we have lowered the rate of crime with guns. Why then is the government sabotaging its own bill? Why is it breaking faith with the students at Ecole Polytechnique and millions of other Canadians?


INCOMES AND POVERTY
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, on November 29, Statistics Canada published the 1989
data on incomes and poverty. Here are some of the highlights:
Last year, 199,000 people ceased to live below the poverty line, which makes for a total reduction of 956,000 since 1984. During the past few years, 104,000 women and 38,000 children left the ranks of the poor. Since 1984, the number of poor women dropped by 333,000, and the number of poor children by 297,000, a reduction of more than 25 per cent. Since 1984, the average family income, adjusted for inflation, has increased by more than $5,000. Even the proportion of family poverty dropped from 13.9 per cent in 1984 to 9.6 per cent last year. Among single Canadians, the poverty rate dropped from 37.7 per cent in 1984 to 30.5 per cent last year. The overall poverty rate dropped from 16.8 per cent in 1984 to 12.2 per cent last year, a reduction of one quarter since 1984.
Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree we are still on the right track!


AIR TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to first associate myself with the views of my colleague from Etobicoke North in terms of runway expansion plans at Pearson International Airport, because for the surrounding communities enough is enough. There are also safety overtones to that.
Last week, the department's inspection supervisor said that the effectiveness of air safety inspectors will be reduced by 60 per cent due to a manpower shortage and that, as a result, safety rules are routinely being waived.
To make matters worse, there are plans to phase out the emergency back-up system for radar units across Canada in order to save $500,000.
I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but when I fly, as do many Canadians, I want an assurance that all radar safety units are in working order all the time, not only when the government decides to allocate the necessary funds. Moreover, with the advent of the government's deregulation and privatization policy, there is a need for more air safety measures and not fewer. Safety in the skies is a price worth paying.
December 3, 1990


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, in April, 1990 the film Talkin' about AIDS was aired nationally. Talkin' about AIDS was developed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and received much critical recognition, including nominations for two prestigious Gemini Awards to be decided this evening.
Designed to inform young people of the facts about AIDS in a straightforward manner, people with AIDS, including a 17-year-old, talked openly about their struggles and experiences. Dramatic skits were used to demonstrate some of the social skills and assertiveness techniques that our young people can use to encourage responsible sexual behaviour.
The films were accompanied by teacher and student guides and have been distributed to high schools and school boards across Canada by the Canadian Association of Principals.
These AIDS education initiatives for youth demonstrate the Department of National Health and Welfare's continued commitment to the national strategy on AIDS and to preventing the spread of HIV infection in Canada.
-h


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, today the Canadian Advanced Technology Association asked the government to adopt the following policy statement: "Canada must shift to a higher percentage of national investment in the production and marketing of advanced technology goods and services into the production of higher value-added products in all sectors and to the application and use of technology to build competitiveness and into the development of human resource capability to facilitate these shifts."
These are the indispensable steps to industrial restructuring to which the government has given lip service, while in fact adopting monetary policies that make them impossible to achieve.
Oral Questions
CATA says that the finance minister must scrap his high interest policies now because not just the shortterm but the long-term future of Canada is at stake. With that New Democrats agree.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[English)

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be home. I can say one thing after what I have seen in the past two weeks. Question Period is like having a picnic in a rose garden. We can now get on with the menu, I expect.
I would like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Friday the minister indicated that either he or the Prime Minister would be prepared to go to Baghdad as part of the proposed peace negotiation.
Is the government willing to review its policy of making direct representations to the Iraqi officials on behalf of the Canadian hostages still held in that country? In particular, could I ask the minister if the government would be prepared to provide direct support for families or other private groups which are also prepared to go to that country to make representations on behalf of Canadians still held there? If I could make a specific plea, I would ask the minister if he would be prepared to make representations on behalf of Mr. Rustom who is the elderly pilgrim who is being held there even though Iraqi officials have said that he is free to go but has not been given his visa as yet?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I welcome the hon. member back. He made reference to a news report that I am sure surprised him as much as it surprised the Prime Minister and me. My exact language from the transcript when the question was put to me as to whether I was looking at going to that part of the world quotes: "Well, we rule nothing out. I think that the roles that Canada can play at this stage are more likely more private than that, although it goes without saying that I am prepared to go, the Prime Minister is, other ministers are, anywhere it would be constructive". That was the context in which I made those comments. Indeed, that kind of action by the

December 3, 1990
Oral Questions
Government of Canada, the Prime Minister, myself and others, wherever it can be constructive in this context is the practice that we have been following.
With respect to the Rustom situation, our ambassador, Chris Poole, has been in again. We have sent seven diplomatic notes. There have been 20 meetings with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There have been three personal letters from Mr. Rustom to Saddam Hussein. We intend to continue to press vigorously to have him released.
With respect to support that might be given to others, the hon. member knows very well and has respected with a faithfulness, which I very much appreciate, the distinction between official and unofficial missions with respect to persons held captive in Iraq. We would continue to respect that distinction.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, I want to ask the minister about the question of sanctions. In August the United Nations indicated that the most effective means of securing the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait was a program of sanctions. We have followed it up to now.
I can say, from direct experience, that the sanctions are having an incredibly strong impact on that country. Health care services and transportation are deteriorating. There is incredible inflation. Spare parts are running out. Even the military capacity is being affected.
In light of that, I want to ask the minister why it is that the government keeps insisting that it has to support a military option, when in fact it is clear the continuation of economic sanctions against Iraq will have, and can have, the desired result of having them withdraw.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the option that this government is pursuing and will continue to pursue is the United Nations option. That is the option that gave rise to sanctions. We intend to continue with the sanctions program. We intend to continue as vigorously as we can.
The United Nations also, with the support of most of the world and the majority of this House, excluding the Liberal and New Democratic parties which decided not
to vote for continued United Nations action in the gulf on that particular matter-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
Our position is that we have now taken through the United Nations actions involving the clear signal that force will be used, but also involving a pause for peace, a pause of good will, on which action has already begun, as has been evidenced by the statements by the Americans and by the Iraqis.
With respect to sanctions, I certainly cannot dispute the fact that they are having an impact upon social services. I have no doubt that they are having an impact upon the children of Iraq. I have no doubt that they are having an impact upon the poor of Iraq, but there is very little reason for us to believe that they are having an effect on the military planners or the military capacity of Iraq.
What we are trying to do is have a range of measures that will cause changes in the military plans of Iraq so that there will be respect for the United Nations resolutions, and so that it will move back from Kuwait.
I look forward to the opportunity to meet with the hon. member and other members of this House who have just come back from Baghdad. I understand because of their collective schedules, that cannot occur for another week. I look forward to having the advantage of their personal experiences. I also look forward to meeting with the standing committee.
I believe a meeting is scheduled now or being discussed for Thursday morning in which we will have the opportunity to discuss at some length and in as much detail as circumstances allow our assessment of the impact of sanctions on various elements of Iraqi society.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to that exchange.
I think that we can provide the minister with pretty dear evidence that his thesis about what is working and what is not working is wrong. In fact, we can affect the military capacity of that country.
As a follow-up supplementary, I would like to put this question.
December 3, 1990

[ Translation]
President Bush said that several members of the multinational force would be asked to take part in discussions with the Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs. Will Canada be part of this group? Will the United States consult our allies before this meeting? And what peace alternatives does the Canadian government intend to suggest before the meeting, to deal with the conflict?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are ongoing consultations between Canada and the other members of the coalition who are trying, by peaceful means, to get Saddam Hussein to leave Kuwait. Today, for instance, the Prime Minister spoke directly to Secretary of State Baker, to communicate information we had that was not available to the Americans, about a certain aspect of the situation in the gulf. When I went to the Middle East last week, I had some worthwhile discussions with ministers, presidents and kings of certain countries in the area about approaches that could be effective and in which Canada could play a part. We have a pretty solid reputation in the area, and it would be a mistake for Canadians to underestimate Canada's impact in the area and in the crisis. We are now considering, identifying and putting into practice all the ways in which we as Canadians can bring our influence to bear to achieve a peaceful solution in line with the UN resolutions.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau - Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On the weekend, the Prime Minister referred to an increasingly sovereignist climate in Quebec. I would like him to tell the House whether he realizes how important it is for his government to take concrete action to deal effectively with the situation. In this respect, is the Prime Minister prepared to instruct his Minister of Employment and Immigration to conclude as soon as possible an agreement with her provincial counterpart, as the previous administration did with the Cullen-Couture Agreement, in order to get rid of at least one of the irritants in the Canada-Quebec dossier?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: course, Mr. Speaker. The government is working actively
Oral Questions
with the Government of Quebec and other provincial governments on agreements in the difficult area of immigration, an area that is particularly important to Quebec, considering its demographic impact on the francophone part of our country. I think both governments will have more news on the subject in the not too distant future.
My hon. friend alluded to my comments that there was a sovereignist wind blowing in Quebec and that this was particularly obvious from the proceedings of the Belang-er-Campeau Commission. In fact, I have urged Quebecers to be very prudent and to ensure that the process is not skewed, considering this, probably short-lived, phenomenon in Quebec. In any case, I would like to point out, since we find this phenomenon at all levels in our society, that it started mainly because the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Chretien, said that Meech could be killed without serious consequences. Today, we see the consequences in Quebec and Canada, which can be laid squarely at the door of Jean Chretien.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the encouraging remarks of the Prime Minister with regard to the settlement of the immigration issue. I hope that the minister who is now in this House has heard the very precise and urgent indications in this regard.
As to the second part of the Prime Minister's reply, I can say that the failure of the Meech Lake Accord could not be attributed to someone who sat neither in this House of Commons, nor in any of the provincial legislatures.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blais:: Say it again with a straight face!


André Ouellet: In this connection, I should like to ask the Prime Minister to demonstrate the same good will and to describe for Quebec men and women the benefits and significance of belonging to Canada. Is he planning to appear before the Belanger-Campeau Commission, as Mr. Chretien will?


Martin Brian Mulroney: First of all, I want to very sincerely praise the Hon. Member for Papineau-Saint-Michel for his unfailing support of the Meech Lake Accord during the three long years of debates and discussions. All hon. members will recognize, however, that my hon. friend is somewhat stretch-

December 3, 1990
Oral Questions
ing the point when he says that someone outside this House has had no impact on the ultimate result. They will remember that, last January, Mr. Chretien said: "The failure of the Meech Lake Accord is of no consequence; it is like when you are stuck in a snowbank: You move forward, you move backward, then you do it all over again, and again, until eventually you manage to get out." Such was Mr. Chretien's position. We saw the high point of all this when Mr. Chretien embraced Mr. Wells in Calgary and said:

Thanks Clyde for all your good work.

All Canadians are aware that this new impulse given to the sovereignty option is the result of Mr. Chretien's move. Now it is the responsibility of all other hon. members of this House to rebuild national unity.


THE CONSTITUTION
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. According to an article in La Presse the Prime Minister is reported to have a constitutional plan. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced the setting up of a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate whose mandate would be to develop a new amending formula. There is no indication that the Prime Minister consulted anyone and, what is more, the Prime Minister chose to make this announcement in front of Tory supporters. I am somewhat concerned about the whole process.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Before my party can support this initiative, could the Prime Minister assure us that this process will include the participation of the Canadian public, that this is an honest exercise, and that so far no decision has been made?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is blaming me for coming out openly in dealing with this issue. I mentioned it last Friday when I met with the editorial team of La Presse, and 1 mentioned it again yesterday in Montreal before 1,400 Conservative supporters. I might have done that
before NDP supporters, but it would have been difficult in Montreal.
I mentioned the setting up of a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. I know that the Government House Leader intends to consult tomorrow with his two opposite numbers and later on with various senators. If I understand the Standing Orders correctly, the committees themselves are responsible for establishing their own rules and regulations.
Therefore let the NDP Leader be reassured, that this committee will be totally independent. Our purpose is to remedy a major deficiency in the current process which hinders any progress in the area of constitutional reform. This deficiency came to light between 1987 and 1990, and we must absolutely find a way to remedy it for the future.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. No one is in disagreement that constitutional talks need to continue. No one is in disagreement that the amending formula must be discussed. What this party is in disagreement with is that the Prime Minister's idea of consultation is making announcements at $500 a plate Conservative dinners.
The Prime Minister has made an announcement that he is going to take further initiative on the Constitution, and we welcome that the Prime Minister has a plan. I would also ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared as well to make good his promises that he has made to aboriginal people, both during the Meech lake process and during the summer.
What is the Prime Minister prepared to do to keep his promises to the aboriginal people of Canada concerning both the Constitution and the other promises which he has made to that group?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we of course are in the process of working as well in regard to those particular commitments which we view as very serious and most important for the well-being of the country. There have been undertakings made thus far, and there will be others made in the course of the next few months.
My hon. friend apparently is angry with me for making a statement at a $500 a plate Conservative dinner. We have never been angry with her when she has gone to make a statement at the CLC at $1 million a plate.
December 3, 1990


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could share the Prime Minister's optimism about the kind of dinners I attend.
The Constitution is crucial. It is crucial for aboriginal people. It is crucial for all Canadians. It is crucial for the future of Quebec and for the provinces within the country. I think it is important that all Canadians be concerned about the future of our country and the Constitution.
There are many Canadians whose primary preoccupation now is how they can find a job or how they can keep a job. The recession is hurting all sectors of our economy: farmers, people in the manufacturing sector, workers in the logging industry-every sector of our economy.
The Prime Minister is prepared to establish a committee on the Constitution. This is important, but surely the economy deserves the same kind of attention because people are just trying to keep bread on the table, to keep their job, house, clothe and feed their children.
Would the Prime Minister also support the establishment of an all-party House of Commons committee on combating the recession, on positive measures to get Canadians back to work?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to examine any ideas my hon. friends have in regard to working with the government. We are in difficult economic times, and obviously any good concrete proposals will be looked at and studied very carefully.
I point out to my hon. friend that, while we are going through difficult times, there were numbers published by Statistics Canada on Thursday which I know she will find both interesting and encouraging.
Since 1984 real family income has increased 11.5 per cent. The proportion of people below Statistics Canada's low income line has declined in 1989 for the sixth consecutive year, for example from 20.1 per cent to 14.6 per cent among children. Since 1984-and I know this is of particular interest to my hon. friend-956,000 Canadians have been taken off the poverty roles in Canada.
Oral Questions
That to me is the sign of an economy that is working in a socially positive way.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the constitutional issue and direct my question to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has the bad habit of blaming others for his unsuccessful ventures. First I would say to him that we welcome the proposition he made over the weekend to change the constitutional amendment process. As it happened, Liberal leader Jean Chretien rejected the unanimity rule on January 16, 1990 and advocated a more flexible formula.
Given the Meech Lake Accord experiment, is the Prime Minister now prepared to invite all Canadians to play an active role with the parliamentary committee he has proposed so as to take a closer look at the whole issue of the amending formula?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, yesterday I formally announced that no later than tomorrow the government leader will consult with my friend to follow up on the propositions I made public precisely to look into the serious problem of the paralysis flowing from section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982. If my friend has specific suggestions or comments to make either on the establishment of the commission itself or on its on-going or future proceedings, we will be pleased to hear them.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that every time the Prime Minister goes into the province of Quebec he announces a new constitutional procedure.
It came as no surprise to us that at Mont Ste. Anne, for example, he announced the Spicer commission. Yesterday in Montreal he announced the new parliamentary committee.
As of today it is true that the opposition has not been consulted. We wish we were. Yet the Prime Minister promised to set up before Christmas-that is in a few weeks-a committee to look into this whole procedural question.

December 3, 1990
Oral Questions
Can the Prime Minister share today with us in this House some of his thoughts and plans on setting up this commission? How soon? Who will be on it, and who will be involved in it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I gather the House leaders will meet tomorrow and agree upon the manner in which this committee will function.
My hon. friend seems to express some concern that I would go into Quebec or elsewhere and announce the creation of the Spicer commission and then subsequently announce the creation of a parliamentary committee to examine the paralysis that has resulted from section 38.1 can only assume, because he is unfavourably impressed, that he disagrees with these two approaches: the Spicer commission approach and the parliamentary commission. The question is: Why are they required?


An hon. member:: Right on.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My friend says "Right on". On June 9, when we signed the Meech Lake Accord at the Conference Centre, Premier Bourassa said that with the 1981 Constitution Quebecers were part of a legal Constitution but, with the conclusion of the Meech Lake Accord, Quebecers for the first time felt they were part of a real Constitution and a real country. Those were very important and significant times: a commitment by the government of the province of Quebec and its premier to profound Canadian unity.
This was dashed a few days later because some people believed the statement by Mr. Chretien that Meech Lake could be rejected without consequences. His shortsighted partisanship prevented him from endorsing Meech Lake. We as Canadians have to work hard now to maintain the unity of Canada that he placed-


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand -Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister is aware of the serious allegations made by his former industry minister regarding a secret deal struck with Washington to increase the value of the Canadian dollar in order to get a free trade agreement. The Minister of Finance disagrees with this.
If there was no such deal, why has the value of the Canadian dollar risen so dramatically since the free trade agreement was signed? Will the Prime Minister move today to drop the value of the Canadian dollar so that Canadian companies can compete on a level playing field?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I commented publicly yesterday on that. I said that the statement was absurd speculation, but it is simply also not true.
I would remind my hon. friend that Mr. Stevens was basing his speculative comments on a conversation that he had with a man who was not involved in the negotiations and a conversation that was held some two years before the final negotiations were completed.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that the allegations are untrue, but the policy outcome is the same.
The solution to Canada's current economic problems, including its deficit and inflation, lies in improving Canada's international competitiveness. Yet this government persists in a high interest rate policy, which drives up the Canadian dollar, which in turn reduces our ability to compete, especially with the United States.
How can the government claim to be making Canada competitive when its own policies are at the root of the problem?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend is saying that we should have ignored the inflationary pressures that have clearly been in the economy over the last three years, I do not know what he thinks that would do to our competitive position.
What would have happened had we ignored the inflationary problem as has been the case, as an example, with the United Kingdom? We both had an inflation rate at about the same level in 1988. Its most recently has been just short of 11 per cent; ours has been in the 4 per cent range for a number of months now.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance as well who has denied the allegation of his former cabinet colleague that there was a secret deal with the United States to boost the value of the Canadian dollar in connection with the free trade agreement.
December 3, 1990

Would the Minister of Finance not agree that it is the U.S. trade balance which has improved while the Canadian trade balance has deteriorated; that it is American goods that have become less expensive while Canadian goods have become more expensive; and that in fact such results of the free trade agreement and this government's monetary policy, that is the high dollar, have the characteristics of a smoking gun with which Canada has shot itself in the foot?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it surprises me that my hon. friend would attach such significance to a speculative statement made by someone who was not at the table.
Simon Reisman, the number one trade negotiator, has said on a number of occasions that there was no such deal and no such understanding. Gordon Ritchie, the number two man in the negotiations said exactly the same thing. Derek Burney, who was present at the final negotiations, within the last few months has made the same statement also. I do not know where my hon. friend is getting the support for the deal that he is alleging was made.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Too
much, Mr. Speaker. Today, StatsCan reports that a composite leading indicator has dropped for the eighth consecutive month, this time at the accelerated rate of one-half of a percentage point. Thus, we have one more indicator confirming what so many Canadian workers know: that the country has been plunged into a recession by its own government.
If there was no deal with United States to keep the dollar high, what possible explanation can there be for this government's refusal to change a policy that is a cause of a national economic crisis? Why not lower interest rates? Why not lower the value of the dollar? Why not put Canadians back to work? Why not look after the long-term interests of the economy of this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we have been doing. Interest rates have come down two percentage points over the last few months as a reflection of the weakness in the economy.
Oral Questions
I call my hon. member's attention to the fact that there have been increasing inflationary pressures. They are still in the economy and have been there since the third quarter of this year. If we ignore them, we will go back to the same sort of problem that we had in 1970s and early 1980s when governments ignored the problem.
Inflation surged from about 5.5 per cent in the mid-seventies to 13 per cent in 1981. This resulted in interest rates that were in the 21, 22, 23 per cent range. Unemployment in some parts of the country was in excess of 25 per cent.
That is what we are trying to avoid with the policies we have been following. We have been able to control the rate of inflation. We have a healthier economy today going into a recession than was the case in 1981-82. Certainly it is the case with the United Kingdom.


BELANGER-CAMPEAU COMMISSION
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
A few minutes ago, he said: "We have to work hard for a united Canada." We all agree with him on this. If that is the case, why won't the Prime Minister go before the Belanger-Campeau commission and speak for a united Canada? This may be hard work, but is Canada not worth it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as the smile on the face of the hon. member for Papineau tells you, there may be things that are hard work in Canada, but going before the Belanger-Campeau commission to read a brief is not among them.
What is and was hard work was trying to bring 10 provincial premiers together to agree on a method of amending the Canadian Constitution, which was endorsed by the Liberal Party, the NDP and many Canadians.
We have been across the country discussing outlines of the manner in which Canada can evolve in the future. I have just come back from making two or three major speeches in the province of Quebec. We will be doing many other things as a government and as a Parliament to work together for Canadian unity.

December 3, 1990
Oral Questions
There are all kinds of ways in which members and ministers can contribute. But in the circumstances, I believe that the representation of my party and of the party of the opposition on that commission are appropriate. I think it would be inappropriate in the circumstances for the Prime Minister of Canada to appear before a provincial commission.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there are precedents of provincial ministers, in fact provincial premiers, appearing before committees of this House of Commons to speak for Canada. I ask the Prime Minister, why is it not a good precedent for the Prime Minister of Canada to go before a provincial commission to speak for Canada? Hon. Jean Chretien has the guts to do it. Why doesn't the Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment in regard to Mr. Chretien's decision, if he wishes to go before that commission. He is presently a private citizen. If, indeed, at that point in time he is a member of Parliament, God bless him. He is entitled to do whatever he wants and if he wishes to go before that commission to speak out clearly, that is his privilege, and we will respect him for it.
Perhaps we would have respected him a little more if when the occasion arose and his voice was needed in June, rather than choosing to hide under his pool table in his residence in Ottawa, he had spoken out clearly on behalf of the Meech Lake Accord which would have brought unity to Canada.


PERSIAN GULF
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On Friday I asked the Secretary of State about initiatives which Canada would take to bring about a peaceful resolution to the gulf crisis before January 15. A few hours later, President Bush took the important step of calling for high level talks between Iraq and the United States. Immediately the Secretary of State offered supportive Canadian initiatives.
Why did the government wait until after President Bush's announcement on Friday to support other peacemaking initiatives? Why are Canadians not privy to
strategies discussed by our Prime Minister and Mr. Baker, or is this government only taking action after the U.S. leads?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is a particularly silly question-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Joseph Clark: -from a member of Parliament who, if she could put aside her partisanship, has demonstrated that she can make a substantive contribution to deliberations in the House. Her timing, for one thing, is wrong. I referred to the Bush initiative during Question Period on Friday.
I wonder if the hon. member is aware of the work that was begun by the Prime Minister, for example, at the children's summit of the United Nations. He talked to the leaders of countries who are involved in organizations that by their nature have a different kind of relation with, a different kind of potential impact upon Saddam Hussein: leaders of the non-aligned movement, leaders of underdeveloped countries in the Commonwealth and la francophonie, leaders of the Islamic conference, and leaders of organizations active in OPEC.
I have myself been involved in discussions. I have just come back from extensive conversations in the Middle East with regard to a range of ways in which Canadian expertise or Canada's very good reputation might be applied to try to find ways in which we can achieve a peaceful solution to the situation in the gulf. This is a time for a little more statespersonship than the hon. member has been showing.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that we heard anything about Mr. Bush's announcement in this House on Friday.
My supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The UN resolution passed last Thursday by the UN Security Council is very vague and potentially dangerous in its call to member states to use all necessary means to restore international peace and security in the gulf area.
Will Canada immediately put another resolution to the UN to assure that individual member states cannot take unilateral action, allegedly pursuant to the UN resolution, which might jeopardize western alliance peace-making options in the Middle East?
December 3, 1990


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me refer the hon. member to page 16042 of Hansard for last Friday. Let me refer her also to the undertakings that were given in the Security Council, the general view expressed by nations that there would not be other action taken in that council between now and the period in January that was stipulated by the Security Council resolution. Let me also, and I think most to the point, indicate to her that while there had been some uncertainty on the Thursday, or while some members of the House claimed there was some uncertainty on Thursday as to the purpose of the UN resolution, whether it was to threaten war or to arrange time for peace, that surely now must be resolved because it is already in the process of using this pause to seek peace that is being joined.
The Americans have taken an initiative and Saddam Hussein-and this is not an unremarkable comment-indicated that he thought that the American initiative was helpful. That is the tone in the debate, as there was a tone in the discussion in the Security Council, that is altogether helpful.
Canada has been playing, and intends to continue to play, a very active and constructive role. The hon. member asks me if I am going to advertise on the floor of the House of Commons every initiative that Canada is taking, which could succeed only if it proceeded privately. Am I going to, for the purposes of a television camera in Canada, jeopardize the diplomatic initiative that Canada might undertake? No, I am not prepared to do that and I hope the hon. member would not be.
 * *


MEDICARE
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The provincial ministers of finance will be meeting in Winnipeg this week. Some of the western ministers, including Mel Couvelier of B.C., are seeking the withdrawal of the federal government from direct financing of national medicare and seeking the transfer of tax points and jurisdiction to the provinces.
Oral Questions
The federal government has remained silent on this threat which would mean the death of our national medicare program.
Will the minister guarantee that his government will continue to directly fund national medicare?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is one of a number of options that has been discussed by the provincial finance ministers. It has not been endorsed by any of their governments. I am sure that they will have that as well as a number of other options on the table today and in their meetings this week.
The simple response to the hon. member's question is that we have no intention of relinquishing any sense of responsibility that we have for the National Health Act. We have every intention of continuing to assist provinces and in particular, assist those provinces who are low-income provinces to assure that they can continue to provide the services that are available in the wealthier provinces of the country.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The federal government has the authority and responsibility to set national standards for medicare in the Canada Health Act. There are continuing reports that amendments are now being prepared that will weaken this authority.
Will the minister assure Canadians that no amendments to the act are being prepared by either the Department of National Health and Welfare or the Department of Finance which would allow the provinces to undermine national standards through extra billing or user fees?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, no changes to the Canada Health Act are currently being contemplated.
It is important to recognize the fact that full discretion in terms of delivery of health care services is given to the provinces under our Constitution.
What the Canada Health Act does is provide that any program has to be universal in its coverage, provides reasonable access to insured persons, is publicly run on a non-profit basis, covers all necessary health services and provides coverage to those who are temporarily absent from their province or country.

December 3, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Beyond that, the provincial governments have considerable scope in terms of the delivery of the services. One cannot imagine how medicare or how health care services to Canadians would be strengthened by derogating from any of those principles which exist in the Canada Health Act.
4*	4*


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, CBC radio and television remain one of the nation's last institutional links for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
The parliamentary channel is for many Canadians their only direct access to see and know what is the nation's business and what their MPs are doing.
My question is for the Minister of Communications. Will he recognize the importance of the parliamentary channel? Will he promise to seek direct parliamentary appropriation to pay for this democratic, open and informative channel? Will he make that commitment today and save this service?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that, in spite of the budget cuts it is facing, the CBC remains a national institution coast to coast, which is more than we can say about the Liberal Party.
It must be noted that, since November or December of 1936, there has always been restlessness about the future of one CBC service or the other. The same is happening again this year, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the minister well knows this is not one of the mandated services under CBC and so I would ask him a supplementary question.

