1990-10-31

['Mr. Speaker, one of the most important issues facing Canada today, particularly the Atlantic region, is passenger transportation. The royal commission which is now underway will have a great bearing on the future for travel within our great country.\nBecause transportation pressures are mounting in all directions, it becomes essential for the commission to work with a sense of urgency and to make its recommendations as early as possible. In the meanwhile, it is also essential that we hold a steady course with present services.\nFor example, in Atlantic Canada we reluctantly accepted the need for reduction in VIA Rail services to match budgets and levels of service. We endure a Trans-Canada Highway that is inadequate and dangerous until we are able to find ways to improve upon it. One saving grace for Atlantic transportation, however, has been the improvement in air services in recent years. But even these are now challenged by proposals for increased landing fees and other charges to enhance transport cost recovery.\nSurely, these new charges can be deferred until the royal commission report is complete in a comprehensive context. We must not any longer approach passenger transportation one segment at a time. The future demands a total solution.']
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the criticism of the Israeli police by the recent commission of inquiry into the tragic events in Old Jerusalem.
Israeli security forces should not have trusted Islamic religious authorities who were notified that a fringe Jewish group would not be allowed to enter Temple Mount. Muslims proceeded to defile this holy site with an illegal, planned attack on Jewish worshippers. Rioters were incited over loudspeakers to slaughter the Jews.
Israeli police showed great restraint in not using live ammunition against the stone throwers as they attacked police and then thousands of praying Jews at the Western Wall. The police officers who had been forced to retreat re-entered the Temple Mount to rescue officers and to prevent the thousands of rioters from seizing weapons and ammunition in the police station. Only then did they use live ammunition in life threatening situations.
When will Palestinians and Muslim extremists learn that Israelis will never agree to their self-determination if they cannot be trusted to respect the basic human rights of others? When will the world learn that sanctioning attacks on innocent victims leads to further violence, not peace?



Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada's decision to implement a cost-recovery program for air services in April, 1991 can only hurt airports and air services in Atlantic Canada and further alienate Atlantic Canadians.
Higher fees on airport operations will raise air service costs beyond the point which is affordable by the vast majority of Atlantic Canadians, or even shut down smaller operations altogether.
The government again has abandoned Atlantic Canada with its virtual withdrawal of passenger rail services from the region, the steadily deteriorating condition of the Trans-Canada Highway, and the rising costs for users of Marine Atlantic ferries, ports, and harbours.
Prince Edward Island spends more per capita on transportation than any other province. We spend 4 per cent of our gross domestic product on this sector, while having the lowest GDP in Canada. Higher air service costs could cripple an already vulnerable transportation system in P.E.I. and in the rest of Atlantic Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, when the labour dispute between the United Steelworkers of America and Stelco and Algoma Steel Corporation does finally come to an end, and if we are to believe the assertions of the corporations and the predictions of steel analysts, fewer than 80 per cent of the steelworkers will be called back to work. This figure has been used as a precedence based on an arbitrary figure which signals the end of a labour dispute, the workers eligible for UI benefits after that.
We ask the minister to utilize the flexibility given her to reduce the 80 per cent figure to 30, 40 or whatever

percentage is appropriate so those people who have been without any money for 12 weeks and counting will become eligible without any long bureaucratic delay. We ask the minister to demonstrate compassion and exercise authority to reassure these 16,000 steelworkers that indeed they will immediately be eligible for benefits if not recalled to work.


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, in little over a month, the NHL board of governors will be granting new hockey franchises to the league. Two Canadian applications are up for consideration: Hamilton and our own capital, Ottawa.
Given the spirit of fair competition it appears obvious to me that we in Canada should be first in line for a team. We have the money, the talent, the heritage, and the know-how. Hockey is our home game.
As our present Governor General said in the Chamber in 1983, "The National Hockey League is a type of public trust. More than that, hockey is central to the Canadian identity."
In addition, hockey has become big business on the international stage. We must not allow a group of backroom boys to dilute our leadership in this game by granting franchises to interests whose only familiarity with ice is in their whisky.
I call upon all members of Parliament to rally their constituents by circulating a petition in support of the two Canadian bids. Copies are available in my office.
And, finally, to the NHL board of directors I say: when Canada plays hockey, hockey wins.


UNITED NATIONS
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, last week the United Nations celebrated its 45th year of dedication to world peace and international good order. It is with gratitude that we note that the United Nations has probably never been closer to achieving its original mandate than during the last few months of the Gulf crisis.
However, despite the UN solidarity on the Middle East to date, there is growing concern that the agenda being followed by Canada and others is that of the United States, not the UN. One questions whether or
not the U.S. is using the UN for its own, and not the international, good. Have we been led to UN commitments which entrap us into following from here on a U.S. agenda?
The UN is currently owed $600 million in late support payments from 17 countries world-wide. Of this, $482 million is back debt owed from the United States. Actions speak louder than words. What is the U.S. commitment to the UN? The government must insist that the U.S. prove its commitment to the UN and what it stands for by paying its debt to the UN.


METROPOLITAN QUEBEC CITY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
Mr. Marcel R. Tkemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, the Metropolitan Quebec City Chamber of Commerce and Industry, one of the most dynamic chambers I know, is offering, through its international trade committee, an intensive course on how to export know-how.
The course, to be given on November 8, 9, 14, 15 and 16 by Mr. Pierre Lacroix, president of Roche International, is intended to help certain businesses be better prepared when they enter the export market, and to help other businesses take advantage of knowledge acquired in the field.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this initiative deserves our attention and should be supported by entrepreneurs who, after all, will be the ultimate beneficiaries.


THE LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Clement Couture (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents agree with the Prime Minister, who says Jean Chretien is a man who keeps changing his mind. Mr. Speaker, I think they are right.
I\vo days ago, Mr. Chretien announced he would scrap the GST if his party formed the next government. A few weeks ago, however, Mr. Chretien admitted it would be irresponsible to get rid of the GST without proposing a new tax formula. It didn't take long for him to change his mind.
On the constitutional issue, a few months ago Jean Chretien favoured a strong central government. Today, he talks about changing the powers given to the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, Jean Chretien keeps changing his mind, fails to provide leadership and has no vision for the future of this country.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, there is presently in Ontario alone a backlog of 44,220 English-speaking refugees waiting to be processed.
The Auditor General's report states: "The system was extremely prone to large-scale abuses and became overloaded by a growing number of claims that compounded existing delays." It continues: "Changes had either not been implemented or were not operating as intended."
We have reached this point. The Toronto office alone is facing 22,000 cases. It will be able to handle only 7,000 cases within the next year. In an attempt to deal with this, present policy dictates that only English-speaking refugee cases be processed.
The Auditor General clearly states: "The backlog clearance program will cost more than estimated."
Clearly, this is a complete failure. I ask the minister when will she act responsibly and announce immediate measures to solve this inhumane and unacceptable situation.


DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, recently, I attended a press conference to draw the attention of the public to the important work being done in my riding. I am referring to the development strategy submitted by the Laurentides community development assistance board.
This tool will have a positive impact on the entire region. The development strategy will help members of our community make wise choices and concentrate on priority projects. The strategy is the result of effective regional consultation, reflecting the enthusiasm and energy of our community.
The Laurentides community development assistance board is to be commended for a job well done, and I urge residents to take part in these consultation exercises so that we can achieve balanced development in our community.


CORPORATE TAXATION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, according to the Auditor General's report released yesterday, we have a lot of tax evaders that cost the country $10 billion a year. Mr. Dye is quoted as saying: "These cheaters are really hosing the honest person."
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to you a list of some real hosers in our corporate welfare bum of the week award.
They are: Wellwood of Canada, with a profit of $110 million in 1989 and a $2.8 million tax credit, and no taxes paid.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


John R. Rodriguez: Sovereign Life Insurance, with $6.5 million in profits in 1989 and a half million dollar tax credit, and no taxes paid.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


John R. Rodriguez: And, CP Hotels with $46.9 million in profit in 1989 and a $2.1 million tax credit, and no taxes paid.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


John R. Rodriguez: The winner is: CP Hotels. This corporation did not pay any taxes in 1989 and still received over $2 million in government hand-outs.
Congratulations to all our contestants for showing us how to avoid paying taxes by using the loopholes that are already in existence.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


ACID RAIN
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, Canada and the United States are closer than ever to initiating a major commitment to curb acid rain. The American commitment to curb acid rain is only a president's signature away. Did the ranting and raving of

October 31, 1990
Oral Questions
the New Democratic Party have any effect on persuading the American government? Of course not.
Statements in the U.S. Congress say it all. Congressman Boehlert says this:
There are a lot of heroes today. President Bush has been mentioned in very favorable terms, and rightly so-
I say that as a Republican who, quite frankly, admitted disappointment in the previous administration. But George Bush is an environmental President. He put this matter at the top of his agenda, and he provided leadership.
But he did not do it alone. He did it with the Democrats and Republicans.
There is another person who deserves mention. Another person whose-
-name has not been mentioned on this floor today. His name is Brian Mulroney, the Prime Minister of Canada.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Prime Minister of Canada showed the United States the leadership it deserved.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


DAVID IRVING
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, in a few days a man whose views are despicable will be allowed to use a publicly-funded facility here in Ottawa to promote racial intolerance.
On November 5, 1990 in the capital of Canada, this man will spout his lies on how the holocaust, according to him, was exaggerated and how six million Jews did not die in the gas chambers of the concentration camps.
My colleagues and I find this very distasteful that the Ottawa Congress Centre would be the venue of this presentation. We urge the Board of Directors of the Ottawa Congress Centre to cancel the engagement in question and to review the leasing conditions to prevent the facility being used for such intolerance and racism in the future.
Canada is a tolerant country. It is a land rich in ethnic diversity and respect among people. There is no room for racism here. I call upon the Congress Centre to cancel
the Irving engagement. Better yet, I ask David Irving to leave. He is clearly not wanted in our country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important issues facing Canada today, particularly the Atlantic region, is passenger transportation. The royal commission which is now underway will have a great bearing on the future for travel within our great country.
Because transportation pressures are mounting in all directions, it becomes essential for the commission to work with a sense of urgency and to make its recommendations as early as possible. In the meanwhile, it is also essential that we hold a steady course with present services.
For example, in Atlantic Canada we reluctantly accepted the need for reduction in VIA Rail services to match budgets and levels of service. We endure a Trans-Canada Highway that is inadequate and dangerous until we are able to find ways to improve upon it. One saving grace for Atlantic transportation, however, has been the improvement in air services in recent years. But even these are now challenged by proposals for increased landing fees and other charges to enhance transport cost recovery.
Surely, these new charges can be deferred until the royal commission report is complete in a comprehensive context. We must not any longer approach passenger transportation one segment at a time. The future demands a total solution.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Today, Statistics Canada, the government's own statistical agency, stated: "Economic growth turned clearly
October 31, 1990

negative in August." Gross domestic product, the overall size of the economy actually fell 0.5 per cent, the largest monthly drop in almost five years. Under the government's policies, the economy actually shrank in August.
These cold numbers do not begin to tell the full story of the pain, the suffering, and the damage caused by the government's policies for hundreds of thousands of workers, farmers, and small business people.
Will the minister, today, change his policies and bring in new policies that will not cause this economy to shrink? Instead, will he bring in policies that will cause economic growth and that will not destroy jobs but will create them for people all across the country?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and he is quite right. The size of the economy declined by half of 1 per cent in the month of August.
I want to point out to him, so that people do not get the wrong impression from the exaggeration of his words, the economy grew in both July and June.
I have made it quite clear since the Budget of this year that the government was expecting some decline in the economy. I also have said that after seven and a half years of very strong growth, growth which started to exceed our capacity as a country and as a economy to handle, that there were bound to be some inflationary pressures and also some decline in the economy because economies cannot grow forever. That is the sort of period that we are going through.
It is an unfortunate thing that this is the sort of thing that does happen in an economy. We have to work our way through it. Interest rates have been coming down during the month of August. Every week the interest rates declined. That is the response that we have made in order to get the economy back on a sound footing so we can see a period of solid growth ahead.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Canadians wonder why all the minister can say in the face of the shrinking economy is that he actually caused this recession through his policies, repeating this over and over again, in a way Canadians will consider cold and heartless.
Oral Questions
Today the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council, representing two-thirds of Ontario's farmers, that is 50,000 farmers, stated:
Ontario farmers are facing one of the most serious income
situations, in real value terms, since the "Dirty Thirties"-the current
recession has only added to the financial stress of Ontario farmers.
Why will the minister not stop these policies that are damaging farmers in Ontario and all across the countiy? Why will he not stop these policies that are damaging workers, as well as farmers, in every part of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says that I do not understand what is going on. I have gone through this type of thing when I was in the private sector myself. I say to the hon. member that he has not shared that same type of experience himself, so he does not have to tell me what sort of things I feel.
I do not like to see the economy doing what it is doing now. I take great pleasure in seeing an economy that is booming. That is something that we have enjoyed over the course of the six years that we have formed the government in the country, up until quite recently.
The important thing that the hon. member should remember is that he should be straight with Canadians. I have made it clear what the government's policies are. The Leader of the Opposition is saying on the one hand, stop these policies that hurt the farmer. On the other hand, they are saying to the senators in the other place "Stop the GST". Well, the GST is going to result in a reduction in costs of production to farmers in this country of $250 million. If the hon. member felt as strongly as he does about the farmers in this countiy, he would be supportive of the goods and services tax.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister's experience on Bay Street cannot come anywhere close to the loss of jobs by hundreds of people, thousands in fact, week after week just in the past year on the part of the people that send me to this place to speak for them.
He can speak for Bay Street. I will speak for working people in my riding and right across the countiy.
[Translation}
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that today, Statistics Canada announced that our Gross Domestic Product experienced its steepest drop in five years. I therefore want to ask the minister why he still wants to impose his GST. It

Oral Questions
will only make the recession even worse. Why does he want to impose hardship on Canadians? Why doesn't he withdraw his GST today?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the only time the Leader of the Opposition took a cut in pay in his life was when he lost the government.
Whether you work on Bay Street or whether you work on Main Street, you still have to go through the difficulties in an economy. In my job on Bay Street I took a cut in salary because of the difficulties in the economy. I understand what these people are saying.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I hear the hon. member opposite. Does he have any sense whatsoever of what people are going through in the country today? No, because he has never experienced it himself. I have experienced it.
The Deputy Prime Minister is meeting with the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council. Just to quote the people who he will be meeting with today, they refer to the ad hockery of policies of previous governments. The failure of ad hockery is why members of the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council were so supportive of the initiative announced by the Canadian Minister of Agriculture who established two committees, a federal-provincial safety net committee and a grain and oilseeds safety net committee last autumn. Both committees have worked hard during the past year and have made recommendations to the government.
We are working with the agricultural community. We are discussing directly with them the difficulties that they have in the international community and are coming up with specific solutions. The goods and services tax is also one of those solutions, and if the hon. member would be honest with the farmers of Canada-


FISHERIES
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, this morning at 8 a.m. in Sydney, Nova Scotia, the owner of three gigantic factory ships from St. Malo,
France, boarded one of these vessels, having brought along the press from Paris to witness his stated threat that he will ram any vessel from any country that tries to stop him from illegally fishing in so-called Canada-France disputed waters. They fished there all day Friday and they fished for the last three nights in Canadian waters with no observer aboard.
I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries now, why is this government unwilling to protect a signed quota agreement between Canada and France? Why is it that the only party trying to stop them tonight is a tiny military vessel from St. Pierre?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be impressed. Today, we have the Newfoundland member defending the interests of the fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon. I guess the member is right.
There is a problem between la flotte metropolitaine frangaise and les pecheurs de Saint-Pierre et Miquelon. Surely, the member is not advocating that we intervene in a French matter and tell France how to treat its fishermen in St. Pierre and Miquelon, because that is a problem.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the minister would have us believe that for the last three nights they have not been fishing while they have been in the Canadian zone 80 miles off our coast with no observer aboard.
What does he think they have been doing, having a Tupperware party?
How can this minister expect-when his main duty is to protect the fishing resource for Canadians-Canadians to believe that three massive factory freezer trawlers fishing an already depleted resource which we claim is ours is none of Canada's business?

