1991-03-25

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the Table the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the calendar year 1990, pursuant to section 66 of the Official Languages Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(a), this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.
Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, 1991, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of supply bills.
In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal) moved:: That this Flouse call upon the government as a matter of priority to ensure that the CBC be strengthened as an instrument of national
identity providing local, regional, and national services to all Canadians.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion which you have just put before this House:
That this House call upon the government as a matter of priority to ensure that the CBC be strengthened as an instrument of national identity providing local, regional, and national services to all Canadians.
This debate today is as much about Canada as it is about the CBC. I would suggest to you that it is a debate of serious national proportions, given the particular atmosphere that prevails across this land and the sensitivity that is being show or the lack of sensitivity that is being expressed in parts of our country.
The Prime Minister has called for national unity. I am quite delighted to see that he has even used the term national unity, since he wanted it expunged from the language of the Broadcasting Act. What could have been a more sensitive tool than the question of national unity through the Canadian broadcasting system, and particularly the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
He called as well for dialogue among Canadians, but a right now a lot of that dialogue has been one-shot deals, such as through the Spicer commission.
I would suggest that the most effective communication and communication vehicle we have in place across this land, infrastructure put in place and paid for by Canadians, is that of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, better known as Radio-Canada CBC. It has its place and station identification from coast to coast to coast in English and in French: in the north, in the east, in the west, in the small urban communities, in the small rural communities across this land, in radio and TV as well as internationally. It certainly is a key medium of expression for all Canadians.
I would say that this debate today is about the kind of country we want and the kind of national institutions we

March 25, 1991
Supply
on this side of the House believe are fundamental. They are the fundamental infrastructure that binds and links Canadians. It is the highway of today that we were so proud of many years back, whether it is the Trans-Canada Highway or the laying of the last spike in the railway. I just hope we have not split the heart of this nation by laying the last spike of destruction into our Canadian national broadcasting system.
We see and hear all around us about the need to build bridges in this country and the fact that it is a pressing need. How better to communicate with each other than through radio and television?
Mr. Speaker, you are a communicator. You were in the media. You are a man who knows the power of words, the power of expression, the fact that you can reach the minds and hearts of our countrymen, country women, children and folks across this land. We can be folksy. We can be esoteric. We can be pragmatic. We can go to the heart of the matter and do it through news and information, but what better way than through entertainment, than with a smile, through poking a little fun at each other.
All the different cultures that surround us and enrich us become the tapestry which is the basis of our society, whether black, brown, yellow or white. Whatever the language, that language, that culture, that way of life, becomes part of what is the distinctive Canada we have been trying to build. We have been trying to say that we are tolerant. We have been trying to say that we are a wonderful country. And what do we do? The medium that best expresses who we are and what we are, we cut its throat.
When Mr. Veilleux, the president of CBC, said the other day that we are killing this communication vehicle through the back door, strangling it through budget cuts, he was saying it as it is and calling the shot.
I appeared before the CRTC with 12 of my colleagues. We made three hours of presentation before the CRTC indicating that we could ill afford not to pay for this particular service, that we could ill afford to cut this service. If the president, the chairman of the board and the board of the CBC really were concerned for this country, were really carrying out the mandate of the National Broadcasting Act, which we just finished revising, they would have looked at it. They would have tried to make changes. They would have cut where there was duplication. They would have cut more and perhaps
revised more. In the end they would have realized that we could not realize a proper French and English, multiracial, multicultural broadcasting corporation serving the three coasts of Canada. They would have resigned if they had had any kind of good conscience. This minister, they knew, never went and pleaded the cause for Radio-Canada CBC before the Treasury Board. I do not know what he said to his cabinet colleagues but, if he told them the truth, then the whole cabinet should resign.
What is happening with Radio-Canada and Radio Canada International, which I know is one of your interests, Mr. Speaker, is an utter disgrace. It is an absolute disgraces that the parliamentary channel might be privatized. It belongs to the people of this land.
I do not understand the priorities of this government. I do not understand. Even though we are in a budgetary crisis, even though we have financial concerns, and all of us share those concerns, there is still a matter of choice and a matter of priority. That priority right now is keeping this country going. That priority right now is affecting the kind of place and space for all Canadians regardless of their mother tongue, regardless of their colour, regardless of their race, regardless of their creed.
The new bill which this government has not even bothered to gazette brings in some very important new features. It bring in the whole question of the Official Languages Act. The 1968 bill took place before the Official Languages Act became part of this country. It came into force in 1969. It took place before employment equity and all the safeguards around section 15, the non-discriminatoiy clause, came into effect in 1982 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We have ignored the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have ignored the Official Languages Act. We have ignored the new Broadcasting Act which says use independent producers, make sure that we use our creative talents through artistic expression, through entertainment, and what do we have? We have a mock CNN and a mock Newsworld, and a great big Media Watch or I should say meteorological station which is going to tell us the big weather news and give us the big sports news.
However, what is happening in small towns? What is happening in the regions? Canada is more than just a province. That is the way the CBC has seen it, just as a province. We have 10 provinces and a distinct territory, but we do not happen to have some distinctions, let us say, in Ontario.
March 25, 1991