Will he ensure that the parliamentary channel will remain by approving the inclusion of this service in the new Broadcasting Act called for in the liberal amendment? Will he approve it today?


Marcel Masse: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no!


IMMIGRATION
Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The members of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration have indicated they intend to invite you again to testify before them about the difficulty of reaching an agreement with the Quebec government on immigration.
This issue really concerns the members representing Quebec ridings. It is important for the survival of the francophone culture that newcomers be well integrated to the francophone community in Quebec. My question is the following: What is going on? Are discussions ongoing with the government of Quebec? Is progress being made or is there a freeze with Quebec?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister already stated today in response to the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, the government is still strongly committed to this. Yes, I spoke with the Quebec Immigration Minister, Mrs. Gagnon-Tremblay, and discussions between officials from our two governments will begin shortly.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to five petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
December 3, 1990



EFFECTS OF ECONOMY ON FAMILIES


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there might be consent for me to present at this time a motion which has been distributed among the parties.
I would like to move, seconded by the member for Churchill:
That a Special Committee of the House of Commons to study the current recession and its effect on Canadian families and to offer recommendations on measures to counter its effects be appointed;
That 15 members of the House of Commons be appointed to serve on the Special Committee, to be appointed no later than three sitting days after the adoption of this motion, upon report of the Striking Committee;
That the Committee have the power to appoint from among its members such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable and to delegate to such sub-committees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting, as it deems appropriate, of any or all of its proceedings, pursuant to the principles and practices governing the broadcasting of the House of Commons, when in the parliamentary precincts and to the extent possible when outside these precincts;
That the Committee have the power to travel within Canada;
That the Committee submit its report no later than February 15, 1991 provided that, if the House is not sitting, the report will be deemed submitted on the day such report is deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons, in which case the Clerk shall immediately notify each Party Leader of the receipt of such report;
That substitutions be authorized according to normal procedures for Legislative Committees; and
That the quorum of the Committee be eight Members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The House has heard the terms of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam. Is it the pleasure of the House to consider the hon. member's motion?
Routine Proceedings


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate that I was one of the members who said no to this motion on the basis that these kinds of things are discussed between House leaders. We are discussing business of the House from now until Christmas and beyond-endeavouring to, that is.
The request for a special committee and work for members of Parliament to do comes as a surprise. What I think all members of Parliament will be doing over Christmas is talking to their constituents, hearing their concerns, and talking about the economic situation in the future. We can all do that.
In the meantime, if the hon. member has suggestions to make through her House leader that we might discuss together with other House leaders as the future business for members of Parliament, we are of course always delighted to receive them in the proper form.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Since the consent is not unanimous, the House cannot debate the motion. [English]


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to respond to the intervention by the House leader.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but we cannot act indirectly against the rules. The House did not give unanimous consent. Therefore, the hon. member's motion cannot be considered and we shall proceed to the next item.


PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table today a petition signed by several Canadians from Ottawa, Nepean and Gloucester who are opposed to the GST. They point out that never since Confederation have the printed word and books been taxed in our country. Now, this government plans to tax these items. Like the Liberal senators in the other place, we are against this unfair and regressive tax and we join these petitioners in asking the government to withdraw this tax.

December 3, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert -Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that I have the honour to present today. The first is signed by petitioners from many locations in Canada, such as Edmonton, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Toronto, Willowdale, and others.
These people point out that we still do not have adequate answers to the questions raised by the spill of radioactive wastes in Wallaston Lake a year ago. They are calling upon the government to convene immediately a comprehensive independent public inquiry into uranium mining in Saskatchewan and northern Canada, to involve effectively aboriginal people and northerners in the inquiry, and to provide them with the resources to do so.


Raymond John Funk: The
second petition I have is signed by people from places such as St. Catharines, Burlington, Mississauga, London, Ontario, Edmonton, Alberta, and others.
These people are supporting the call by the Assembly of First Nations and the Innu of Labrador for an end to low-level flights over their territory and that of other aboriginal peoples. They call on Canada to redirect NATO-NORAD funding toward enabling Canada's aboriginal people to regain control of their lands and livelihood and toward promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.


Mr. Mac  Flarb@Ottawa Centre: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present a petition to this House on behalf of people from the city of Ottawa, from my riding of Ottawa Centre as well as from Nepean and the whole region who are opposed to the concept of taxing books and magazines. They call upon the government to withdraw the proposed tax on books and magazines.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 339 and 359.


Mr. Harvard: Further to the government response to Question No. 312, answered on June 20, 1990, (a) does the 60 percent minimum apply to the Public Service Superannuation Act (b) has a period of grace been given regarding the P.S.S.A. redrafting and, if so when will that period terminate?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: a) The Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 (PBSA) does not apply to the Public Service Superannuation Act (PSSA). Under the PSSA a surviving spouse's allowance is equal to one-half of the contributor's pension. This is an add-on benefit, which means that the initial amount of the contributor's pension is not actuarially reduced to finance the survivor benefit.
b) One of the objectives of public service pension is conformity with the requirements of the PBSA. The reform process is well underway and it is hoped to introduce appropriate legislation early in the New Year.


Mr. Simmons: Since the Minister of the Environment announced a National Marine Parks Policy for Canada in 1987 (a) have any sites been targeted in the Province of Newfoundland for a Marine Park and, if so, which sites (b) have any discussions been held with the provincial government for the establishment of a National Marine Park in Newfoundland?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: a) Two of the four marine regions adjacent to Newfoundland territory have been the subject of regional analysis studies, namely the Labrador coast and the eastern coast of insular Newfoundland. As a result of these reports, several sites in each region have been suggested as potential areas for marine parks.
December 3, 1990

Government Orders
National Parks personnel undertook a field study of the Labrador coast in August of this year. Selection of one of the suggested sites as a candidate for a future National Marine Park is underway. The eastern coast of Newfoundland will be the subject of a field study sometime in 1991.
b) As the process of establishing a National Marine Park in these regions has only barely begun, even within the Canadian Parks Service, no discussions have as yet been held with the Newfoundland provincial government. As soon as the conclusions of the Labrador coast field report have been studied within the Service, discussions with the Newfoundland government will be initiated.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos. 365 and 375.


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. MacWilliam: Is the Department of Communications High Frequency Direction-Finding Receiving Facility, located between Stittsville and Richmond, Ontario, still operational and, if so (a) were some or all of the construction costs for this facility paid by the Department of National Defence and, if so (i) is this a DND facility or a DOC facility (ii) which government department or agency pays for the maintenance and operation of this facility (iii) which government department or agency directs the activities that take place there (b) what is the nature of the data collected at this site (c) to what uses is it put (d) does this site intercept or monitor high-frequency radio transmissions (i) to or from Ottawa (ii) to or from other locations (e) does this site intercept supply to or share data with (i) the Department of National Defence (ii) the Communications Security Establishment (iii) the Canadian Forces Supplementary Radio System and, if so, for each organization named above, what is the nature of the data supplied or shared (f) is there any reference in Department of Communication Annual Reports to the operation of this site and, if not, for what reason (g) are there (i) current and available budget figures for the operation of this site (ii) a current and available calculation of the costs recovered from the Department of National Defence for the operation of this site or the work done there and, if so, what are these figures for the current fiscal year?
Return tabled.


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Riis: As a result of the events at Kanasatake and Kahnawake, Que., has the government been informed of any allegations of (a) unlawful detention (b) harassment by soldiers or police (c) failure of police to control individuals throwing objects at cars driven by Native Canadians (d) intimidation of international observers (e) abuses of human rights and, if so, for each allegation (i) what are the details (ii) what measures have been taken to investigate (iii) what action will be taken?
Return tabled.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Starred Questions Nos. 365 and 375 could be made Orders for Return, the returns would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 365 and 375 be deemed to have been made Orders for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 29 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 amendment) from a Legislative Committee; and Motion No. 17 of Mr. Waddell (p. 15801); and Motion No. 30 of Mrs. Finestone (p. 15801).
[Stage Direction]
December 3, 1990
Government Orders
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part in the debate on Motions Nos. 17 and 30 of my colleague and good friend, Mrs. Finestone. Basically the amendments to Bill C-40 advocate maintaining the CBC role as promoter of national unity. This is clear enough, simple enough and very important.
Bill C-40 now before the Elouse and as proposed by the government cancels this mandate, this mission given to the CBC in 1968. Members will recall that in 1968 Parliament saw fit to include these words in the mandate or mission, namely that the CBC "-should contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity".
Mr. Speaker, the deletion of these words stems from recommendations contained in the 1986 Caplan-Sauva-geau report and in the 1987 report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. Both commissions were concerned that this section might prevent the CBC from ensuring that programming would fairly and faithfully reflect Canada's various cultural, social, political, economic and linguistic realities.
Hon. members will recall that former CBC President Pierre Juneau did not feel that the words "national unity" had created problems during the many years he headed the corporation.
The Canadian Radio-Television and Communications Commission, CRTC for short, also said that the interpretation given to this expression had never prevented nor thwarted a political debate where all views were heard.
At a time when Canada is facing serious challenges- the post-Meech situation, free trade, inter-regional rivalries; remember what happened last summer in Oka and the important role which some people say the CBC played in these sad incidents-we feel it has become ever more urgent and important that the public radio and television network take part in and contribute to the promotion of national unity.
All regions, all social partners must work together to build our country's identity. A few years ago, Parliament voted massively in favour of a resolution to promote Canada's linguistic duality. Not long ago, it also voted in favour of a bill to protect and promote language minorities in this country: Anglophones in Quebec as well as Francophones outside Quebec.
Why should it now deliberately decide to withdraw one of the tools that helped to achieve these objectives? National unity and Canada's linguistic duality should not be relegated to the realm of good intentions. They should be defined and involve firm commitments and concrete action. To remove from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's mission its mandate to promote national unity would, in our opinion, remove part of its soul, of what sets it apart from other public networks.
Some people claim, and I am one of them, that broadcasting has done as much for this country's unity and cohesion in the 20th century as the railways did in the 19th century. This has been the century of communications. We in Canada have become experts in communications. And as I see it, our national network has done more than any other network to keep this country together. I experienced this in 1973, when I came here as a member of Parliament. I asked for a policy of accelerated coverage so that Canadians communities in the North, in Western Canada and Eastern Canada, in fact across the country, would have access to French radio and television.
At the time, the government agreed to spend the money and give the CBC this clear mandate to accelerate its coverage of every community of 500 people or more, so that Canadians in this country would have access to television in their own language, in English in Quebec and in French outide Quebec. This was done, Mr. Speaker, and it provided the glue that cemented Canadians, born in this country or new Canadians, whether they were anglophones or francophones, together. We knew that when travelling across the country, we could tune in to a station that would give us the news and programs in our own language. East or west, centre, south or north, this system made it possible for us to see each other, hear each other, and speak to each other. It helped us understand each other and build a culture and a society in our own image. It wasn't easy, considering the vast expanse of this country, and the way this country was built, on an east-west axis instead of north and south. It's not easy, when you have to cover thousands of kilometres both ways. Mr. Speaker, it has helped us to be
December 3, 1990

Government Orders
Canadians and to further develop our understanding of who we are.
Mr. Speaker, the role played by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is vital for Canada, and for the French Canada I know, which is culturally isolated and in a minority position everywhere on this continent, except in Quebec. Spread out as we are, we are extremely vulnerable. We are constantly in danger of being assimilated. We depend a lot on the CBC to give us balanced programming, and Mr. Speaker, the CBC contributes to the survival and development of French and English culture, and it is very important to have access to this kind of broadcasting across the country' in order to keep this country together. As I said, it acts as a cultural, social and educational link, and it is one of the linchpins of French survival in Canada. That, Mr. Speaker, is why it is so important to have access to this service from coast to coast.
If I paid tribute to the CBC, Mr. Speaker, it is because I think the corporation plays an important role in national unity. Still the fact remains that the network does not reach all Canadians, and I am prepared to admit that. Too often francophones outside Quebec, particularly in remote areas, have to be cultural beggars in their own country. In too many places inadequate services are tantamount to no service at all. Where there are no transmitters nor cable service Radio-Canada is not heard nor seen. In other regions, francophones are at the mercy of cable companies if they want to see French programs. In most cases French signals originate from the Montreal region. In many cases francophones outside Quebec must rely on English channels to tune in to local and regional news.
If you talk to the CBC head he invariably brings up the issue of shortage of funds. Mr. Speaker, if we turn to the minister to make the same request he refers us back to the CBC. One thing for sure, Mr. Speaker, is that any budget cutback made by the government- and I have some doubts about it because after checking the figures I am not sure that the budget cutbacks have been severe enough to justify the lack of services we have experienced over the past five years. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we will have to want to maintain in this country a national radio and television network readily accessible to all Canadians regardless of the language they speak.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam and our Liberal colleague from Mount Royal for their excellent impassioned plea for a most worthy of all causes, the CBC.
I will begin with a quotation from 1962 by a philosopher. I will wend my way down to some grass roots individuals who also speak out in 1990 in defence of CBC and the proposed cuts to it.
Owing to Canada's size, communications have always meant more to us than to most other countries. We have proceeded and still proceed less by settlement than by communications. Very little of Canada has really been settled. The great gaps of northern Quebec and Ontario and the British Columbia mountains amaze transcontinental travellers. Even more astonishing are the vast emptinesses of our immense northern hinterlands. The emergence of the electronic mass media offers Canada the best prospect it has ever had of becoming a genuine national community.
That was in the sixties. In 1974 an executive or a television critic said: "It should be possible to turn on one's television set and know what country one is in. One would almost never be in doubt in the United States. One is frequently in doubt in Canada." Some people from my community have written to me and voiced their concerns with cutbacks to the CBC.
Miss Noble says: "I am writing as a friend of public broadcasting to ask that you and your party support increasing funding and the continuance of public broadcasting."
Mr. Houston says it better, certainly, than I ever could: "I am writing you to express my concern over proposed cuts to the budget of CBC. Over this summer I have travelled the east coast of our country and was pleased to be able to listen to CBC all the way. I was equally pleased to have this contact with our country when I travelled to B.C. a few years ago. It is hard to express my feelings when, in every province in our country, I found people listening to, and sharing in the culture of every other province. It is more than just being part of our country because the people would not be listening if it weren't also quality programming. It is radio that we are truly proud of and radio that is unique in the world. We must continue this excellence and we must expand our support to spread this quality into our television. I am

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
sure if these budget cuts go through, we will lose out to American culture."
Grace McEwan says: "I am pleased with recent additions to CBC programming on TV.
The 24-hour Newsworld channel is a helpful addition to enable the viewing public to become aware and to keep up with current affairs in our country." Mr. McIntyre: "I want to add my voice to the thousands who deplore the extreme cuts in the CBC's budget in recent years, and in particular in the next five years."


Mr. Tully:: "I know you are concerned about the erosion of Canada's economic independence as a consequence of free trade, but what good is economic independence to Canadians if our very cultural identity is in danger of being submerged in the overwhelming swell of American broadcasting media that is engulfing Canada."
There are more, Mr. Speaker, but I just wanted to cite those few. The present president of CBC has some interesting turns of words. He suggests that we are going to have to do some "constructive damage" to the CBC. Those two words together are an antithesis and a paradox. They just do not fit together. How one can go about making constructive damage to the CBC, I think is beyond the comprehension of just about anyone.
How severe are the cuts? They are $140 million over four years, on top of the cuts that have taken place over the past eight or nine years. I believe the funding for operations has gone from $1 billion and conceivably it will drop to about $675,000 by the years 1993-94. The cuts are, indeed, very severe.
It seems strange at this point in time to be talking about cuts when the ratings in fact have gone up. I cite a column from The Toronto Star, Gina Mallet, who suggests that it is funny and sad just when CBC's radio ratings are higher than ever, 11.9 per cent of the audience for AM, 3.5 per cent for FM seems the most inopportune time to make cuts when, in fact, the ratings are increasing.
The amendments proposed by my colleague, and also by the Liberals, are very noteworthy. The one that we have highlighted and the one that gives us the most concern is the deletion of the unity clause, if you will, in the mandate of CBC.
We have deleted many other Canadian symbols like VIA Rail. The post office is under attack. Petro-Canada and Air Canada are being sold off. Is the CBC next? I think the minister has suggested that some people are saying the CBC is too aggressive with the private corporations.
We resent that. Let us be ever more aggressive and competitive to maintain our cultural sovereignty. We appreciate that the deficit is a huge and difficult one to handle for the government, but the incessant cutting of everything across the board is not acceptable. Surely it would latch onto one last vestige of something that speaks for Canadian unity.
What better medium than the CBC, a transmitted message of unity that is most natural? It is instant and effective. It can be powerful. It has a captive audience. If the material is credible, it is informative, unbiased and thought provoking. The CBC had the opportunity of distributing a passionate, poignant message to Canadians, not editorializing on the view of Canadian unity, but presenting a view from across Canada.
Canadians desire and even long for a voice to speak out on behalf of Canadian unity. The division of the one complete board into two separate boards in the CBC apparently is endorsed by no one. One cannot present a unified message by division. It is impossible. This is our Custer's last stand, and we have to always go back to American statements. Let us make CBC the last vestige of hope for a message to the Canadian people on Canadian unity.
The minister says that the unity clause will lead to propaganda, an artificial political notion of unity. That is truly the epitome of hypocrisy when the government is able to spend millions of dollars selling propaganda on the GST that nobody wants to accept. There is propaganda, and there is a disunifying message.
What about Mr. Watson, who is longing to become the true chair of the CBC? Is my time running out, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Yes.


Steve Butland: So quickly. I am going to have to bypass most of my comments and get to the point.
December 3, 1990

I do not accept the CBC indicating that it may cut the parliamentary channel. I think that is a most unfortunate way of drawing attention to the severe cuts which have been brought about by the government. I do not accept the fact that it should have to cut $4.5 million from allowing Canadians to view Parliament at work, especially when not several months ago the CBC was forming a contract to present to this House of Commons-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please! I want to remind you that according to the rules and unless the Speaker gets the unanimous consent of the House to do otherwise, speeches last 10 minutes at this stage.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this afternoon to be able to speak to Bill C-40, dealing with CBC communications.
In 1968 the Broadcasting Act required that the CBC contribute to the development of national unity. What we are concerned about in particular in this debate this afternoon is the fact that Bill C-40 drops the CBC's 1968 mandated role to contribute to national unity and provide for continuing expression of Canadian identity.
Across this country there are hundreds of thousands of people who listen CBC radio and television broadcasts regularly. Among those many hundreds of thousands of people, there are thousands who reside in my riding of Northumberland. Many of them have expressed to me their deep concern about the cutbacks the government has imposed on the CBC. In fact, since 1984 the government has cut CBC's parliamentary grants by over $240 million, which includes severe reductions to CBC technology as well.
Many people in my riding come from rural areas. They need to be kept in communication with the reality of this country. Some of them, those who reside in the more urban areas, have the benefit of cable television into their homes. One of the problems with the particular bill in front of us is the fact that it does not say that those who transmit by cable into homes across this country are subject to the same regulations as individual broadcasters. Individual broadcasters are subject to a percentage of Canadian content, and that content has to be accessible.
Government Orders
Through the cable system, depending on what area the system is going into and the type of programming, sometimes those who subscribe to cable broadcast have to use expensive and more sophisticated technologies to receive. It is important that cable broadcasters be subject to the same provisions as individual broadcasters. Also it is important that those who subscribe not be subject to having to purchase high cost technology in order to receive Canadian content.
Since this government came into being the Canadian public has been alarmed with the many ways in which disunity has been imposed upon the country. We recognize that the CBC, our national communications system, is one of the most important factors in uniting this country and keeping it together. We have seen the erosion of other national communications systems which have contributed to an unacceptable regionalization of Canada.
The 1968 bill respecting the Broadcast Act supported contributing to the development of national unity. It in no way prevented the CBC from focusing on particular regional issues, whether it were issues that concerned the economy on the east coast or the west coast, whether it was industrial concerns in the mid-provinces of Canada, Quebec and Ontario, or whether it was northern programming. We all learned and grew to appreciate much more what Canada stood for, by seeing either news broadcasting or situation programming that showed what life was in the diverse regions that make Canada one.
There is no reason that we should drop this particular focus and role for the CBC in the present Broadcasting Act. This is all the more reason that at the present time in Canada, when we are suffering from extreme pressures of national breakdown, we should be concerned about the development of national unity. If ever there was a time when that was important, that time is now. This is no time to be ruling out the importance of developing national unity.
Some of the programs and agencies of the CBC which contribute to the national unity are not protected and mandated through this legislation, Bill C-40. In particular, as other members of Parliament have raised, it is my concern that the northern service, the all-news service that we now have, Newsworld, our parliamentary channel, and Radio Canada International will no longer be mandated and protected specifically in legislation. When we see the enormous cutbacks that CBC has experienced and hear suggestions that it is special programs and agencies such as Radio Canada International and the

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
parliamentary channel that should be dropped, I find it totally unsatisfactory and a great disservice to Canada as one nation.
I have travelled outside Canada to regions of the world where there is very little international broadcasting, areas of the world that do not experience the security that we do here in Canada. It was very important to be able to sit down with a short-wave radio and pick up Canadian news, to get what seemed to us to be an objective view of what was going on in the world.
It was important as well for the Canadian public to understand that non-Canadians, foreigners, also looked forward to the programming and broadcasting of Radio Canada International. They too perceived our broadcasting as objective, full and good reporting on many international issues. However, for Canadians who were travelling abroad like us, no matter what region of Canada we came from, no matter what our racial or ethnic origin, no matter what our language background, French or English, it helped to be able to communicate with each other and to feel proud and unified as Canadian citizens.
Certainly, since I have become a member of Parliament, I have been astonished to learn of the number of people who tune in to the parliamentary channel. These people depend on the parliamentary channel to understand more fully what is going on in our world.
The same applies to Newsworld. Rather than getting the seven-minute clip on our regular CBC daily news programs, they get the full coverage of events and issues and are helped in making their own objective decisions about the important issues of the day.
This is a freedom that Canadians must be able to benefit from. It contributes to a sense of national unity when people are able to come to a consensus of understanding of what is happening in the different regions of this country.
In discussing Bill C-40 as we are today, it is very important that we address the national unity clause and ensure, through proposed amendments, that the CBC continues to contribute to the development of national unity and that there be a specific clause to this effect in the final bill approved by this House of Commons.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in favour of the Motion No. 17 in the name of the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, which reads as follows:
That Bill C-40 be amended in clause 3 by striking out lines 39 and
40 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"(vi) contribute to national unity, shared national consciousness and identity,".
Bill C-40, in describing the CBC's mandate, sets out that CBC programming should:
(i)	be predominantly and distinctively Canadian,
(ii)	reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions,
(iii)	actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression,
(iv)	be in English and in French,-
Yet the government has removed one particular obligation from the CBC in this legislation, and that is the promotion of Canadian unity. The removal of this clause, combined with the division of the CBC board into both English and French standing committees, in fact weakens the CBC as a national institution. This in particular is a time when more than ever Canadians need national institutions to keep the country together. Surely it is reasonable at this time for the national broadcaster of Canada to play a pivotal role in maintaining our country and our national unity.
I would like to go back and reflect upon the traditional role that the CBC has played, as it has been a very important component in pulling this country together from coast to coast. It has been traditional that the CBC links all parts of Canada, whether the west coast, the Arctic coastline, or the east coast. It was also set up to provide a complete service for Canadians, covering a whole range of programming and day-to-day news so that people could and can keep in touch with events that were happening throughout this land. It was part of its mandate to serve, equitably, both official languages and to be predominantly Canadian in content. The amendment submitted by my colleague is fully consistent with that objective. Actually both amendments represent social goals, essentially something that our Canadian society can strive to achieve. The process is more important than the end because the end will be constantly evaluated and re-evaluated and therefore can change.
December 3, 1990

As Canadian society matures, norms and values can be challenged, and attitudes can change. But this process in itself, to be meaningful, requires information, it requires discussion and debate.
I want to ask the question as to whether there is something about a publicly-owned, yet autonomously operated broadcast system that can contribute to the very goals which we pursue. In fact, the CBC as a national institution, is ideally suited to contribute to national unity, to contribute to a shared national consensus and identity.
Let me return for a moment to the point that I was trying to emphasize about our goals. These goals can be broadly defined as being perhaps some, but certainly not all, of the components of a nation. I wonder whether the government's objection to this particular amendment begins with the goals themselves, and whether the government members must actually question that very point themselves.
The over-all strategy of this government, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is exemplified through the funding cuts and through the bifurcation of the management structure of the corporation. In fact, it suggests that this government is simply not willing to fully endorse CBC's pursuit of these goals.
Let me return to the question. Is there something about a publicly-owned, yet autonomously operated broadcasting system that can contribute significantly to the goals of national unity, shared national conscience and a true Canadian identity?
I would like to submit, Sir, that the answer is yes. How do we achieve that? First, we can achieve it by having CBC's operations based across the country, sharing information, commentary and analysis. We can have that by bringing the artistic and the entertainment achievements of the nation to the nation. We can achieve it by sending Canadian journalists abroad to report and analyse events around the world, with consideration for the impact and importance of these events in Canada.
Government Orders
Second, we can achieve this by operating two unique national radio networks, by operating a first rate national television network, and by operating an around the clock all news television channel.
This government seems to have an antipathy for publicly-owned enterprises. That has become pretty obvious. It has been quick to point out the weaknesses and just as quick to sell off those enterprises to the private sector.
I wonder if it is prepared to point to a successful, publicly-owned enterprise and actually perpetuate it, because, Mr. Speaker, the CBC is that kind of success. The success of the CBC is also a measure of its contribution to the goals contained in the amendments that are being discussed at this very moment.
The CBC makes what is Canadian available to Canadians across this country and across the world. It gives Canadians a chance to listen to the country's own heart beat. Some examples of unique CBC's initiatives are Morningside, The House, Sunday Morning, and News-world's This Country.
These are examples where local reporting events are transmitted across the nation in a popular format. They are events, I might add, that are widely respected and widely listened to. The CBC has been a model. It has been a pioneer and trendsetter in broadcasting in this country. In so doing, it has assisted the nation in its search for a shared national consciousness and identity and has also contributed, I think significantly, to that national unity.
There are program formats, Mr. Speaker, that are unique to CBC, such as television's Marketplace, Man Alive and The Nature of Things; radio's Arts Tonight, The Food Show, Media File, and Inside Track.
These are unique programming formats which have been made possible because this nation some time ago made a commitment to a national broadcasting service to bring Canada in touch with itself, not unlike other commitments in nation-wide communications, our national rail service, national postal service, and our national telephone service, although I submit, Mr. Speaker, all of those are under severe attack by this present administration.

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
Sir, I see my time is very limited and I have much more to say on this. I want to summarize by placing the emphasis on the point of national unity. National unity is not something imposed, not something positioned or structured. If this is the government's view of national unity and the goal contained in this amendment, then it is no wonder this country has landed in the kind of mess it has.
National unity is an elusive quality of our life. It is constantly evolving, and like informed judgment it requires information and a means to broadcast that information.
This amendment, if adopted, will confirm a commitment to publicly-owned and operated broadcasting services that can assist in the pursuit and realization of our goals of national unity, shared national consciousness and identity. I would urge the members of the House to seriously consider supporting this amendment to the legislation.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak to Bill C-40, an Act respecting broadcasting and in relation to radiocommunication in Canada.

This is an extremely complex bill comprised of three parts: the goals and objectives of a broadcasting act in Canada, the role of the CRTC, and the role of the CBC.