Is this government now telling France: "Here's the fish, the zone is yours"?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: I must say George's French is improving all the time?
October 31, 1990



The issue here, as the hon. member knows, and what we are talking about are the French metropolitan vessels. They are not fishing-I want members of the House to know this-in undisputed Canadian waters. They are fishing in the 3PS zone that is subject to an agreement which we entered into a couple of years ago. I am sure the hon. member recalls this.
By the way, this is the agreement that reduced French catches by 40 per cent in Canadian waters, which the previous Liberal government did not have the guts to do.


PERSIAN GULF
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Much has been said lately about the preparations for war in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. president has been planning military action with the congressional leaders.
Saddam Hussein has said that Iraq is preparing for a war and expects a U.S. attack. Last week, the external affairs minister said that Canadian young men and women may not come home for Christmas, or at all, and began to talk about Canada's participation in a war.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. The government has done a lot to prepare for war. What has his government done, using our seat on the UN Security Council, to prevent a war? Specifically, what has the Prime Minister and his government done?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party reads The New York Times. If she does, she will know that about four or five weeks ago when there was a very serious dispute within the United Nations, within the Security Council as to whether auspices of the United Nations would be used or not, it was the leading intervention of Canada that helped encourage all members of the Security Council to operate within United Nations auspices.
She will know, if she is interested, that the Government of Canada, through our ambassador to the United Nations, has been highly instrumental in achieving the
Oral Questions
consensus that we have found so far on the resolutions that have come with both unanimity and impact upon Saddam Hussein from the Security Council. We have in addition been in touch at all levels of the government, calls made by the Prime Minister directly on the telephone, conversations the Prime Minister and I both had during the Children's Summit at the United Nations with foreign leaders, contacts by a range of our ambassadors and representatives seeking ways in which we can first make clear to Saddam Hussein that the world wants him out of Kuwait and that that is a condition precedent to other changes that might occur.
Canada has a very important diplomatic card to play. We are playing it very effectively. We intend to continue to play it as effectively as we can. If the hon. member wants, as her status as a party leader would entitle her to, a more detailed briefing so that she could speak from the facts, I would be delighted to provide that.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the minister responsible for external affairs.
The facts are that Canada has escalated the talk of a war, has not escalated the talk of peace at all, and to tell Canadians last week that their sons and daughters might never even come home from the Middle East is not advocating for peace.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The minister for external affairs, Mr. Speaker, talks about UN resolutions. This government chose, without reference to the Canadian Parliament, to send ships to enforce an economic blockade in the Middle East. Presumably the government did this thinking that an economic blockade would be successful. No one agrees with Saddam Hussein's actions.
I ask the minister responsible for External Affairs, when this was done how long did the government plan to give the economic blockade in order to see if it was going to be effective? It seems that only last week the economic blockade was seen to be effective, the next day the minister for external affairs was telling Canadians their sons and daughters might not return home.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

October 31, 1990
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the Leader of the New Democratic Party honestly believes that when Canada sends Canadian troops abroad, whether we send them on peacekeeping missions, as we have done with such credit to Canada around the world, or whether we send them in support of a world-wide effort to force Saddam Hussein to respect the fundamental laws of international sovereignty, we send them with the implicit suggestion that if things get tough, Canada should turn and run. That is not the position of this government. I do not think that is the position of most Canadians other, perhaps, than those who sit behind her in the New Democratic Party.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the minister responsible for external affairs.
The position of this party is that this government has a responsibility to come to Parliament and to discuss and debate in Parliament before military action is taken.

Mr. Speaker, traditionally this country has played a peacekeeping role and worked together with the United Nations. My question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs is this: will he give the House the assurance that he will not deploy any military personnel in the gulf without the approval of the United Nations and this Parliament?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there was a debate here in the House, in which hon. members all had a chance to participate. There was a vote. The New Democratic Party voted against the resolution. Part of the resolution gave the parliamentary committee the right to continue consideration of issues related to the Canadian presence in the gulf. The New Democratic Party voted against the idea of Parliament referring the subject to committee. There was a discussion the other day with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence and myself, who were there to explain the government's position.

During that debate, Mr. Speaker, that discussion in the standing committee, there was a very curious position put forward by the New Democratic Party. That position, if I understand it, is that it is fine for Canada to have our
troops there in support of United Nations activity. But if something happens, if there is some emergency, instead of having Canadians take part in advancing the interests of the United Nations, what we should do is come back here and have a debate. How long does the member for Yukon want us to have this debate? How long does she want us to wait? What does she think Saddam Hussein would be doing while the Parliament of Canada was debating and while Canadian troops were waiting?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In his annual report, the Auditor General severely criticized the government for its failure to monitor immigration programs.
Will the minister get the resources to carry out her mandate and how does she intend to implement the five-year plan she announced last week, now that according to the Auditor General's report, it is clear she is incapable of monitoring the backlog of refugee claims? Will she get the resources to carry out her mandate and deal with these problems once and for all?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, in his report, the Auditor General did not recommend any changes in the system with respect to handling the backlog. He recommended that we improve the system. The situation has started to improve, and that was clear, because 50 per cent of the claims have now been processed and 29 per cent have been finalized.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, according to the report of the Auditor General, more than 50 per cent of the entrepreneur immigrants did not comply with the terms of the conditions of their visa once landed in Canada. Why is the minister getting tough on family reunification and the refugee conditions while the entrepreneur immigrants have the door open without control? Why?


An hon. member:: That is immigration Tories, double standards.
October 31, 1990


Barbara Jean McDougall: The hon. member clearly is not following what we have been doing in the immigration program because we have effected two things: first of all, we have a private sector advisory group which is helping us to improve the standards of both the investor and the entrepreneur program, and we have inside the government increased our monitoring capacity on both aspects of the program and, indeed, in one case charges have been laid. Those improvements are already in place, and I emphasize that.
On my recent trip to Asia, I spoke about the need for entrepreneurs and investors to meet our standards of investment and of businesses established, I said that we would have no patience not only with those investors who fail to meet terms and conditions, but with the consultants who assist them.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue and it concerns comments made by the Auditor General in his annual report. He has found that petty jealousy and turf warfare between customs officials and the RCMP may be resulting in illegal drugs and traffickers escaping detection and prosecution.
Given that any breakdown in our war against drugs adversely affects all Canadians in many ways, what specific actions, and I underscore the word specific, has the minister taken or will he take to investigate and correct this unnecessary rivalry between two fine services?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: First, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree in any way, shape or form with the hon. member's preamble, because there has been a great deal of co-operative effort with the RCMP over the past in joint forces operations, in exchange of personnel, many examples of success in control deliveries, representing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of drugs apprehended at the border by both the RCMP and the customs. An example just last week of a delivery from Vancouver to Montreal resulted in a $5 million seizure.
Oral Questions
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, about a year ago I asked my officials and the Solicitor General asked his, to begin discussions to put together a comprehensive agreement between Customs Canada and the RCMP. We have given instructions to our officials to make certain that this agreement is finalized before the end of this calendar year, that is, before the end of December, which will address any or all of the concerns of the Auditor General.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, typically this answer is neither specific nor acceptable to Canadians. The preamble was not my preamble, but contained on page 613 of the report of the Auditor General.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: I thought the minister would like to know what the Auditor General said, not what I said. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is not new. The Auditor General reports that this conflict has been around since 1984, six years without a resolution, and who knows how many drug busts have gone sour because of it.
The Auditor General-not this member-has said:
The RCMP should ensure that its custom enforcement activities
are fully co-ordinated with the policies, strategies and priorities of
Canada customs.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Will the minister take immediate steps to resolve this conflict instead of letting it fester for the rest of this government's short lifetime, to the detriment of Canadians.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that the hon. member had his supplementary question written out before I gave the answer to his question-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Otto John Jelinek: -because I very clearly answered the hon. member's first question-


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Its been going on for six years.


Otto John Jelinek: -when he asked, "What is the minister going to do about this?" I said that I had instructed my officials about a year ago to begin preparations to eliminate any jurisdictional contradictions that existed between the RCMP-

Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Otto John Jelinek: Just be quiet for a minute. Listen and you will learn something.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister can complete his answer.


Otto John Jelinek: To conclude the answer, I can assure my hon. friend that a detailed agreement between Customs Canada and the RCMP is going to be reached by the end of December of this year which will eliminate any jurisdictional problems that have existed in the past between the two departments.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Indian affairs. It is with regard to the shocking revelations of the abuse of native children in mission schools throughout Canada, and especially in the province of Manitoba.
Canadians were deeply moved by the courageous statements of Phil Fontaine, the head of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. Would the minister of Indian affairs respond to the letter of our leader, the member for Yukon, who asked on July 13, that there be a public inquiry into all aspects of child abuse in schools that were run by the Department of Indian Affairs or on behalf of the Department of Indian Affairs.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians are deeply saddened by the revelations of Chief Phil Fontaine yesterday in a meeting with a number of church leaders in Manitoba.
We regret the fact and wish we could rewrite history about the way children in residential schools were subjected apparently to physical and sexual harassment many years ago.
All members of Parliament, governments and leaders of institutions, such as the churches, have an obligation to bring forward initiatives to try to redress those injustices and to provide adequate counselling and assistance to those who were the victims.
I want to inform the hon. member, if he is not already aware of it, that I responded in detail to a letter from his leader on April 30, and spelled out all of the aspects of
the government's response to these terrible problems. I will table that letter if it be the wish of the House.


Rodney Edward Murphy: First of all, just to correct the minister, he responded on August 30 and, yes, I do have a copy of the letter.
The question is this. Healing starts by an open acknowledgement of the problem. It is not a matter of rewriting history, it is a matter of acknowledging history. There will only be further child abuse, further alcoholism, further drug abuse if these incidents are not studied. Will the minister commit himself now to the request made on July 13 for an open public inquiry into this very important matter?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and other members of his party seem to believe that public inquiries are the only means of resolving such serious issues.
This department and this government have taken major steps to deal with child sexual abuse and family violence within Indian communities. We have closed all but one federal residential school in Canada since 1970. At that time there were 60 such schools. We have brought forward a program of initiatives these past three years at a funding level of $1.4 million to assist in dealing with child sexual violence in native communities.
The Prime Minister has committed this government to a major initiative on family violence, and further details of that are to be announced shortly. We have taken numerous positive steps. We are saddened by revelations of the past. All members should work together to ensure that these tragic stories never repeat themselves.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for ACOA. Yesterday the Auditor General cited as inappropriate the funding by ACOA of millions of dollars in loans to NSC Diesel Corporation because ACOA had not properly evaluated the financial viability of the project.
Since the spectacular collapse of this company has led to the bankruptcy of many small subcontractors on that shore, and the loss of jobs of their employees has now been clearly linked to incompetence and negligence, will the minister do the right thing and take personal
October 31, 1990

responsibility for this fiasco and explain his involvement in its approval?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I read the exaggerated statement of my colleague yesterday and I have listened to his question today. I want to point out to him that there may have been and are some difficulties on this project, but ACOA officials have acted with circumspection and we are still trying to restructure the project.
I want to point out to him for his interest that the loan guarantee and all of the other advancements of money were carried out with great attention to detail. I am willing to admit that one cannot always avoid some mistakes. I want to point out to the hon. gentlemen, who is very fair, that even such a very conscientious person as himself, while he was executive director of his party for three years, was recently quoted as saying he had no idea that his own leader was drawing a secret salary from a trust fund from his own party.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the minister opposite can run but he cannot hide. I will tell him right now that the subcontractors who are going bankrupt do not buy that type of rhetoric, the people who are losing their jobs do not buy that type of rhetoric, and the taxpayers who are going to lose up to $2 million do not buy that type of response from the minister.
Will the minister now commit to a full, open and public inquiry into the approval of this project so as to determine whether or not it was bureaucratic bungling or political expediency that led to the inappropriate approval of this project, a project which just happens to be in the minister's own riding?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I should ask the hon. member the difficult question, perhaps I would if he would, with respect to the other matter.
Let me say to the hon. member that instead of kicking the entrails out of a project that is in trouble, perhaps in fairness he should refer to the 235 projects with eligible capital costs of $42 million and over 600 jobs that were to the benefit of his own constituents.
Oral Questions ENERGY


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.
I have copies in my hand of Transport Canada directives on motor vehicle fuel testing. The gasoline additive MMT has been banned in the United States because it may be one of the causes of severe mental disorders, including Parkinson's disease. Given that such is the case, will the minister tell us why he has not banned MMT in Canada, and why will he not do it now?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. member is talking about MTBA.
The hon. member makes a valid point concerning additives. The government is looking at various additives for gasoline, and specifically octane rating. It has not made any decisions obviously, but is looking at some of the issues relating to the new environmental approaches that it wants to take.
I will take the hon. member's position under advisement. Others have asked for the same kind of approach as he has asked for today.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, in the words of one of our leading neurotoxic scientists, "this is a case of sheer government negligence." Ethanol is an environmentally safe and acceptable alternative that is renewable, and would benefit farmers across this country.
Will the minister take the necessary steps to ban MMT in Canada and replace it with ethanol?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thought that was eventually where the hon. member was going.
Ethanol is being produced in my home province of Manitoba by a small oil company called Mohawk. It is located in the riding of my colleague, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds and the Canadian Wheat Board. It is a very successful program and it is used as a blend for 10 per cent. Generally speaking, it also advances the marketability of the gasoline of Mohawk.

October 31, 1990
Oral Questions
The issue that has to be dealt with regarding ethanol is that if one compares it to the United States, the Americans have to supply from offshore sources 50 per cent of their oil, whereas we are self-sufficient in oil. That is why the use of ethanol also makes some sense. In the United States there is an approximate 60 cent subsidy per gallon of ethanol. It is those kinds of subsidies that one would have to consider as well in Canada, if one was going to use ethanol.
Despite all those factors, the government is looking at alternate energy and it is well ahead of anything that their government ever did.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Yesterday in the public accounts committee hearings, the Auditor General said that he is very concerned about the huge potential for fraud with the introduction of the GST. He said: "there is a great potential for companies to inflate claims about their inventories in order to claim manufacturers' sales tax rebates."
I would like to ask the minister what he has done to prevent the massive potential for fraud with the implementation of the GST? The people of Canada want to know.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite interesting that the NDP, not too many months ago, were complaining about the government hiring "tax police" to make certain that there would not be any fraud taking place under the forthcoming goods and services tax. They cannot have it both ways.
Second, hon. members should know, and the Auditor General agrees with this, that the existing federal sales tax is the one riddled with loopholes for potential fraud. That is just one of the many reasons why that sales tax must be scrapped.
Finally, it is as a result of the Auditor General's recommendations of last year when he said that the government could not, in fact, properly prepare and administer the sales tax without getting new technology, new systems and new personnel in place in advance.
That is just what we have done to assure a clean, smooth launch, which in fact will take place January 1, 1991.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment.
After listening to expert witness for more than a year on the dangers of global warming, the environment committee of this Parliament concluded that the minimum that Canada can and must do is cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2005.
Despite repeated invitations, the minister has never attended the committee to hear just how strongly all members of this House hold that view.
Will the minister assure this House that while he is attending the second World Climate Conference in Geneva next week, that it will be to support the 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide, or is the minister frozen to the dangerous view that Canada should continue as the fifth worst per capita greenhouse gas polluter in the world?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we have made our position very clear on this issue. Canada is committed, as a great number of nations are, to stabilizing CO2 emissions by the year 2000 to the level they were in the year 1990. Certainly Canada would like to move ahead on the schedule, but Canada will not move ahead on a schedule as important as this until we have a scientific data base to allow us to suggest specific measures that will allow us to accelerate the process.
We will stick with this position. It is a position that shows responsibility as a world leader on this question.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
After the demise of Meech Lake, the government made a commitment to sign a formal agreement on immigration with the Quebec Government that would

Oral Questions
transfer to the Government of Quebec the authority to select-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Lucien Bouchard: I am sorry if this bothers the members of the Liberal Party, but these things are important to Quebec.
I was saying that the agreement would transfer to the Government of Quebec the authority to select and integrate these immigrants. So far, the agreement is in limbo.
Yesterday, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, demanded that the federal government sign the agreement. My question is: what is the minister waiting for and has the government decided to put a freeze on negotiations with Quebec?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, my answer hasn't changed since the last time the hon. member asked me that question. Both governments still intend to follow up on the Cullen-Couture Agreement, but as I have already stated on several occasions, do not ask me to confirm a date.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I repeated my question because the answer I got was not satisfactory. It is always the same.
One of the harmful effects of not signing the agreement is that the Government of Quebec has fewer resources to apply to French courses for immigrants. At the present time, the government's refusal to sign is doing immeasurable harm to the immigrants concerned and weakens Quebec's language policies. Will the government tell this House that it will stop meaning well and start doing what it has to do?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to read the document on future immigration levels, because far more funding has been set aside for language courses under the integration plan and, of course, Quebec has its share.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, the subject of suicide is of special interest to me, particularly as it represents a wasted life. I know this is of concern to all parliamentarians.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, apparently, this does not interest some members of the opposition and I regret that.
There is currently a conference under way in Vancouver sponsored by an association called the Canadian Association on Suicide Prevention. I understand that the role of the federal government, in particular the Department of National Health and Welfare, in suicide prevention has been raised.
This being the case, I wonder if the government could please tell this Parliament what the department is doing in this regard.


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. We know that suicide is a most tragic event which is caused by a number of things. The most important one is mental illness. We know that over 80 per cent of the people who commit suicide in this country are affected by mental illness and a majority of those are affected by schizophrenia.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has given instructions to people in his department to co-operate very closely with researchers across the country. Our aim is to reduce the number of suicides in this country and I am sure every member of this House will support the Minister of National Health and Welfare in this respect.


AIR SAFETY
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport in the

Routine Proceedings
absence of the Minister of Transport. Today Transport Canada will terminate weather and communication services at the airport in the community of Fort Franklin, Northwest Territories.
My question is regarding the issue of air safety. Given the apparent lack of federal government policy on the provision of services to northern remote communities that have no roads and average about 2,000 flights per community per year, I ask the minister this.
How much is air safety worth to the government and why is the minister putting a dollar value on the lives of my constituents who have no other choice than air travel?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour and Minister of State (TVansport)):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my officials to give me a full report on the operations at Fort Franklin. However, I have been told that the only air carrier at Fort Franklin is equipped and able to provide the essential information required for safe operations.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, the information we get from the air industry around Fort Franklin is not to that effect. My supplementary question is directed to the same minister.
The community of Fort Franklin held a memorial service for seven residents killed in 1984 in a tragic plane crash. The Canadian Aviation Safety Board's investigation into the crash indicated the accident could have been prevented if there had been adequate weather and communication services.
Will the minister stop his officials from terminating the current services? Today is the deadline. Will he commit to upgrading the service to a full communications air radio service program, which is what those residents and the air industry around that area want?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the information that we have is that the only air carrier at Fort Franklin is properly equipped and able to provide the essential requirements for its safe operation. If the hon. member has any facts to communicate to us to the contrary, we will be very pleased to take them under consideration.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Margo Wallstrom, Swedish Minister for Equality Between the Sexes.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I would like to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women for the year 1989-1990.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I would like to table, in both official languages, the government responses to 29 petitions.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-68, an act to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act and to make provisions for the applications of certain orders with amendments, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
October 31, 1990



Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several Canadians dealing with the government's intention of imposing the goods and services tax on books, publications, magazines, et cetera.
The petitioners humbly submit that uninhibited dissemination of the printed word as a corner-stone of our democracy, culture, education, and a literate and productive society will be negatively affected by the GST application. The undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the tax-free status of the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 58 people from such communities as Watson Lake, Old Crow, Whitehorse, Quesnel, B.C, and Fort Frances, Ontario which criticizes the Secretary of State for cancelling funding of native newspapers and reducing funding for native broadcasting.
This has resulted in the undermining of communications between native people, and between native and non-native Canadians. This cut in funding has also further jeopardized the survival of aboriginal languages in Canada and compromised the efforts to improve native literacy.
The petitioners pray that the government should reinstate both the native communications programs and the Northern Broadcast Access Program at full funding levels and, further, that the Department of the Secretary of State conduct consultations with the groups affected before it changes the funding plans for native communications media.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I want to present a number of petitions, the first being 12 pages in length and signed by a number of my constituents regarding the goods and services tax.
Routine Proceedings
It points out the inequity of the goods and services tax, and it also states that the government should be implementing a tax system which is fair and equitable for all Canadians.
As New Democrats, we have those alternatives already, while the Liberals have to start a special committee to determine whether or not there is a way to beat the tax.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, another petition relates to the clawback on the old age security system.
Once again, the petitioners come from my riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands. They protest the regressive system of withdrawal of old age security and the regressive measures of the government.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the third petition relates to the dismantling of the VIA Rail system. The Government of Canada is selling or transferring substantial parts of the VIA Rail system, a system which all of us, as Canadians, contributed to.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by several citizens from central and eastern Ontario.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax, to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations, to ensure that there is no taxation on goods and services such as haircuts, fast food, piano lessons and other non-luxury items, and to cause the government to cease with the proposal which will tax diapers and coffins, in other words, taxing Canadians words from the cradle to the grave.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table petitions signed by Canadian citizens from across Canada who call on this government to drop its plan to impose a tax on goods and services, especially as it applies to newspapers, magazines, books, and any printed matter that deals with the dissemination

Routine Proceedings
of culture in Canada. Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon the government to reverse this ill-considered decision as soon as possible.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the people of Grand Manan Island. Grand Manan Island is in the Bay of Fundy.
The residents of Grand Manan Island are protesting the proposed destaffing of the lighthouse on Gannet Rock in the Bay of Fundy. That lighthouse was established in 1831.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the current staffing of the Gannet Rock lighthouse. This is just one of many petitions I have presented regarding this subject.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when a young person passes away as a result of a severe allergy reaction, many thousands of Canadians are moved to take action. One of the actions that has been taken is this petition which is signed by Canadians living in Scarborough, North York, Markham, London, and Ajax.
These petitioners are joined by the Allergy Information Association and call upon Parliament to enact legislation amending the food and drug regulations in order to require manufacturers to list specific food ingredients and additives to pre-packaged foods.
As well, the petitioners ask that restauranteurs and food retailers provide to customers a list of all food ingredients and additives in prepared foods.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by several constituents in the riding of Nepean. Your petitioners object to the GST, especially its application to books and all printed matter, and they ask the government to withdraw the tax. We heard the Prime Minister say he was considering this possibility. Your petitioners are most interested in what the Prime Minister said. I am
sure these Canadians are among the 85 per cent who object to this unfair tax.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by approximately 2,900 of my constituents in Oxford.
This petition is directed towards the Young Offenders Act and emphasizes that young people are responsible for their behaviour and should be held accountable in a manner appropriate to their age and maturity.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act, with a lowered maximum age of 13 years.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petitions which are signed by hundreds of Canadians from around Canada who ask the government to reconsider its crazy proposal to come in with the 7 per cent goods and services tax.
They believe that this tax is not only unfair, invisible, and double-tiered, but that it is a tax that is regressive. It will hit the poor people in the country the hardest and the poorest regions of the country the hardest.
The petitioners beg the government finally to come to its senses, to retrench its position on the GST, and to kill this tax.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of a number of people from the area of London, Ontario.
These people have not given up their fight against the goods and services tax. They ask the government to review pushing this tax through, to back off on its position, and to bring in a tax that is more fair to all Canadians.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, on the day that we are about to debate the third reading of the Broadcasting Act, I am very pleased to present a huge petition, with 1,800 names from my riding

of Port Moody-Coquitlam and other places in the Greater Vancouver Area.
The petitioners states that the cable industry is the only territorial monopoly in Canada whose profits are unregulated it is making rates of return of about 32 per cent. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt Bill C-284, which happens to be my Private Members' Bill. This bill would apply a rate of return regulation. In other words, it would treat the cable industry just like the telephone industry. It would regulate it and reduce cable rates for ordinary Canadians in the country.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am happy to place before the House a number of petitions from people in my riding of Broadview-Greenwood who still believe that the goods and services tax can be defeated. They hopefully request that the government will take the necessary time to study the single tax as a constructive alternative to the GST.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I know the parliamentary secretary has applied himself with diligence in trying to get the answers to the Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers that I placed on the Order Paper at the beginning of this month. Thirty-one days have elapsed. There was a notice period
Routine Proceedings
provided before that. On October 17,1 rose on a similar point. The parliamentary secretary said that he was doing everything he could to ensure that we got the highest quality answer.
I know that he may not have been able to get the answer, but I tell him in the spirit of reason and in appealing to his reasonableness and kindness, I wonder if he would agree today to adopt the two motions as orders of the House for the production of these papers. I am quite prepared to wait for a couple of weeks more for him to dig them out and table them in the House. Perhaps we could adopt the orders today and then there would be a House order demanding the production of the papers. That is all I am really asking for. If we have got the order, I am quite content.
I know the parliamentary secretary has researched this and I know he knows that the motions are asking for something that is in his power to give. Would he consent to adopting the motions today?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, flattery will get you a lot of places, but that is one thing I just cannot concede to.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on the same point of order. I have a request for the Production of Papers dated September 27.
Here again, it seems to me it would be a sign of co-operation on the government side, if these papers do exist, to make them available to us. The papers are very simple. All I am asking is for copies of correspondence from His Excellency and Her Majesty the Queen with regard to Section 26 of the BNA act. It is not very complicated.
If there is no correspondence, then say so. But if there is, then we can have an Orders of the Day maybe to debate that later on this day.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, knowing how astute and studious my friend is, I knew that he would be asking this question today. I did check once again to see where this information is. I am told that the the word "soon" does apply in this case.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all motions for the production of papers stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
October 31, 1990

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-40, an act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunications, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

Mr. Speaker:: There are 50 report stage motions set down on the Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-40, an act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunications.

All of these motions are standing in the names of the Honourable Members for Mount-Royal, for Beaches-Woodbine, for Port Moody-Coquitlam and for Edmonton South-West.

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 48 are in order and will be grouped for debate. Motion No. 3, while moved, debated, and negatived in committee, I have decided to accept as part of this grouping. I have done so as a result of representations from several hon. members about the significance of the motion. A vote on Motion No. 1 will be applied to Motions Nos. 3, 4, and 5. Motions Nos. 2 and 48 will be voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 6, 31, 35, 39, 49, and 50 are acceptable and each will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 7, 25, and 38 will not be selected for debate as these motions were moved, debated and negatived in committee.

Motions numbered 8, 9 and 10 are in order and will be grouped for debate. A vote on motion numbered 8 will be applied to motion numbered 10. There will be a seperate vote on motion numbered 9.

Motions Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 42, and 43 are related. Motion No. 11 was moved, debated and negatived in committee and Motion No. 43 is similar to it. The other motions are, in effect, a break out of the elements of Motion No. 11. After deliberation and consultation, I have decided not to select either of Motions Nos. 11 or 43, but I will select Motions Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15 and 42. They will be grouped for debate but they will be voted on separately. Motions Nos. 16 and 17 are generally the same. Normally, neither would be selected at this stage as a motion identical to Motion No. 16 was moved, debated and negatived in committee.
Representations, however, from all sides of the House have emphasized the importance of this subject, and I have decided to allow Motion No. 17 to go forward for debate. I must also point out to the House that Motion No. 30 deals with national unity, as does Motion No. 17. These two motions will therefore be grouped for debate but will be voted on separately.

Motions numbered 18,19,20 and 21 are in order. They will be grouped for debate and will be voted on separately except that a vote on motion numbered 20 will be applied to motion numbered 21.

Motions Nos. 22 and 23 are in order and will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 22 will be applied to Motion No. 23.
Motions Nos. 24, 26, 27 and 28, all dealing with distribution undertakings, are acceptable and will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
Motion No. 29, identical to Motion No. 28, will not be selected.

Motions numbered 32, 33 and 34 are in order and will be debated together but voted on separately.
Motions numbered 36 and 37 are identical and therefore, I will select motion numbered 36. It will be debated and voted on separately.



Motions Nos. 40 and 41 are also identical, and I will select for proposal to the House Motion No. 40. It will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 44, 45, 46 and 47 will be grouped for debate. The vote on motion No. 44 will be applied to Motions Nos. 45, 46 and 47. A recapitulation of this ruling is available from officers at the Thble.
I will now propose the first grouping Motions Nos. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, and 48 to the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, and I think I can speak for all of us who will take part in this debate, I would like to thank you and the table officers for the fine work in putting this together, and some fast work too, because I understand the government got in some motions that were pretty close to the wire, as did others of us. I want to thank the table officers, through you, Mr. Speaker, for their good work here.
I have one problem in a sense with Motion No. 6.1 have a speaker who has to get to a committee, and I wonder if it will be possible to have the consent of the House, if that is in order, to have Motion No. 6 debated with the first group of motions, although I understand it would be voted separately? Could I ask for that?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam has asked the House for consent. I am in the hands of the House. Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not seem to be consent. It may be some time before the debate would get to it in any event. Perhaps the hon. member might be able to make some other arrangement.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 7 to
15 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor.
" "broadcasting" means any radiocommunication in which the transmissions are intended for direct reception by the general public, whether or not such transmissions are encrypted;"


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications) moved:: Motion No. 2
Government Orders
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 28 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"another undertaking or person,".


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 32 to 35 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"enlighten or entertain;".


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 43 to 46 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
" "radiocommunication" means any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature by means of electromagnetic waves of frequencies lower than 3000 GHz propagated in space without artificial guide;".