Recently the Prime Minister has insisted on the importance of national unity, stating with passion that all that has been accomplished so far can be attributed to our spirit of national solidarity, to our national unity. If the Prime Minister is so convinced of that, why does he want to take away CBC's mandate relating to the promotion of national unity?

Many have spoken on this bill at the various stages. This has been a supposed priority of the government since the beginning of this Parliament. There are many issues that have been addressed, for example the regionalization of the CRTC and the need for an educational service. However-

-the main objective here, according to me, is the unity of our country.

According to the 1968 Broadcasting Act under which the CBC now operates, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is required to be specifically Canadian or precisely to contribute the development of national unity.
At this particular time in the history of Canada-

-with the Meech aftermath, with the native versus Canadians problem, the Middle-East crisis, the lingusitic problem across the country, the dissension problem, the West versus Centre problem and that of the Centre versus the Atlantic provinces, we need instrument to promote national unity. And what better intrument of national unity than the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation could there be? It is important to note that, in the preamble to the bill, we can read and I quote: "the Canadian broadcasting system, operating primarily in the English and French languages and comprising public, private and community elements, makes use of radio frequencies that are public property and provides, through its programming, a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty." We, in the Liberal Party, are in agreement with this statement.

The airways are public and belong to the public. There can be no better instrument of national unity than a public broadcasting service promoting the issue of national unity and reflecting the truly national flavour which is Canada.

What needs to be changed in the bill is section 3(m)(vi), which reads:
"contribute to shared national consciousness and identity".
It should be replaced by "promote national unity"! [English]
By removing the expressed national unity mandate, the government is neglecting a very significant role for broadcasting, that is, to assist Canadians in developing a national personality and consciousness. Let us use this vehicle to highlight our diversities and to educate ourselves about our uniqueness.
December 3, 1990

The Ottawa Citizen of May 16, 1990 says: "The CBC is an agent of Canadian unity. It must remain that way as a bulwark against various decentralization forces." Do we need to state explicitly that the CBC has an obligation to promote national unity when it does so every day? Does the obvious fact that Quebec is a distinct society need to be written down in a Constitution?
These days, I would suggest-

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

The member for Portage-Interlake, a Conservative member of the government and also chairman of the Standing Committee on Communications expressed some concerns in that committee. A number of Conservative MPs oppose the federal government's plan to abandon national unity as a mandate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
"Removing the pursuit of national unity as an objective of the Crown-owned radio and television network has a negative connotation," says the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Communications, the member I just mentioned from Portage-Interlake.

The government is proposing that, from now on, there be two standing committees, one English and one French, both reporting to the Board.
So, there will be an English and a French side to the CBC, but they will not communicate with one another. Each will serve their separate clientele, have their own definitions of different words, themes, objectives and goals in Canada. The word "national" is a good example of the case in point. That word is given a different meaning in some parts of the country.
I congratulate the hon. member for Mount Royal who has been fighting for Canadian unity in the Committee on Communications for many years. She wants the CBC to be an agent of national unity.
Mr. Speaker, why change the part of the law dealing with national unity? Why endeavour to change and correct something, if all we are doing is tampering? We are not repairing anything and we could do a lot of damage in the process. First and foremost, we must give ourselves the tools to foster national unity. We are proud
Government Orders
of our CBC. After having been away and having immersed ourselves in another culture, we are twice as proud to see that the CBC is there to protect us, to help us grow and become better Canadians, as francophones or as anglophones. The CBC is there to promote the linguistic duality. We are so very proud to hear the French language spoken, whether on Baffin Island, in a Vancouver high school or in a Toronto elementary school, in support of our national unity.
We are proud as well to hear English spoken in Three Rivers. So, linguistic duality and national unity are essential, Mr. Speaker.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in speaking in the debate focusing around Bill C-40. It is a piece of legislation that not only ought to grip this Chamber, but also be taken account of by Canadians from coast to coast.
I would like to preface my brief remarks this afternoon by complimenting the communications critic for our party, the hon. member for Mount Royal, not in jest, but because of the substance of her arguments. The good work that she has done on Bill C-40 and the battle she has waged which, I think, is in concert with the thinking of the vast majority of Canadians and hopefully averting a piece of legislation being put through as written.
Previous speakers have made reference to the fact that, in 1968, as part of the official mandate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, was the role "to contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity". That was part of the mandated role in 1968. It was a good mandate then and, on this side of the House, we believe that it is a mandate, not only worth keeping but in fact it is crucial and drives at the very heart and essence of the existence of the CBC. Yet, Bill C-40, in its present form, would suggest dropping that portion of the CBC mandate.
We, on this side of the House, and many Canadians are asking: why should we be dropping that essential form of the CBC mandate? The previous president of the CBC, Pierre Juneau, suggested that there was no handicap in having that particular mandate. Many Canadians would agree with me that that should not only be part of the mandate but an essential requirement. And yet, the Minister of Communications, who is in the House today, has been quoted as saying that this 22-year-old clause, the national unity mandate, "is intolerable interference because the CBC was maintain-

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
ing this political value artificially and it was a constraint on the freedom of expression".
We ought to remind the minister that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is funded thanks to the taxpayers of the country and that the CBC, regardless of where one lives, reaches the livingrooms of the nations. As such, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if there was ever a need to keep national unity as part of the CBC mandate, it is right now.
The country is yearning for that thread of identity and it is going through the advent of a post free trade agreement. People are wondering what this country is all about in terms of its sovereignty; in terms of the decisions being taken south of the border, when we are losing our economic levers, if you will; and in the advent of the situation in the Middle East, where it seems that our foreign policy is a carbon copy of that of the United States. We are talking about the various pulls and tugs of various provinces in the country which are contemplating doing without Canada and contemplating going out on their own. It is also a time when Canadians are more apt to identify with the regions than with that term called Canadianism. We are talking about adopting immigration programs, first to the provinces, then to the regions, and third, if there is time, to the country. There is no thought that the immigrants are coming first to a country, then to a region, and finally to a provincial context.
VIA Rail was gutted, Mr. Speaker. You know, as well as I, the historic role that the railway has played in the country in terms of keeping the east, west and north symmetry together and not giving into the pressures that normally would have an easier time flowing north and south.
The government is talking, in the transportation sector again, about an open skies concept, allowing American air carriers to come into our airspace at will and with freedom, when in fact our industry cannot compete head to head with the Americans. In the end, I think Canadians do give a damn about what kind of air carrier transports them between point A and point B. They do
care whether the emblem on the tail of that airplane is the Maple Leaf or Stars and Stripes.
With the advent of all these forces unleashed at this very time in our history, I believe that it is important for our medium of communication, for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to do all it can to try to enhance the forces of unity and to try to rally Canadians from coast to coast. Therefore, there has never been a better time and a greater need to foster the cause of national unity through the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
For the government even to be contemplating dropping this clause is not only wrong, but an absolutely incomprehensible abdication of responsibility. The government is going against the very grain of why, in part, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was established and has existed.
Rather than weakening the cause of national unity through the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, we in this Chamber, and members on the other side of the House, namely the government, ought to look for ways of strengthening the resolve, strengthening the tools, strengthening the commitment of national unity, and not undermining the fabric of national unity and undermining the cause for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Otherwise, when combined with all the other policies of government, we wonder what the federal government will be doing in a few years, other than delivering the mail and doing a bad job at that.

I think, therefore, that it is most important for the House and the government to recognize that the CBC and Radio-Canada have a major role to play in the promotion of national unity. That this government should refuse to promote national unity throughout our country is entirely inexplicable. I believe that one of the functions of the CBC and Radio-Canada is to advance unity, and together with the co-operation of the Canadian people, to promote our own Canadian values as Canadians, not as Quebecers, Ontarians or Albertans, and to transmit them with pride and justice to the whole country. I suggest, therefore, that in addition to promoting these Canadian values, we must be proud of our
December 3, 1990

country and, instead of depriving it of its role, to allow the CBC to reinforce national unity.
I am pleased that I have this opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I see that you are indicating that my time is up. I am very hopeful that by the end of this debate, the government will see fit to change this important clause and to stand up for Canadian unity and Canada, and not be scared of promoting national unity at a time when it is badly needed.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox -Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support my colleague's amendments that would preserve the national unity objective of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I might point out that if one lives in a west coast riding such as mine, which is on the far west coast, on the Pacific Ocean, this is exactly the kind of concern that my constituents would have.
For example, a small community like Ucluelet has a population of somewhere between 1,100 and 1,500 people, depending on what time of the year it is. Because of the policy of CBC, they are entitled to get the CBC radio in Ucluelet. Previously, because Ucluelet was located on the far west coast, we received our radio transmissions from places such as Los Angeles, California which had a direct line of sight between Los Angeles and Ucluelet. We also received our radio in Spanish from Tijuana, Mexico. If you recall, Mr. Speaker, the programs of Wolfman Jack were the kind of programs we received from pirate radio stations in Tijuana, Mexico.
As a result of CBC's national unity policy, translators are now placed in places like Ucluelet so that we can receive those CBC AM and FM stations and we can receive CBC French and English programming. That kind of thing helps to keep the nation together. Whereas when I was teaching in Ucluelet many years ago, the kids in my class knew far more about what was happening in Los Angeles, the American political system, and American culture and music than about what was happening in Canada. As residents of the far west coast, they did not receive Canadian programming. They were too remote from Canadian centres to receive Canadian radio and television programming.
It is a serious problem. If we drop the commitment to national unity, does this mean that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation can give up its obligation of locating
Government Orders
translators and stations in remote communities on the west coast of Vancouver Island? I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, that is not what people on the west coast of Vancouver Island want. They prefer to be Canadians, to remain Canadian, and to be in touch with Canada. The major link between the west coast of Vancouver Island and the west coast communities of British Columbia is that CBC link. They would like to retain it.
If the government abandons as an objective of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the objective of retaining and promoting national unity, that is exactly the fear that the people on the west coast of Vancouver Island have, that they are going to lose CBC services and end up hearing the radio stations of the west coast of the United States and Mexico. That is not what people on the west coast want for themselves or for their children. They want to be Canadians, and they want the government to respect their desire to remain Canadians.
It is a dangerous action on the part of the government to eliminate this section which, as other speakers have pointed out and as has been mentioned by the management of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, has been absolutely no impediment to the kind of programming it does, the quality of programming it does, or the independence and the impartiality of the programming it does. In fact, it is an important objective and it should be stated in the legislation governing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
When I look at a community such as the one I live in which is Port Alberni in central Vancouver Island, it is surrounded by mountains. We cannot receive radio from outside the Alberni Valley because of the problems with line of sight transmission. It is very difficult to receive radio transmissions from outside the valley. We have difficulty in receiving Canadian Broadcasting Corporation programs. It is only because there is an obligation on the part of CBC to protect and promote national unity that we receive and have installed transmitters that transmit CBC programs through the mountains and into the Alberni Valley where they are received by the 19,000 to 25,000 residents who live in that valley.
Without this objective to protect and to enhance national unity, I believe that those kinds of transmitters would be pulled out of those communities because they do not make money, do not earn advertising in the Alberni Valley or support in the Alberni Valley. These are things that are done as part of a national obligation to make sure that this country holds together.

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
My constituents are concerned that if we drop this clause to promote national unity from the objectives of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation then places like Ucluelet on the west coast of Vancouver Island and places like Port Alberni in central Vancouver Island will simply be ignored. Their transmitters will be cut as part of their cost-cutting measures because once this objective of promoting and protecting national unity is dropped from the CBC's objectives then the CBC is going to say: "Who cares about these small communities; who cares about protecting?"
My constituents are concerned about retaining this section as one of the objectives of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to preserve national unity. I think it is an objective that every Canadian institution should have.
I am beginning to doubt the institution of the Conservative Party as to whether they have, as a fundamental objective, the national unity of this country, because when I see what the Conservative Party has done, this wrecking crew of Canada, since it took office in 1984, it has virtually destroyed every link that connects this country from ocean to ocean to ocean. That has been a serious problem with this wrecking crew of a Conservative Party that does not have built into its objectives the national unity of this country.
Phil Edmonston has more concern about this country in his little finger than you or any other member of that caucus and I can guarantee it.
I will tell you, the actions of this government demonstrate it.
At least I got 42 per cent of the popular vote and never, ever-


Mr. McDermid:: I got 56.


Robert Evans Skelly: My party got 42 percent of the popular vote and you guys cannot even scratch up 14 no matter what you do in this country.
It would be good to see an objective of national unity as part of the Conservative Party, this party that has destroyed the cross-Canada links of VIA Rail, one of the institutions that brought our country together, held our country together and was respected by Canadians all across the country as a link that kept our country together from sea to sea.
Air Canada is another link that was developed by the Government of Canada. When other airlines refused to do a trans-national, across-the-country service because they felt it would not make a profit this government stepped in, developed the Trans-Canada Airlines that later grew into Air Canada, served communities that were uneconomic to serve and used a system of crosssubsidization between the lucrative runs to subsidize other runs so that everybody in Canada could enjoy an air service.
One gentleman here mentioned that the post office is the last remaining Canadian institution. In my riding they wonder who runs the post office in this country. If you want to buy stamps or get parcel service in the country, you do not go to a community centre that flies the Canadian flag and says this is your national postal service. You go to a 7-Eleven store or a Quickie store. They wonder whether the symbol of Canada is Shoppers Drug Mart or 7-Eleven, an American store. That is the problem with the Conservative Party. It has spent all of the last eight years undermining and tearing apart all of the links that keep this country together from sea to sea. Then they start setting up committees to try to help pull us back together again.
I will give them a hint. All they have to do is respect those national institutions and to preserve as their objective the objective of retaining national unity in this country. That is what the people of Canada want. Unfortunately, it is not what the Conservative Party has been shooting for.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to take part in this debate. I should like to deal also with national unity, but first of all, I will start with the subject matter of Motion No. 30, which is perhaps closer to ordinary people.

This motion would amend the bill to require the CRTC to establish priorities for the Canadian Broadcasting system based upon the national interest. As I say, I am referring to somewhat ordinary pedestrian concerns. I would like to bring the attention of the House to simply the matter of regulation of cable distribution systems within Canada and make a plea for the emphasis of the
December 3. 1990

national interest being pursued when the regulation of cable systems is brought forward.
Let me give the House a couple of examples. First of all, with respect to the nature of the channels that are provided on basic cable service, many of us, certainly in the urban areas of Canada, paying a basic fee, receive a certain cable service. At the moment it is up to the cable companies to decide the nature of the programming that is going to be provided in that basic service.
It seems to me that the CRTC in pursuing the national interest ought to require that very careful consideration be given to the nature of the basic cable service in Canada. Clearly, Canadian channels, local stations as well as national networks need to receive first-run priority in the basic cable service everywhere in Canada. Clearly, Canadians also want the service of the three networks from the United States, together with public broadcasting. That is certainly within the band of the basic cable service. However, in addition to those, any other non-Canadian services surely should be looked at from the point of view of what national interest is being served.
Another example on the same point with respect to the parliamentary channel, that service is one, which I think has been noted earlier in the debate here this afternoon, of great importance to many Canadians who sit at home and watch the debate that we have here. They learn a great deal about our institutions and about what is happening in public affairs in Canada by following the parliamentary channel.
In my area of Ottawa South, there are two cable distribution companies. Their practice with respect to the parliamentary channel differs. In one part of my constituency, the basic cable coverage includes only the English version of our debates here in the House of Commons. In the other part of my constituency, the floor sound, in other words the language that is being spoken by the people participating in debate, is broadcast to my constituents. Neither is particularly satisfactory. In the former case, my francophone constituents, who live in one part of my riding, are unable to acquire the parliamentary channel in their language. The other part of my riding, where certainly the predominant language is English, the floor sound precludes my constituents
Government Orders
from understanding the debate that is occurring in this Chamber in their own language.
It seems to me that as part of the pursuit of the national interest, the parliamentary channel not only should be available to all Canadians, but it should be available to all Canadians in French or in English, whichever is their language of choice.
I think that is a very important characteristic that should be pursued in the national interest of broadcasting in Canada.
I would also like to speak briefly about the amendment that would restore to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a mandate to contribute to national unity, shared national consciousness and identity.
This point is of profound importance. I do not think that there is a Canadian who would say that since 1984, when this government was elected, that national unity has been enhanced or improved in any degree. In fact, what we face is probably the greatest crisis of national unity in our history.
The Prime Minister is quoted as having said: "Everything that we have accomplished as a country can be traced back to our sense of national purpose, to our national unity". If we think back over the great accomplishments of the last 123 and a half years, there are many. All of them relate to this sense of national purpose, whether it is the founding of the country in the first place by the Fathers of Confederation, or the construction of the CPR that brought together the extremities of the country.
The establishment of the CBC itself was an expression of national purpose. Now, we have the very idea that this part of the CBC's mandate would be stripped from it. Surely, with the climate of division, strife, anger and frustration that we have in the country at the present moment, this is not the time to reduce any measure that we have at our disposal to promote national unity.
I do not say this lightly. The minister made the comment in the past that giving a national unity mandate to a broadcasting system is somewhat perilous in a democracy. I understand what he is saying. Particularly in the reporting of news and currents events, it can be difficult to say the least, to say that we want to convey a certain puqrose in the broadcasting of news and current events coverage.

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
That is not all that the CBC does. What we are debating here is not a mandate on a broadcasting authority, to somehow repress certain kinds of news or to emphasize other kinds of news in order to produce a certain result. That is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about the kind of broadcasting that the CBC has become known for, the broadcasting of special events, the coverage of Canadian events, the emphasis on Canadian broadcasters, the programming that we hear on our radios and see on our televisions that is uniquely Canadian and that brings us together as a nation. We understand one another a little better each time that we hear and see this kind of broadcasting. That is what we are talking about here.
That surely needs to be part of the mandate of our entire broadcasting system; the CBC itself as a national broadcasting outlet and other broadcasters to the extent that they are regulated by the CRTC.
Unfortunately, what we have is a government led by a Prime Minister who stood before the people of Canada and said that the Constitution of the country was not worth the paper that it is written on. In making that kind of provocative statement, which should be denounced not only here but across the land, he set the tone for national division that is tearing our country apart.
Now is not the time to be stripping our national broadcasting authority of its power and its responsibility with respect to national unity. Now is the time to be building it up. Now is the time for Canadians to recognize at this moment what it is that they have that is so important and so valuable. As members of Parliament we all know that there are hundreds of thousands of people around the world wanting to come to Canada. What we have here is precious. What we need is a modern broadcasting vehicle to help Canadians remember and understand the uniqueness of what we have, the importance of it, the values that we share in common as Canadians. That is what the CBC should be doing. Its mandate must not be changed.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [.Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this very important Bill C-40 respecting the CBC and the issue of national unity.
The government has said that under the new Broadcasting Act the CBC will no longer have a role in contributing to the development of national unity. In 1968 the Broadcasting Act, which Bill C-40 will replace, gave the CBC a mandate "to contribute to the development of national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity". Bill C-40 now requires only that the CBC "contribute to the shared national consciousness and identity".
I find it rather disturbing that the government would want to try to distance itself from a bill which in the past had done so much to keep Canada together. We understand why the government has done what it has done. I do not think it really has an idea of what national unity is all about. It has done more to divide Canada in the six years it has been in power than in the 117 previous years that Canada as we know it today has existed.
I would like to touch on a few issues that have done more to divide the nation: free trade, railroad cuts, the proposed goods and services tax, Meech Lake, and now we have the Spicer commission and another parliamentary committee to look into amending the Constitution.
We should also talk a bit about the gun control bill that the government would like to scrap because its backbenchers do not want to see it passed. It would have done a lot toward easing the concerns of a lot of women today in Canada. They just want to follow the gun lobbyists as is done in the United States of America.
I want to touch a bit on national unity and the government. I do not think the government has any concept of how to keep national unity intact. I say this because its policy seems to be that one way to keep Canada together is to roll the dice. Is that how we keep Canada together, by the roll of the dice? No wonder Canada is splitting at the seams when national unity depends on how the dice come up.
Even when the majority of Canadians disagrees with a measure on how to keep Canada together, government members insist that it is their way or no way. They will
December 3, 1990

Government Orders
not agree on who killed the Meech Lake Accord in the end. The majority of Canadians knows that it was our good friend, Elijah Harper, from the Manitoba legislature who said no three times to a request for unanimous consent, and effectively killed Meech Lake.
The government would have us believe that anybody but the very people who were here to welcome those who sailed across the ocean effectively killed Meech Lake. It was the agreement of the aboriginal people because they did not like the Meech Lake Accord. We all know that the government does not want to place the blame where it lies because we might get too much sympathy. Instead, it places the blame on people who did not really have a role in determining the death of Meech Lake.
The minister has decided to relieve the CBC of the obligation to promote Canadian unity and to substitute therefor the obligation to report on the cultural reality of this country. Even some of his own caucus members do not necessarily agree with him.
The chairman of the communications committee, the hon. member for Portage-Interlake, on May 9, 1990 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 going in two separate ways. It would be most unfortunate." There is a person who knows what the rest of Canadians are thinking. There is a person to whom this minister should be listening, as he should be listening to others from this side of the House.
When will the minister realize that people need this Crown corporation to promote national unity and that this is a very small way of showing that the House is serious about keeping and promoting national unity?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Parkdale- High Park-External Affairs; the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville-Housing;	the
hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River-Ca-meco.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and participate in this important debate on Bill C-40.
First, I want to acknowledge the magnificent work being done on our behalf by my colleague and friend from Mount Royal on matters relating not only to this bill but to communications. She is in every respect our guiding light on those issues. She does a very remarkable job, as does her staff.
This debate is an important one because it goes right to the very heart of what this country is all about. The bill itself addresses just one particular aspect of that debate, but it is symbolic of the larger agenda of this government. Much as been said in the past few days during the course of debate about the matter of national unity and how the bill not only ignores but seeks to undo part of the CBC's mandate.
The Prime Minister of the day, R. B. Bennett, not a man of my party but the man who introduced this bill, set forth in very clear, concise and precise terms exactly what he wanted a piece of broadcasting legislation to achieve. Not only did he say it well, but the instrument he crafted, together with his cabinet colleagues in the House of Commons at that time and in Parliament generally, has served us well in the intervening years. One wonders first of all why there is a need to fix something that is not broken.


Mr. Benjamin:: I am listening to the Liberals stealing my stuff.


Roger Simmons: It is nice to have the gentleman from Regina here. We are here every day at this time. He should come more often and speak in his turn.


An hon. member:: Order.


Roger Simmons: As I was saying a moment ago, this issue goes to the very heart of the government's agenda. I remember very well the Prime Minister talking about how his mandate was a national reconciliation. There is a phrase he has had to eat a few times. Can we think of any time, since R. B. Bennett in 1932 who brought in the broadcast bill, under any Prime Minister of whatever party stripe when a leader has so crafted his public policy as to get an effect which is absolutely opposite to national reconciliation?

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
It is significant that today, with a broadcast bill before the Chamber, one of the only two ministers in sight is the minister responsible for privatization, the paid wrecking ball of this government. He is also the paid heckler today, and he does not even do a good job at that.


John Horton McDermid: Former broadcaster, that is what I am.


Roger Simmons: Emphasis on former. As I was saying before the paid heckler decided to get eloquent, instead of being here and behaving like a 12-year old, why does he not find his cowardly minister, the Minister of Communications, who does not even have the courtesy to come in here and talk to the bill? Where is his minister?


John Horton McDermid: Order, order.


Roger Simmons: Suddenly I am out of order, am I? Let me be completely in order.
Instead of just beating his gums over there, will the minister go out and tell his colleague his responsibility to be here and to tell us where he stands on this bill? Or, does he still stand on both sides of it as he did in the press clippings that I have here? Is that where he stands?


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Roger Simmons: The Minister of Labour has just made his maiden speech in the House. We should hear from that minister more often too.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I think we have got them all worked up for some reason.


John Horton McDermid: Who's worked up?


Roger Simmons: Not me.
Mr. Speaker, if one phrase would characterize this particular Prime Minister, it has nothing to do with national reconciliation. It has more to do with a wrecking ball. If ever there was a wrecking ball abroad in the country-maybe the Minister of Labour takes some credit. Maybe he takes some satisfaction in that. As a Newfoundlander and as a Canadian, I take no satisfaction that I have a Prime Minister who is going around as a wrecking ball, who is wrecking this country every day, whether it is through CBC or anything else. I take no pride in that. He can smirk, he can laugh. I take no pride in that, none whatsoever. A wrecking ball.


Mr. Corbeil:: Where does Chretien stand?


Roger Simmons: If the minister would stop shouting long enough, I would tell him where Chretien stands because at least Chretien knows where he stands.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Roger Simmons: Also, unlike his leader the Prime Minister, and unlike the Minister of Communications, Chretien stands in only one place. He is not having trouble with a picket fence. He doesn't have to worry about being injured by a picket fence. Is there anything else the minister would like to get off his chest before we go on?


Jean Corbeil: Speak to the bill.


Roger Simmons: I think, Mr. Speaker, he wants me to speak to the bill.
As I was saying, this bill is symbolic of the Prime Minister's wrecking ball approach to Canada. A wrecking ball, contrary to popular view, is not something that is out of control and just wildly swinging around. Oh, no. A wrecking ball in its best sense is something that is the result of pre-planning, premeditation. The people who own that ball, who rent it out, know exactly what they want done with it. By applying it properly and with pre-planning they can have it do exactly what is intended.
When I say that the Prime Minister is a wrecking ball, I do not suggest that he is flailing around without an agenda. No, Mr. Speaker. Like every other wrecking ball that ever was rented, he is rented by people who know exactly what it is they want to have wrecked. They want this country wrecked. They apply every strike of the ball with precision.
One day they go after the CBC, another day they go after various Crown corporations like Petro-Canada, and another day they go after some other institution. They go after regional development. They undermine the less populated parts of this country. They close post offices in rural Newfoundland. Day in day out they attack unemployment insurance. Every day, they attack fisheries policy. Everything to do with rural Canada has to go under the wrecking ball. Everything to do with identity in this country has to go under the wrecking ball.
December 3, 1990

Mr. Speaker, do you realize that if this government's policies in this general area had been applied some time back, the way they are going now, we would not have certain gifts in this country. I will give you one quick example, because I see your signal, Sir, that I am just about out of time. One example is that marvellous godsend to Nova Scotia, Rita MacNeil. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, but for Canadian content requirements she would have never got her break. This woman has just come back from a very successful sold-out tour in Australia. She is about to tour the British Isles, which is all sold out before she even gets there. She is a credit to Canada, but she is flying on her own. That is more than we can say for this Prime Minister. If he was not trying to fly on somebody's coat-tails, if he was not taking his orders from Georgie Bush all the time, he would not be such a wrecking ball.
That is the guy paying the rent, George Bush, on this particular wrecking ball. We are paying for the consequences, for the premeditated, pre-planned wrecking of this country through the CBC, through UI, through fisheries policy and the many other things I could mention. They are all orchestrated by people who are not without an agenda. They have a diabolical agenda all right, but it is not an agenda that will serve this country very well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The vote is on Motion No. 17 in the name of Mr. Waddell. May I dispense with the reading of the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on Motion No. 17 is deferred.
The vote is on Motion No. 30 in the name of Mrs. Finestone. May I dispense with the reading of the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on Motion No. 30 is deferred.
We will deal now with another group of motions which is made up of Motions Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21. May I dispense with the reading of the motions?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: You have the floor.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague for Port Moody-Coquitlam, I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to put forward his motion on his behalf.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is the House agreed to the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

December 3, 1990
Government Orders


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Motion No. 18
-That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 9 at page 6 the following:
"(o) broadcasting services reflecting aboriginal cultures and representative native languages shall be provided where numbers warrant;"


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 19
-That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 11 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"nal cultures and representative native languages should be provided".