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 3 to 6 at page 3.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 81 by striking out lines 4 to 7 at page 50.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I will look with a great deal of interest at the amendment placed before us by the government, as I have just seen it this morning.
In the meantime, I would like to generally address this bill. The section that is being discussed now is in Part I and it is the definition section of the bill. I would suggest that it is a reflection of the problems with this bill. It is the key reason why this bill is flawed and unacceptable.
Unfortunately, although desperately needed in many of the new changes that have been made-and I think the committee under its several chairman did an outstanding job as well as the legislative committee-the government put in definitions that make it like building your Canadian house on the San Andreas fault. It is on a faulty foundation. It has been built with the potential to crack and split so that the balkanization of this country occurs rather than using this very powerful communication tool, this wonderful potential of infrastructure, or as the Prime Minister called it, "the central nervous system of our society", which will promote and communicate cultural values to our young generation, in particular. It will be maintained under federal jurisdiction to ensure that we have a common interest in common policies and

October 31, 1990
Government Orders
a common modality of operation from coast to coast on all three sides.
That is not the case. Bill C-40 attempts to redefine broadcasting, thereby touching provincial jurisdiction in the way that it has been done. This could result in a provincial challenge to this jurisdiction. The problem is further compounded by a move to separate cable services-it is referred to as the undertakings-into programming and non-programming functions. This is a rejection, as the government well knows, of conventional legal practice which regards such undertakings as indivisible.
This principle lies at the veiy heart of the CRTC's ability to regulate broadcasting to balance services, costs, benefits and to ensure that Canadians have reasonable access and choice, regardless of whether they are looking at alpha numeric text, whether they are seeing stationary or moving objects, whether they are going to be entertained or informed or whatever the case may be.
This government knows very well that some years ago the Government of Quebec indicated its interest in regulating communications beginning with cable television. Recently, with the destabilizing factors that are going on in our society, and the questions that flowed from Meech Lake and everything else, we had some very serious concerns. Then there was the provincial minister of communications of Quebec expressing serious reservations about this being maintained in the federal jurisdiction. In her view, and she spoke quite candidly and openly, broadcasting and communication functions are culturally relative. It was her view, and I presume she was expressing the view of the Government of Quebec, that this was an exclusive jurisdiction belonging to the province of Quebec.
Constitutional experts have already pointed out that the challenges to federal jurisdiction in areas like broadcasting will now become inevitable because Bill C-40 seems designed to weaken any possible defence and indeed, to set the stage, for a devolution of authority and indeed the balkanization of service which would inevitably follow.
I suggest that this is sad. We are all very much aware that, as a general rule of statutory interpretation, when a term is changed in law, a new meaning could be ascribed to the changed term. This is very disconcerting.
We struggled long to ensure a balance of broadcasting services and programming choices across this immense land of ours. It is an equity that is still not fully balanced in terms of interests and resources, but we are getting there. We are getting very good.
Only if one would contemplate circumstances in which neither Canadian ownership nor Canadian programming is any longer relevant or important does this kind of voluntary abdication of the federal role make any kind of sense at all.
Regarding what I was referring to with respect to the splitting of the undertaking or the splitting up of the cable services, this proposed act would create a constitutional issue and give rise to dual regulation by splitting this whole undertaking into two parts: programming and non-programming.
I am going to quote from the CRTC, the regulator, which is a quasi-judicial court which came before the legislative committee. In fact, it has come before us on two occasions and said to us: "Be very cautious. Be very careful. You have changed the rules of the game. You have now taken the non-programming part out of the system."
This very arbitrary split is serious, and I would like to explain why. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that for constitutional purposes, broadcasting undertakings are not divisible into their component parts. That is what the Supreme Court said, the rationale being that as far as possible, no single undertaking should be subject to two separate masters or jurisdictions.
This government was well aware of that. In fact, it made provisions further on in the bill in clause 85, or 87 since we have changed the numbers, that it would now fall under other provisions.
The proposed legislation would require such a split and therefore would reopen the debate over constitutional jurisdiction, especially with regard to cable distribution systems.
October 31, 1990

The proposed act implicitly states that it does not agree with the 1932 Privy Council radio reference case which assigned federal jurisdiction through two arguments: that of peace, order and good government as well as that of radio waves which are interprovincial and international. They have suggested that this is wrong.
Second, the proposed act implicitly states again that the Supreme Court of Canada was wrong when it concluded that undertakings could not or should not be split. As the Supreme Court did decide in both the Dionne and the Capital Cities cases. It also said that with respect to the AGT, the Alberta Government Telephone case.
Legislation now invites provinces and others to start new litigation, but with federal jurisdiction on much weaker ground because the legislation itself admits that a split is a practicable alternative. I find that sad.
One example, typical of the problems associated with the splitting of undertakings, is the following. Engineering experts have advised us that the intellectual matter contained in the vertical blanking intervals of a television signal can be considered to be separate and apart from the main transmission. That is all gobbledegook to many of us.
What it literally means is that the broadcasters use this blanking interval to distribute closed captioned, alpha numeric material for the hearing impaired. The definition of "program" will therefore mean that the commission will lose its jurisdiction over this very important aspect of broadcasting.
It is rather ludicrous, because we just finished bringing the whole question of hearing impaired into the bill. So now we put it in. We take it out. We play games with it without even thinking of the consequences. It is really a sad state.
It should also be remembered that if alpha numeric material is not regulated, then alpha numeric networks could be freely set up and such operations could be owned by foreign interests. I sincerely invite the parliamentary secretary and, through him, the minister to rethink the serious implications of what they have done in their definition section. Without maintaining the jurisdiction of the commission as it is under the present broadcasting act, they have put this whole system in
Government Orders
jeopardy and nonprogramming activities of cable licensees could fall outside the jurisdiction of this law.
I suggest that one regulator with jurisdiction over the entire undertaking would be able to ensure that programming has its primary place in the system. The CRTC could examine and then decide to exempt under clause 9.4 of the bill, and that would look after the concerns that we have if we return to the original definition.
Mr. Speaker, what is this TV set? I ask you that. What does the TV set in your home do? It informs you, it entertains you, it enlightens you, it gives you the weather, it gives you the stock market, the news, laughs through comedy, tears through drama, it educates you and your children. The minute you turn on your set it impacts on your life. It has a very special kind of place. You can even be a couch potato and enjoy it.
It is also a business, but it is a very special business that must be so treated whether it is home-shopping services, whether it is your favourite TV or movie, whether it is your favourite program such as Lance et Compte, E.N.G., Street Legal, Le Point, that is not the issue.
The government's attempt to produce a technology-neutral bill that is supposed to survive the time and introduction of new technologies is going to result in serious concerns and litigation. I would like to recommend strongly that we go back to the original definition so that we do not need to worry that this well-designed Canadian broadcasting system which can establish the unique cultural identity of our country in any man's language is ever put into jeopardy.
Therefore, I would move that Liberal Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 be reinserted in the definitions found in the 1968 Broadcasting Act. They have stood the test of time. I would suggest that in terms of Canadian content and the potential to siphon out much-needed advertising revenue dollars which are needed for Canadian programs can be more carefully reviewed by the CRTC. I remind this government that this is not the act for the sale of Canada. This is an act for the Canadian broadcasting system which impacts on the lives of our children and determines our future and who we are as a people.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill as a former NDP communications critic, moved on into the justice area,

Government Orders
but I have with me my friend from Okanagan-Shuswap who-


Mr. Marchi:: Are you still NDP?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, I am still NDP and proud of it, my friend. Proud of it.
My colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap, who is now the critic, will be working with me on this bill. This bill has been before us for a long time. It is a very complicated bill.
What we are going to tiy to do from the NDP perspective is to try to make it comprehensible to the average person who may be watching this debate, reading about it, or sitting here following it. We undertake to try and do that to the best of our ability.
The bill, as the previous Liberal member mentioned, is of immense importance. We do watch TV for news, entertainment, education, information, and soon we are going to be watching it and using it to order our pizzas, to do our banking, order our groceries. Indeed, we will even be able to replay our favourite hockey game, the hockey goal. When my Vancouver Canucks beat your team there in Edmonton, Mr. Speaker, occasionally, we will be able to replay the plays even in our own house. We see that kind of new technology that is always coming in.
There is immense power and immense money involved in communications and that is why this bill is of immense importance.
I want to outline a little bit, before getting to the first stage of amendment, the history of the bill. It has been a very long road indeed.
In May 1985 the minister, who was also the minister then, created a task force on broadcasting, which became known as the Caplan-Sauvageau report. The task force reported in September 1986. In May 1988 the 15th standing committee report was a major report on broadcasting. In June 1988 the then Minister of Communications, Flora MacDonald tabled Bill C-136, which was the Broadcast Act. She also tabled Canadian Voices, Canadian Choices, a broadcasting policy document.
From July to August 1988, hearings were held on Bill C-136. We had 15 meetings, heard numerous witnesses and considered dozens of amendments. I am pleased to say that the government accepted six NDP amendments
and two Liberal amendments, which is kind of unusual, but the way committees should work.
Our party's amendments were successful on matters dealing with multiculturalism, regional representations, equal rights for women and other groups, and other issues. In September 1988 we had six days of debate on the report stage. There were 92 opposition amendments and while some minor amendments were accepted, the government rejected the major amendments on the bill.
The bill passed third reading on September 28, 1988-that is about two years ago-and the bill died in the Senate three days later when the Prime Minister called an election which, unfortunately, he won.
In October 1989 the bill was back. This time it was called Bill C-40. It is essentially the same bill with five or six changes. I know the parliamentary secretary, my good friend, the member from Edmonton, has done a yeoman's job on this bill, and before that, in committee. The government should take notice of this fellow from Alberta. He is not in my party, but he has done a very good job in this House, and in committee beforehand.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: This bill passed second reading in December 1989. From January to March it was in a legislative committee. There were 65 amendments presented by my colleague for Mount Royal, the Liberal critic, and myself. Most were rejected, although I did manage to get the support of government backbenchers to pass a community broadcasting amendment over the government's objection. It was a great victory for me. Such things do backbenchers live for in this House. It was passed.
The major issues in the debate that we have been presenting are four. First, this government is Meeching and leaching the CBC. Leaching it by taking all the money away and not giving it enough money. "Meeching" it by taking away its ability to have a national mandate for national unity and by splitting the board into English and French. There used to be one board, now it is splitting it up. I call that "Meeching" the bill. There will be much debate about this later on.
Second, the cable industry is the big winner. I feel a little bit like the David against the Goliath of the cable industry here, but David is making a little progress. We want the cable industry regulated, like the phone compa-

ny, so that people will pay decent cable bills. They keep going up and up and up.
Today I presented a petition with about 1,800 signatures. My colleague for Okanagan-Shuswap and I have had petitions from all over this country saying, "Let's regulate the cable industry, like we regulate the TV industry", but unfortunately this bill makes it pretty easy for the cable industry, and it gets off. They can even originate programming, so they are the big winners in this bill.
I have some amendments to level the playing field a little bit. That is what appeals to Conservatives, levelling the playing field, and that is what we are trying to do by some of these amendments.
Third, private television has not been doing its job in presenting Canadian programming, so we have some amendments to make them do that job, since they have the rights to the airwaves.
Fourth, the government is threatening, in our view, the independence of the CRTC, which is the body that regulates radio and television. In making this point, we have some reason to be critical of the commission, but we are going to advocate specific remedies to deal with this. Those will be our amendments.
Now let me just speak briefly to the member for Mount Royal's first group of amendments. I also have some in that group. Basically, by bringing forward Motion No. 3, the hon. member is attempting to delete the exemption from the definition of program for visual images made up largely of alpha numeric text. This is a dangerous exemption, and we support its deletion through this amendment.
Let me try to explain what that means. The government is attempting, by its new definition, to get the CRTC out of the business of regulating services, such as real estate advertising. You see that now on your TV. This potentially exempts such undertakings from Canadian content and ownership provisions. Everything that appears on television, we believe, should have reason to be there, and should either be licensed or not by regulatory authority. There is the potential conflict between regulated channels and non-regulated, or alpha numeric channels, for positions on the television dial.
Government Orders
Let me translate that into English. It means that on the TV dial there is CTV, CBC, but also real estate asking people to buy this and that. What the government does not want to do is regulate that real estate or shopping, or whatever. We think it should be regulated by the CRTC because everything on the dial should be regulated. It should be regulated because that ensures Canadian content. It ensure good taste. It ensures good quality of broadcasting. That is what this amendment is about. That is why we support the amendment of the hon. member for Mount Royal, which is the same amendment we have produced.
I will now sit down, having outlined the nature of our position on the bill. I do not know if I have to move a motion on my amendments in the first grouping, but if I do, I will.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to revisit these issues. As the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam has indicated, we have been here before, and this time maybe we will get it done.
There was a distinguished Canadian broadcaster, who at one point in some discussions leading to the formation of broadcasting policy by the former minister, the Hon. Flora MacDonald, said to the minister, "Here's my advice, Minister. What I believe you ought to do is to repass the old bill and put a clause at the end saying 'this time we mean it'." There was a lot of pith in that comment.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Mount Royal and the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam for the contributions they made to this bill, the policy we have now and to where we are going. There are other members here in the House who have made like contributions, but I think even the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam will forgive me for a special mention of the hon. member Mount Royal, who has been at this at least as long as I have, and has truly come to these issues with passion, with commitment and with a growing depth of understanding of these issues.
Motions numbered 1, 3, 4, and 5 propose to amend three terms defined in the bill's interpretation clause with respect to the broadcasting, program and radio waves and to remove a subclause clarifying the meaning to be given to other means of telecommunication as it appears in the definition of broadcasting. These defini-

October 31, 1990
Government Orders
tions are crucial to the bill since they serve to define the scope and range of activities which it governs.
First, it is important to know that the definitions are interrelated in that the definition of broadcasting is limited by its inclusion of the terms program and radio waves. This limitation is as intended.
Technological developments have broadened the range and types of information services that can be delivered to the home over telephone wires, by cable and fibre to television screens. Many of these services cannot properly be called broadcasting, and those services should not be regulated under this bill. This legislation is not about information services, which are different in nature from broadcasting. The law must be clear on that point.
On the one hand, this bill is about television programs and radio programs. We want to assure that these activities are regulated because they are cultural in nature and they provide a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty.
On the other hand, there is quickly emerging a whole range of new information based services: interactive services, data base services and so on. These are mostly business services, weather services, shopping and real estate services, home security services and the like. These types of activities are not now regulated. The vast majority of these new services are not of a high cultural impact. The mere fact that they may be offered by way of a technology, which until recently has been used primarily for broadcasting, does not in our view constitute grounds for regulation.
The Broadcasting Act should not become an instrument for inhibiting the evolution of new information based services. It is for this reason that the bill has been devised in a technology neutral fashion, focusing on the activities to be regulated, rather than on the technology used for distribution.
That being said, it is important to note that the bill protects the integrity of the broadcasting system in two fundamental ways. First of all, distribution undertakings, such as cable companies, are required to give priority to the carriage of Canadian programming services and in particular to the carriage of local Canadian stations. Second, the CRTC is given express authority to require
distribution undertakings to give priority to the carriage of broadcasting.
It has been claimed that the new definitions could give rise to jurisdictional battles over the regulation of broadcasting undertakings. Yet time and time again the courts have confirmed federal jurisdiction over broadcasting, and recently the Supreme Court confirmed federal jurisdiction over telecommunications. This bill does not jeopardize jurisdiction in any way.
This bill gives the CRTC clear guidelines about which activities are to be regulated as broadcasting. It also gives the commission the latitude it needs to determine how best to regulate undertakings which eventually become involved in both types of activities.
We cannot cling to outdated technological limitations as a basis for regulating a changing environment. The technologies used for broadcasting and telecommunications are converging and this trend appears to be inevitable.
We believe that it is entirely appropriate for legislation to state clearly how each of these distinct activities is to be regulated. We also believe that it is appropriate to have the same regulator govern both activities. The combined effect of amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 would be to leave unchanged the wide definitions in the 1968 Broadcasting Act. That would sweep into the scope of the new act many new services which were not foreseen in 1968 and for which there is little or no basis for regulation, broadcasting style.
In the face of technological growth, this approach takes the attitude, "When in doubt regulate". We believe that such an approach is not in the best interest of Canadians.
In our view the new definitions in Bill C-40 provide a more credible and solid basis for the regulation of broadcasting, while at the same time encouraging the evolution of new and exciting information services and the economic development that they entail.
With regard to Motion No. 2, this is a technical amendment and it was brought to the government's attention during the committee study of this bill, that the new definition of the term "network" could be improved to ensure that it covers any arrangement where control over all or any part of the program schedule is delegated to another body. It was pointed out that the existing wording refers only to situations where this control is delegated to another undertaking. In fact, however, this

control can be delegated to a body not licensed as a broadcasting undertaking.
Upon further reflection the government concurred that amending the definition to include delegations of this type would more accurately reflect the realities of today's often complex corporate structures in the broadcasting system and accordingly, the government proposes that this amendment be made.
Finally, with regard to Motion No. 48, this motion proposes amendment of a clause which itself amends another piece of legislation. I am sure you are still with me, Mr. Speaker, the Radiocommunication Act. The purpose of the clause in general is to ensure that the new definitions in the broadcasting legislation line up with those in the Radiocommunication Act, since many enterprises must operate under both.
The Radiocommunication Act governs use of the airways for all kinds of purposes, including broadcasting and broadcasters are required to comply with technical standards established under this legislation before they can obtain a broadcasting licence under the Broadcasting Act. A number of changes were made to the Radiocommunication Act amendments at the committee stage. In the process of inserting these changes, the definition of radio wave, which does appear in the broadcasting definitions, was inadvertently repeated in this clause. This definition is not required here since the term "radio waves" is not used in the Radiocommunication Act. The effect of Motion No. 48 is to remove it.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the parliamentary secretary, who I think has done a yeoman's job, as have my colleague from Montreal and the gentleman from the New Democratic Party. I think all of them have worked very hard. If we have disagreements, which we do, it has nothing to do with personality.
I think the parliamentary secretary would like to leave us with the notion that all of this is very technical stuff. We are into a new broadcasting age, a new communication age, a new telecommunication age when all we are
Government Orders
doing is changing definitions and updating the legislation which is all very technical stuff.
However, there is much more to it. Politics is involved. Let me explain. In The Globe and Mail just yesterday this government was described, and I usually do not subscribe to this particular columnist's opinion, but this columnist said that this was the most right wing government since R. B. Bennett. You would remember R. B. Bennett, wouldn't you, Mr. Speaker? Even I do. It was the most right wing government in the country.
When this government came to power six years ago it should have put out a shingle saying, "We are going to tear down the institutions of this country. We are going to put holes into the fabric of this country. Whatever was built up the last 40, 50 or 60 years, we are going to tear it down." We have seen it in spades all over.
It is found in this broadcast bill. The government is going to take the mandate of national unity away from the CBC. It is going to split the CBC board into two component parts, one for English and one for French. It is going to break the CRTC up into panels and make these panels into regional monsters. It is going to be wonderful for national unity. It is going to be great for governing this country.
It is already difficult to govern this country. This government is going to make it even worse. In fact, in a way, it has given up on governing the country. It would rather just give it to the market system and turn it over to the capitalists, or give it over to the multinationals, they can run the country better. If people believe that, I have swampland in Florida and I have fairy tales that will make one sleep at night for hours and hours.
Let us define broadcasting. What is the new Broadcasting Act going to do? It is going to balkanize the jurisdiction and services. It is going to split cable services with non-programming on one side and programming on the other. As my esteemed colleague from Montreal says, "What if you get this kind of split in cable services?" One is going to have home shopping on one side, along with real estate services and home security- that will all be very rich and profitable-then siphon off money from the other side, which will be programming.

October 31, 1990
Government Orders
Right? Is that the kind of situation that we want? I do not think so. We are going to balkanize the service and balkanize the jurisdiction.
The CRTC has, over the last number of years, developed a fairly good reputation as a strong national institution. Do we want to harm that institution? Do we want to weaken that institution? I do not think so.
I would like to interject with this. My hon. colleague from Montreal asked for some very germane information pertaining to this piece of legislation.
In fact, my esteemed colleague from Montreal asked for the legal opinions from the department. Mr. Speaker, you would not think that would be very difficult. You would think we would all want to be a little bit more enlightened. We never got them. We are still waiting.
Not only that, but my esteemed colleague from Montreal also filed an access to information request. Guess what? We are still waiting. The question is: What is the hon. parliamentary secretary hiding? What is the hon. Minister of Communications hiding? What is the government hiding? God only knows. When it comes to asking for some, what we would consider to be, legitimate information, the government is not forthcoming.
I think it is absolutely important. It is paramount in the country, particularly at this time, that we keep our national institutions strong and viable. If we do not, the country is going to be in a lot more trouble than it is right now. There are forces at work in the country, right now, right in the House. They would love to undermine the country. They would like to break the underpinnings of this nation. We find them all over the country and in almost every nook and cranny of every institution. We cannot succumb to that, because if we do, the country has not got long to last.
We spent a long time, over 100 years, building up a great country and strong institutions that bind the nation together. It is a huge country and sparsely populated. We need these ties and bonds to keep the country together and to help it grow in unity.
We do not see in this piece of legislation that that is being pursued. The strong central institutions that the country requires are not reflected in this piece of legislation. We do not see it in the new definition of broadcasting. We do not see it in the national unity mandate for the CBC. That mandate would be taken
away. We do not see it in the splitting of CBC board of directors. We do not see it in Balkanizing the CRTC.
We think the government has made a serious mistake, a mis-step, if you wish. It is consistent with its ideology, but it is a serious mistake. We would submit that it go back to the original definition. It has served us well. There is no need to fiddle with this. It is risky. It is dangerous, and it will serve no good.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the bill at this stage.
It is quite a comprehensive document. As the newly appointed critic for communications, arts and culture, I have had to bum the midnight oil to come up to speed on a lot of this, which amounts to a very technical and technological bill, to say the least.
My colleagues and I in the New Democratic caucus are certainly relieved to have this bill finally come back before the House. As my colleague, the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, was pointing out earlier, this bill has been a long time coming. We have seen it at least partially presented in the last Parliament when it went through three readings in this House and finally to the Senate. Essentially, it died on the Order Paper in the Senate at that time.
Now, the bill in somewhat amended form was brought back to this House last November for initial debate and was stalled at that time because of the government's preoccupation with the whole Meech Lake fiasco. All of us in the New Democratic caucus feel very strongly that the country needs a revised and comprehensive Broadcasting Act.
The current act takes us way back to 1968 and much has happened, as we all know, since that time. We have been inundated with technological change and a technological revolution that has been taking place in the country over 10 or 12 years. We have seen the introduction and the very rapid growth of a cable industry that was almost unheard of at that time. There is a real need for a serious look at the legislation and a serious attempt to update and modernize the legislation in terms of today's technology.
The legislation we have before us, although it has some glitches and wrinkles we hope these amendments will be able to smooth out, is very, very critical for Canada, because broadcasting touches all of our lives. It does not matter what age we are at or where we are at in the country, broadcasting touches all of us just about every day. It is an extremely important tool for building a

consensus of identity in the country and for building a consensus for national unity in the country and, believe me, we certainly need a consensus on national unity at this point.
Broadcasting to the 1990s is really what railways were to Canada in the 1800s. It is a mechanism which binds the country together. It ties us together and it builds a family relationship from the east coast to the west coast. Broadcasting is essentially crucial to our democratic process.
Over half of Canadians say that broadcasting is their principal source of news and information, and over 95 per cent of Canadians are radio listeners. That is why, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is so critical and that is why we have taken very, very seriously, as opposition critics, our challenge to make sure that the legislation before the House at the moment is fine-tuned and honed, so that it can do the best job possible in light of technological changes today.
We are presenting 12 or so amendments at this stage, and there are a number of others which will be debated also. But these amendments can be grouped into four main themes or objectives in terms of what we see needs to be beefed up in the current legislation.
First, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as my colleague pointed out earlier, is being both Meeched and leached. It is being leached in that it is being drained of the life blood needed for the corporation to do the kind of job that it is mandated to do. It needs the kind of funding that is not available through the current legislation. It is being Meeched in the terms that it is being divided, as was stated earlier, into two entities. Our amendments will try to strengthen the CBC mandate and to stop government steps which we feel are working to remove or water down the national unity concept that is part of this bill and, also, to split the CBC board into French and English units which we feel may be essentially counterproductive.
On the second front, the cable industry is really the big winner in this bill. Our amendments will hopefully present our position that the industry should be regulated as a carrier with rate of return legislation. Its ability to originate programs should also be limited, as should
Government Orders
its-at this point, anyway-almost unrestricted ability to import foreign programming.
On a third front, Mr. Speaker, are the private broadcasters. In Canada, private television has not been doing the kind of job in terms of creating truly Canadian programming that it should be doing. It has not been fulfilling that very important mandate in terms of broadcasting as a tool for nation-building. It has been falling down in that area, and I think that there needs to be safeguards in this legislation to make sure that it does fulfil that mandate.
The fourth point is with regard to the CRTC. Through this legislation, the government essentially is threatening to compromise the independence of the commission which is very vital in terms of the issues facing the broadcasting industry in Canada today. In making this point, I hope that we will also be able to present reasons to be critical of the commission, to advocate the commission as it will be structured, and to advocate specific legislative remedies that we feel will give it the correct direction.
I know my time is limited, Mr. Speaker, but in terms of the motions before us, I want to speak specifically in regard to the first group of motions.
This group of amendments basically deals with the definition section within the bill. Motion Nos. 1, 4, and 5 deal basically with a possible threat to Canada's jurisdiction over broadcasting. Motion No. 3 is identical to the one that was presented by my colleague at the committee stage. It essentially opposes the government's measures to separate the services provided by broadcasters into programming and non-programming areas.
With respect to Motion Nos. 1, 4, and 5,1 just want to read a comment made by the CRTC in a brief presented to the committee earlier. It states says that the new act may, through the definition of broadcasting, lead to a reopening of now judicially subtle federal-provincial disputes over broadcasting, stirring up old wounds and legal issues. We can see that some of the directions in which this bill takes us are clearly running us into some troubled waters.
I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker. As the debate unfolds, I will have opportunity to comment in more

Government Orders
detail on the many amendments are being presented by my colleagues, the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, and the Liberal member for Mount Royal.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, we are at a time in our history when we almost seem to be going through a minor nervous breakdown in the country. There is so much depression out there. The economy is not working for us.


An hon. member:: It's true.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Yes, it is true. It is pretty eerie. To spend a weekend in Toronto and then come back here is like being in two different countries.
Traditionally in this country, the Broadcasting Act has been an instrument of national unity. It has been an agent for galvanizing the will of the country. I cannot understand why the government wants to remove those words, especially at a time when we are all so fragile.
I think of situations that have happened in the country in the past when we decentralized certain activities of the national government to the province. Never once did the province take a pass on the responsibilities that we gave to them. They maintained those powers and they exercised them with all of the resources that they have.
What concerns me is when we take a broadcast bill, such as Bill C-40, and remove the words "for the promotion of national unity", we are going to have jurisdictional disputes. Suddenly we will have a situation where the Government of Canada will have a particular point of view on an issue and a particular province will have its own definition of what its priority objective is all about. In a cultural objective, whose will is going to reign supreme? Is it going to be the national will? Or will the national will be subservient to the provincial definition?
I am very nervous because there are broadcasting situations that are evolving right now where the regulator is telling broadcasters that their English-French component of music, say, will be 60 per cent English and 40 per cent francophone. After two or three months the owners of the radio station will come back to the regulator, the CRTC, and they will say: "I can't make a go of it with 60 per cent English. I need 90 per cent French and 10 per cent English." But the regulator will
say: "Well, I am sorry. We are the ones that give this definition."
The next thing we know, we are going to be in the Supreme Court where we are going to have the national regulator, the CRTC, going to court with a provincially operated jurisdiction. The CRTC's traditional role has been through the Broadcasting Act to be concerned for the national good and national unity.
Under this new formula the provincial jurisdiction, I believe, has a valid case, because we are really saying in this act that it is the provincial cultural thrust that we must become more extremely sensitized to. Once precedent is set, Mr. Speaker, in a court like this that, we will ultimately have a situation where there will be eight or ten different cultural ghettos all across the country, The CRTC will have absolutely no ability to regulate a national thread or a national will. It will have no ability to drop the hammer and say: "Look, there are things that are good in Halifax that are good in Toronto, and that are good in Vancouver." In other words, the commonness that makes us good will no longer be there and no longer can be regulated.
Because of the very special power that the Broadcasting Act has, whether it is cable, television, or radio, I think we are really putting ourselves into a very precarious situation by not putting up a very strong objection to the words "national unity" being removed from this bill.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak in support of the Liberal motions, particularly those motions that relate to the question of the CBC and broadcasting remaining in the federal jurisdiction.
What we are talking about here is a question of national unity. We are talking about an instrument of national unity, a tradition of national unity, and an institution that Canadians have looked upon since its invention as an instrument of national unity.
Later in these motions there will be specific references made to withdrawing the term that calls for the CBC to be an instrument of national unity from the Broadcast Act. I consider that, and I know that millions of Canadians would agree, to be a travesty. I consider it to be a form of sale of our birth right.

I remember 15 years ago, the first time I left Halifax and moved to British Columbia in my first job after I finished university, being particularly home sick, even though the west coast is a lovely place. I can remember listening to CBC with even more of a fervour than I did at home because it reminded me on a daily basis that this was one country from coast to coast. Listening to the news, The World at Eight every morning, listening to As it Happens every night at six, hearing the same voices giving the same news items, the same stories, the same programming right across the country was a reassuring event.
Along with that, before I left the maritimes to go to the west coast, I had been in graduate school in Great Britain. I can tell you again that the Canadians would stay up until all hours to get Radio Canada International to hear our own news, to listen to hockey games, to keep our contacts with our own sense of Canadianism that Canadian broadcasting has always given us.
For my generation, the post-war baby boom generation, we began with radio and we set wave into television. Again, I remember things that reinforced my sense of Canadianism that came from the various broadcasting institutions of this country.
I remember as a small child watching a program about children in Winnipeg. That is a city that I would not visit until I was in my late twenties, but when I got there I recognized Golden Boy, and I knew how cold it was on the comer of Portage and Main in the winter.
I look at what this bill will do to this institution of Canadian unity. I am sad and I am shocked. I look at the various things that this government wants to do and I see it as part of the pattern that we have all been forced to live with since this government was unfortunately reelected in 1988. What we see is a wholesale destruction of Canadian institutions.
One of the other things I look at here is the separation of the CBC board into two standing committees; one in English, one in French. That is really Canadian apartheid. We sit here today, knowing that our whole future constitutionally as Canadians is in difficulty, to understate the case, in jeopardy, not to overstate it. Instead of ensuring the ongoing health and welfare of an institution
Government Orders
that can be a major force for Canadian unity, we are again trying to divide and compromise this nation.
We have to listen to each other in every region and every province. One of the best ways for listening to each other is through the use of our broadcast institutions and in particular, from my point of view, through the use of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
When the Caplan-Sauvageau committee recommended the removal of the term "a force for Canadian unity" from the Broadcasting Act, they made a mistake. They made a mistake so grievous in nature that we are all going to be living with its ramifications for a long time to come. One of the things they said was that they felt that the use of the CBC, or using those terms as a force for Canadian unity, would hinder programming that could reflect the multicultural aspects of Canada, a linguistic duality, and so on. Mr. Speaker, where I come from in the province of Nova Scotia, they would have hard terms for that. The best way I can put it is to say that it is a lot of codswallop.
Why should we think that being a force for Canadian unity will diminish anyone else? Why did our ancestors come here? Why did we come here, in the case of some of our members that sit in the House? Why do people want to live in Canada? Because it is a wonderful country, because it is a diverse country, because it has all these bizarre and strange regional poles and pushes, and because we spent a great deal of our time contemplating our differences as opposed to thanking God for our blessings. But, people love this country in every single province, and they love it through their national institutions. They do not need to be told that being in favour of Canadian unity and pushing for Canadian unity is going to somehow diminish them as members of their own particular cultural groups. I cannot see how anyone could possibly make a case for that at the best of times.
I remember a long time ago being at a meeting of young people in Nova Scotia and a young man from the highlands of Cape Breton was discussing with another young man, who was the son of new Canadians. He had been bom in Canada but his parents had come from western Europe. The young man of Scottish descent, in the accent that I will not attempt to reproduce, but it is a beautiful Cape Breton accent-it is very much like my colleague from Dartmouth actually-said: "If you want to know how to preserve your culture, come to us in Cape Breton and we will show you". It is very true. With regard to the Cape Breton culture, in the words of that very famous, and justly so, son of Cape Breton, Hugh