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, as with the previous motion, due to the unavoidable absence of my colleague, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, I seek unanimous consent for both this motion and motion No. 21 to be considered by all members at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the House agree?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Motion No. 20
-That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 13 and 14 at page 6.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Motion No. 21
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 17 and 19 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canadian broadcasting system;".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the House for giving unanimous consent for me to present the motions that had been submitted by my colleague. We feel these amendments are extremely important in strengthening the intent of the broadcast bill.
Motion No. 18 reads:
That Bill C-40 be amended in clause 3 by adding immediately after line 9 at page 6 the following:
"(o) broadcasting services reflecting aboriginal cultures and representative native languages shall be provided where numbers warrant;".
Motion No. 20 also states that the proposed legislation be amended. These motions are intended, as I mentioned, to strengthen aboriginal broadcasting provisions in Bill C-40. The bill states that "programming that reflects the aboriginal cultures of Canada should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available".
However, this bill gives little priority to the communications difficulties of Canada's aboriginal communities. As the Canadian Broadcasting League noted before the committee on Bill C-136, the government's proposal "gives provision of broadcasting services for aboriginal people, no priority at all".
The government's proposal reflects its basic lack of support for aboriginal communications in Canada. The most recent budget singled out aboriginal communications societies for particular attack and I want to cite some specific examples.
The Northern Native Broadcast Access Program, which was established in 1983, has been repeatedly cut by this government. The program was created to ensure that northern native people have fair access to distribution systems to maintain their cultures and languages, that programming relevant to native concerns be produced and that northern native representatives be consulted regularly by government agencies. In fact the Northern Native Broadcast Access Program funds over 13 communications societies. Those societies have a significant impact on the communications of our native peoples up north.
When it was created, this program was given a budget of some $40 million over four years. However, the government has cut this in 1985 and in 1986 to reduce the four-year payment to only $33.7 million. In 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 funding was cut and frozen. In the budget this year, the government again took the hatchet to the program and cut it back to $11.3 million. This represents a cutback of some 15 per cent. This was done to a program which, according to the Nielsen task force report, shows promise as an effective tool for meeting special native broadcast needs and should be considered.
The government also cut the aboriginal friendship centre by some 6.8 per cent, the Native Communications Program by 100 per cent and the Aboriginal Representa-
December 3, 1990

tive Organization Program by some $2.5 million. We submit to you that this constitutes a virtual attack on the cultural expression of aboriginal peoples at the worst possible time.
The approach reflected in the amendments before the House at this time are much more positive than those found in the currently proposed bill. It states that broadcasting services, not just programming, shall be provided in Canada. In doing so, the amendments adopt the language found in the standing committee report which was supported by all parties and in fact included a majority of Conservative members. The amendments would ensure that aboriginal peoples have access, whether it be in the north or the south, to broadcasting services that they themselves control. This reflects comments made before the Bill C-136 committee by the Wawatay Native Communications Society when they noted the importance of having a native communications system in the north.
We need a new broadcasting policy that meets the concerns, objectives, and aspirations of aboriginal peoples, not only in the north, but in virtually all parts of Canada. The inclusion of this amendment we think would be a positive step along the road.
As the standing committee recognized in its unanimous report, there could be no way of underestimating the importance of broadcasting on the future of aboriginal communities. The communications media are essential to the preservation of the cultural heritage of Canada's aboriginal peoples. Broadcasting policy cannot ensure the survival of native languages. We recognize that, but it can and should play a key and fundamental role in helping to mitigate the threats that currently exist with regard to native cultures. I urge all members of the House to consider and support these recommendations.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to address a few remarks to the matter of aboriginal communications.
It comes as no surprise when I say that aboriginal people in Canada feel alienated. They feel left out of so many of the important affairs and matters in the country.
Government Orders
I can go back just a few weeks or months and relate what happened at places like Oka and Chateauguay last summer. These were very disturbing and traumatizing events and for the first time in a long period Canadians got some sense of native grievances in the country. These grievances have run extremely deep for centuries. It is little wonder that we had the kind of blow-up or explosion in the province of Quebec last summer.
It seems to me that one way to deal with aboriginal grievances is to address the matter of communications in a very serious way. There is no doubt in my mind that Bill C-40 in no way gives any kind of priority to aboriginal language broadcasts.
I cannot think of anything that is more alienating or traumatizing than to never see one's own culture, values or life styles reflected in mainstream communications around one. Can you imagine if you turned on a radio or television set and never heard anyone speak in your own language? Perhaps you did not see anyone carry out the kind of work that you carry out, speak the kind of language that you speak, or express the kinds of values that you embrace. Can you imagine that if almost everything you saw on the television screen, almost everything you heard on the radio was kind of foreign. Can you imagine how out of place you would feel, how alienated? It would be as if you had travelled to a foreign land, some land far away with a strange and rather foreboding culture, a landscape, where you really did not feel you belonged. Yet, I would submit that that is how many of our aboriginal people feel today.
When you are in that kind of milieu it must say to you, not only that you do not belong, but perhaps you are not even wanted. It seems to me that if we really want to bring about a much better relationship between aboriginal peoples and the rest of the country that we have to start speaking to each other and developing all our communication system in such a way that our aboriginal people feel they belong, that they can stand up and say: "That's me. That belongs to me. That's my country. Those are my people. That's what makes me proud. That makes me proud as a Canadian, proud as an aboriginal".
Anything we can do to foster that kind of development in our communication system is not only good for

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
aboriginal people, it is good for Canadians and good for the country.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to congratulate the member for Port Moody for advancing this amendment which calls on the CBC to broadcast in aboriginal languages, or as the amendment states:
(o) broadcasting services reflecting aboriginal cultures and representative native languages shall be provided where numbers warrant;".
As the House knows, there are 53 aboriginal languages existing in Canada today and, of those 53, only three are expected to survive for the next 20 years. The other 50, in many cases, have only one speaker, and when that speaker dies, that language will cease to exist.
We all know as a result of the linguistic debates that have taken place in the country over the last several decades, and perhaps back centuries, that language is really the medium of culture and once language goes, then the culture tends to disintegrate.
One of the things that has happened in the Northwest Territories is that a number of their aboriginal languages have been declared as official languages and that territory now has simultaneous translation of those languages in its legislature. Laws are translated into those languages so that the native people in the Northwest Territories, as a result of their languages becoming the official languages of the territory, have now become full participants, recognized by the law, recognized by the legislature, and recognized by the institutions of that territory. I believe that the same thing should happen with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The aboriginal affairs committee of the House has delayed introducing its last report on native language and literacy into the House until it can be translated into the three major aboriginal languages spoken in Canada, as well as the two official languages of the House. It is important that natives are involved with the business of the House, especially with the aboriginal committee, and are involved to the extent that they can read the reports of the House in their own languages. The same thing applies to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Native Canadians demonstrated last summer, not simply in the crisis at Kanesatake and Kahnawake, that they are frustrated with the process of debate on their issues in the country, and frustrated with the delays that are taking place in recognizing and settling their claims. They also demonstrated, through the person of Elijah Harper and his ability to thwart the passage of the
Meech Lake Accord in the Manitoba legislature, that Canada cannot proceed on its constitutional programs until the role of our native people, the role of their cultures, and especially the role of their language as the medium of their cultures is recognized. It should be recognized, not at the end of the constitutional debate, but in the same place that the native people came in the history of the country and that is, in the first place in our constitutional debate.
It would be worth-while on the part of Parliament and a gesture on its part to have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, where numbers warrant, use aboriginal languages as the language of broadcasting in those regions of the country where that method would be an effective one of communicating with the people resident in those parts of the country.
I would like to congratulate my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam who introduced this legislation and to recognize the statements made just a few minutes ago by the member for Winnipeg and the member from the Okanagan. They pointed out that in the last year or two native people have seen attacks on their language and on their culture by the government. They have seen cutbacks in the native communication program that provided native newspapers all across Canada. The budgets of those newspapers were cut by the Secretary of State by 100 per cent. As a result, many of those newspapers closed down.
For example, the Micmac News, was a newspaper that made a point of communicating with the Micmac people of Canada in their own language. It was a newspaper that made a point of communicating native concerns to the dominant society and addressing native people and others in the country who suffer from literacy problems in a language that they could understand and in a way that would help build their understanding of literacy so that they could become more functional citizens of the country.
Another thing the Micmac News did before it was cut off by the cancellation of funding by the Secretary of State for External Affairs was to expose injustices to native people; cases such as the one involving Donald Marshall, who was put in jail for 11 years for a crime he did not commit. These are the kind of things that have increased the frustration of native people over the last year or two and that frustration has built up and ultimately resulted in the situation at Kanesatake and Kahnawake.
December 3, 1990

I hope that Conservative members will read this amendment carefully and will recognize that there are problems in preserving native languages in the country. The government has done next to nothing in a positive way to support native language. In fact, through the budget cuts of the Secretary of State, it has done a great deal in a negative way to prevent the survival of native languages over the next 20 years.
Here is an opportunity, working through the national agency of the CBC, one of the main communications agencies of the Canadian people, to bring some of its people back into the communications stream by allowing them to communicate to their own people in their own languages. At the same time, it can use those languages as a conduit for their culture and communicate with each other as every other Canadian has the right to use the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to communicate between themselves, whether they speak French or English. This is an opportunity to extend it to the languages which have not yet been considered and that is the aboriginal languages of Canada.
I would urge the Conservative members to consider this amendment carefully and to consider what they have done over the last year. I hope that they will vote for this amendment and make it possible for native people to communicate with each other in their own native language and at the same time preserve their native language by doing so.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: [.Editor's Note: Member spoke in lnuktitut.]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Motion No. 19 put forward by my colleague for Mount Royal, which would recognize aboriginal languages in Bill C-40.
I congratulate her for her recognition and understanding of the importance of aboriginal people having their language recognized in the Canadian broadcasting policy. I regret that the government has not chosen to put aboriginal languages in this bill.
Government Orders
The motion would amend clause 3(o) of the bill. That clause now reads:
3.(1) II is hereby declared as the broadcasting policy for Canada that
(o) programming that reflects the aboriginal cultures of Canada should be provided within the Canadian broadcasting system as resources become available for the purpose;
My colleague's amendment would add "representative native languages should be provided" to this clause.
This amendment is consistent with the recommendations of the 1986 report of the task force on broadcasting policy, also known as the Caplan-Sauvageau report. That report recommended that:
The Broadcasting Act should affirm the right of native peoples to broadcasting services in aboriginal languages considered to be representative where numbers warrant and to the extent public funds permit.
It went on to say that the term "representative" was used to suggest broadcasting service in the dominant aboriginal dialects of those aboriginal people concerned with the preservation of their language.
When the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture examined the task force report in 1987, it supported this recommendation.
The standing committee, in its sixth report to the House in May of 1987, noted that the aboriginal peoples have a special status in Canada, a fact recognized in the Canadian Constitution.
They commented that in recent years, the policies of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission had encouraged and promoted native broadcasting. They concluded that the inclusion of a provision regarding broadcasting in representative native languages in a new Broadcasting Act would therefore be consistent with recent policy initiatives.
Accordingly, the committee recommended, and I quote:
The Broadcasting Act would include the right of aboriginal peoples to broadcasting services in representative native languages, where numbers warrant and as public funds become available.
The government has taken a step in the right direction by referring to aboriginal cultures. There is some recognition. I want to acknowledge that. But the government

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
has still held back. It has not gone as far as it could have, or should have, in my view.
I fail to understand why the government has ignored aboriginal languages in this bill, despite the numerous recommendations made to it to include these languages; recommendations made by aboriginal people, by its own task force, and by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
There is great concern expressed by members of this House about the foreign cultural domination of this country. That reality is even more stark for aboriginal people.
A year ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications said the government's challenge with respect to broadcasting was:
- to equip our system with the means to generate Canadian programming which addresses the needs of Canadians to see themselves on our screens, to see our stories and our creators amid the sea of imported products.
I happen to agree with his comments. I wish the government would see fit to extend that sentiment and understanding to aboriginal people.
How often do the aboriginal people of this country get to see themselves on their TV screens, hear the stories of their people and see their creative citizens on their screens?
North American non-aboriginal cultures dominate almost 100 per cent. Aboriginal people have developed aboriginal communications societies. There is aboriginal TV, aboriginal radio and aboriginal newspapers, but the numbers are small.
These aboriginal communication societies have had their funding cut by this very same government. Nice words will not restore the lost funds or cancelled programs.
Our languages are fragile. The threat of extinction is far more real and pressing for aboriginal languages than for any other language in this country.
There are millions of people in this country who speak French. There are millions of people in this country who speak English.
The people in Canada who speak aboriginal languages number in the thousands, the hundreds and sometimes the tens, depending on the language.
Of the 53 aboriginal languages in this country, only three have excellent chances of survival. Thirteen are moderately endangered and eight are on the verge of extinction.
Does Bill C-40 do anything substantial to ensure these languages survive and thrive? Unfortunately, it does not. Clause 3 does not mention aboriginal languages.
What all the MPs in this House and all Canadians must remember is that our languages, the way they are spoken here, do not exist anywhere else in the world. We do not have a mother country across the oceans to go back to where we can hear our own languages spoken on the radio, on TV, on the streets and in the stores, see it written in books, magazines and newspapers. There is no other place in this world where we can practice our cultures.
Our mother country is Canada. We are from here. We are of here. There is no other place in this world where we can go and communicate in our languages and be understood.
As linguistic and cultural minorities, swamped by communications of a foreign language and culture, it is absolutely vital to our cultural survival that our aboriginal languages and cultures receive the support they deserve from the Canadian government.
I call on the government to accept this motion. I urge the government to demonstrate that it really means what it says about supporting aboriginal cultures. Aboriginal cultures cannot survive without protection of the aboriginal language that is part of that culture.
On February 22, 1990, the following press release was noted: "IBC's 5.5 weekly hours of programming are watched by 95 per cent of Canadian Inuit according to the 1988 survey by Concordia University. Its programs have been broadcast internationally and have won many awards in Canada and the United States.
IBC's programming has received much more than popularity. It has helped retain the rich culture and language of Canada's most northern people. Over half of the IBC viewers said they had developed better language and traditional skills by watching IBC."
I urge the Government of Canada and members opposite to accept my colleague's motion, Motion No. 19, to ensure that aboriginal languages survive and that aboriginal languages are part of our daily lives in this country.
December 3, 1990

[Translation\


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I ask you a question I put to all members of the House, particularly to the Minister of Communications. Would he not like to have access to information, to entertainment and to informative programs? Would he not like that? Whether referring to a native person or somebody who is deaf and mute, that person would automatically be in the minority, be it a linguistic and cultural minority or a minority whose members suffer from certain deficiencies, and he or she would not be able to have access to certain services like all other Canadians.

In that light, both my colleague from the NDP and myself argued quite vigorously, and I think in the interests of minority Canadians, those who have been disenfranchised-if I may put it that way-because of their language and their culture, the aboriginal peoples who are the founding peoples of this country who help define us as a people, as well as those people-a large percentage of our population-who suffer from hearing impairment. Both those groups have appeared before us. We know well that there has been little attempt to answer each of these particular constituencies' needs. I have asked the minister to give serious consideration to the concerns of aboriginal peoples. If there is a minister who should understand the link and the relationship, and as he is chatting with another of his francophone minister colleagues, the two of them should understand how-


Mr. Charest:: Ex-colleague.


Sheila Finestone: No, you are not an ex-colleague. You are just an ex-minister, but you will soon be back in the ranks, they tell me. At least, I think so. If it was up to me, Jean, you could get reappointed.
As far as I can see, those two ministers who are chatting away over there-at least the Minister of Communications is here in the House, which is wonderful-know how language and culture are interrelated. If there are any people in this House who should be sensitive to that issue, it is these two gentlemen.
Government Orders
I would suggest that is not understanding when you cut off access to aboriginal languages. I know there are a lot of them but there are some that should certainly survive. It is very important for the transmission, particularly in that society, from grandparents, to parents, to children. My colleague from Winnipeg and myself saw that and heard about that when we were up in Iqaluit. We were very impressed with what we saw with respect to the aboriginal peoples, what they can do, the number of people they have trained and the wonderful creativity that has come across. The Secretary of State has cut them out and now the Minister of Communications within this bill is ignoring their needs.
I would like to focus for a moment on the disabled with respect to the hearing impaired. Not only have we in our broadcasting bill, but prior to that in the report by the task force-on which I had the privilege of sitting-Equality For All, we addressed the concerns of the hearing impaired in our society at great length. We heard from many of them, because we are not supposed to discriminate based on a series, race, culture and language, et cetera. Within that list of people we should not discriminate against are those who are hearing impaired.
The report of that special task force was then picked up and addressed by the standing committee, interestingly enough, chaired for the first time by the same person who had chaired the task force, namely the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. That standing committee on the status of the disabled in a report on the media and disabled people recommended that the CRTC require that 50 per cent of all Canadian programming be captioned.
That is what it is all about with respect to the disabled. It is captioning. It is the quantity of programming that is available.
In the instance of our aboriginal peoples, they are cut off, period, because of language. In the instance of the hearing impaired, and their numbers are almost equivalent-in fact, there are many more in the hearing impaired-the quantity of captioning is only in prime time. They can only turn on news at various times in the evening. Mind you, I should not say that because there are game shows in the afternoon which do have some captioning and there are some religious services and gardening programs, as I recall. Basically it is the prime time network series, newscasts at various levels and

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
national commercials. It is fascinating how if one wants to sell something one can find the mechanism in the marketing principles. However, when wants to sell one's values as a Canadian and as a member of society, we cut that out.
I would ask the minister to stop being so stubborn and so narrow-minded and start accepting some very worthwhile amendments that are being placed before him in this House. They are not being placed because it is the Liberal Party or because it is the NDP party. They are being placed because constituents have come and pleaded before this minister. Unfortunately, through either lack of thought and foresight or a plain lack of understanding, these issues have not been covered.
Now that he has been enlightened, perhaps he will see the light and in terms of enlightenment, entertainment and information, he will make the necessary corrections and will accept the recommendations in Motions Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to these three motions put forward by both opposition parties in relation to broadcasting and Bill C-40.
Motions Nos. 18, 19, and 20 really strike at the heart of communications, particularly in my part of Canada. In my area aboriginal people constitute the majority. We have 54,000 people, and the majority of the population is aboriginal. This is reflected in almost everything that is carried out in terms of government services. The purpose of Motions Nos. 18, 19, and 20 is to ensure that services will be provided, where relevant, to reflect aboriginal cultures and languages.
When I spoke on the national unity motion last week, I referred to the cuts that have been made to the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation. If these trends continue, most of Canada's aboriginal languages are destined to become extinct in the very near future. I do not want to be repetitive by going over the same information that was given, but Canadians should know that out of the 53 aboriginal languages only 3, Cree, Inuktitut and Ojibway, have the strength to survive and be preserved. The rest have individual speakers and once they die, that is it. The aboriginal languages are indigenous to this country. There is nowhere to go to revitalize these languages and bring them back. It is truly a loss to what Canada's history should be and what Canadian heritage is all about.
The goal of Canada's aboriginal people is to participate equally in the economic, social, political and cultural life of Canada. They recognize the need to reinforce their cultural identities. That is why language is so important. We know that, because the major political battles in the last 20 years have been won over language rights or linguistic rights.
What does a person hold dearer to his heart than the way he or she thinks? The psychology of that person is reflected in the language he or she speaks and in the particular ideas put forward.
You think in your own language first. If you are a French speaker, you do not think in English; you think en frangais. If you are an aboriginal language speaker, you think in your language first. Those ideas that are prominent are those values and principles which you are raised with and which the language you have learned has taught you all of your life. It is the means of transmitting the uniqueness of the culture of aboriginal peoples.
In the north we say that language is simply about understanding one another. If we understand the importance of another person's language, we understand why it is so important to that person to be able to communicate in that language, why language is held so dear, and why it is a true reflection of that person's culture. We have gone to great lengths to ensure that we accommodate what is important to enhance the quality of life.
The north is the model of the promotion of languages. There are nine official languages in the Northwest Territories. If you were to visit the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, Mr. Speaker, you would find that the majority of MLAs are native and that the proceedings are being simultaneously translated into seven aboriginal languages, French, and English. This service is unique in North America and is worth preserving.
I want to take a few minutes to explain the cultural linguistic groups in the Northwest Territories. The Dene, which means people in our tradition, are comprised of several groups of people depending on where they live, each with their own dialect. The Chippewan, the Dog Rib, the Loucheux each has aboriginal culture which is really quite distinct from one another. Inuit means people in Inuit, the language of a people inhabiting the circumpolar world from Siberia to Greenland. There are three major dialects of Inuit languages. They are the Inuvialuktun, Innuinuktun, and Inuktitut. The Inuit
December 3, 1990

cultural linguistic groups in N.W.T. include the Salliq people, the South Baffin Inuit, the Iglulik Inuit, the Netsilik, the Caribou, and the Copper.
In general the Inuit language is highly viable, with most Inuit children learning Inuktitut as their mother tongue. Inuivialutun is the Inuit language in the western region which uses Roman orthography. Syllabic script is used to write Inuktitut in the eastern Arctic.
As the former Assistant Deputy Minister of Culture and Communication for the Government of the Northwest Territories, I am proud to have been involved in the development of these language services in the Northwest Territories. I am proud to say that it is something worth continuing, with some persistent endeavour. The federal government has in fact taken the unspent moneys from the 1984 agreement and reprofiled them for further use so that the total budget that was given, $16 million, is not entirely expended toward aboriginal languages.
When we speak about national unity we do not just talk about a concept that is held in books or documents or a concept that lives within the walls of the House of Parliament. We talk about a concept of where Canadians from one coast to the other, from all three coastal regions of Canada, can hear the same message, the same ideas, and the same programs being broadcast. There is a connection there.
There is also the sharing of major events. When the Berlin Wall came down, surely every part of Canada heard through CBC the news that came forward. When John F. Kennedy was killed, I can remember living in a very small, isolated community in the Northwest Territories where we had one or two radios. It was the CBC that brought the news to us that this great human being had been lost to the world. I can remember the effect it had on our community. We had no power. We had no running water. I guess we had the very rudimentary lifestyle which many people enjoyed at the time in a hunting and trapping economy. But we did get the message. We did receive messages through this thin wire of accommodation, I guess, that went from one side of the country to the other.
Government Orders
There are many ways in which the whole essence of aboriginal languages can be preserved. Bill C-269 was prepared. It was a private member's bill. It was an attempt, not by one private member but by aboriginal groups across Canada, to preserve their languages and to develop the Aboriginal Languages Foundation in private member's Bill C-269.
It was Chief Mike Mitchell from Akwesasne who stated:
Language is a gift from the creator. Embodied in aboriginal
languages is our unique relationship to the creator, our attitudes, our
beliefs, values and the fundamental notion of what is truth.
I believe the establishment of an Aboriginal Language Foundation would help to ensure the preservation, revitalization, and perpetuation of aboriginal languages and cultures across Canada.
In order for aboriginal peoples of Canada to take their rightful place in society, it is necessary to ensure the survival, development and transmission of aboriginal languages which are the lifeblood of culture, the necessary element for our advancement.
These motions are simply trying to accomplish what other Canadians take for granted, that people can expect service in their own language. In many areas, particularly the north, it is critical that vital information be communicated in languages which serve the majority of people.
Aboriginal languages are indigenous to Canada. In one of the smaller fishing communities messages can come over the radio which mean nothing to other parts of Canada, but it could tell one fisherman or one trapper that there is a plane on the way to pick up someone who is sick, that there is someone bringing in supplies for the winter stay in the bush, or that something as important as medicine, shells or any other needed supply is coming in on the plane and what time it would arrive.
It is important for people, specifically large populations of aboriginal people, where they are located, to preserve a service which CBC has started in many areas. It has persevered without policy to continue this service for the aboriginal people of Canada. It is very important. It would aid national unity to a great extent.

December 3, 1990
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 18, standing in the name of Mr. Waddell. May the Chair be dispensed with reading the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on Motion No. 18 is deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 19 in the name of Mrs. Finestone. May the Chair be dispensed with reading the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on Motion No. 19 is deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 20, standing in the name of Mr. Waddell. May the Chair be dispensed with reading the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on Motion No. 20 is deferred and the vote on this motion will apply to Motion No. 21.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 22
That Bill C-40 be amended in clause 3 by striking out line 23 at
page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"(i), educational television programming".
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-40 be amended in clause 3 by striking out lines 30 to
48 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"(r) the programming provided by an educational television seivice should
(i)	provide innovative programming that stimulates and
encourages learning across many sectors for all ages,
(ii)	be complementary to existing programming,
December 3, 1990

(iii)	reflect Canada's regional and multicultural and multiracial nature,
(iv)	include programming exploring social concerns,
(v)	be predominantly from independent educational authorities as contemplated in paragraph (j) as well as international coproductions;"


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few remarks to this matter of the alternative programming service. I would like to start off by saying that it is really one of the more curious pieces of Bill C-40. I say that because to some extent it comes out of nowhere.
If anything, I think it belongs to another era. It comes from another ministerial era. It was a notion belonging to a previous minister, and a notion that certainly has not been articulated very well by the current Minister of Communications. I am not too sure whether he knows that much about it. He did not go the extra mile to define what this alternative programming service was to be all about. Certainly Bill C-40 does not in any way tell us how an alternative programming sendee would be financed.
As you already know, Mr. Speaker, broadcasting is very expensive. The CBC, in a financial sense, is under siege. I find it curious that this government would want to put into Bill C-40 something called an alternative programming service.
If we are to have an alternative programming service, what is the CBC all about? Is that not what the CBC is there for? The CBC is providing a pretty good service despite its financial constraints. It seems to me that the CBC can handle the alternative broadcasting service quite well.
If the government wants an extra service of some kind, it certainly could get into the business of educational broadcasting. Before I touch on that, I should remind you, Mr. Speaker, that, of course, education comes within the jurisdiction of the provinces. But if the federal government really wants to provide a service in education, it can ably assist the provinces.
First of all, let me touch on what I might call the plethora of services that we already have now. We have a veritable profusion of television and broadcast services in the country. I was just thinking a few moments ago about the number and the kind of services that I have on my own home television set.
Government Orders
Just to use my memory, we can start with the CBC television and then we can go to PBS, the American Public Broadcast System that is readily available in most parts of the country. Of course, there is CBS, ABC and NBC. Those are the three major American broadcast systems, not to mention CNN, which is available to a lot of subscribers in the country in all provinces and territories.
I can go further. There are community channels. In my own area there are three French television services. Not one, not two, but three, which is not bad for the western part of the country. Of course, there is home shopping. There is the sports network.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, there is this proliferation of broadcast services. Yet, in a curious way, the government has placed in Bill C-40 this alternative programming service, ill-defined and certainly with no budget.
If the government really wants to do something extra, I think it should think about education. Never before has education been so important to our lives. Nowadays, if you do not have a good education, perhaps you are doomed, certainly doomed in making a good living, a good income.
It seems to me that by using television and radio, the modern broadcast technologies, we can teach basic skills; teach literacy.
We can foster a greater awareness in scientific subjects. I think it has to be done. When our parents and grandparents were alive and making a living, when they were starting out in their careers, they could assume that when they started a career, they would stay in that career for the rest of their lives-30, 40 or perhaps 50 years.
That is not the case anymore. We live in this rapidly changing world of rapidly changing technologies. Young people who start a career now cannot expect that they are going to be in those careers for the next 10, 20, 30 or 40 years. They are going to have to change careers perhaps two, three or four times. They are going to have to learn to adapt to new ideas, new technologies and new careers.
It brings into focus the importance of education. I think we would be remiss as a country and as a federal government if we did not address this problem and if we did not use television in a much more efficient way to provide a better educational service.

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
I do not think at this particular juncture that we should be talking about an alternative program service because after all, I think the CBC is quite well equipped in that regard. We should be talking about education.
I remember reading an article some time ago about and including remarks by the chairman of TV Ontario, Mr. Ostry. He was speaking to this matter of how important it is to make better use of our broadcast services to promote education. After all, it would be done for the benefit of our children and future generations.
At this particular point, I would like to introduce an amendment to Motion No. 22. I move:
That Motion No. 22 be amended by striking out everything after
the word "out" and inserting the following:
lines 23 to 29 at page 26.
I would also like to introduce an amendment to Motion No. 23. I move:
That Motion No. 23 be amended by deleting all words after page
6 and inserting:
period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: While the Chair considers the motion introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James, the House will resume debate. The hon. member for Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Chair will accept the amendment moved by my colleague because I think it makes a lot of sense. It is along the same line as alternative television programming. Even the name or the words used are wrong.

During the course of the study and legislative hearings, an ardent plea was heard from ATEC, the Association of Tele Education in Canada. That group, as we well know, represents the public educational broadcasters in Canada. They have very finely tuned and carefully honed programming that is presented in each province and for which we are all very proud. They win awards across this world, whether it is TV Ontario, Radio-Quebec, Access Network, and hopefully SCN-the new program that is coming in from Saskatchewan-and the knowledge network out of B.C.
They have wonderful experience in bringing before the public, issues and social concerns such as criticisms of the current educational standards. Mr. Stuart Smith is presently presiding over a committee put together by the universities. He is very concerned about the quality of our manpower and womanpower as it comes out of our universities and collegiate systems. Are they really empowered through the teaching, the programs and through the materials that we have within our system to be able to supply the international talent skills, research and development to the Canadian workforce that will enable us to be true competitors on the international scene? There is an emphasis on the delivery and 'the capacity for education in Canada.
There is a tremendously high rate of drop-outs from our school system. You, Mr. Speaker, as a former broadcaster from Quebec, know this. You have heard the reports and you have seen those concerns presented on the airwaves. It is a very serious issue. It costs millions of dollars to our employment agencies and to the business forces when there are illiterate and ill-prepared students going into the workforce who cannot, with their shockingly high level of illiteracy, handle the modern technology of today. There is ignorance in science and technology. There is the need for teacher in-service for the upgrading and renewal of all kinds of skills.
We can use that incredible force that Marshall McLu-han has talked about to educate people on prevention with respect to their own personal health. AIDS is a serious issue in today's society. Proper care and respect of oneself and understanding of the use of condoms and the use of self-prevention within that sphere can be used on a program that would be on an educational channel. Substance abuse, whether it be drugs or alcohol, has a tremendous impact and is very damaging to our society.
A Canadian learning channel would have been a wonderful opportunity. I must say that it was not my idea. I wish I could credit myself with such a bright and intelligent observation. The ideas came from Mr. Bernard Ostry and ATEC. They proposed that any promotion, pursuit and financing of new initiatives be directed to establishing a viable learning channel for all Canadians facilitated by ATEC members, based on existing financial and institutional resources. That was presented on April 23, 1990. It was very clever, intelligent, open-mined, and very Canadian in spirit. There was a problem
December 3, 1990

about copyright and I understood that. Had the minister been willing to understand and support this group, we might have been seeing today a different kind of approach to alternate programming.
However, on June 19, I received another letter from Mr. Ostry, where he points out that they had a subsequent meeting with Access Network, Knowledge Network, Radio-Quebec, and SCN Saskatchewan. In looking at Bill C-40, they decided that it would be difficult because if education is a provincial mandate, we should not be able to participate in such an undertaking.
It is a ruddy shame that boundaries, which are just lines drawn on a map as far as Canadians are concerned, constrain the educational concerns that should be directed from the national level. However, I must respect the will of ATEC because I think they would be fundamental to this particular project. The reason I want to support the amendment that has been brought by my colleague from Winnipeg is because behind this alternate programming were funds. Originally, there was $100 million behind that programming. The previous Minister of Communications had committed those funds so that we could do target marketing, something the CBC already does.
It occurred to me and to my colleague that, as we move into another period of recession, there is a crisis in the CBC. We have heard about the challenge to the existence of this parliamentary channel and I hope people who are watching will recognize that this minister who is sitting in front of me said "no" today to considering saving the parliamentary channel which is not a mandated service of the CBC.
Radio Canada International is not a mandated service, neither is Northern Services. If the minister would get rid of the alternate programming which has a $100 million budget behind it-it has probably shrunk now but it was supposed to be $100 million so even if it shrank to $50 million-it could certainly enable these services and the cuts to the CBC to be offset.
Government Orders
It is not promoting and going ahead with my concerns for a learning channel, and recognizing that we are allowing the Americans to take up this space through the increased subscriptions that they have of the American system, the American learning channel. I think that is a little bit sad because it is important for our children to have a Canadian connection, and our adults for that matter. Notwithstanding all that, I support the withdrawal of my amendment and I support the amendment that will remove the alternate services completely, sections 3, 2, and (r) from this bill.


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: After a short deliberation the Chair is now in a position to rule on the motions introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James.
To begin with it is rather unusual for a member to present two amendment motions and, according to the Standing Orders, only one can be introduced. That being so, the amendment to Motion No. 22, which is a new motion and for which notice should have been given, is not in order. The Standing Orders are rather strict on that point, for it is not an amendment to Motion No. 22 but indeed a new motion.
On the other hand the motion to amend Motion No. 23 is quite in order. Therefore we will resume the debate if other speakers seek the floor.


MEASURE TO AMEND
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate on the amendment motion. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next vote is on Motion No. 22 in the name of Mrs. Finestone. May I dispense?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.

December 3, 1990
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Motion No. 22 is negatived, on division.
Motion No. 22 negatived, on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 23, standing in the name of Mrs. Finestone. Shall the Chair be dispensed from reading the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the amendment to Motion No. 23 negatived on division.
Amendment to motion No. 23 negatived on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The amendment to Motion No. 23 having been negatived, the House will now vote on the main motion, that is to say Motion No. 23 in the name of Mrs. Finestone. Is the Chair dispensed from reading the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am reminded by the Table Officers, in their wisdom, that the vote on Motion No. 22 also applies to Motion No. 23. The latter is therefore negatived.
Motion No. 23 negatived on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Let us call the next group of motions, that is to say Motions Nos. 24, 26, 27 and 28.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 24
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 12 to
14 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"of Canadian broadcasting undertakings in French and English with first priority given to publicly mandated services; followed by independent educational authorities, in their province of origin; and then by private sector Canadian broadcasting undertakings.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately
after line 14 at page 7 the following:
"(ii) should carry foreign originated programming services where the programming they provide is complementary to programming offered by existing Canadian broadcasting undertakings or where
those foreign programming services were already carried by distribution undertakings;"


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Motion No. 27
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 15 to
18 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) shall provide efficient delivery of programming at rates that are at all times just and reasonable,"
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 26 to
34 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"(iv) may, where appropriate, originate a community channel as defined by the Commission, under terms and conditions set out by the Commission."


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I want to confine my remarks to the matter of priority carriage. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I shall be moving an amendment at the close of my remarks. I will not be talking very long, but I want to point this out.
Television has certainly changed a lot in the last 20 to 30 years and it certainly has changed since the 1968 Broadcasting Act. Every facet of television has changed since 1968 and certainly its delivery.
I can remember when television first came to southern Manitoba where I grew up. It was 1955. We got our first television service which consisted of one channel, the Canadian Broadcasting Television Network. That was it. In fact, the first year or two the service was pretty snowy. It was quite difficult at times to see the images on the screen. The images looked more like ghosts than they did like human beings. That was television in its infancy, in its embryonic stage. Certainly, television has come a long way since 1955 when it was first delivered to the southern part of Manitoba.
At that time, one did not have to worry about priority of carriage. All you could get was one channel, one simple service. We did not have to worry about priority.
After I had taken up a radio and television career, I moved to the city of Winnipeg. At that time, there were only two channels, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation network and CTV, which was really in its infancy in 1960. After that came a private television station and then somewhat after that came the cable services and, of course, with the cable services came the American broadcasting services, Global, and so on.
December 3, 1990

Today, we have a wide range of television services. This brings us to this matter of what is called priority of carriage. We just cannot ignore what is being served up first on the television screen. Television technology is changing so rapidly that even things like tiers are rapidly fading from our vocabulary. At one time, our television sets started at channel 2 and went up to channel 13. Now, with the new technology, they go up to about channel 99.
It seems to me, and certainly on this side of the House, that there should be a priority given to certain services. In our opinion, the first priority should go to public television services, publicly funded, publicly supported television services. For example, the CBC should certainly be given top priority. I am talking not only here of the English service, but French service as well. In our considered opinion, that is first. Public television services should have top priority.
Number two should be the provincial educational services. For example, TV Ontario here in the province of Ontario has to be given priority consideration. Put it on the first tier, to use this fast-fading television language. After that comes, in our opinion, the Canadian privately owned services, Global, CTV, and other private services.
After those services have been given first priority on the television system-CBC, provincial educational services and the private Canadian services-then the rest can come, be it specialty services, American services, community channels, whatever.
I perhaps failed to mention that we feel that community access channels or community access services should be given a major priority at the top of the channel. There is no doubt about it, if a service shows up on those first channels, on those beginning channels, say channels 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, they are going to be watched more. They are going to be exposed more, if I can use that word, to the viewing public than those channels that may be up at 30,40 and 50. At least that is the kind of thinking that I would have on that.
As I said in my beginning words, priority at one time was not a big deal in television because there were only one or two services. That is not the case any more. We as parliamentarians have to make sure these priority services are given top treatment, first treatment.
Government Orders
I would like to move an amendment now to Motion No. 24. It is a very simple amendment. I move:
That Motion No. 24 be amended by deleting lines 12 to 14 and
substituting the following therefor:
''line 12".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair will take the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James under advisement.
The hon. member for Mount Royal has the floor. [English]


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, if you look at this particular amendment and all the amendments brought forward by my colleague, it is merely a matter of the line on which the amendment is to be completed, because we would certainly not, in any sense of the word, wish to remove the carriage of local Canadian stations. Therefore the numbering on the line was inaccurate. All we have asked for in this amendment is instead of lines 12 to 14, just line 12. It has nothing to do with the content of the wording whatsoever.
What we are really talking about is empowering the CRTC in this bill which, in a sense, is defining the relationship between the regulator and the body politic. That is really what we are talking about.
We are saying that all elements must collaborate, must work together, and play a role in ensuring that the Canadian broadcasting system and its Canadian content be a reflection of this particular act, which is the Canadian Broadcasting Act.
One of the ways that we can ensure the appropriate application of a Canadian Broadcasting Act is to ensure that this system works effectively and efficiently, and that we ensure windows or accesses so that the public can see what is on that screen.
In amendment 30, I had addressed the issue of ensuring that the CRTC, as the regulator, would have the responsibility for applying the principle of an orderly and organized Canadian broadcasting system. In this particular amendment, I am ensuring, hopefully, that the distribution undertaking -that is the cable company-will similarly have that responsibility.

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
I am very sensitive to the fact-that a nation that overly restricts its citizens access to information and to entertainment could not be considered or claim to be a free society. Certainly we know all about that. We have seen the walls crumble in those societies that have not allowed ordinary citizens to have access to information, education and programming.
On the other hand, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that a nation that relinquishes control over its communications policy to extra-territorial forces will ultimately cede its sovereignty as well over much of its affairs.
I know that this minister has been very sensitive in many, many areas to the concerns of artistic integrity, artistic merit, and artistic productivity in the field of the arts within our society, particularly to those who are writers, singers, performers and certainly those who can prepare the scenarios that appear on film on our screens, either on video or in the theatres. So I find it quite surprising that the holes in this bill allow for much more Americanization than I believe this minister was prepared to allow in the first place. Whether that is a fallout from free trade or something else, I am not sure. But, as there is no more pervasive medium than that of broadcasting to ensure enlightenment, entertainment and information, and no more powerful way of getting one's message across, I wonder if the minister realized the impact of first of all not ensuring that all programs that appear on our cable need to have a sanction and go through the CRTC.
There are marvellous ways in which the CRTC through article 9.4 can exempt, but everything that goes on that screen should be under the charge of the regulator. It should not be up to the cable operators to decide what and who shall get onto our screens, but it should be brought before the regulator for permission.
I would like to point out that at the present time the majority of the programs that are heard are from sources outside of Canada. It has been emphasized to us time and time again that continued reception of these has a tendency to mould the minds of young people to ideas and opinions that are not necessarily Canadian. We saw
that happening through the kind of broadcasting and the input into China and Tiananmen Square and we saw, when access was closed down, what happened.
We saw what happened in Berlin with the newly emerging democracy. It was hit constantly by the Voice of America, by Radio Canada International and the BBC, and the spark of man's normal wish for freedom of expression and freedom of action comes through when a role model is seen. The Canadian role model is different from the role models one might see in Britain, in France, or in the United States, our largest cousin to the south. Although there is nothing wrong with the United States, it is a different country. I think we want to maintain who we are and what we are. When we consider this medium and the geographic dimensions of Canada which are enormous, broadcasting can be that great force in fostering that national spirit and interpreting national citizenship and leading to national unity.
Given that an average of 10,000 hours of mostly American television are watched by our children as they grow up it is vital, in the national interest, to ensure access to a larger percentage of those 10,000 hours as Canadian. This does not mean to say that one should close his eyes or ears to the rest of the world. What it is saying is to affirm and reaffirm our future through the presentation of those kinds of information and entertainment that tells the story of who we are no matter on which coast of the three we live.
I would say that our national realities in both taste and in culture are properly reflected and accessible when our programming and the operations of our Canadian broadcasting system are in conformity and cable has the responsibility, as much as broadcasters, to ensure that we get access to that kind of programming.
I have indicated in Motion No. 24 that I want to see us put an orderly process within our regulatory structures so that our cable priority rankings would include the publicly-mandated services, which would include the public educators as well and followed by those independent educational authorities, we would have the private sector and the local level, following of course the retention of the three plus one, PBS, ABC, NBC and CBS.
December 3, 1990

Those are important. Then you add on above that, Mr. Speaker, anything else that is deemed through consultation and the regulator as advisable.
Mr. Speaker, I say to you that if we do not make affordable and accessible to the general population through cable the kinds of programs I am talking about and you allow complete access to anything, we make a big mistake.
Cable rates are going up. People do not have options and choices on those cable rates. If the cable people are not careful and do not pay attention, and if the regulator does not pay attention, we are going to be in a serious dilemma. Then we will need to have a serious public debate.
Shall we open up cable so that we can have an open Sesame situation where cable shall have competition? Or, shall we look at them as public utilities and regulate them like we do Bell Canada and our telephone companies? Is that what cable wants?
There is a serious concern about the profits. There is a new thing out there that is not even addressed in this bill which is very disquieting. It is called Skypix. I do not have the time to talk about this incredible United States satellite service that is coming in and is going to block every single window and for which we are going to have a problem.
I just want to put on record-this will be the last point-that Statistics Canada gave us some extraordinary figures with respect to the Canadian communications industry.
In 1988, the gross revenue for Canadian cable companies was just over $1.2 billion. During the same year, the gross revenue of all Canadian radio and television stations was just under $1.2 billion. The after tax profit for cable was $173 million and for broadcasters $77 million.
In 1989,-look at the change-when cable's after tax profit rose to $218 million, broadcasters' after tax profits declined to $51 million. I would suggest that in these circumstances it is ironic that the CRTC continues to look to broadcasters for the most stringent requirements to provide support for our cultural and industrial policy objectives and the cable people have only the responsibility for the community channel.
Government Orders
There is something wrong, and I think we are going to have to address that in a much more significant way. I would like to strongly recommend that we support Motion No. 24, for organization; Motion No. 25 on foreign services and Motion No. 27 that would look at cable rates. I think then we would do a good job for the Canadian broadcasting system.


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Having considered the amendment to Motion No. 24 proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James, the Chair rules the amendment in order.


MEASURE TO AMEND
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The first vote is on the amendment to Motion No. 24. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to Motion No. 24 moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James? I have no indication from the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to Motion No. 24 moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the amendment to Motion No. 24 is deferred.
The vote is on Motion No. 26 standing in the name of Mrs. Finestone. Should I dispense with the reading of the motion?

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded vote on Motion No. 26 stands deferred.
The vote is on Motion No. 27 standing in the name of Mr. Waddell. Should I dispense with the reading of the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded vote on Motion No. 27 stands deferred.
The question is on motion No. 28 standing in the name of Mr. Waddell. Shall I dispense with the reading of the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived on division.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 31
That Bill C-40 be amended in clause 6 by striking out line 40 at
page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"but no such guidelines or".
She said: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting issue. Notwithstanding the non-democratic approach of this government across the floor, and recognizing how important it is not only to have democracy work but to have it proceed to work, I am proposing this amendment. What we are discussing in clause 6, which in part deals with the powers of the CR.TC in relation to broadcasting. It is found on page 9.
Hundreds of people wrote in and asked for copies of this bill. They were following this debate. I find that quite fascinating. I hope for them that it is satisfying and that they are pleased we are trying to improve this bill in their interest.
It is a good bill and it contains many changes, but it is also a bad bill. If the minister were not so stubborn, he would have the consent of this entire House to put into place a good broadcast bill, but he just will not listen.
He is incredibly narrow-minded! He is sitting there, wearing blinkers and with his ears plugged!


An hon. member:: Narrow-minded and with his ears plugged!



December 3, 1990

Government Orders


Sheila Finestone: He has his mind, his ears and his eyes blocked.

It says in clause 6 that the commission may from time to time issue guidelines and statements with respect to any matter within its jurisdiction under this act, but no such guidelines or statements issued by the commission are binding on the commission.
Essentially I have asked the minister to consider removing "under this act" .If the minister would stop reading his paper and listen, he might understand why this is important.


Mr. Lewis:: When you start making sense he will stop reading.


Sheila Finestone: Doug, even you would understand this.
What we are really referring to here is the serious concern that constrains the CRTC to being enabled to issue guidelines, regulations or behaviour under certain terms and conditions that are not already outlined in this act. I think every member of the House should realize that the CRTC will no longer be in a position to give rules and regulations and terms and conditions under the Elections Act. All members are interested in getting re-elected. All members are interested in the democratic process. All members are interested in fairness under the law. Members should not laugh; it is a serious matter.
Now we are going to leave it to the government of the day, through cabinet, to issue a direction as to how the election shall be run. It was bad enough under the CRTC running it, and we did not win. However, if they are going to put the Governor in Council in charge, I think that is a serious matter.
I am suggesting to the minister that he remove the three little words "under this Act" and allow the CRTC to continue the responsibility that it has had over many years for setting the terms and conditions under the Elections Act.
There are other areas, but I thought that one might hit home, where it hurts us most in our heart and particularly where it would be of concern to the government of the day. That is the extent of my concern under the amendment we are proposing.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: So, the vote will be on Motion No. 31. Dispense.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion is negatived on division.
Motion No. 31 is negatived on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We now move to another group of motions, that is Motions Nos. 32, 33 and 34.
Does the House agree to let Mr. MacWilliam propose the motion for Mr. Waddell?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Motion No. 32
That Bill C-40 be amended in clause 9 by adding immediately
after line 14 at page 12 the following:
"(i) determine whether the rates charged by cable companies are at all times just and reasonable and, if they are not, revise them accordingly."
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting clause 11.

December 3, 1990
Government Orders


Sheila Finestone: moved:
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-40 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at
page 17 the following new clause:
"20. The Chairman of the Commission may direct that a public hearing under this Act be heard on behalf of the Commission by two or more members designated by the Chairman, of whom at least one shall be a full-time member, and the members so designated have and may exercise for the purpose of that hearing the powers of the Commission set out in section 16."


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal specifically with Motion No. 34 in this particular grouping of motions and talk about the proposed reorganization of the CRTC.
We on this side of the House feel very strongly about this, because the ultimate effect of this part of the bill will be to balkanize the CRTC: balkanize, break it up and render it unable to give a real national pan-Canadian focus and views to its decisions.
We have said many times that this government is dangerous. It has, in a very systematic way, begun to destroy the traditions of the country, to destroy the institutions of the country, to break apart the very fabric of this country and to undermine the very foundations of this country. We see it in this bill; we see it in spades.
Up until now the CRTC could take a pan-Canadian view. It could take a very wide perspective of this country because its decisions had to reflect the entire body, that is the entire commission. If Bill C-40 goes through, that will not be the case any more. The effect of this bill will be to to break up CRTC into panels and to turn each little panel into its own fiefdom. That is what will happen.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, if you have a panel for Atlantic Canada, a panel for the province of Quebec, a panel for Ontario, a panel for the prairies, and perhaps a panel for British Columbia? You are going to have a panel of the CRTC for each region of the country. How is it possible that over a long period of time those panels are going to employ, exhibit and express a consistent point of view? It is impossible. It is inevitable that they will reflect their own regions. Over a period of time you will find an inconsistency in the opinions and decisions of the CRTC.
That is not good for this country. It is certainly not good for the unity of this country. Somebody has to speak for the country. Somebody has to render decisions that have a pan-Canadian view. The CRTC is an absolutely, crucial, important institution. If the CRTC is going to be balkanized, if it is going to be broken up, that is going to hurt this country. It is going to hurt national unity. We already have enough disunity in this country as a result of this government's policies. I am sure there are some people, certainly the Conservatives on that side and some viewers would say that this is just a partisan view, this is just a Liberal speaking, this is just the opposition speaking. After all, the opposition could never find anything good about what the Tories put forward so they have to find something wrong with almost every part of the bill.


Philip Derek Lewis: You've got that right.


John Harvard: The Minister of Transport says that I have it right.
Let me put before him some comments concerning this balkanization of the CRTC, what is called, "he who hears decides". There are some very eminent persons in this country who do not like the balkanization of the CRTC. I could name names like Keith Spicer, Patrick Watson, and others.
Let me read some comments. This is what Mr. Spicer, now the head of the Citizens Forum said on February 22 of this year:
I do not think "they who hear decide" at all helps strengthen the national will or the national identity. It can be argued that, psychologically, if you make the regions feel more secure or powerful, and they are doing things for themselves, this in itself makes them accept the country more. I think that is a little bit of a side argument.
That is what Keith Spicer said on February 22, 1990. Western International Communications said:
The principle of "he who hears decides" might further destabilize policy making. Individual panels would make binding decisions inconsistent with one or another or with broader policy objectives.
CFCF in Montreal said on February 8 of this year:
With the "he who hears decides" rule, we are running the risk of contradicting one of the fundamental objectives of the system, to maintain a "single" system.
I want to quote one more source, Mr. Speaker. This is what TV Ontario said:
December 3, 1990

The regionalization of the Commission and the initiation of the "s/
he who hears decides" rule will lead to fragmentation of national policy
and general confusion as to the guiding principles of regulations in all
parts of the country.
That is what Keith Spicer and some rather important bodies have said about this particular part of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the name Patrick Watson a moment ago. Maybe I should not have said that. I do not have a quote of his so I will withdraw that reference to Mr. Watson.
In summation, this is a bad precedent, a terrible mistake, and I think we are going to pay for this mistake in the years to come. It is about time that we started giving more consideration to this whole country. We have become too parochial. We have become too provincial. We have become too regional. Somebody has to offer a Canadian perspective. If we do not, if we withdraw, if we go back into our regions and if we only express those things which we deem important for the regions, for our own narrow turfs, if I can put it that way, that is going to harm this country irreparably.
I would hope that the government would come to its senses and withdraw this aspect of the bill because it will serve no good. It will not serve broadcasting in a positive way, Mr. Speaker. What I would like to see are those issues which the chairman deems important.
I think that under the Broadcasting Act the chairman of the CRTC should be able to deem certain issues of national importance and that decisions made concerning those issues cannot be made by panels but only by the full body of the CRTC. That would give the chairman more power and give him or her the opportunity to say to the CRTC that we, in this particular case, are going to render a national decision, a decision with a national perspective, with a pan-Canadian view.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam who has moved Motion No. 32.
I should point out before I begin that it was unfortunate in the previous proceedings of the House that when I understood the amendment to Motion No. 24 was being
Government Orders
presented, it was to be voted on separately. I did not understand at the time that having voted on the amending motion, in fact the whole group would be voted on. Unfortunately, I did not get an opportunity to speak to Motions Nos. 27 and 28, which have also been submitted by my colleague, but because the motions are reflected in Motion No. 32,1 think the comments will be pertinent to all of those motions described.
The amendment basically establishes or provides assurance that there will be efficient delivery of programming in the cable industry at rates that are at all times justifiable and reasonable. I want to point out that the cable industry is the only territorial monopoly whose profits are unregulated.
In the opinion of many, the cable industry has been a virtual licence to print money. This amendment, along with others, would apply the same kinds of pricing rules to cable companies to establish sensibility and sensitivity in pricing that have been established in other jurisdictions, for example, to telephone companies under the Railway Act.
The Railway Act states that all tolls must be "just and reasonable". Just and reasonable has been, I submit, interpreted to mean that the rates must be profit regulated. The cable industry earns on the average close to 30 per cent profit on its fixed net assets according to the 1989 commission, and in our judgment the appropriate rate of return for this industry should be closer to the 16 per cent range on net fixed assets. This would be roughly equivalent to Bell Telephone's range of 12.25 per cent to 13.25 per cent profit on average common equity.
The cable industry's profits are very healthy indeed. I think these amendments would ensure that there is not the kind of price gouging which can take place in an industry that remains as yet completely unregulated. Cable rates have risen astronomically in Canada in recent years. Cable increases averaged about 6 per cent a year between 1984 and 1988. They rose 29 per cent in the 18 months since 1989, a 29 per cent increase in their rate structures. That is a pretty significant wallop in the pocketbooks of consumers in Canada. It has occurred at a time when average telephone rates in Canada have actually been on the decline. As a result, consumers of

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
monopoly cable services have been left virtually unprotected from these excessive price increases.
Telephone rates are just and reasonable, as I mentioned before, because the Railway Act, in fact, says they have to be. It specifically instructs the regulator to enforce rate of return provisions. It is in the legislation. In contrast, the CRTC presently has full discretion in setting cable rates and the result of this has been very plain to see. As I mentioned, there has been a 29 per cent increase in rates in the past 18 months.
Given that Canadians pay over $1 billion annually in cable fees, they would be interested to know just how rates are set by the commission. Before 1986, the main criteria used by the commission in setting rates was how much other cable companies were charging in the same general area.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre has pointed out that this meant the greediest or the least efficient operators would apply first for a rate increase and then others would follow shortly. That has been the situation.
In effect, less efficient systems were used by the larger ones as an excuse to overcharge Canadian consumers. In 1986, a new formula was developed by the CRTC. Cable companies were given automatic increases of 80 per cent of the Consumer Price Index increase, plus an additional increase to cover the cost of capital investment in the system, an extraordinary increase based on need.
This formula was modified in May of 1990, but it remains basically intact.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons asks to be recognized. The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting, but we are close to seven o'clock. You will find that there is consent for the following House order:
That the House continue to sit, with quorum calls and dilatory
motions not receivable, until no later than 11 o'clock p.m. today to
consider report stage of Bill C-40 at or before which time (as the
case may be) the Speaker shall interrupt any proceeding then under
way and all deferred recorded divisions and all questions on ail motions in amendment to the said bill not yet put at the time of such interruption, shall at such time be forthwith deemed deferred for recorded divisions or questions being put (as the case may be) until 3 o'clock p.m. on TUesday, December 4, 1990, at which time, at the request of Whips of the recognized parties, votes will be applied among motions in accordance with an agreement announced by such Whips at such time;
That, following such interruption later this day, the House shall adjourn until 11 o'clock a.m. on Tuesday, December 4, 1990; and
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, for the purpose of considering and completing third reading stage of Bill C-40 and, when no member rises to speak in debate on the main motion, or on any amendment thereto, the vote or votes on such question or questions shall be deemed deferred until 3 o'clock p.nt., on Wednesday, December 5, 1990.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we have been consulted on this House order. Given the disposition of my critic and members of my caucus, we agree to extend the hours to pass the report stage of this bill to show our co-operation and in the spirit of trying to get this House moving in the right direction.
We do not agree with all the amendments the government is proposing but we certainly hope that this will be a step in the right direction. Therefore, we agree.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, yes, I will comment that we have also been consulted on this matter. Due to inclement weather and the difficulty in pulling people back for any possible votes this evening, it seems reasonable to proceed on this basis and to hold recorded votes as has been described by my colleague.
There is consent from us in that regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
December 3, 1990
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, just on a quick point of order. I wish to advise the House that tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m., we will commence with Bill C-88, which would then be followed by Bill C-91, should time permit.