Government Orders
MacLellan, the incidence of the kilt in Cape Breton arose commensurately with the incidence of the tourist. But Scottish culture in Cape Breton is strong, and one of the reasons it is strong is the CBC policy for Gaelic programming on a weekly basis on CBC Radio in Sydney.
The CBC was a great force in creating the Department of Celtic Studies at St. Francis Xavier University, with which some people even on the other side of the House have more than a nodding acquaintance.
In closing, let me merely say that it is stuff and nonsense to suggest that being a force for Canadian unity could possibly hinder any Canadian's development, self-expression or cultural wholeness. The federal jurisdiction must be maintained if the CBC and broadcasting in Canada is to retain the moral authority that it should have and if Canada is to have a way to speak, and Canadians are to have a way to speak to each other for the rest of what could be a wonderful future.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe - Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of the opportunity to speak briefly about Bill C-40.
Let me just say, in listening to the eloquent words of my colleagues, the hon. member for Mount Royal, the hon. member for Halifax, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, and others who have spoken about their concerns for national unity, the implications for national unity, and the implications for federal jurisdiction as a consequence of the passage of this bill as proposed, it strikes me as incredibly ironic that today we, in Parliament, have been given notice that the government will shortly put forward a motion for consideration by Parliament a federal initiative to deal with the question of constitutional renewal in Canada. [DOT]
there is in the country an exercise in Quebec that is now under way.
There is an exercise in the maritimes under way. There may be one beginning in Ontario. The western premiers are doing their thing with respect to the future of the country. Suddenly, there is an understanding that the country cannot be defined from the perspective of a particular region or province. It has to be defined in the place and from the jurisdiction where every voice and every region is represented and where true consensus can be found, the Parliament of Canada.
The Prime Minister says: "Tomorrow, I put down a motion and tomorrow I, the Prime Minister, begin the debate." How ironic that against that backdrop, that recognition that the country more than ever is Balka-nized, divided, needs national institutions, against that backdrop today before us in the House is a bill having to do with the future of broadcasting in Canada which contributes to the Balkanization of Canada that has given rise to the need to have a debate starting tomorrow.
That is why members of the opposition, my colleague the critic and member for Mount Royal, will be proposing so many important amendments to this broadcasting bill. I tell you this bill as drafted and as it sits is not acceptable to my colleague. It is not acceptable to the Liberal Party, because this bill is not a contributor to the kind of solution the Prime Minister says he wants for the deep division and wounds that have scarred the soul of Canada. It does not contribute to healing.
It contributes to further division. We make a plea to members opposite to understand this is not just a parliamentary exercise. This is not a critic undertaking her responsibility to examine a bill and to make some proposals so we can say at the end of the day: "We did our job." This is a heartfelt plea to understand the consequence and the importance of broadcasting in Canada.

We are told that tomorrow the Prime Minister will speak to the House on that subject, that there is on the part of the government a recognition that in the vacuum of leadership that has been the reality here in Ottawa vis-a-vis the Constitution and post Meech Lake, that
Fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, when you strip away the institutions, when you privatize the Petro-Canadas, the Air Canadas, the post office, when you take down the federal flag in the smallest community in the last point on the east coast of Newfoundland, the only mirror and symbol of the nation that is left is the ability through the
October 31, 1990

CBC to come into the hearts and homes of Canadians no matter where they live and to hold up the mirror no matter where they live in Canadian society. That is what the CBC is, a huge mirror.
Sometimes it tilts on the Atlantic. Sometimes it tilts on Quebec. Other days Ontario and sometimes, the west. It reflects ourselves back at us. We do not always like what we see. We do not always even agree with what we see, but it is a focus on Canada. It is a mandate that includes the concept and the responsibility to contribute to national unity.
Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? My riding is in the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland: Port au Choix, Cook's Harbour, Croque, Griguet or Harbour Deep, a place you can only reach by boat or by airplane. Only 200 souls live in Harbour Deep.
There is no Global, because there is no advertising revenue. There is no CTV-I do not blame them-because there is no advertising revenue. There is no cable television-I do not blame them-because there is no advertising revenue.
Harbour Deep is connected with its country. It is connected with Canada. There is no post office there anymore either. It is connected with Canada, because it receives the CBC. Why does it receive the CBC? Because the CBC is mandated to be there. Cynics could suggest this bill is the first step on the road to privatization of the CBC.
We hear those who do not understand Canada, who have never seen beyond the concrete and glass towers of our large and sometimes beautiful and wonderful urban centres that there is another Canada. They talk about the CBC budget of $1.3 billion. They say: "Look at CTV. Look at how much cheaper it is. Look at Global. Look at the American networks. Look at cable. What do we have the CBC for? We can put junk programming in front of our children and the families of this nation without the CBC" but, Mr. Speaker, none of them will be found in the smaller communities of this nation. None of them will turn the mirror and reflect this country back to the Canadians who live in the rural communities of this nation, in our north, in the west, in the Atlantic, in northern Ontario, and northern Quebec. None of them will be present, or have the mandate to be present, and more important-and this is most important-none of
Government Orders
the other networks will reflect those tiny communities back to Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, or Ottawa.
That is the nature of the institution that is CBC. That is the importance of it, giving the country an opportunity to understand itself, to share each other's problem and potential, to share each other's joy, each other's culture, and language, and song, and tradition, and history, and aspirations.
This bill is not a regulatory exercise, a tinker here, and a tinker there. It is not a response to a private sector whose mandate is the bottom line.
The airwaves do not belong to the shareholders of a private concern. They belong to me. They belong to 26 million Canadians no matter where they live and they are held in trust by the government, by the Minister of Communications on behalf of 26 million Canadians who own the airwaves, and the government has to exercise that trust on behalf of all Canadians with care.
I say again at a time when already in this country we increasingly reflect almost a modern-day tower of Babylon, where people are speaking in every region, each with a different message, speaking at each other but not to each other, making noise but not listening. The nature of the broadcasting regime in Canada becomes very important. What is particularly important is the nature of the CBC.
The fabric of this country is rendered, it is tom, it is held only in this day of great cynicism and as my friend from Broadview-Greenwood said, great depression, by a few threads. Some of those threads, are the CBC. We sever them at our peril.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I only want to speak two or three minutes. It is not my intention to delay the vote on this particular motion which I hope will take place in two or three minutes.
I did want to take the opportunity to congratulate the previous speaker because he spoke of something which is important in my part of the country as well. I think it is important for all of us.
I also want to take a brief moment to congratulate the member for Mount Royal for her efforts in improving the proposals of the government in this regard. The member for Mount Royal is quite expert on such issues and she has acquired a reputation here on Parliament Hill in terms of her knowledge of communications, the arts, and culture.
I want the House to know how important it is for us as a country to continue to have a good and viable national broadcasting system. The member for Humber-St.

October 31, 1990
Government Orders
Barbe-Baie Verte said eloquently some moments ago that in certain parts of this country it is indeed difficult to have access to programming other than what is produced by the CBC. Of course he was referring to Canadian programming.
In some communities it goes beyond that because in fact you either get that or nothing at all.
Let us use as an example my own constituency in which, of course, programming is available even without the CBC. Some areas are well equipped with cable television. In other areas, not nearly so lucky, the major Canadian networks are generally available. I am referring to the commercial types.
What is important for us to remember, I feel, is that even for those areas that are well served by the private sector in terms of providing radio or television programming, it is economical for them to purchase their programming elsewhere, rather than produce their own. There is what I would call an almost irresistible temptation not to produce anything and simply to purchase it. When I refer to purchasing it-particularly in the English language-it all comes from the same place, that is of course south of the border.

The situation is somewhat different with French programming because we have two options. Programming is either produced here in Canada-mainly, but not exclusively, in Quebec-or imported from Europe, because our U.S. giant has yet to find an efficient way to produce French programming. However, even in that case, Mr. Speaker, there is an additional dimension. U.S. programming is purchased and a so-called voice-over is added, which means that what we hear is a Translation of the English version.
What we see in French and in English, but especially in English, is programming that makes our young people experts on Detroit or Miami, while they are incapable of telling us what Winnipeg, and in some cases Montreal or any number of other Canadian cities even look like.

That contributes to the lack of knowledge that we have of each other as Canadians, that the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte was referring to in his
excellent discourse a few moments ago. The fact that we know through television cities in a different country and landscape in a different country far better than we know our own in Canada.
I had occasion not long ago to visit the constituency of Churchill in Manitoba, a place I had never been. I saw there something absolutely beautiful, something that 99 per cent of Canadians and probably even a greater percentage have never seen-possibly never will see- that beautiful tundra landscape and the land of the polar bears.
I had never seen that in television programming except for one day last year when the polar bears all went into the community of Churchill. It made The National that night. Three or four days later, most people did not remember that event. When I described my experience of having visited that community some weeks ago to my constituents, most of them did not remember that feature of roughly the same time last year on our national, publicly-owned television because, of course, it is something that only happened once, and we are not reminded of it.
Compare that to what I call the Miami Vice phenomenon, where the streets of Miami and other cities in south Florida are seen on a weekly basis on television simply because that is part of a regular program which is produced for a very vast audience in the United States and then is sold at a relatively low cost to Canadians because of the very low unit cost of producing it.
This has a dual problem for broadcasters because the program is relatively cheap to buy from elsewhere, and because it is seen on the cablevision channels on the U.S. side and transmitted here-it is available to U.S. channels anyway-it gives the broadcasters two reasons to show them to us on our Canadian television stations and networks.
The point I am making is that there is a tremendous need for us as Canadians to realize how precious our institutions are and how important it is for us to cherish them and to try to improve them. From time to time members of this House are critical of the CBC. They will say that their leader or themselves or someone else did not get favourable coverage, the CBC costs a lot to maintain anyway and so on, therefore why do we have it. It goes beyond whether or not on a particular day one of us got good or bad television coverage on the news. It
October 31, 1990

goes more to the proposition that we need that institution for our national unity.
We need the CBC and public broadcasting generally, that includes TV Ontario and others as well. We need them as an instrument of national unity. We need them at a time, that again was described by my colleague, when we see the flag of Canada on the post office being removed. We need that at a time when other instruments of national unity are being destroyed or privatized or altered by the government.
I say this to the government across the way, but I say it to all of us as parliamentarians, that we must do our utmost to cherish those institutions that have kept us together. These institutions are even more important in an age of advancing telecommunications, institutions that can contribute to keeping us together and united in the future.

I realize I may have taken up more than my intended two or three minutes, Mr. Speaker, but I did not intend to speak to all the motions. I simply wanted to inform the parliamentary secretary and other members that I consider these instruments to be very important and that I wish everybody would realize that we have the tools to help build our national unity. Safeguard it, improve it, but let's not do anything to diminish or destroy it.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like to recap by saying a vote on Motion No. 1 will be applied to Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and Motions Nos. 2 and 48 will be voted on separately.
The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Mount Royal. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the parliamentary secretary. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.


An hon. member:: On division.
Motion No. 2 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 48 standing in the name of the parliamentary secretary. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 48 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, normally at this point we would be proceeding to Motion No. 6. I think you will find that there is consent to delay consideration of Motion No. 6 until after we have dealt with the next

Government Orders
cluster of motions in order to accommodate the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will proceed with Motions Nos. 8, 9, and 10, which are grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 8 will be applied to Motion No. 10. Motion No. 9 will be voted on separately.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 18 and 19 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"provide programming that is predominantly Canadian, using predominantly Canadian crea-".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 21 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"and presentation of programming, in particular in the prime viewing hours between 19:00 and 23:00 hours on television, unless".


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-40 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 5 at page 5 the following:
"(vi) provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to view the productions of Canada's autonomous public film producer and distributor, the National Film Board of Canada;".
She said: Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting aspects of having worked so closely with the parliamentary secretary, with the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam and my other colleagues in this House, has been the sense of putting aside ideological differences as we examined the Caplan-Sauvageau report minutely. We came up with recommendations that jointly we felt were in the best interests of Canada and the Canadian broadcasting system, whether it be the public or private sector or the educational or community sector. We were all very aware of the sensitivity and the impact that this particular medium has on the way of life of all Canadians and its impact on children, in particular.
I remember when we were at Meech Lake for the decisions as to how we were going to deal with these various amendments and suggestions that had been so carefully considered by Caplan-Sauvageau. One of them related to the predominantly Canadian content of our
television system. When one turns on the television set, one has to ask a question. How much of what we are watching is Canadian and how much do people realize is not Canadian? When your children think that Rambo is a great Canadian hero, we must ask ourselves some questions. It is really serious when it gets to the point when they do not know whether Ronald Reagan was the president of Canada or the President of the United States and Mr. Mulroney was busy singing and dancing with Irish eyes a' twinkling. It is a serious matter that this Conservative government ought to take into consideration.
The future of who we are and what we will be is what is going to come through on this very pervasive medium. The committee determined that television should be predominantly Canadian, in terms of the hardware, the lights, the camera and the action, but also in terms of the software, or the intellectual material that was going to be included on our screens.
What was important was that our writers, books and scripts would see the light of day and that our singers and songwriters voices would be heard and that we would have our actors and our actresses on the stage and screen. They would not be there in exclusivity because Canadians do not live in a narrow, confined world.
Canadians are globetrotters, Canadians are producers of all kinds of wonderful material that can compete anywhere in the world, whether it is in the field of song, dance, literature, music, we are wonderfully competitive. But we need access to the medium so we can produce and control some of the distribution of these things, so we can have the materials that will allow us to have a predominantly Canadian presence.
In a world where we watch television as our major leisure activity, where we spend more than 24 hours a week before our TV set, and our Canadian children spend more than 1,000 hours watching television as compared to only 800 hours in school-and sometimes I wonder what they learn in school because what they bring home as values is what they see on that screen-if we do not stop to consider the Canadian way of life, a less violent way of life, a more accommodating way of life, a highly multicultural, multiracial way of life, which has respect for diversity, respect for cultural differences, respect for linguistic differences and the promotion of those values, then how do we expect our children from east to west to maintain that difference on the global
October 31, 1990

map if we do not include predominant Canadian material?
While 95 per cent of Canadians listen to radio, they hear an awful lot more Canadian content material than they do on their television sets. Seventy-one per cent of all programs viewed by Canadians on English television are primarily American. What does that do to our thinking? What does that do to our vision of ourselves, our pride of self, our heritage, the development of our own heroes? Ninety-seven per cent of our screen time is made up with foreign, primarily American material. It is big business. It is billions and billions and billions of dollars of business. Well, let's keep a few of those billions here and use them to promote Canadian content.
Seventy-five per cent of our book market, 71 per cent of our periodical market, consists of imported foreign products.

I wish we could have a measure of protection the way we have in French, even it is not 100 per cent, which of course we would prefer, but at least in French we have some measure of protection and we are proud to be Quebecers, Canadians, French Canadians, because of the quality programming that is produced right here.