Mr. Flis:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would just like clarification from you whether the proceedings on the Adjournment Motion, pursuant to Standing Order 38, will continue following the completion of tonight's debate on Bill C-40.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: To answer the question raised by the hon. member, one of the consequences of the motion just adopted by the House is that the adjournment debate, commonly referred to as the late show, has been cancelled.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that in a spirit of co-operation, there would be unanimous consent, in recognition of the importance of these adjournment debates. The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park would have the assurance that as soon as the House finishes the report stage, it would allow him to make his speech at the usual time. I think the government would agree to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the suggestion of the Parliamentary House Leader. Is the House agreed?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that the government, as usual, bends over backwards to give every opportunity to every member. We are happy to give our consent to this, as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Therefore, we will have debate on the adjournment motion when the House has disposed of the report stage of Bill C-40.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap had four minutes left. First, the Government Whip, on a point of order.


Mr. Hawkes:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. All of those comments took quite a bit of time and I know there are many members out there who are watching their televisions but may have missed a little bit. The votes that everybody thought would occur tonight, will now occur tomorrow afternoon at three o'clock. There will be no stand up votes, but there will, indeed, be voice votes on the different amendments as the evening progresses from now until 11 o'clock.
The stand up votes that everybody has been looking forward to and getting their winter overshoes ready to carry them back to the hill, will not occur until three o'clock tomorrow afternoon. Members who happen to be at home, watching television, can rest easy for the rest of the evening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Hon. members have heard the message of the Government Whip. I again recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap. You have four minutes left.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where I was, but I will try to get back to where I left off.
I think the argument I was making, at the time when I was interrupted by a point of order, was that the cable industry in Canada is a virtual monopoly. Canadians cannot simply go out and start their own cable company business to compete with one that is already established. If consumers are unhappy with the service of their local cable company, they cannot switch companies because there is only one cable company serving that particular neighbourhood. They are stuck. It is as simple as that. Moreover, notwithstanding the claims of cable operators, other technologies such as satellite dishes and so forth are effectively beyond the reach of most Canadians. They are simply too expensive to consider putting in for a single network.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre stated some time ago, before the legislative committee, that "approximately 80 per cent of households subscribe where cable TV is, in fact, available, usually in urban areas. This high rate of penetration is not affected significantly by the income level of subscribers. Households below the poverty line allocate a relatively large portion of their income for receiving cable TV services." The reason is

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
simple. The quote continues: "Cable TV provides the only form of entertainment that is remotely within the reach of low income Canadians."
It is significant that we have, in Canada, a situation which is allowed to be an unregulated monopoly in the cable industry. It is a situation which I have mentioned before. It has shown dramatic price increases of 29 per cent in the last 18 months alone. I think that speaks very clearly that there needs to be some form of regulatory authority in determining the rate structure for cable TV services.
The amendments that my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam proposed merely seek to provide cable subscribers with some form of fairness. It seeks to limit, to a degree, the profits of a monopoly industry and ensure that Canadians will get a much deserved break in their cable bills. The amendments would ensure that companies applied for rate increases only on the basis of a legitimate financial need. This is the same standard, I might add, that is applied to telephone companies and other monopolies.
Profit regulation has not denied the telephone or pipeline companies from making a fair profit. It has not undermined the investment in the system and, indeed, Canada has retained one of the finest telecommunication systems in the world.
Let me conclude by saying that the amendments proposed would simply provide the appropriate basis for setting cable rates in the future so that consumers, as well as the cable operators, are protected by a system that is both fair and equitable.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with in this section of the bill is essentially the Balkanization or the regionalization of the CRTC.
What we had before was known as "they who hear decide". In the past, we have established, through the CRTC, the reputation of fair regulator, an intelligent regulator, and one that has a good solid record of being connected with a common view across this land.
I had a letter that came from TVA in which TVA pointed out that it had had some experience internationally. The way in which regulation is handled in France is
something of serious concern, and we would not want something such as that to happen here. I will come back to that perhaps a little later in this debate.
Right now, we are talking about no longer requiring the taking of decisions in the national interest. We are going to take an approach rather than the collegial one, where a panel may have gone out, heard, come to a conclusion, and came back to the executive committee, reported the hearings and the views, concerns and considerations and gave a recommendation. The executive of the CRTC would then put this into balance with everything that had been happening across the country. In this way, there was a potential for a less fragmented policy, and we would certainly have more even and fairer decision making across this land.
This particular issue has been one of serious concern. Many witnesses appeared before the committee and spoke at great length and from depth of heart about the disintegration of a national regulator through this kind of a process called panels of "he who hears decides". Of course, in the changing dynamics that is Canada today, it becomes all the more sensitive to have these kinds of decisions that may be irregular across this land and may not always be in the best interests of all Canadians, of both language groups and of minority status across the land.
One of the things that caused some reaction was a decision to award a new country music FM radio station in Toronto. There was a difference of point of view between the panellists and the regulators on the executive committee. There was some feeling that perhaps the black dance group ought to have received the mandate, rather than the country music format. The merits of the case were what the cabinet reviewed.
We now see that there was a frequency available and the case presented before the CRTC was a case that was offering incredible benefits to Canadian country music and artists. They are prepared to expend $800,000 a year on developing and promoting Canadian country music, with special emphasis on local performers and on radio programs and events. That is more than double what any other station in the market spends on talent development.
December 3, 1990

Certainly the Minister of Communications has been very sensitive to the development of musical talent in the country, the recording industry, and the distribution of Canadian songs. He should feel very comforted when he sees something of this nature. They made a commitment that 32 per cent of the new station's play list in the first year of operation will be Canadian content, rising to 40 per cent in the fifth year.
These proportions are very stunning if you realize that we have had between 20 and 30 per cent. On the French side, we had to have a big battle. We had to put money in and have sorts of support mechanisms and measures to ensure that the French song industry survived and grew, all the while knowing that we have fabulous artists and talent out there.
There were other things that were being done by that group that allowed them to win this particular request for a radio station. It is regrettable. There is a new frequency opening and new decisions will be made. I hope that the multi-racial, multicultural reality of Canada will be further reflected on our air waves when this new channel comes up. Notwithstanding, fair is fair, and one has to follow the rule of the commitments that were asked for by the CRTC.
With this "he who hears decides", when the idea of a resident regional commissioner is combined with those "who hears decides", one runs the risk of creating fiefdoms across the country and capturing the local industry. I quote Mr. Keith Spicer, who stated: "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 we can compare what we are doing in Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, and make sure that all Canadians feel they are being treated the same way recognizing their differences. 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. We all know that it is like squaring a circle but that is what we are trying to do and in our honest opinion, we think it could occur and be better done that way, rather than applying the "he who hears decides."
Government Orders
There was no question that Wick Communications felt that the principle was wrong. It was a destabilizing policy. There would be inconsistent results coming out of this. CFCF stated that it runs the risk of contradicting one of the fundamental objectives of the system to maintain a single system. TV Ontario said the regionalization of the commission and the initiation of the "he who hears decides" rule will lead to fragmentation of national policy and a general confusion as to the guiding principles of regulations in all parts of the country. The CRTC in its brief to the legislative committee on February 22 made an impassioned statement with respect to what it felt would be an ineffective and very improper approach.
I forgot to mention that Rogers believes that one of the overriding strengths of the CRTC since its establishment has been its ability to bring a broad range of national and regional concerns to bear on its decisionmaking. It felt it was very important, and were very deeply concerned that a more decentralized structure, even with the provisions requiring informal consultation, will result in the loss of this national dimension in the decision-making process. As a result, policies could diverge from region to region. We have heard from many with respect to this.
The commission, which has had experience in this particular regard with both the collegial and the small task forces, has made it very clear that basically, in a cultural industry and cultural regulation, one has to recognize that in the broadcasting industry, being an evolving one, highly sensitive and complex, decisions must be taken in full awareness of its impact on the entire system. Decisions involving individual licencees should find their anchor in and be consistent with a national overview.
There are many other aspects that the CRTC addressed; the fact that they have fact-finding bodies, the fact that it makes little sense when applied to a body whose function it is to apply a parliamentary policy in order to ensure that the cultural identity of a nation is preserved and strengthened. In broadcasting matters generally facts are seldom at issue. It is the consequences which flow from those facts which must be determined.
In closing, I would like to read into the record what the Canadian Bar Association, Media and Communication Law Section said, because they really are the experts, as well as the CRTC in this matter. They said: "We believe that the decision should not be required to be made by an ad hoc panel sitting in a particular city, rather where the commission deems it appropriate, it should be

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
possible under the act for such matters to be discussed and determined on a collegial basis in that by the full commission based on their collective experience. While it is true that a hearing panel could consult with the commission staff or with other commissioners pursuant to subsection 19(4), we believe that rule-making proceedings of this kind should involve the full commission".
I sincerely hope that the minister will look at this favourably and consider adopting an amendment called for by all sectors in this field.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We are voting on Motion No. 32, in the name of Mr. Waddell. May I dispense?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Deblois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on Motion No. 32 is deferred.
The next vote is on Motion No. 33, in the name of Mr. Waddell. May I dispense?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on Motion No. 33 is deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 34 standing in the name of Mrs. Finestone. Shall I dispense?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on Motion No. 34 is deferred.


Marcel Masse: Motion No. 35
December 3, 1990

That Bill C-40 be amended in the French version in Clause 26 by
striking out lines 18 and 19 at page 21 and substituting following
therefore:
"admissibles a l'attribution, a la modification ou au renouvellement de licences,"


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36. Is the House agreed that Mr. MacWil-liam will move the motion for Mr. Waddell?
Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Motion No. 36
That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 28.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The motion reads:
That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 28.
In this legislation the government has taken a new power vis-^a-vis the CRTC, namely the broad power of policy direction. This allows the government to provide leadership and direction in broadcasting from time to time.
The power of policy direction was in fact recommended by many committees on broadcasting and we fully support it. At the same time, the government kept its power to review every CRTC decision. The various committee reports recommended that if the government took the power of policy direction, it should in fact give up its power of review. In fact, this joint power seriously tilts, we submit, the delicate balance between the government and the regulator too strongly in favour of the government.
It risks undermining the independence of the commission and as a result we have moved this motion to delete the power of review. In support of this motion, I would ask the consideration of the House. I think the concern is a legitimate one. I ask the government to consider the overwhelming view of the witnesses that were called before the committee and accept the amendment standing in the name of the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.
Government Orders


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion. I will make my comments brief because I know I have the undivided attention of the minister across the way who is listening attentively to my remarks, and will no doubt reconsider what his position on this issue is in light of what I am about to say. At least I am so convinced I will be able to do that that I am taking the liberty now to assume that the minister will be correct in his views after hearing the representations from the Official Opposition.
I say that, of course, knowing the minister to be one who listens attentively to the contributions of members on this side of the House.


Ms. Clancy:: Normally, yes.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-40 would jeopardize the CRTC's ability to carry out its role as an expert independent quasi-judicial body because it would grant a new power to the Governor in Council while retaining the existing one. Basically, it would permit the cabinet to issue policy directions to the CRTC, but it would retain its ability to set aside decisions of the commission on the basis that the decisions derogate from the attainment of objectives of the broadcasting policy.
These dual powers of cabinet in the view of our party, that is the power of review over the CRTC and the power to establish the general policy directions of the CRTC, are quite excessive. We believe that our cabinet review should be removed and in that way the government- and I say this for the benefit of the minister across the way-will ensure, or at least we believe it would assist greatly, in ridding the uninvited political interference that could perhaps jeopardize the independence of the commission.
I wonder if the minister is aware that the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting in their brief to the legislative committee said that the cabinet review powers would "undermine the independence of the CRTC in licensing matters, opens the way for policy political interference, and encourages licensees and applicants to bypass the CRTC if they think politically directed appeals will be more cogent."
What this means of course-and I say this to the minister across the way-is he is creating a situation whereby he is going to invite lobbyists from all over the place to his office. I challenge the minister: does he want to see the Frank Moores of this world and all those people all over his office? Would you want that, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
December 3, 1990
Government Orders
Speaker? I do not think I would. I think the member for Mount Royal, were she at this moment the Minister of Communications-which she will be after the next election, of course-she would not want that kind of proposition.
Let the minister think for a moment of the next government, the next Liberal government, which is going to be charged with straightening things out after they are finished messing things up, is going to want to have this bill done properly. I say to the minister, you might as well fix this now, pursuant to recommendations that we are making on this side of the Etouse.

I would like to read a few more quotes. The Canadian Institute of Adult Education had this to say: "The power of review threatens the independence of the CRTC because, apart from dictating to the CRTC- its major directions- the government will also prescribe the procedures for implementing its own policies." Thus the government defines the operating policy of the CRTC then, of course, it also has the power to take a second look after each case is completed.
In other words, the government acts as if it was itself some kind of a CRTC by taking away many of its powers, thus opening the door to the lobbyists.
[English)
Finally, I would like to read a quote from ACTRA: The power to review should be removed.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the minister will now be convinced to correct the wrong of his previous views and to straighten things out pursuant to the recommendation which I make to him now on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, this is quite a simple matter. We are just talking about removing ministers and the cabinet. In this particular article the powers that are being accorded the Governor in Council allows for interference, favouritism, and cronyism. It is very unhealthy. Ministers across the way must recognize by now that that is very unhealthy. Why
subject themselves to the potential for pressure where it is unnecessary?
I have said to the minister's face that he has done a good job with this bill, except for the few significant errors in here which make it an untenable bill. In general, if he would change a few little things, four little amendments, he would have a good bill. This is one of the four.
Perhaps the minister did not think it through and would like to change his mind. His parliamentary secretary has been incredible. I am sure the Minister of Communications recognizes the role his parliamentary secretary has played in carrying the ball with this bill for such a long time. In this particular section the minister gives the power of direction to the regulator. I think it is an excellent idea. After all, Parliament should decide how this very sensitive instrument of public policy should work.
Once the government decides and directs, then it is up to the CRTC to hold the hearings, to have the parliamentary committees do the listening, and to come back with an answer. That answer should not then be subject to review by cabinet. It is a very dangerous precedent.
If it is to be subject to review by cabinet, I hope, while the minister does not seem to be constraining himself or his cabinet, that he will at least make sure that this is a very narrow power of review. I happen to think that it is a very bad power of review and that is why my colleague, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, and I have called for this particular removal.
This is essentially the bottom line as far as I am concerned. Serge Gouin, president and chief executive officer of Tele-Metropole, points out how important and detrimental the power of review can be. He says something very interesting which perhaps we would all like to know. Tele-Metropole is the largest television broadcaster in Quebec. It owns, as we all know, CFTM, channel 10 in Montreal, CJPM-TV in Chicoutimi, and numerous other subsidiaries producing films and videos. It has over 1,000 employees. It employs 2,000 people on a temporary basis, and it has the highest viewing time per week in Canada. This is a competent, well managed,
December 3, 1990

forceful and innovative broadcaster who knows what he is talking about.
In talking about the CRTC and the impact of these two powers at both ends, this broadcaster wrote:
I am one of the few Canadians to have been through the experience of obtaining an operating licence for a television network abroad and I am certainly the only Canadian to have done so in France.
That is up to the time that he wrote this. He goes on to write:
I played a very active part in the project for the privatization of TF-1 and in the issuing of operating licences for two national channels, La Cinq and M-6. In addition, I am one of the three shareholders who appeared before the CNCL, the equivalent of the CRTC in France, to obtain the licence for La Cinq.
The CNCL was established relatively recently, and at that time the French government indicated that it fully intended to ensure the independence of the organization by means of clear, precise regulations. Despite that statement of principle, the door remained open to political interference and this did not take long to materialize.
Consequently, no procedural rules established by the CNCL were taken seriously and even the conditions opposed when operating licences were issued are openly flouted today. Eighteen months after the decisions were handed down on these three national channels, a number of people are still contesting these decisions and making representations to the political authorities in order to reopen the cases even though they resulted in investments of hundreds of millions of dollars.
We know that it takes that kind of money to prepare and to be ready. What he is bringing to our attention, and I think wisely, to try to save us a lot of heartache, is that through this bill we in Canada are preparing to create the same climate, with all the consequences that one could have easily observed if one had examined the impact of such policies in other countries.
I suggest to the minister and to the Governor in Council that before they take the vote on this amendment they should listen to Tele-Metropole and its experience. They should listen to the people who appeared before us. They should listen to the report that goes as far back as the Aird report in 1928 when it talked about the independence of the government of the day and ensuring that no political pressures could be exerted. It asked that we weigh arguments dispassionately through this arm's length regulator so that we would not have the parochial political pressures which are inevitable when big money and big businesses are involved this way.
Government Orders
I hope they will protect the ministers and the arm's length aspect. I also hope they will stay out of both power direction and power review. These tandem powers are very dangerous.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate we have quite successfully made efforts to show where the government has made some serious errors, where it has been quite misguided in the crafting of this bill.
When it comes to the dual powers that this bill proposes to give to the government, it really smacks of a power hungry government which says that it is not good enough to have just the power of direction over the CRTC but that it must also have the power of review.
In effect the government is saying that it will tell the CRTC what to do, that the CRTC will go out and do its job, but that if it has second thoughts, or if in its opinion the so-called arm's length independent commission does not do a very good job, it will have the power of review and it will correct the mistakes.
It is a major mistake. This is a blunder of the first rank of this government, to take unto itself both the power of direction and the power of review. It makes no sense whatsoever.
In a way it suggests that the government is politically masochistic. It really wants to injure and bring grief to itself, because we can imagine what will happen if there are parties out there in the broadcast field who know that if the CRTC renders a decision they do not like the government has the power of review. What will they do? I am talking about the parties now. In effect they will ignore the decision of the CRTC. They will bypass the CRTC and go to the political headmasters at the top to appeal or argue before the government that the CRTC has made a terrible decision that is not in the national interests and certainly not in their interest. They will ask the politicians to review this decision and change it in their interest.
It makes no sense whatsoever, unless you are a government that is power hungry, wants to have control over every facet of the process and really does not respect for one minute the independence of the CRTC.

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
We must have a commission that we have faith in and that we respect, one that we feel has some competence. Sure, the government has the responsibility to set down broad policy and to give direction. There is nothing wrong with that whatsoever. It is a way of saying that the democratically elected people rule, but surely the power of direction is enough.
What more do they want? Having the responsibility and the power to set policy, to set direction, and then to say to these people who comprise the CRTC "go ahead and do your job within the ambit of the directions that we give you", is that not enough? I would think that is enough.
I talked about political masochism earlier. As part and parcel of that, we talk about and are concerned about political interference. There is enough political interference, as it is, in this whole business of governing a country. One will never stop political interference, but surely we do not go out to invite it; surely we do not go out and ask for political interference.
Yet, this section of the bill does exactly that. You can interfere with this commission because it does not have to be taken that seriously. After all, its decisions are not final. You can make an end run around it. You can bypass it. Or, if you do not like to think of it that way, you can indulge in some political interference, talk to the people whom you know and exercise some political muscle; you can interfere with what should be a process that cannot be easily violated. This is a serious mistake. This government does not need dual powers. It does not need both policy direction and review. One is enough.
We have looked at this bill from a to z. We have explored it very well. When it came to this part which was studied over and over again, we came to the conclusion that the government does not need both powers. The government does not need direction and review. Direction is enough. The government does not have to go any further than that to do a good job.
My esteemed colleague from Montreal pointed out earlier that a number of respected people in this country also agree with us on this side that to ask for this is dangerous government practice.
I do not know how much time I have left. Perhaps I have just a minute or two, but I want to refer to a statement made by the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. What it has done is buttress our argument; it has given support to our arguments. The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting made a statement in its brief to the legislative committee which at that particular time was studying the power of review on the part of the government. The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting said "that the cabinet review power undermines the independence of the CRTC in licensing matters, opens the way for political interference, and encourages licensees and applicants to bypass the CRTC if they think politically directed appeals will be more cogent".
There it is in just a few words. The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting put it in a nutshell. They have summarized what I have tried to say in the last eight or nine minutes.
I really wish that the government would re-examine this part of the bill and take a good look at it. If the government really tried to be objective, it would come to one decision, that all it needs is the power of direction. It does not need also the power of review. It does not need dual powers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?
The question is on Motion No. 36 in the name of Mr. Waddell. Am I dispensed from reading the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion, the nays have it.



December 3, 1990



Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on Motion No. 36 stands deferred.


Marcel Masse: Motion No. 39.
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 36 by adding immediately
after line 25 at page 26 the following:
"(5) Notwithstanding subsections (3) and (4), if a director is not appointed to take office on the expiration of the term of office of an incumbent director, the incumbent director continues in office until a successor is appointed."


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


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Mount Royal has the floor.


Sheila Finestone: Ah, but you
should be impressed. Come on, it is not so bad!

Mr. Speaker, I call upon the minister to address this question. Perhaps I should have called upon the Prime Minister as it is his amendment.
It is extremely interesting. If I were the Prime Minister or Mr. Patrick Watson, I would certainly understand why we are bringing in this kind of amendment. Do you know what the amendment says? The amendment says that notwithstanding certain articles, if a director is not appointed to take office on the expiration of the term of office of an incumbent director, the incumbent director continues in office until a successor is appointed. That just makes good common sense. Up until now we have had an enormous number of vacancies, I believe, up to six, if not seven vacancies, at a very serious time in the development and history of the CBC.
We are very pleased that the minister has brought in this amendment. Once the opportunity to make a nomination was there, why did he not have to wait for this clause to have nominated Mr. Patrick Watson to the board of the CBC. Why did he not nominate him to the board where he could contribute in the manner which only this man can contribute, instead of leaving him on the outside looking in? What I would like to know from the minister is why was Mr. Patrick Watson not appointed to the board? There were so many vacancies. We even had to fill that hole with an amendment. I compli-
Government Orders
ment him on the amendment, but I wish he would explain to us why Mr. Watson was not appointed?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the motion has been put forward in the name of the parliamentary secretary to the minister, but as a matter of fact, as we can all see, we actually have the minister here tonight. I find it rather perplexing that although the motion has been put forward, we hear no comment, no rationale or no explanation as to the precise reasons for this particular amendment.
With the minister in the House tonight, with his full authority to suggest changes, that amendments be made, that he at least explain the particular reason for those amendments. I think it is justifiable. He is asking us to vote on something that is somewhat confusing. Some argument has been made by my colleague in the Liberal Party and I have to support her on that. I think we need a fuller explanation than just the silence that pervades the Chamber.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of things to say on this particular matter. I too find it rather galling that the minister sits there and says nothing. Now, he gets up and walks away. He turns his back to us. It is really galling to have the Conservatives sit over there, not saying a word, never coming to the defence of the bill, never explaining any clauses, just sitting there saying nothing and doing nothing.
They might think that that is taunting us on this side of the House. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the taunting does not work. What it does is to show how foolish they have been during the whole course of this debate. They sit there like bumps on a log, saying nothing and doing nothing.
If they are that proud of the bill, what does it say about them? What does it say about the bill? I think that the concern raised by my colleague from Mount Royal, which really is the concern of the chairman of the CBC board of directors, is a very legitimate concern. We know that the CBC board of directors has to live with vacancies. It is only realistic and pragmatic that if the CBC board finds itself in that situation, the board should be able to continue its directors working, keeping them in place until a successor is named. To me, that is eminently reasonable and makes a lot of sense. I wish the government would listen to this suggestion, but as usual it is not listening.

December 3, 1990
Government Orders


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to intervene in this debate as well. What is at stake here is a very important parliamentary principle. The government needs to be held accountable for legislation that it proposes to this House. Certainly, in the case of this broadcasting bill, it has huge implications for the future development of a major industry in this country. It is not only an industry but something that is part of the very fabric of this country.
When this debate is taking place in this House, especially at a time when the ties that bind us nationally are fraying, it seems unbelievable that the government would not stand and come to the defence of its own legislation. The minister has been sitting here for a long time. He was challenged repeatedly by several members of the House to come to the defence of the legislation and has refused to do so. That is simply unacceptable. I think it is one of the reasons that this government languishes so low in the polls.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the minister is ready to respond, at least he seems to be. I realize we are not supposed to comment on a member's absence or presence in the House, but let us say I am pleased to see the minister is in a position to respond to what I have to say.
There are two points I would like to make. First, I am concerned about the fact the government seems unwilling to address either the bill or the amendments this evening. The minister is here in the House. Neither the minister nor his parliamentary secretary have responded either to amendments proposed by hon. members opposite or even defended their own amendments.
When the minister is in a position to comment on what I am saying, Mr. Speaker since I cannot comment on his presence or absence, otherwise I would but when the minister is in a position to respond to my question later on, I hope he will deal with this point. In fact, I would have liked to know why we still have no response from
the government. Why doesn't the minister even defend the government's amendments?

I have another question regarding this particular amendment. If someone sits on the board of directors of the CBC and is reappointed, in conformity with our Standing Orders that nomination is then reviewable by a parliamentary committee of this House. Under the McGrath Commission report that we established, any Order in Council appointment of the government can be reviewed by a parliamentary committee. By structuring this the way they did, I have a concern. By reappointing the same individual or rather, not reappointing the same individual, it allows the individual to serve another term, bypassing the Order in Council review process. That is a concern of mine.
I am wondering if the government is prepared to answer in that regard. We changed the Standing Orders of this House to reflect this concern some years ago. After several accusations of political patronage, the Prime Minister decided he wanted to get rid of them, that he wanted to offer, according to him, a new transparency to the system. He decided to go along with the recommendations of the McGrath Commission to establish the Order in Council review process.
In this particular case we may have found a way in which the government is attempting to bypass the process. I would like for the government minister-speaking of ministers, I do not see very many in the Chamber at this particular moment-who is responsible in answering for cabinet in the House-because a minister has to be in the House all the time when we speak-to immediately respond to that. I want to know the answer to this because I fear greatly that we might have uncovered something that the government is attempting to do which might just be slightly untoward.
If that is not the case, I hope that the minister will stand up immediately and place on the record of this House just what it is that this amendment will be doing. Now that the minister is in a position to answer, I would
December 3, 1990

hope that he would address that issue. If he wants me to repeat it, I gladly will.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Repeat it.


Don Boudria: There is some interest here. Did I make this perfectly clear to the minister? I know the Speaker understands everything quite well. Mr. Speaker always does.
I want the minister to clarify for us how it is that the Order in Council review process will work in the case of the amendment that is offered to us now. In other words, what stops the government from simply allowing all Order in Council nominations-the appointments to the board of directors-to lapse and simply not appoint anyone to any of them? It would thereby permit all the members who are on it to be automatically reappointed de facto by this process and none of them could ever be interviewed by their respective parliamentary committee.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the interventions of my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, because I think he is onto something. There seems to be something untoward here that he has uncovered. It seems that, whenever we address the minister, he goes for a walk. I cannot say that he leaves the Chamber, but he does go for a walk.


Don Boudria: But if you could say it, you would.


Steve Butland: If I could, I would.
I notice that he has some briefing notes and I know he is eager to speak. He has 10 or 12 colleagues who are present and I am sure they are very competent and able to explain the amendments, not only to us on the opposite side of the House, but to all Canadians.
I think that the minister has been told that he should show up for this bill as this is his bill and I do not think that he has been all that eager. His meandering in and around the House indicates that his presence here is not something that he really wants. We are really eager to hear the minister speak to this amendment and to the bill, in general.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, one might have gotten the notion that the minister was being contemptuous of the House by virtue
Government Orders
of his meandering around the Chamber. One might have been given a similar impression by the fact that, on one such departure from his place, he engaged in singular jocularity with members of his caucus, including his parliamentary secretary whom we thought might say something in response to the questions that have been raised. This was only a suspicion.
As the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has pointed out, the amendment that has been presented here would suggest that the impression that the minister and his government are contemptuous of the House is given substantiation by the nature of this amendment. As that member indicated, it would provide a circumstance in which a member of the board could continue as such ad infinitum without review, thus circumventing the House of Commons once more. This suggests, in fact, that the minister is contemptuous of the House.
However, by the urgency with which the minister has been reading when he has not been gone, it may be that he does not understand what has been said. I would urge upon him that he reflect as carefully as he might. We will give him as much time as he needs to read it over carefully to see if he cannot find a spark of understanding and respond to the interventions made from this side of the House which ask and plead with him to demonstrate to those of us here, as well as to the people of Canada, that he just does not think that this place is a waste of time, that it is taking too much of his time, and that he would rather be somewhere else than explaining his own bill, his own amendment to us and the people of Canada.


Don Boudria: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps inadvertently or perhaps otherwise, I think we have uncovered something that I want to submit to the House that may be a breach of our Standing Orders.
This will take a moment or two, but I want to outline to the House that clause 36 of the bill expresses how individuals are to be appointed or reappointed to the board of directors. That is perfectly in order. However, there is an amendment proposed in Motion 39 by the minister. I am glad the government House leader is listening attentively, because I think he might be inclined to agree with me. Motion No. 39 describes that notwithstanding any other measures that if someone else is not appointed to take his or her place, the incumbent

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
director already on the board remains a director even after his office has expired.
Obviously, this bypasses Standing Order 110 of the House of Commons which states that anyone who is appointed to the board of directors in this way, that his or her appointment has to be laid upon the table of the House and be referred to a parliamentary committee under the Order in Council review process. There is no mechanism to make it happen.
Standing Order 110(1) states:
A Minister of the Crown shall lay upon Hie Table a certified copy of
an Order in Council,-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I must regretfully interrupt the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell, but all his remarks could be interpreted as questionning the Chair's decision concerning the motions. Because of the way the Chair made its decision, it is now too late and I must indicate to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that his point of order is really not one and I cannot accept it at this time.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe under our rules, when the Chair rules on the acceptability of an amendment, he rules as to whether or not they are procedurally acceptable; in other words, whether or not they are correct as to form. I am not questioning whether the amendments were in their proper form. I am bringing in new information to the House which I hope to share very briefly with the Speaker, and ask the Speaker and his advisers to review perhaps over the next few hours in order to ensure that not the form but that in fact the content of one of these motions is such that it could in fact subvert Standing Order 110 of the House.
Briefly, that is the point that I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, and I do believe that there is no point in beleaguering it any longer. I have made that case to the Speaker and I invite the Speaker to review it once again, because that is in fact what could happen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I must regretfully interrupt the hon. member, but the Chair had already looked into this point which was raised before making its decision concerning the grouping of motions. I can no
longer listen to the hon. member although I find his remarks quite interesting and relevant.
Is the House ready to vote on Motion No. 39? [English]


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, in light of the lack of clarity, and I know you say that the Chair has already ruled, if we were to be that finicky about this bill, I can bring three other errors to your attention. I would be pleased to do so, if you would care to have me do so, Mr. Speaker.
Having said that, I would just like to point out that my colleague from Winnipeg and myself withdraw our support of that motion until there is clarity brought to the issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The vote is on Motion No. 39 in the name of Mr. Edwards. May I dispense from reading the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay?


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on Motion No. 39 is deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it agreed that the motion of Mr. Waddell be moved by Mr. MacWilliam?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: December 3, 1990

Motion No. 40
That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 45.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion submitted by my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam states that Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 45. That clause is the government's proposal to divide the CBC board into English and French standing committees.
I want to point out that we oppose this proposal and are moving its deletion through this amendment for two reasons. First, the CBC itself has strongly opposed this measure. It views it as a direct interference in its affairs and also as being potentially divisive. In its brief, the CBC stated the following:
This section provides that the CBC's Board of Directors "shall establish a standing committee of directors on English language broadcasting and a standing committee of directors on French language broadcasting, each consisting of the Chairperson, the President and such other directors as the Board may appoint".
In its submission to the Committee formed to study Bill C-136, the Corporation noted its objections to this provision and wishes now to reiterate them. In Section 3(1)(1) of the Bill, the Corporation is called upon to serve the interests of all Canadians, by reflecting Canada and its regions and contributing to shared national consciousness and identity.
In our view, the creation of such committees would run counter to the spirit of those objectives and, as well, counter to the programming independence provided in Section 44(4). We believe it should be left to 1he Board of the CBC to determine the most appropriate means of meeting the goals set for the CBC and that this provision of Section 43 of the Bill represents an infringement of that necessary freedom. Further, we feel that the exercise of responsibility for French and English language programming by these committees would run counter to the proper responsibilities of the Board as a whole. Accordingly, we make the following recommendation:
Recommendation 1: That Section 43(1), requiring the creation of standing committees of Directors on English and French language broadcasting, be deleted from the bill.
Those were the comments made in the brief by the CBC.
In carrying forth that argument, the second reason we oppose this proposal is that it is part of the government's plan to divide the CBC and to remove its role as a unifying instrument in the country.
As was said before by my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam, the government is meeching and leeching the CBC. First, it contends to strip the corporation's mandate to promote Canadian unity. Second, and
Government Orders
this is the subject of this motion, it divides the CBC unto itself. This, combined with its massive budget cuts of some $130 million annually over the next four years, is serving to destroy the CBC and to transform it into a public broadcaster that is essentially indistinguishable from its private sector competitors.
First, it divides the board into two standing committees. Then, it creates two corporations; one in French, the other in English. Finally, as a result of this and other policies of this government, we have two Canadas. This is what the government has been doing with VIA Rail and Petro-Canada, and now this is what it is doing with the CBC. We are committed on this side of the Flouse to fighting for a single Canada.
I want to end by quoting a recent comment in Cross Current by Stephen Godfrey. He states:
The proposed changes are a sad commentary on the fact that there remains no area in which the vety words "national unity" can be spoken without inviting attack from members of the federal government itself. There is no longer the imagination or the will to accept two concepts: that Quebec is a distinct society; and that there still might be an over-all plan and vision for the country that we still-so haltingly-refer to as one.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, that last debate warmed me up so much, I was able to remove my House leader's sweater. I can now perhaps box a little bit better with our stubborn colleagues across the floor, and they might see the light of day at least in this amendment.
We are at a time of great uncertainty in Canada, a time of division, and this is not the time to destroy the infrastructures that are in place.
With respect to the board of the CBC, any of you in this House who have ever served on a board of directors, be it of a voluntary association, a business corporation, mergers that take place, know that there is one head and they have a board of directors who have a common interest and concern in the well-being of that corporation.
As, if and when they need to address particular subjects, they split the board up according to the internal needs of that particular organization, organism, company or corporation, as the case may be. Could you give me a reason, Mr. Speaker, why within the standards and

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
norms of the functioning of an organism, one would expect a corporation of this size, having to deal with unequal balance throughout this country in French and English services-language sensitive issues-for, Mr. Speaker, you must recognize that within the English and French strata, there is not one mould.
There are French-speaking people from all over the world in this country of ours, and they are spread across the country. Whether they came from Belgian, French or North African, or Quebec stock does not matter. The same thing goes for the English constituencies. There is no homogeneity within the structures of the roles and responsibilities that this board must address.
The board of the CBC which handles radio and television in English, French and northern services that were in Inuit languages before they got cut had to be sensitive to all these issues. They had to be sensitive to the race, language and creed and try to portray the interests and concerns of Canada to the three coasts so there would be better understanding.
Now, what do you want to do? You want to take this board and divide it in half so that never the twain shall meet. They should become rubber stamps when serious financial concerns are facing this board.
Mr. Speaker, you realize that we are close to $240 million cuts within the CBC. You heard my question to the minister this morning with respect to the parliamentary channel when he made it very clear that this government, House, Parliament is not going to finance the parliamentary channel.
I invite the members opposite to take part in the debate. It will not be very long before they will not get their faces on the picture screen, because there will not be a parliamentary channel. It is not one of the mandated services of the CBC. It has other responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, you heard the debate last week on Radio Canada International at a time when we are so interested in having our values and democratic procedures explained, become part of and help what is going on in the Persian Gulf and in Iraq where the Kuwaiti and Iraqi people only hear the voice of Saddam Hussein and listen to a middle world voice like ours with a great deal of respect. No, we are going to cut that off too.
We are cutting off our nose to spite our face. The real problem is not splitting the board of the CBC. The real problem is putting some money in so that it can do the job it was mandated to do.
I refer back to a woman who I knew and admired. I think everyone in this House who knew Judy LaMarsh knew that she was a woman of great principle regardless of party or affiliation. She knew her business. She was a hard working person who was very sensitive to the country in which she lived.
She looked at the question of dividing the CBC into statutory committees. She said almost 23 years to the month, on November 1, 1967: "A statutory requirement that the board should split itself up into two would in the opinion of this 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 English nor French, it's just plain Canadian".
Does that not make good sense? If they want to look at the problems internally, they will set up their own committees. Why should we dictate the disrupting of what is a very important structure?
Let me just tell you what Patrick Watson, speaking for the CBC board, had to say.
This is perhaps the most outstanding and strongly felt concern of
our board on the proposal that there be created a French and
English programming standing committee within the board of the

He spoke to us at committee in a very strong way saying that they disagreed, that each of those directors, whether they were French speaking or English speaking, felt that the honour conferred on them by being nominated by Order in Council through the recommendation of the Minister of Communications to the Prime Minister were there in persona for Canada. They did not come to represent a language structure, they came to represent Canadian programming, Canadian content, Canadian ingress, Canadian music, song and dance, Canadian artists, Canadian intellectual property, not to speak in a tongue dissimilar one from the other.
Gerard Veilleux said: "I do want to tell you that I do not look forward with a great deal of enthusiasm to
December 3, 1990

having to split my staff, the staff of CBC Radio-Canada. I say to you that this is very dangerous."
Keith Spicer, and these are the people who are running this public sector, said: "I spent a good part of the last 25 years working on both French and English networks and I am touched by what you say." He was answering a question I had asked him. "Personally I would not be in favour of creating two separate committees. Therefore I think that at some point, in addition to a very strong secure representation of the English and French side of things, we have to have a national view as well".
I could go on and on. I could indicate to you the cuts and the way the money is spread between the English language network and the French language network, particularly on the TV side. On the English side we have $576 million being spent, in round figures $577 million, and on the French side about $406 million. Mr. Speaker, there is not that much difference when you look at the percentage of difference of French speaking people, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, and English speaking people, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.
That is not the way you want to measure the service. You want to measure the service: "Is the program good? Is the content good? Will it sell? Is it world-class?" because that is what Canadians want and should expect.
Mr. Speaker, it is not to say there is not schlock both on the American and Canadian side. There is. But I think that CBC has a quality and a voice of its own and I think there is nothing worse that we could do than divide it up at this very sensitive time in the history of Canada.
I suggest, I recommend, I plead, I cajole, I ask the backbench, I ask the minister, speak to the minister, speak to the parliamentary secretary, get them to see the wisdom of not splitting it at this sensitive time.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to try again. I know there is a prohibition against referring to the absence of a member or minister from this House. I do not know whether there is a particular regulation that prevents reference to the absence of a minister's brain from this House.
As the member for Okanagan-Shuswap was talking about the issue of national unity, the hon. minister, who has demonstrated his contempt before, showed even
Government Orders
more contempt. His back was turned to the hon. member. If he was engaged in any active mental activity at all, it must have been telling jokes because he was laughing vigorously, as were those around him. We have called attention to the fact that this bill refuses to endorse national unity. Here we have an amendment that would attempt to stop a deliberate attempt on the part of this minister and of this government to enhance national division.
I think it is about time this minister had his brain present here, that he turn his face to those of us who question the reasonableness of this provision and give an explanation, a justification, for heaping this new division upon this country by a government that is already going to be known in history as the government that was possibly responsible, if not for the destruction of the basic unity of this country, perhaps for the destruction of the country itself.
This is only a small part of it. It would seek to be able to justify dividing the board of directors at CBC. Let the minister get up on his feet and justify it.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that my colleagues for Mount Royal in Montreal and Windsor-St. Clair are very hard acts to follow.
I want to point out something, and perhaps this has not been recognized by those of us in this Chamber, particularly those Canadians watching on television from coast to coast.
I want the record to show that this debate started shortly after three o'clock eastern standard time this afternoon. It is now about 8.25 eastern standard time and not one Progressive Conservative, not one Tory, has deigned, has condescended to stand up and say anything in this debate. You people have not come to the defence of this bill.
You have not used one word. The minister sits there stoically without flinching, without moving anything. Is he dead? Maybe we should call in the doctor. He has not moved an inch. None of them have moved. Can you imagine five hours of debate and the Tories have not said one word?


An hon. member:: Shame.


John Harvard: Shame on the whole lot. It really is a despicable non-performance.

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
We know that this government has made it abundantly clear and has told Canadians over and over again that it is their way or no way, that it is not going to listen to Canadians. It said that in spades. It said clearly in the free trade debate that it was not going to listen to Canadians. It certainly was not going to listen to Canadians when it came to Meech Lake. It certainly has not listened when it comes to the GST.
Bill C-21 is another example. Here we have the broadcast bill. It never listened. I think we should conduct some kind of investigation. Maybe Tories have all gone deaf. Maybe their ears are not operative any more. Is it possible that we have over 160 MPs elected who were once human beings? Who actually had blood in their veins, people who actually listened, who had ears, but somehow after the 1988 election they all went stone deaf? Is it possible?
The evidence would suggest it. There is the minister. He has not flinched an inch. He has set some kind of a record.
Let me get to the substance of this section of Bill C-40 because if Tories on that side of the House cannot listen to us on this side of the House, maybe they can listen to the people who are in their employ, especially those people who are major figures in communications in this country.
My esteemed colleague for Mount Royal has already pointed out the comments made by the president of the CBC, the chairman of the board of the CBC and Mr. Spicer. They have all expressed deep concern. In fact, it is more than concern. They have expressed alarm about taking the CBC board and splitting it in two. They do not listen. At least one thing you can say is that Tories are consistent. They are consistently deaf. They are consistently non-listeners.
If you take the CBC board and divide it into two, it is like taking two horses and sending one this way and the other that way. That is the beginning of the end of the CBC. If you split the corporation in two, one part will go that way and one part will go the other way.
We should be, particularly at this juncture in our political history, doing things to bring us closer together, to tie us together, to bind us together. But, no, this government is absolutely hell-bent on doing the opposite. It does not matter how many alarm bells you ring or what you say: you can yell, you can bring forward the best kinds of arguments, you can beg, you can beseech, you can employ.
There is the minister, sitting stoically. I am afraid we are going to have to call in some kind of medical doctor because the man has not moved an inch.
In conclusion, let me say that this is a terrible mistake that the government has made. If we want to keep this country together, if we want a public broadcast system that can work on behalf of national unity, the last thing we want to do is to take the board of directors and divide it into two. I rest my case.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, as I sit here and listen to the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James, I cannot help but feel that he is perhaps exaggerating, that there is perhaps a bit of rhetoric in what he says. We in the NDP have compassion for the minister. I am starting to feel a bit sorry for some of the things that have been said about him and some of his colleagues who also have remained somewhat stoic, but they are flinching.
Rather than continue the onslaught, I would like to ask the minister if it is of his own volition that he says nothing, or has he been told or ordered not to say anything. That is what I would like to know.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 40 standing in the name of Mr. Waddell. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will be please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
December 3, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on Motion No. 40 stands deferred.


Marcel Masse: Motion No. 44
That Bill C-40 be amended in clause 62
(a)	by striking out in the English version line 41 at page 39 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) A report";
(b)	by striking out line 3 at page 40 and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) any quantitative information in the Corporation's annual report in respect of which the Board has requested the auditor's opinion is";
(c)	by adding immediately after line 19 at page 40 the following:
"(3) The Treasury Board may make regulations prescribing the form and manner in which the report referred to in subsection (1) is to be prepared."
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-40 be amended in the French version in clause 64 by striking out line 21 at page 42 and substituting the following therefor:
"prochain rapport d'activite de la Societe -an".
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-40 be amended in the French version in clause 69
(a)	by striking out line 30 at page 43 and substituting the following therefor:
"dans le rapport d'activite de la Societe et";
(b)	by striking out line 35 at page 43 and substituting the following therefor:
"c) examiner le rapport de verifica-".
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-40 be amended in the French version in clause 71 by striking out line 30 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Le rapport d'activite contient notamment".


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, this is just a perfect example of the arrogance of this government and particularly at this time of the minister. I cannot believe that they are not feeling the responsibility, not one single member across the floor. Most particularly, the minister is not prepared to explain the reason for his amendments that direct how reports should be written, how the annual report should be done, and how Treasury Board should make its voice heard and have its decisions looked at.
Government Orders
It is interesting that the government does not and is not prepared, through its minister, to defend this particular motion. In a sense this indicates why the government did not accept an amendment and a discussion which I had with the minister and the parliamentary secretary during the course of the debate, during the course of this legislative procedure, without forgetting the fact that this bill was brought into the House in March. We could have had this debate any time from March 20 on. This is December. The government decided not to bring this bill in until the very last moment.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: What a disgrace.


Sheila Finestone: Not only did it delay bringing in this bill, which is supposedly a key and important bill, the parliamentary secretary made phone calls all around to the constituencies to say that we were delaying the bill.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: What rubbish.


Sheila Finestone: He never once acknowledged that his own government House leader, his own government Whip, and his own ministers were not interested in bringing in this bill. He tried to dump responsibility on the Official Opposition. That did not wash with the constituency. The CAB did not buy it. The CCTA did not buy it. The Media Watch people did not buy it. I heard from all of them.
I know what the government across the way tried to do. Let the public know that this government had this bill and the prior Bill C-136 available for debate for months and months and months. It chose to bring in Bill C-136 two or three days before the House adjourned. It then prorogued, so the bill died on the Order Paper. That was the government's fault; no one else's.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It tried to blame the Senate. It did before.


Sheila Finestone: Again in this bill it is the same situation. Now the government wants to dump on the Senate for holding up the bill when it decides to prorogue or do whatever it plans to do after the Senate finishes its work.
This indicates the conundrum that I was in. The government did nothing to allay the fears of the CBC. It has given journalistic freedom to the CBC, but it gave no management rights. What it did was interpret the responsibilities of the CBC in clause 35 to protect and enhance the freedom of expression and the journalistic creative and programming independence enjoyed by the

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
corporation in the pursuit of its object and in the exercise of its powers, but it forgot to give it managerial freedom of the coqtoralion in pursuit of the objects and exercise of its powers.
The managerial freedom has been removed from the CBC. Cuts, yes, $240 million. It will bring about closing of stations. It will bring about the loss of all kinds of important roles for the CBC, both in radio and television but particularly in television. Then, in this amendment, which is supposedly a technical amendment, it ends up determining how it will do its bookkeeping, how it will make reports, and how the Treasury Board can make its voice heard and make its decisions felt. This government knows, as anyone who knows anything about Parliament, that the CBC has to go to Treasury Board. It cannot borrow. It cannot invest. It has to get permission.
These are important amendments. Not one person on the government side has been prepared to defend or speak out or support of his or her own vision of the radio broadcasting system for Canada. It just sits there mute, dumb, struck dumb by a minister who will not allow a word. Obviously the House leader, the Whip, and the Prime Minister support this on the government side.
I find this totally reprehensible, certainly a mockery of democracy', and quite strange in a broadcasting bill which talks about freedom of expression and the freedom of speech in, what is supposed to be, an important democracy on the world scene. Shame on the government in this particular instance.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I want to stand to reflect on the comments that have been made a number of times in this House.
I find it nothing short of incredible that not a single government member has stood to give any reason or rationale as to the proposed amendments which are before us. This is an extremely important bill, not only for the future of broadcasting in Canada, but for the future of the identity of Canada itself. The minister responsible for this legislation has the audacity and the arrogance of power to walk out in the middle of this debate, to refuse to comment in this debate, or to have any of his colleagues comment in this debate. It has
made an absolute mockery of the entire legislative process. It is simply, completely, and utterly unacceptable that this minister be allowed to get away with this kind of mockery of participatory democracy and to play the kinds of antics that he has played in the House tonight. He has turned into the Marcel Marceau of the House and he has become a clown. It is absolutely despicable that he has been allowed to do that.
The fact is that this is a piece of legislation that has over 50 detailed and complex amendments, some of which are technological amendments. It takes time to digest, to rationalize, to debate, and to come to an understanding of the details of this legislation. That minister, across the way, has refused to allow us the opportunity to participate and to understand the very reasons for making the kinds of proposals that the government has made.
This is an abuse of the House. This is an abuse of the system. It is a demonstration of the total arrogance of power of the government and it will do it no good in the long run.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have not participated in this lengthy debate yet and I am delighted to take the opportunity to do so.
I am equally delighted that the silent Minister of Communications is in the House to hear my remarks because as my hon. friend, the hon. member for Mount Royal, has stated, this debate has turned into a somewhat contemptuous mockery of Parliament. The minister has failed to participate in it and any members of the House who support the minister have failed to participate in it. They have simply indicated an unwillingness to agree to any reasonable amendment to this bill, proposed by anyone on this side of the House.
Needless to say, there are 50 proposed amendments and the only ones the government appears willing to accept are the ones moved by the parliamentary secretary. No one is willing to stand up even to say what those amendments mean, explain their purpose to the House or, in any way defend them. It really is a shocking example of contempt. The hon. member for Okanagan- Shuswap has made similar comments and I appreciate them because I think they are deadly accurate.
December 3, 1990

What I wanted to talk about was the government's contempt for the Canadian people in this. It is not just the ignoring of the wishes of members of the House that is at stake here, but it is the dismantling of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by legislation.
What we had expected in Bill C-40, especially in light of the serious constitutional crisis that Canada found itself in this year, was some effort on the part of the government to infuse something into Canada that would lead to national unity. The CBC had a mandate in Canada to foster national unity in the country and that mandate is being removed from the act so that the CBC is free to go its own way. What is worse is the division of the board of directors. The resultant damage to the CBC is going to be irreparable.
It is a deliberate attempt, in my submission, by the government to further dismantle the portions of the administrative structure of Canada that are designed to help hold Canada together. This government is the worst government in Canadian history when it comes to issues of national unity. It has failed Canadians at every turn. It is dismantling Canada's national structure. It has weakened the federal Government of Canada at the expense of the provinces, at the expense of the Canadian people. It is continuing to destroy the Government of Canada as a national institution by its continuation in office.
The sooner this government gets out of office, the better off Canadians are going to be from coast to coast. There is not a single province in Canada that has benefited from the policies of this government. Every single province, the whole of Canada, has suffered because of its incompetence and its inability to provide effective national leadership in Canada.
This bill is only the tip of the iceberg, but it is a very important tip. This bill is supposed to support a national institution, an institution that supported Canada's cultural industry, the cultural diversity of Canada from coast to coast. It was mandated specifically-and it still is today, before this bill gets through, if it ever does- to foster national unity in Canada. That is what we need in Canada.
Government Orders
This government has been so effective in dividing Canadians and pitting region against region, that it has seriously weakened the national unity of our country. Never before have we been in such a mess as has been brought about by this incompetent group. Now, instead of supporting a body that was mandated to foster national unity in Canada, this government is trying to break it into two pieces at least, and weaken its authority in dealing with national unity issues.
I call on the minister to come out here and defend these policies that are so rotten, fix this bill up and agree to some of the amendments that try to improve it, even in limited ways. He should accept some of them instead of this absolute silent, sphinx-like approach. The inscrutable minister sits there and says, "I am not agreeing to anything but my own proposals". That is what is going on here. I say it is a contempt of Parliament. It is a contempt of the people of Canada. It is typical of a government that has shown itself totally unfit to govern in this country.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: This question is on Motion No. 44, standing in the name of Mr. Edwards. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the vote on Motion No. 44 will apply to Motions Nos. 45, 46 and 47. May the Chair be dispensed from reading the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division.


Marcel Masse: That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 85 by striking out lines 11
and 12 at page 52 and substituting the following therefor:
"work feed, by virtue of copyright ownership or a licence granted by a copyright owner,".


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the government decided on this Motion No.