We on the English speaking side are so busy trying to be the American dream because we think that we can market that product, which is really a camouflaged American product, not as first class but as second class, and the minute Canadians produce first class programming and Canadians fall in love and understand the nature of the program produced, all of a sudden, we hit the Cannes Festival and we are very successful, we hit the Montreal Film Festival and we are very successful, we hit all international festivals and our products sell.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that we need this amendment that I have brought in here that does not allow our cable companies and our broadcasters to weasel out and buy less expensive, not that they are less quality, but less expensive American programs, because
Government Orders
they are trying to globalize the world of television and have that income flow to them.
More important, we have to be able to produce our own Canadian shows so that we can have access to top quality material. At the same time, I add my voice to that of the National Film Board when they appeared before us. I cannot for the life of me understand why this government is not prepared to accept the National Film Board's material as a partner in the development of this Canadian content, they have won more Oscars, more international awards than any other agency in this country, or any private sector. We should be so impressed with its accomplishments, particularly in the women's field where Studio D has won international acclaim. I cannot understand why the government is so stubborn that it cannot take an opposition motion that makes good solid sense and include it in this bill so we can have a better made-in-Canada operation. That is the goal of the Canadian broadcasting bill, to have a Canadian broadcasting system.
I will take just a couple more minutes to indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that I would sincerely hope that the government will change its mind and include the National Film Board, with its thousands of wonderful creative programs that look at all the issues that are important to Canada and to Canadians, seen through Canadian eyes, written about by Canadian writers, and add that in the distribution to our screen.
I would call on the government to show an openness of mind and spirit and to accept "predominantly Canadian" which it accepted itself at a unanimously tabled document by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party on this group of amendments. Motions Nos. 8, 9, and 10 are grouped for debate.
Motion No. 8 is the motion of the member for Mount Royal to whom I should also pay tribute for her great work in this area over a number of years. She has been on the communications committee longer than I was and has done a lot of work on this matter.
Having said that I would point out, with a bit of a twinkle in my eye, that my Motion No. 9 is a little bit more specific than her motion. Her motion would substitute:

Government Orders
"provide programming that is predominantly Canadian, using
predominantly Canadian crea-"
My amendment states:
"and presentation of programming, in particular in prime viewing time between 19:00 and 23:00 hours on television, unless"
Here is the problem that has been pointed out by all sorts of committees. Canadian television stations, both public and private, but especially private, are not producing enough Canadian content, enough Canadian drama, good Canadian programs. They are making progress, partly through what we as MPs have been doing telling them in committee, but they have not been producing the kind of programming that is necessary. Let me say a little bit about that.
The amendment deals with the amount of Canadian content presented in prime time-that is what we are concerned about-by private broadcasters. At present the rule states that 60 per cent of Canadian programming is required in an 18-hour broadcast day, from 6 a.m. to 1 a.m., calculated over a year. That is the rule.
In the evening, 6 p.m. to 12 p.m.-notice that broad time- public networks must present 60 per cent Canadian content and private broadcasters must present 50 per cent. The problem lies in the definition of prime time.
In television circles, in the industry, the real prime time is between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m. I see the member for Hamilton-Wentworth over there. He knows this area very well and I think he would concur with what I am saying. The CRTC's definition has effectively allowed private television to get around its obligations by providing news between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. and 11 p.m. and 12 p.m. People who are watching this in British Columbia, my home province, know that B.C.-TV news, for example, is big between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. and 11 p.m. and 12 p.m.
In the remaining four hours, only 25 per cent Canadian content is needed on average to meet this requirement. The result is American sitcoms. There are a lot of them on private stations, and not Canadian drama. Moreover, the reporting periods for measuring Canadian content have been changed from the CRTC from monthly to quarterly to annually. This has allowed private broadcasters to dump much of the Canadian content in the summer months, so it is even worse.
Let us look at drama, because this is the real domination. I will just give some examples. We looked at this. From 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. viewing, it was 30 per cent Canadian and 68 per cent U.S and for 7 p.m. to 11 p.m., it was 24 per cent Canadian and 74 per cent U.S. By programming type it was, for the news, 92 per cent Canadian and 8 per cent foreign. So Canadians are watching Canadian news. For public affairs, it was 68 per cent Canadian and 32 per cent foreign. When it gets down to drama, it is 4 per cent Canadian and 96 per cent foreign. That is where it really shows up.
For the average anglophone teenager, 80 per cent of their viewing time is spent watching foreign programs.

I see my friend and colleague, the NDP member for Quebec. In Quebec, for Francophones, for young Francophones, it is 50 per cent.

Francophone teenagers spend 50 per cent of their viewing time watching foreign programming. For young people particularly, and Canadians generally, when it comes to movies and drama, it is 4 per cent Canadian and 97 per cent foreign. In terms of variety, music and quizzes, it is 22 per cent Canadian and 78 per cent foreign. This is an area that we have to make progress in.
According to the task force on broadcasting, of the 52,000 hours of English television programming available to the average Canadian family, barely 370 hours are Canadian drama. That is 370 hours out of 5,200 hours. In French language television, it is 27,000 hours. That is a bit better, but it is 630 hours of Canadian drama. Ninety-eight per cent of all drama on English television is foreign. You can see the problem. Every report on broadcasting in recent years has agreed that the private sector is not doing its job in producing Canadian programming.
I am not naive, Mr. Speaker. I know how difficult it is to produce Canadian programming and how much more expensive it is to produce a half hour of Canadian drama as opposed to buying Dallas or MASH or some other American program. One has to sympathize, but one also has to say to Canadian private broadcasters: "Come on. You've got to do better. You've got to do more. You are making good money from the airwaves, you've got to produce more drama."
October 31, 1990

Gerry Caplan, testifying before a House committee said:
We have a broadcasting system that, when most Canadians are watching it each night, feeds them a daily diet of predominantly, indeed overwhelmingly American programming in the name of meeting the objectives of the Broadcast Act.
The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, which my friend, the parliamentary secretary, chaired, stated:
The Committee considers it evident that private television has been making an insufficient contribution-The private sector is earning 50 per cent return on investment.
The brief of ACTRA also suggested that there were good profits, but not enough Canadian content.
The government's response to the private sector, which in television especially is making significant profits using the public airways and yet not doing its job in producing Canadian programs, is minimal. They have ignored the task force in broadcasting which called for 45 per cent Canadian content between 7 and 11 p.m. The only response in this bill is found in clause 11 where the government proposes to the CRTC the possibility of a performance incentive. It laid out how that scheme would work in their policy document, Canadian Voices, Canadian Choices, which it tabled with the bill.
There has not been a single witness before the legislative committee on either one of these two bills who thinks this scheme will work. Not the unions, not ACTRA or CUPE, not the private sector, Western International Communications, Canadian Association of Broadcasters, and so on-and not the commission. Nobody. At best, they all said it would be little more than a licensing fee.
We have a scheme here. I will call it performance incentive. No one supports it, but it is still in the bill. My amendment here would specifically in this timeframe require a percentage of Canadian content. I suggest that is the way to go.
The motion is also necessary because the commission has refused to get tough with the private sector on content issues. Despite this appalling record of promises broken, the condition of licence is not lived up to by private broadcasters. I challenge anyone to find a private
Government Orders
sector broadcaster whose licence has been revoked by the CRTC. There is not one.
The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture doubted the commission would ever revoke a licence. It stated: "We do not believe that the commission will in fact suspend the licence of a network broadcaster". This is why we need an explicit direction in this legislation.
This amendment reflects the spirit of many briefs to the legislative committee and the Caplan-Sauvageau report. If private broadcasters are forced to present Canadian programs in prime time, they will have no choice in my view but to produce quality programs in order to gain advertising revenue. This is the thrust of this amendment. I think members should support it.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to address the proposed amendments to the broadcast bill, Bill C-40, specifically the predominantly Canadian content and the role of the National Film Board. The predominantly Canadian content and an important role for the National Film Board are the two critical issues.
Before I get into a precise argument with respect to those amendments, I do want to point out that I obviously have a number of other concerns about this bill. I am quite certain that the new definition will be challenged and clearly the most important question being raised is whether or not there will be a federal role for communications as a result of what is happening.
There is concern as well with the regionalization of services and whether or not there will be a number of fiefdoms that will created that will further weaken the country. Those are concerns that need to be raised because they are clearly extremely legitimate.
The whole notion of separating the English and the French is one where I have personally mixed feelings because clearly I would have believed and I wanted to believe, if there was one level of government that could have institutions where those two groups could work in harmony together and synergize, it would be at the federal level. I suspect that this is probably being done because there is some unhappiness. There is something at work there that is not positive at this particular point in time, otherwise it would not be doing it.

October 31, 1990
Government Orders
I have another concern that is related to that one. If that happens, as is proposed, how will this contribute to a possible new definition of Canada? Will it go a long way toward defining Canada as two solitudes, an English one and a French one? With respect to the French one, are we going to be primarily concerned about the French in Quebec as we ought to be to a significant degree by virtue of the numbers there? Are we going to abandon, or forget, or be less sensitive to les francophones hors Quebec?

Why more Canadian content and why involve the National Film Board of Canada?

I want to look at the power of the media, the power of television and radio. We know that we need information on an increasingly regular and important basis. We recognize that our attitudes are formed by the knowledge and the information that we receive. We know as well that it is important to have Canadian information, Canadian content so that we can form attitudes about ourselves as Canadians, about the role that we occupy in this world in juxtaposition to other countries, and about the kind of economic, social and cultural development that we want for our nation. Where do we want to go as a nation?
Clearly, those are the kinds of questions that we are going to be exposed to by television and radio. Clearly, if the content, the attitudes, and the values are Canadian, that is going to be extremely helpful. If it were not, what kinds of conclusions are we going to reach? We need to talk to each other, as many of my colleagues have said. We need to recognize that we have important regions, such as the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario, the Atlantic provinces, our western provinces, and our great north. Will this contribute to helping us to reach out and to talk to each other? Will this kind of orientation that we are taking now prevent us from realizing the true nature of Canada, not only with regard to these five regions of which I speak, but our aboriginal people. Clearly, our aboriginal people are unique in many ways to the country. We have an important French language population. It is roughly 7 million Canadians. We have a number of important people who come from groups
other than aboriginal, French, or English. Clearly we also have the majority group, the English. Will this bill really contribute to identifying those particularly unique groups, and let us talk together and build a stronger nation? Those are questions that are a real concern to me.
One of my colleagues mentioned this particular institution, the CBC, and communications, in general, as potential instruments to national unity. It can be if it is handled appropriately, but will it be?
Why is it that we, as politicians, are often anxious to get in front of the camera and to be listened to on the radio? It is because we recognize the power of the media. We recognize what radio and television can do for us, for our parties, and for our ideas. If it can do that for us, it can do a lot for the country. Let us review some of the facts that some of our colleagues have shared. They are important because they emphasize and corroborate the points that I am making with respect to the power of the media.
Children watch roughly 1,000 hours of television, roughly the same amount of time that they spend in school and perhaps a bit more. Ninety-five per cent of Canadians listen to the radio 18 hours a week. That is almost as much time listening to the radio. Fifty per cent of Canadians use as a principle source of information, radio and television; 75 per cent of our books now used and read are non-Canadian; 70 per cent of our periodicals are foreign; and adult Canadians who listen to English language television and radio are listening to 70 per cent non-Canadian content.
These are really very powerful facts that speak to this dimension that we are trying to discuss today. That is, the need to have additional Canadian content and to involve the National Film Board which is a unique instrument to speak eloquently about some of the specific and particular features of our nation.
We need news and programs which are Canadian based and which have Canadian values. We want our own performers. We want to see them, encourage them, and develop them. Let us recognize that within that whole industry, there are important jobs for Canadians. If I have a choice, and without wanting to take anything away from anybody, I would want Canadians to get special and preferential treatment in this particular area.
October 31, 1990



Mr. Speaker, as I just said, this bill is less than perfect in a number of ways. First of all, there is a new definition I think will cause some serious trouble. The main question we must ask ourselves now is: will there always be a major role for the federal government in communications?
I also think that although regionalization may be positive, it can also have a negative impact. I am really afraid that if the country is divided into five regions, we will not communicate often enough and there will be major differences that will cause serious trouble in this country.
As I said earlier, as a Francophone by birth, as a French Canadian, I wonder, if the federal government does not have an institution where Anglophones and Francophones can work together in harmony and can both help to create a favourable climate for generating new ideas and stimulating creativity, what level of government will be able to do that and how Francophones outside Quebec will be treated if we go ahead with this bill.
I notice that I am coming to the end of my time, and I shall terminate with one comment.
Some people would say-I do not say it unkindly-that this fits "the Tory way". It is the dismantling of what we have known to be Canada. We have seen the dismantling of VIA Rail, Air Canada and the sale of Petro-Canada. Now, people are concerned as to whether or not this will lead to privatization, whether or not this will in fact be a continuation of the Tory vision of Canada. I hope not.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support these amendments.
The words "predominantly Canadian" should be words that make us very proud. In my previous life, in my normal life-all of us had a normal life before we came to this institution-


Don Boudria: Maybe this is incarnation.


Mary Catherine Clancy: No. Same incarnation.
One of the things that I did was to work as an actress mostly on stage, but also on television and radio. It was not a full-time occupation. It was an avocation, but it
Government Orders
gave me the opportunity to meet and to know some of the absolutely incredibly creative people who make up the world surrounding theatre, broadcasting, writing, producing and directing in this country.
As well, I spent four years doing political broadcasting on the CBC. That, too, introduced me to a wealth of people in the area of public affairs programming, again on the CBC.
Over the years, in the creative arts in Canada in particular, in the last 20 years we have seen a real sea of change for Canadians. Young people who wanted to write, act, produce and direct were no longer convinced that they had to leave here and go to the United States, not just to make a success but to make a living.
They were discovering that, because of rules relating to Canadian content, they could stay in Canada. Indeed, there were even people who had the temerity to set up television studios, to create television programs and do advertising, make films and so on in Nova Scotia. Imagine having a creative ability and being able to stay in the province of Nova Scotia to make a living. What a miraculous development this was for people with the creative urge.
I spoke before on the question of the federal jurisdiction and what it means to Canadian unity. I think the words "predominantly Canadian" relate more to a sense of Canadian self-knowledge and Canadian pride. I am sure that every one of us in this House has, at one time or another, listened to those wonderful radio programs on the CBC that deal with the antics of those of us who sit here in this Chamber.
I would bet that even when the barbs fly your way, Mr. Speaker, you would rather hear jokes relating to Canadian politicians than jokes relating to George Bush. You would rather hear satire based on the Canadian political experience than on the British, the American or whatever. I think those are givens for Canadian citizens.
More important, they form a basis of our Canadian identity and reality for our children so that they do not make all of their decisions and choices in life based on what is essentially a foreign culture.
In the early days of CBC television programming, again I remember-I am not going to get into the Winnipeg bit again because if I do I will only get heckled by my own side-the programs for children. I remember

Government Orders
Uncle Chichimus, for example, which was a puppet show that long predated-


John Harvard: Howdy-doody.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Howdy-doody, indeed, although that was a direct steal from the Americans.
I remember Chez Helene which for many Canadian anglophone children was the first place that they learned simple French words. They learned how to count in French. They learned the fact that there were two languages in this country, and it was a tremendous opening, a tremendous bridge between what my colleague from St. Boniface referred to as our two solitudes.
I want to refer very briefly to the amendment of my colleague from Port Moody-Coquitlam and say that we support this in our party as well, but we would remind the House that while it is important to have predominantly Canadian content in prime time viewing, it is important to keep Canadian content throughout the day in our television because children watch more than just prime time. Women at home watch more than just prime time. Senior citizens watch more than just prime time.
It is absolutely essential that the majority of those programs continue to make use of the Canadian experience and Canadian creative ability. To waste that is really a scandal and a terrible misuse of the resources that we have in this country.
I want to say that we all know, as ACTRA has said, that Canada is a culturally occupied country. This is something that we were seeing turn around over the last 20 years. We were seeing a change, as I said before a see-change, in the attitudes of Canadians toward their own programming.
I remember very well 30 years ago if you saw something coming on that was supposedly a CBC production-well in Nova Scotia we did not have the cable channels that we have now. It was CBC or nothing as my colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte said.


Mr. Comuzzi:: 


Mary Catherine Clancy: No, we did not get CTV until the mid-1960s. Thank you, my colleague from Thunder Bay.
We did not watch because we had been conditioned to think that if it was Canadian, it was somehow inferior. I believe that Canadians have been reconditioned. I am not saying that everything that gets produced in this country is good. Far from it. But let us have the opportunity to be good, to be mediocre, to be indifferent. Let us have the opportunity and let Canadian talent, Canadian ability, and Canadian creativity shape this cultural institution, shape what we and what our children will be watching on television.
I believe, and I suspect that most members of this House would agree with me, we might be quite a bit better. We certainly could not be a whole lot worse.
I also want to speak briefly on the whole question of the amendment relating to the National Film Board. The National Film Board is a treasure in this country, beyond counting. My colleague from Mount Royal talked about Studio D and some of the films that have been made by Studio D. One of the films, Black Mother, Black Daughter spoke eloquently to the situation relating to black women in my community of Halifax-Dartmouth where 95 per cent of the indigenous black population of Canada live. This is also the same studio that made the film Not a Love Story which is recognized world-wide as a major instrument in the fight against pornography and the fight against the stereotyping of women.
Along with that we have the wonderful film Speaking our Piece which brought Canadian women together with women in the Soviet Union in the quest for peace, and we have the equally wonderful film against nuclear proliferation called If You Love this Planet.
If the National Film Board is not to be included in this bill, I do not know where we are going and I do not know what has happened to the compass of the cultural fate of this country. It is clear that if we can leave the National Film Board out of the broadcast bill, if we can leave the National Film Board out of our future plans for the cultural enrichment of this countiy, for the cultural planning of this country, then our cultural ship is sinking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the next speaker, a point of order by the hon. member for Calgary West, the Government Whip.
October 31, 1990


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to Presenting Reports from Committees, and I think you will find that that consent exists.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed, and so ordered.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifty-second report of the Striking Committee, pursuant to Standing Order 113(1). This report deals with the membership of a legislative committee. Upon presentation, such reports are deemed adopted.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.] FIFTY-THIRD REPORT OF STRIKING COMMITTEE


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I also have the honour to present the fifty-third report of the striking committee which concerns the membership of the special committee on transport and if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that the fifty-third report of the striking committee be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-40, an act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunications,
Government Orders
as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and on Motions Nos. 8 and 10 of Mrs. Finestone (p.14956), and on Motion No. 9 of Mr. Waddell (p. 14956).
John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, in the cluster of motions that we are now debating is Motion No. 7, which can be summed up in one sentence. The amendment would require that not only the resources being used to create the programming be predominantly Canadian, but that the programming carried by broadcasters be predominantly Canadian.
What does that mean? It means that it is not only our desire to have producers, directors, writers, actors and actresses, all of them Canadian, but we also want to see in the final product a Canadian program on the screen. In other words, we want to see Canada on the screen. We want to see and experience our joys and wonders, our happiness, our controversies, our conflicts, our hurts, and our sorrows. We want to see literally the heart and soul of Canada on our television screens. That is what this proposed amendment is all about.
It is wonderful in terms of employment and creativity to have Canadians employed in the industry, and hopefully they are doing it for the Canadian market, not just for the world market, but Canadians have to feel that the final product is indeed Canadian and reflects their culture and their country.
That is why, for example, I hoped that the National Film Board would be written into Bill C-40, because as my colleague from Halifax said a few moments ago, the National Film Board is a treasure. It is one of the great Canadian institutions developed over a number of decades, and its product, its great works, should have access to our television screens, not only the CBC, but CTV and Global, all the independent stations. That is the way we should go. The National Film Board should be given that opportunity and access. Bill C-40 will not do anything for that.
It has been mentioned on a number of occasions how much we use radio and television in this country, how pervasive it is, how much we use it. For example, and this perhaps has already been pointed out, watching television is the number one leisure activity for Canadians. I am not sure whether that is a happy fact, but it is a fact. I can also tell you that we spend more than 24 hours each week, on average, in front of the television screen. I do not think that is a happy fact at all. Canadians would be better off with a more varied kind of leisure activity.

October 31, 1990
Government Orders
Spending that much time watching television is far too much.
Canadian children watch almost 1,000 hours of television compared to the 800 hours they spend in school. That is not good. Canadian children spend far too much time before television screens. However, having said that, even if we can be concerned about Canadians watching too much television, one would hope that at least the programs that they are watching would be Canadian in the main. That is not true.
It has already been said and pointed out on a number of occasions, and this quote is attributed to ACTRA, "that Canada is a culturally occupied country". It is so true. If we had visitors from another planet visiting this great country, I am sure that they would be shocked if they were told that 71 per cent of all programs viewed by Canadians on English television, are primarily American. I am quite sure that if our visitors from another planet were told that, they would say: "Are they crazy? Have they gone mad? This is a wonderful country." Yet, we allow this kind of thing to happen to us.
If we told our visitors from another planet that 97 per cent of screen time in Canadian cinemas is devoted to foreign material, primarily American movies, what would our visitors from another planet say? They would probably say: "Are they gone mad or are they absolutely crazy?" But it is a fact. What if we told our visitors from another planet that 75 per cent of our domestic book market and 71 per cent of our periodical market consists of imported foreign products. That is mostly American. What would they say? They would ask: "Have you gone crazy? Are you nuts?" That is what they would say.
Let me point out one more thing. What if they were told that 85 per cent of Canada's sale of records and tapes, manufactured in Canada, are from imported master tapes? If our visitors from another planet were told that, they would flip right out and would be asking if we were mad, crazy or nuts.
That is one of the sad parts of the Canadian story that we have not come to grips with. It is absolutely insane that we allow this kind of dumping of American programming into the Canadian market. It is not good for this country.
If it is looked at in a broader context, it really does not come as any surprise. We do this to ourselves all the time. For example, recently we had our government sell Air Canada, a proud national airline. It sold it off and is shameless for doing it. Now it is going to sell a part of Petro-Canada. If it had its own way, the whole lot would be sold tomorrow morning. The only window that we have, as a government and as a public policy instrument, on the petroleum industry, this Conservative government is going to get rid of, maybe not all at once but it is going to be sold. There is a lot more because it is all interconnected, it is all related. This is a government that decided we are going to share our energy resources with the Americans. Why, we will even go beyond using good business sense, even in a moment of deprivation, even if we were facing shortages. We will share our energy. We will share our natural gas. We will share our oil with the Americans. Not only that, it eviscerated the National Energy Board. It took the guts right out of it. It just pulled the entrails right out of the NEB and said, "When it comes to natural gas exports, it does not have to have any net benefit to Canada, not at all".
Let me get back to this bill. It seems to me that this bill does not serve the broadcasting system, it does not serve productions and it certainly does not serve increasing Canadian content on our television screens. I would have thought that this kind of an amendment would be quite acceptable.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I just want to put a few facts on the record in connection with this cluster of amendments. Just before doing it, I want to comment. The hon. member for Winnipeg St. James was alluding to people from Mars, which does not surprise me. I was reminded of the fact that the last time we had a man from Mars routine on radio in this country, which I believe was in 1938, the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission ruled that those political commercials, which they were at the time, which were voiced by Messrs. Aberhart and Manning, were improper. Questionable though they may have been in their content, fortunately that is not something that would happen today because we have a much more liberal interpretation of free speech.
The amendments that we have before us have been the subject of much debate during the consideration of both this present bill and its predecessor, Bill C-136. It replaces a reference in the current Broadcasting Act to
October 31, 1990

the effect that the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be of high standard, using predominantly Canadian creative and other resources. In other words, to meet the letter of the law at the moment, a broadcaster must have predominantly Canadian employees and spend Canadian money.
In Bill C-136 this provision was replaced with the following formulation: "Each element of the Canadian broadcasting system shall contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming making maximum use of Canadian creative and other resources". The application of Canadian resources was thus specifically tied to the production of Canadian programming. The word "predominant" was replaced with the word "maximum" clearly indicating that simple predominance would not suffice in circumstances where the broadcaster could do more.
The expression "in an appropriate manner" recognized the emergence of new services such as TV5 which have had as their raison d'etat the presentation of a large amount of non-Canadian programming for special audiences. A blanket requirement that all licensees present predominantly Canadian programming would eliminate such services from the Canadian broadcasting system.
Even this stronger wording was improved upon during committee study of Bill C-136 where the paragraph was replaced with the formulation now under consideration. The amended wording now reads: "Each broadcasting undertaking shall make maximum use and in no case less than predominant use of Canadian creative and other resources in the creation and presentation of programming unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking, such as specialized content or format, or the use of languages other than French or English, renders that use impracticable, in which case the undertaking shall make the greatest practical use of those resources".
The formulation now in the legislation is identical to that passed by this House on September 28, 1988. Under the circumstances it is difficult to understand why one would wish to revert to language which does not compel broadcasters to do as much Canadian programming as possible.
Government Orders
As for the suggestion that a specific reference be included to ensure application of this standard to the presentation of programming in prime viewing hours, the paragraph as worded already encourages such an application. The CRTC is in the business of making regulations detailing the Canadian content requirements in prime time. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that is the proper approach.
The legislation sets out the general standard, and the regulator adds a further degree of specificity, taking into account changing industry viewing patterns and so on.
Who is to say that prime time, given sociological change during the life of this bill, might shift as indeed it has shifted in my lifetime. I recall that prime time radio hours were the evening when people would cluster around their radio sets in the family home. I remember that well, and I believe even my colleague from Mount Royal may remember it if she thinks back far enough.
The obligations in this legislation are already much more stringent than those they replace. In my view, the clause we are discussing will do the job it is intended to do, and no further amendments are necessary.
With regard to the amendment on the National Film Board, nothing in the current act or in this bill inhibits the National Film Board from finding broadcast windows for its productions. Indeed, many NFB productions suitable for broadcast have found broadcasters willing to present them.
Currently, NFB documentaries and dramas are often shown, for example, on Vision TV. Moreover, the board has coproduced prime time dramas with the CBC and with other broadcasters.
However, it is important to note that the NFB does not have a broadcasting mandate and is not required to present balanced views in its productions. In actual fact, most NFB productions reflect a strong point of view in the treatment of their subject. That is the nature of documentaries.
While this makes for provocative, stimulating and often award winning films, it does not always make programs suitable for broadcast. Indeed, a common problem that broadcasters have faced in considering NFB productions is the need to find and to set aside equal time for programs with opposing viewpoints.

October 31, 1990
Government Orders
Broadcasters are the persons licensed to make programming decisions. It would seriously undermine the accountability expected from broadcasters to authorize unlicensed entities, however worthy, and to make use of the broadcasting system as a legislatively mandated outlet for their work.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to support Motions Nos. 8 and 9 to amend this bill, especially because as a member from Quebec, I think it is extremely important to have Canadian content in CBC programming. However, I am prepared to go even further, Mr. Speaker. I think it is essential, if we agree that we should have Canadian content in our programming, to include in our programming policy a preference for a French news network that would broadcast on a continuous basis, what in English is called an all news network or all news programming. We don't have this yet in French. My French-speaking colleagues are no doubt aware of the fact that this kind of programming exists in English but not in French. And when we talk about Quebec as a distinct society, why is Quebec distinct? It is distinct because French is spoken, because we have a French culture, because our laws are different, being based on the Civil Code. That is why, when we are talking about content, we must provide a framework for this content in the form of an all news network in French.
I see here in the House some of my friends who are also former journalists with the electronic media, and they know very well that the general public is extremely interested in the news. That is why, the all news network, all news programming, is so popular among Anglophones. The News World Network is very popular, but in Quebec no such service exists. In other words, this type of service is extremely important.
However, there are other reasons why I feel Canadian content is important when setting up an all news network in French. Now that the government is adopting or imposing legislation to introduce the goods and services tax, better known as the GST, people will read fewer books, and some people have said that book sales will drop by 25 per cent. This means that if Canada has an illiteracy rate that varies between 25 and 28 per cent,
more and more people will get their information from news broadcasts on radio and especially on television.
I entirely agree with the focus of Motions Nos. 8 and 9, which is to increase Canadian content, but I think this should start with an all-news network in French to meet the needs of Quebecers and French-speaking Canadians who want to know what is going on in the world and Canada, and want to hear it in French. This is very important.
Here again, Mr. Speaker, I must say that although I am in favour of Canadian content with an all-news network in French as a starting point, I feel some concern that the news may be biased and lack objectivity. Why? Because Radio-Canada may become compelled to act according to criteria that disturb me, and I am referring to the one about national unity we find in the bill.
I am all for national unity, and I imagine my colleagues are as well. We are all in favour of national unity. Members here in Ottawa are all in favour. As a former journalist, I worked for Radio-Canada in Quebec City for three years, in French, and I worked in English at CFCF, as the hon. member is aware. I also worked at the Gazette as a columnist and, finally, I worked at CKVL Radio in Montreal. That a bill should contain a clause that includes promoting national unity as part of the mandate of a network like Radio-Canada, gives me the shivers. Not because I am against Canadian unity but because I am a journalist. I think I understand what people, like my Liberal colleagues want to do. They want to make this dream come true of Canadians living in harmony from coast to coast. That will never happen! There will always be dynamic tension between West and East and between Anglophones and Francophones. That is only normal. That is what Canada is about. It is a little like political parties that get splintered. This is a pretty accurate analogy of the fragmentation of our society into West and East, Francophones and Anglophones.
It is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact it is positive. That is why I think the Canadian content rule is very good, and I agree it is important, but I have some reservations about promoting Canadian unity. As a journalist, I feel that the main objective of a news broadcast should be to present the news honestly, clearly, accurately and quickly.

I think that if we accept these criteria, we will improve our services at Radio-Canada and at the same time, we trust journalists and Canadians to decide what they want.
In concluding, I would like to say that John Milton, in his famous pamphlet Areopagitica, said: "Let (Truth) and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?" That is the CBC's mission, and that is why I feel that I must support Motions Nos. 8 and 9 because we need more Canadian content and more unbiased content.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it is a great pleasure to join this debate in the criticism of the bill, as organized by the member for Mount Royal. There are some excellent criticisms.
In ending the debate today, I would like to say that I am not too sure I am facing a government any more. Lately, it does not matter what I am talking about in the House, I am finding that this government is destroying the underpinnings of our country.
Yesterday I was speaking about financial institutions and the changes the government is suggesting there. It is just terrible what it has been doing. It does not matter what we stand up to talk about because this group across from us simply do not understand Canada-at least not the Canada this party has tried to build, a country that we are very proud of. The cornerstone of that country has been CBC and the promotion of Canadian content.
Government Orders
As a consumer of the CBC and as one who listens to it and who enjoys CBC very much, I cannot understand how this government would do anything to undermine its mandate. There is a national purpose to the CBC. That is why we created it. It has been over 50 years in operation and is a corporation which, like any other Crown Corporation, has had its ups and downs. It never wavered from the commitment made by its employees to try to do the best to ensure that Canadians received the same message from one part of the country to the other.
Those of us who travelled across the country and have had the good fortune to live in many regions of the country, understand just how CBC pulls us together. I can tell you that before I took on this life as a member of Parliament, I used to contribute to a show on CBC, the radio show with the host Jack Farr, a very entertaining show. I was always amazed that people from the four comers of the country had heard that program. No matter what the item was, they managed to be entertained. It gave me a feeling that this country was more than just dollars and cents, but that there was a purpose to this country, a purpose that people enjoy.
I am just beginning to show how this piece of legislation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have eight minutes left when we commence debate tomorrow.

It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 1,1990