December 3, 1990
Government Orders
49 which opens up the whole question of piracy, of stealing intellectual property. This is a very good amendment. What we are doing here is looking at the serious problems we have in this country concerning the stealing of intellectual property through the piracy of stolen signals.
I have a private member's bill before the House concerning what is happening. What we are trying to do in this clause is to tighten up the kinds of infractions that are taking place on a daily basis across this land by TVRO companies which install master antennae systems of one kind or another or direct broadcast signals.
They are bypassing the cable companies and thereby bypassing the Canadian broadcast undertakings such as CBC, CTV, Global and other independents which have an obligation to provide, through profits hopefully, new investments and therefore Canadian products for our television screen.
The programmer, through the programming rights- this is a copyright issue in a sense-are being deprived of the kind of income which they essentially could have from this very fine system if only we had some controls within the CRTC, within the broadcasting milieu, to define adequately those who are stealing signals and presenting programs that are in competition with Canadian programs. HBO is an example against Super Ecran, First Choice, Super Channel.
These are companies that have tremendous financial obligations, but their revenues have been falling steadily as their signals are being stolen from the satellites with these little black box converters. It is being done knowingly and in complicity with the people who are doing the installation.
I will recall for the minister and the parliamentary secretary the group who appeared before us and who felt that they were doing nothing wrong. They are not doing anything wrong except that they are depriving the CBC, CTV, Global, the independent stations, the sports network, Much Music, the movie channels. What they are doing is beaming from that satellite into these tens of thousands of homes the products of American companies who pay absolutely nothing into the Canadian system.
It is important what we are doing here. There are legitimate private cable SMATV suppliers, I know, but
there are too many multi-unit suppliers who are absolutely ignoring the law. These penalties should be applied through the Federal Court and should allow companies to take these people who are stealing to court.
I have a letter from Multi-Unit Cable Corporation which brings this to our attention. Mr. Ronald Bothwell said, "I visited many multi-unit properties on a weekly basis and unfortunately I can show you that not only do properties consistently proliferate satellite delivered American premium and specialty services by circumventing the coding process, but further, they do not bother to carry local Canadians off air broadcast services, such as Global, CBLFT or TV systems. Rather they install home satellite systems which are proliferating hundreds of American services, including HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Playboy, Family Channel, ESPN, et cetera.
Less than six months ago, satellite dealers were scrambling to purchase old video cypher boards. It is a mechanism that can unlock the satellite cyphered code.
As I write this letter, a local distributor in Tillsonburg is selling what is commonly called the black box that defeats all scrambling methods without infringing on video cypher systems, on video cypher technologies. Each and every box sold defeats not only the scrambling system, but further, and more importantly, the Canadian Broadcasting System itself.
Under this you will have the right to charge for committing an offence and it will be subject to summary conviction. In fact, we go on to even further convictions of a stronger nature for this signal theft, this piracy, these unlawful black box decoders that take the encrypted signals and make them available to people. Many of these people do not even know that they are using an illegal system.
Satellite trade magazines report monthly the progress of this bill because they are very concerned. I am regularly in contact with the CRTC, with the culture and communications department, and most, if not all, our Canadian pay and specialty programmers. The common comment to the signal theft problem is that they need this bill. If we do not pass this bill, if we can defeat this bill, or if this minister would listen a little bit and make the proper amendments, then I would not have to bring forward my private member's bill.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: 
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, there is a very serious issue out there. There is a very serious problem.
I have some interesting figures here coming from the remarks of the vice president and general manager of Alacom Pay Television, who spoke to the B.C. and Yukon regional cable people at a luncheon in Vancouver on Thursday, October 18. He said: "We have seen the growth of a TVRO industry that is totally unregulated and untaxed. In spite of the fact that it competes with your industry, that is the broadcasters and the cable people, for subscribers or viewers, it continues to make absolutely no contribution whatsoever toward cultural and industrial objectives that must be supported by licensees".
This industry has now begun to speak about itself as an important part of the Canadian broadcasting system. I recall at a House of Commons committee the TVRO industry said that about two million Canadians watched their satellite system every night. There was no mention of the fact that more than 95 per cent of these viewers are using their satellite systems to watch programming that cannot be offered by licensed cable exhibitors to Canadians. There was no mention of the effect on the ratings and the bottom lines of licensed broadcasters. Broadcasters have watched helplessly as each year the BBM and Nielson surveys record the viewing habits of these two million Canadian households.
For example, in the Edmonton 1989 fall BBM ratings, a large number of respondents wrote in in their viewing of HBO and Showtime even though the American premium services were not even listed on the survey ballot. The survey showed that the total number of viewing hours dedicated to the United States premium services were just slightly less than the total viewing hours of licensed Canadian premium services.
We know what that does when it comes to selling advertising so that our broadcasters can produce proper Canadian programming. In total, the viewing habits of residents in these bulk buildings have deleted even basic service in favour of a menu of exclusively foreign satellite signals.
The government should be speaking to this issue.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That's right.


Sheila Finestone: It should make Canadians understand
so that they can complain to the CRTC, understand why
Government Orders
it is impossible for our broadcasters to perform the way they should perform. People go out, buy a $700 dish and a decoder from Sears or from one of the people who install these systems and then they just steal, steal, and steal the intellectual property of many American performers and certainly Canadian performers.
The result is that the TVRO industry announces that it now provides service to four or six million people, instead of the current two million. Just add up what the cost of this-


An hon. member:: Time.


Sheila Finestone: You don't like to hear the reality of what you are doing? Well, that is just too bad. It is a problem of a matter of balance, Mr. Speaker, and I think that we really must do something.
I therefore support the government's initiative in this area but if the bill does not pass my private member's bill will.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 49 standing in the name of Mr. Edwards. May I dispense from reading the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Marcel Masse: Motion No. 50
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 91 by striking out lines 35
to 45 at page 56.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, if this minister and some of the government members would speak on behalf of their own bill I would not have such a sore throat and be so tired.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They are quite useless.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Speechless and useless.

December 3, 1990
Government Orders


Sheila Finestone: What is so sad about all this is the fact that the government could have brought in this bill and these amendments by no later than the month of April. The broadcasters and the cable people would not have had to lose revenue because of the way the government has delayed this bill. It has expanded, and we have caused tremendous loss in this industry, particularly to pay-TV.
In this particular instance, we have another example of the fine stewardship of the government in the interests of keeping a Canadian broadcasting system. This amendment takes us back to the free trade agreement that was not supposed to touch culture. Culture was supposed to be exempt. We were not going to have anything that was going to hurt our cultural industries. Not much!
So many things are related to free trade. In this particular instance, we are talking about retransmission rights that were negotiated in the free trade agreement and were given to the government through Order in Council to determine the regulations that would set the fees that were to be paid through retransmission.
I am sure that everyone in the House and in TV land knows that cable has to pay close to $50 million to American intellectual property, because we did not use a proper definition. We avoided using the definition that the Americans are using, saving themselves millions and millions of unnecessary dollars flowing out in duplicate funds.
No one wants our creative artists, our intellectual property, and the people who produce, direct, create, think, and speak for us as Canadians not to get their just due. That is not the object. Its object was to throw away our money unnecessarily and diminish our own resources, because the government was so foolish in the way it defined retransmission rights. There are two tests on retransmission. They are the grade B contour plus 30 kilometres, and whether or not there is a significant local viewing that can be received off-air. That is called the local signal. That is the American definition, and that is what we left out.
It is just a shame, because the amount that we are paying out is over twice as much as American cable systems pay for the same thing. U.S. cable systems pay
approximately 2 per cent of gross revenues to the copyright collectives. The copyright decision means for ourselves, here, that the Canadian cable systems will pay approximately 8 per cent of gross revenue to copyright holders.
It is like the spread on our money and why we have got such a growing debt. The government does not know how to manage. It is doing the same thing to our cable people, causing them all kinds of unnecessary costs.
Over 85 per cent of the money that is going out will go directly to U.S. copyright holders. Canadian copyright holders will receive only $7 million out of the $51 million collected from cable companies this year. That is going to go up. The Canadian cable consumer will eventually bear this expense. It is unfortunate that they will have to pay such a high price to the Americans in order to remit such a proportionately low amount to Canadian talent and copyright holders, because the government did such a rotten job in defining this whole bill.
I have a letter here from Mountain Cablevision, sent to me on November 26, which explains what is happening in this situation. It states, among other things, that this decision of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with respect to copyright tariffs being imposed, would have the Canadian cable industry pay almost $51 million to retransmit distant television signals to subscribers.
As a result of this decision, my own cable system will be faced with a royalty burden of over $330,000 per year for the next two years, after which the rates may increase. Tliis amount is greater than our after tax profit for the last three years, as our company is in the midst of a major system rebuild in order to improve the technical quality of the cable service we provide to our customers. Mountain Cablevision is also in the process of expanding Cable TV service to less economic and sparsely populated rural areas in our vicinity.
This burden is absolutely unacceptable:
We do not take issue with the principle of providing fair compensation to copyright holders. Do take issue with royalties which, on a per subscriber basis, will be more than double what American Cable Operators pay to retransmit distant signals.
The Free Trade Agreement provides that distant signal copyright liability should be "equitable and non-discriminatory". The Copyright Act states that our liability should be "fair" and "equitable". We believe, however, that the Copyright Board's decision ignores both the spirit and the letter of these governing documents. For this reason we are asking for your support in our appeal of the decision.
December 3, 1990

We wish to make it dear that this economic burden will have a significant impact upon the Cable Industry's financial health, and place many Cable companies, including ourselves -
-the small ones in particular-there are only about 10 or 12 biggies in the whole field, so the small ones are really going to suffer. He says that placing them-
- in a position to apply and be successful in obtaining a rate increase based upon economic need. Many cable companies, including Mountain Cablevision, are presently in the process of preparing these applications.
The CRTC regulations stipulate that all subscribers must be notified of the components and reason for any rate increase.
The result of the pass-through to subscribers of these copyright fees (over $9 per year) will place Cable TV beyond the reach of some senior citizens and low income families.
This no doubt will result in tremendous subscriber outcry which we would prefer to avoid.
Furthermore, I think it is going to involve a lot of disconnects.
The implication is that they are going to have to cut their staff and freeze new hiring. Based on the American formula, they are going to have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. The money that it will have to pay for copyright will come from the company, reducing the rebuilding of its system. The cable system is presently a full-channel capacity. It cannot improve that because it is going to have an impact on its copyright payments.
Mountain Cablevision states:
It will impact on our bottom line to make us eligible for a rate increase due to special economic circumstances.
It is ridiculous if it has to go to that extent.
If 85 per cent of this money goes directly to U.S. copyright holders, the Canadian copyright holder will receive only $7 million out of this $51 million. Unfortunately, it will have a very deleterious effect on the whole industry.
I would ask that the copyright decision be reviewed once again. The two yardsticks of measure that are used by the Americans in this instance should be applied in Canada. Let the government, through its cabinet, take the responsibility for what it has done.
It would very much like to see itself as the wonders of the television industry of the Canadian broadcasting system for all the wonderful things it has done. Well, much of it has been smoke and mirrors. That is what we
Government Orders
have been talking about here today. It is unfortunate that the silent crew across the floor has not seen fit to defend the minister's bill. If I were the minister, I would feel very badly.
I have been honoured by the support and collaboration of the members on this side of the House who have participated actively to explain to the minister, to the government, and to the people of Canada, particularly in this industry, why changes had to be made. However, the minister has zipped the lips of all members of his side of the House. It has been a disservice to the Canadian broadcasting system and to Canadian subscribers. I do believe that the government should feel a great sense of discomfort for its behaviour. I would say, shame on the government.


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


Some hon. members:: No.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, at the express request of the minister, I would like to say just a few words to thank my colleague and good friend from Mount Royal. She has made a remarkable contribution to the debate on this very important issue. I agree with her, this is a matter of concern for all Canadians. On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I would like to thank her for a job well done, and to also thank her guardian angel and dedicated assistant, Nancy Jean Wah, who was such great help in this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The question in on Motion No. 50 in the name of Mr. Edwards.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to the order adopted earlier today, the deferred recorded votes at the report stage of Bill C-40 still stand deferred until three o'clock tomorrow.

December 3, 1990
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, when I rose in the House on March 5, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs what steps he had taken to obtain a guarantee that, subsequent to German unification, post World War II borders between Germany and Poland would be respected.
Since that day Chancellor Kohl has offered assurances that seem to be satisfactory to Poland. For those assurances that were very important to Poland, I would like to congratulate Mr. Kohl, not only on his conciliatory position, but also on his decisive victory on Sunday, December 2 which will allow him an opportunity to see the historic unification through a successful transition.
For all the internal turmoil and economic challenge of restructuring that some experts are speculating will cost approximately $1 trillion, Germany has still offered some $13 billion of assistance to the Soviet Union this year, and is said to be ready to extend credits to Poland in context of a general framework treaty expected to be signed earlier next year.
This is all happening amidst the movement towards a new Europe of 1992. In time for Europe 1992, each east European country will be expected to get involved, to contribute, and to be an active member of the new community. For this they are going to need the support from the west.
Last week I attended a conference on the changing Soviet Union where, among other distinguished speakers, we had the honour to hear Mr. Brzezinski, a former adviser to President Carter, speak to the state of the economy of the Soviet Union. I must say that the one positive statement he had to make on the situation was on the creation of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Mr. Brzezinski felt that this was a first sign that the west was treating the economic reality of eastern Europe seriously.
Yet, Canada's commitment to the bank remains confusing. We know what the figures are in terms of our monetary contribution. We know what our contribution is in terms of our proportion of the total commitment. What we do not know is the extent of our commitment. We throw a few words and a few dollars around hoping that at least our gestures will keep the real issues at bay.
In his speech at the conference I referred to earlier, the Secretary of State for External Affairs talked about the bilateral relationship launched by the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union last November. He talked of formal treaties for more co-operation. He talked of less restrictive trade agreements. He talked of environmental co-operation in the Arctic. All these initiatives have been talked about at length. In fact, that is all that has happened to date, talk and more talk about the talk.
We have yet to hear how these initiatives will come about when we face budget cutbacks to almost all our programs. We have yet to hear how they will be followed through with the limited and, in fact, decreasing budget of the Department of External Affairs.
The paradox in the government is woefully apparent when one reads the text of some of the speeches given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On one hand, he offers no real support. On the other hand, he uses, and I must add in this case, appropriate dramatic language to describe the dire needs of east European countries. In speaking about the Soviet Union at the conference, for example, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said: "The Soviet Union is at a profoundly important point. That point can be a turning point or a breaking point. Opportunity is present, but so too, is danger. It is Canada's profound interest that opportunity become accomplishment-".
Let us take the opportunity. Let us take the bull by the horns and follow through with our commitments. For a start, how about considering the suggestion made by the vice-president of Barclays Bank of Canada-U.S.S.R. Business Council's first annual meeting. Charles Attard suggests that the risks of doing business in the Soviet Union are getting worse. There is a general consensus about this statement. Instead of throwing bits and pieces here and there, let us consider joint action with the federal government and the Export Development Corporation. Make it easier for banks to invest by simply
December 3, 1990

insuring their investments. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this makes better business sense.
The problem with this government is that it lacks creativity, it lacks the political will, and its commitment is weak.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: In reply to my colleague for Parkdale-High Park, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer him to page 87 of the Hansard of March 5, 1990. Not to take up the time of the House, I will not repeat what was said then, but that is where he will find the Secretary of State's reply. May I take this opportunity to remind him that the unification of the two Germanys took part on October 3. It was the happy ending to the 2 plus 4 negotiations which took place in Moscow on September 12 which brought the four powers to forego their rights over Germany and give it full sovereignty. Previously, in June 1990, the Parliaments of both the Federal Republic of Germany and the Democratic Republic of Germany had passed a resolution which recognized the existence of the Oder-Neisse border. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland had taken part in the 2 plus 4 negotiations concerning the borders with Poland and the conditions connected with a treaty in that regard.
The treaty between Poland and the united Germany was signed in Warsaw on November 14. It was to be ratified in due time by both parliaments. Canada is very pleased with the conclusion of the November 14 treaty relating to the German-Polish border, as well as with the success of the German union which took place calmly, in consultation with all interested parties, including Poland and Canada, and in full respect of international law.


HOUSING
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, on October 29, 1990, I rose in this House to ask a question of the Minister of State for Housing regarding the federal co-operative housing program in Canada. When I rose in the House,in October to address the need for changes in the income qualification rule of the co-op program, I raised the issue of MPs such as the NDP member for Trinity-Spadina and the NDP member for Edmonton East who are living
Adjournment Debate
in federally-subsidized housing. The fact that well paid politicians are living in government-subsidized housing illustrates the urgent need for changes in the housing program.
When the non-profit co-operative housing program was introduced to Canada about 25 years ago, assistance was associated with rent-geared-to-income subsidies for low-income households who were unable to find affordable housing. Studies show that 15 per cent of Canadians must rely on some form of government assistance to meet their shelter needs. I am talking of families, of women with children, the elderly, and the handicapped who, through no fault of their own, do not have decent affordable housing. Many are paying 40, 50, 60 and even 75 per cent of their income each month for rent and heat.
There is an enormous demand for affordable housing. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation estimates that the demand for co-op units is between 164,000 and
400.000	renter households. Furthermore, there are over
40.000	names on co-op waiting lists across Canada, and co-ops have virtually no vacancies. Yet there are examples of well-to-do Canadians living in subsidized housing units, shutting out those most in need. High income earners should not be taking advantage of these funds. For example, the NDP member for Edmonton East is a resident of the Sundance Housing Co-op of Edmonton.
Sundance was given a federal cash grant of $280,000 when built and enjoys a special preferential mortgage rate of 8 per cent for 50 years, well below the current rate.
The member for Edmonton East shares the five bedroom apartment with four other people. The member's share of rent is less than $200 a month. There is a list of more than 30 people waiting to get into the Sundance development.
Does the leader of the New Democratic Party approve of her NDP members depriving lower income Canadians from much needed shelter? Would Premier Bob Rae approve? Would Bob White or Shirley Carr approve?
In Toronto, where more than 17,000 people are on lists waiting for public housing, the NDP member for Trinity-Spadina lives in subsidized housing.

December 3, 1990
Adjournment Debate
According to the research compiled in the greater Toronto area by the Ontario Ministry of Housing, an activist member of the NDP is almost nine times more likely to live in a co-op than any other renter. NDP supporters appear to take generous advantage of the very government housing programs they fight for on behalf of the poor.
Surely politicians who earn $88,000 a year, with $26,000 of that being tax-free, should not be taking advantage of the federal Co-operative Housing Program, as well as taking units away from those in greater need.
All federal members of Parliament are barred from personally participating in any federal programs. The members from Edmonton East and Trinity-Spadina, as public officials, are benefiting through low-cost housing resulting from public funds. I firmly believe that these public officials must comply with the legislation which bars federal MPs from participating in federal government programs.
Co-op housing serves low and moderate income families who cannot afford home ownership. It is deplorable that with such an obvious demand for affordable housing, politicians such as the named NDP members are taking space from the needy.
I understand that one of the arguments in favour of high income earners in the co-ops is to promote social integration. In fact, a CMHC evaluation notes:
- that co-operatives had been highly successful in achieving income-mixing without polarisation of income groups. Mixes of family types, age, race and people with various backgrounds were perceived as healthy and a strength of co-operative living.
However, I believe that this type of social integration can still be accomplished even if the high end income earners, those making over $60,000 a year, were denied occupancy in federally supported housing programs.
The latest figures show that 65 per cent of the households currently living under the co-operative program have incomes below $30,000 a year and 31.3 per cent of the households have incomes between $30,000 and $60,000. Only 3.7 per cent of the households have incomes in excess of $60,000.
The point I wish to make is that the social integration which co-op housing achieves through income-mixing
would still occur if the high-end income earners were dropped from the program. The fact is, only 3.7 per cent of the households have incomes over $60,000, hardly a substantial figure, a figure which the NDP members trying to justify their occupancy would like us to believe contributes greatly to social integration.
I am certain that by dropping high income earners from federal co-op housing programs, social integration will not be threatened. Instead, it will help alleviate the shortage of affordable housing we are facing in this country. A 40,000 name waiting list speaks for itself.
I also point out that the middle income group, those making between $30,000 and $60,000, now occupy 31.3 per cent of co-op housing and this rather high percentage would still ensure the goal of mixed income is met.
I want to make clear I am not advocating strictly low income public housing. We must get away from the concept of the old poverty ridden public housing ghettos of the 1950s and 1960s. However, there needs to be a cut-off point. Is it right to have high income earners taking away availability in co-op units from families in greater need? Surely politicians should not abuse and take advantage of a federally subsidized housing program.
I very much hope that the minister, who is going to reply shortly, will take this issue under control and bring in some type of legislation that would bar politicians at any level of government from participating in co-op development.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a concern which is on the minds of a great many Canadians these days. The hon. member is not alone in raising this concern. Mr. Speaker, you may be aware that a great number of people have been quoted with respect to this issue. One of them, for instance, a retiree by the name of Freddie Caplan has said: "Get them out now and let the needy in".
Another resident of public housing, Gail Grieve, has been quoted as saying: "Evicting the politicians is not enough. They should be heavily fined. Retroactive back rent might be a good idea, too.
An unemployed man by the name of Mark Carter said: "Throw them out and put me in there-there's too many homeless people on the street".

December 3, 1990

Those are examples of some of the comments that have been coming to me with respect to this issue. I might say as well that 1 have also heard people suggest that even the co-op housing movement itself might be a lot better off and that there could very well be a greater groundswell of public support for co-op housing if all politicians were in fact banned from co-operative housing.
I think it is important at the same time for you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member and all of us, all Canadians, to understand that the federal government has been formally involved now in various co-operative housing programs since 1973. Prior to 1973 there was, of course, co-op housing that was being built. It was inspired to a large extent in the maritimes by St. Francis Xavier University. At that time it was on the basis of self-help and self-financing and there was no subsidization by the public or by Canadian taxpayers.
However, since 1973 we have had three separate programs that have been assisted by the public at the federal level, two of them under the previous Liberal government and one of them under the present government. The first two generated some 45,000 or more units of co-op housing and the most recent one, some 13,000 of co-op housing. In each of those there was an income mix, as the hon. member has referred to.
In the earlier two programs, there was only a minimum of some 15 per cent of those units that were targeted for low-income people. In the present program up to 50 per cent of the units can be targeted to low income people. I am sure that the hon. member and all Canadians realize that it is very difficult to change the rules in the middle of the game for programs that have already been put in place. It is very difficult to put a ban on politicians, very difficult to enforce rules retroactively.
However, I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to assure the hon. member and all Canadians that as I go forward with recommendations to the cabinet very shortly, I will be taking all of those concerns into very serious consideration.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, I suppose, to be able to rise in the House and pose again a question I raised on November 21 to the Minister of Energy. However, I have to say that I am not pleased with the fact that this is probably the
Adjournment Debate
fifth or sixth time that I have raised this particular question in the House of Commons and I still do not have a satisfactory answer.
The question I asked on that date had to do with the spill of radioactive waste into Wallaston Lake about a year ago, in fact more than a year, the first week of November 1989. What happened since then has been indicative of a lot that is wrong with our whole environmental process in this country. Certainly, we still have not seen the facts come to light in this case. The reason I asked that question was because Cameco, the operating company, on that day pleaded guilty in court in Saskatoon. It changed its plea from not guilty to guilty with regard to provincial environmental charges that were laid in the province of Saskatchewan.
The reason I raise that question is, first of all, the minister turned down our request for a public inquiry, so there was no way the issues would be laid before the public in a public forum through the mechanism of an inquiry. There had been federal charges laid but the company pleaded guilty to those as well. When the company pleaded guilty to provincial charges, it meant there was no longer any mechanism whatsoever whereby the important questions that had been raised along the way could be raised again.
I did regret that day the fact that I had listened to some colleagues before whom I had raised the question of how I should pose my question. I wanted to ask, since the minister turned down an inquiry, how we get the answers to all these other questions. Instead, I asked the question in the form of these questions: Would the minister reconsider an inquiry? Of course, the minister simply said no to that, leaving the question dangling. I should have asked: How will we ever find out what was the role of the regulators in this fiasco? What impact will this industry have on northern people and their environment? Does the 1946 legislation which governs this industry have any relevance in today's world? I think those are the key questions here.
I do not particularly care how we get answers to those questions as long as we get them because, with respect to the role of the regulators, we have heard a lot said about the role of the company but very little about the role of the AECB under whose jurisdiction the inspection of this facility fell during the period of time that this whole safety system was unravelling.

December 3, 1990
Adjournment Debate
It raises a whole series of conflict of interest questions because there is a perception in this country, if not a reality, that the industry', the regulators and the government are all too close together, that there is an interchange of personnel and ideas.
I do not want to call into question the integrity of the minister. Even he is in a peculiar situation in that both Cameco, the company in this case, and the AECB, the regulator, answer to the same minister.
Then there is the question of the impact on northern people in their environment. That question has never been satisfactorily addressed although the minister indicated to the chief of the Wollaston band that it had. The chief wrote back and the minister, in fact, conceded that this huge question, which is before the Supreme Court in other forms of the role of aboriginal peoples in the control of the environment, has not been addressed.
There is the fact that we are proceeding under a 1946 act of Parliament, the Atomic Energy Control Act. Certainly technology has evolved a long, long way in our ability to monitor technology since 1946. In fact, the question remains, what are we going to do with this obsolete regulatory regime that we have in this country? The people want answers to these questions. It is not just me.
I would like to quote from the Prince Albert Daily Herald of November 28, where it states in an editorial: "Ray Funk is correct over uranium probe". This is a Thomson paper, not a house organ of my local constituency organization or anything like that. It states:
Ray Funk is absolutely correct in saying there should be a public inquiry into the safety of uranium mining in this countiy.
Funk has been pressing Energy Minister Jake Epp for the inquiry since the accident. Epp, so far, has refused, leaving Funk and many other people frustrated by the lack of answers to a number of questions.
Funk's has been a lonely voice in Ottawa on this issue. However, the MP should know he carries the support of much of his constituency, in particular its northern reaches, in this fight.
I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker, and pleading to the parliamentary secretary, through you, to please answer the questions. What is the role of the regulators? What is the impact on northern people? When will we receive new legislation on this very important industry? We need these answers. People are demanding them and I hope that the parliamentary secretary will be forthcoming.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity again on behalf of the government to answer the question recently raised in the House by the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River.
As the hon. member reported, Cameco pleaded guilty on November 21 to the charge under section 17(a) of the Saskatchewan Environmental Management and Protection Act. It was alleged that Cameco had allowed the discharge of mine water without a permit in circumstances where there was a reasonable possibility that the discharge could result in a change in the water quality.
The maximum fine under this legislation is $1 million. The prosecutor for the provincial Crown recommended that a fine of $50,000 be given. The judge reserved his decision until Tuesday, November 27, 1990. On that date, the provincial court judge Albert Lavoie announced his decision to impose a fine of $50,000 on Cameco relating to the charge to which Cameco had pleaded guilty.
The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River has repeated his call for a public inquiry into uranium mining in Canada since the prosecution of Cameco. He says that there is no longer a forum to answer the remaining questions on the issue. What question, I ask, Mr. Speaker?
The situation is very clear. It is clear that fortunately there has been no environmental damage as a result of the Rabbit Lake mine water spill. Reports prepared by Saskatchewan Environment and by Saskatchewan Research Council have each come to this conclusion, as did the Atomic Energy Control Board after it completed its investigation of the spill. The people have their answer.
The role of the regulators is clear. They investigated the incident, laid charges and followed up by reviewing their licensing and inspection practices. Follow-up action included the frequency of inspections, adding more task to the inspections such as checking the log book of the company operators and increasing the lines of communication with members of the public, especially with the natives of the Hatchet Lake band.
December 3, 1990

In addition, the Atomic Energy Control Board has recognized the need to update the 1946 Atomic Energy Control Act. As part of the revision to update this act, consideration would be given to increasing the fines and penalties to make them comparable to those in current legislation such as the federal Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Legal procedures have made it clear that Cameco was negligent in executing certain operations related to the protection of the environment. The AECB instructed Cameco to clean up the spill; the company has spent several millions in carrying out clean-up operations. In addition, the AECB instructed the company to install a new alarm system to detect any spill of mine water and to train its staff in proper inspection practices.
With regard to the hon. member's request for a public inquiry into uranium mining, I re-emphasize that in view
Adjournment Debate
of the several public inquiries already conducted on uranium mining in Canada, of the negligible environmental impact of the Rabbit Lake spill, of the tightening of licensing and inspection practices of regulators, and of the opportunities for public input into the Environmental Assessment Review Process for any new uranium mining facilities, the government still considers that another public inquiry into uranium mining would not be in the best interest of Canada at the present time.
No, the minister has not changed his mind. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: A motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been moved. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1), until 11 a.m. tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.39 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 4, 1990