Let me take Quebec first. We have no distinctions in Quebec?
[ Translation]
-the Eastern Townships, the Outaouais, the Gaspe and the North Shore all have very specific identities. And you can't reflect those from Montreal and Quebec City alone. That won't work. The people of Rimouski, Ma-tane and Sept-Iles where you cut regional programming and left a tremendous void are not pleased with what your colleagues on the other side of this House have done. It is totally unacceptable.

If we move into Ontario, are they trying to tell me that the northern part of Ontario looks like Toronto or looks like the Ottawa region? When we are driving along the 417 from Montreal to Ottawa or from any other part of this province such as the 401 to Toronto, or from the other provinces, we should find out about the weather and the traffic control. With this government's options and the way things are going, there are going to be more people on the 401. The point is that we cannot possibly entertain the suggestion that the province of Ontario has two spots that will reflect its entire personality: Ottawa and Toronto.
I suppose Windsor does not count. It got lost among our five large lakes of which we should be very proud. We forgot them. We just left them to languish with no voice either public or private in the Windsor area.
Then we go out to the prairies, and on the French side what do we have?

Don't we have a responsibility to reflect the specific culture of Francophones outside Quebec, their view of society, for their own benefit and the benefit of all Canadians? Hardly. We are cutting right and left. We cut Genies en herbe; Ce soir dimanche; Actualites regionales; Le lien. Cuts are being made all over Canada. In Vancouver, and Regina, in the official language, the language of minorities outside Quebec. Do you think that is fair? Do you think that makes sense? Do you think it's a good idea? Do you want to pursue this policy and expect to have a Canada for everyone, a united Canada from coast
Supply
to coast? This is madness, Mr. Speaker, and it is intolerable!
I started out to say that this is what this country is all about, why Canada needs to be protected from this government that brought in a recession. On the back of that recession, it is now saying that it has to cut one of the major infrastructures that link this country; Radio-Canada, the CBC. I am saying that this is not the way we are to go about structuring our country.
The issues basically are: Do the airwaves belong to the public? Do they belong to us and are we holding that trust for the public here in this House, whether it is the public or the private sector, or do they belong to the board of directors? Do we expect the private sector to do the job of the public sector, because after all, they are a business? The public sector, in this instance is a business, but it is more than a business. It is not the ordinary business of the country, it is the special business of the country. It involves the talent of this country.
We live next to a wonderful neighbour, a giant, my American cousins. They are experts in the technique of communication. They have found the way to globalize entertainment, to show a portrait of a society that is not ours, but is amusing and entertaining. But, is that all there is to life, American entertainment, American sitcoms and an American way of seeing the world? Is there not a Canadian vision we wish to promote out there? If there is a Canadian vision how, in a communicating society, because that is what we are in, can we show it if we do not support both the Canadian Council and Radio-Canada?
We cannot allow the board of directors to take over the issue of the airwaves. It belongs to the public. Does the CRTC regulate public broadcasting in Canada or does that responsibility lie with the CBC as a self-regulating board? That is a very serious question and it needs to be addressed in a very serious manner. Are the laws of Canada, namely the Broadcasting Act, either the 1968 act or, if this government ever gets around to gazetting the 1990 act, to be respected as they reflect the wishes of Parliament, or can they be changed, as I said, through the backdoor, through government allocations?

March 25, 1991
Supply
Fourth, are the local, regional and national broadcasters and broadcasting to be interpreted as provincial? What happened to local and regional that is in the bill? Since when are the regions provinces? That is the way the board has seen them.
Fifth, the mandate of the new act includes, and I think I outlined the fact, the parliamentary will as expressed through the Official Languages Act and through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I would suggest that the revisions presented by the board of directors, its president and its chairman, must be reviewed by Parliament. It is a matter of priority and the CBC should so direct following its hearings. It is a very disquieting moment in the history of our country.
I noted a very interesting comment which the President of the CBC, Mr. Veilleux made. The day he appeared before the CRTC, he was outlining his vision of a restructured CBC. In particular, he talked about his vision, which he translated into a programming agenda. He outlined five key elements. The first one is enough to make one stop: "A CBC that offers strong national services which are rooted in the regions of the country." The question is, if one looks at the programming what did he mean by the word "regions" and what can we possibly think he meant by the word "local"? Did he know that it was in the bill? Did the members of that board know it was in the bill?
He then goes on to mention the whole question of a mirror. I thought it was a very interesting quote he used, which I would like to bring to your attention. He says:
What the CBC is trying to do in English and French television is
replace a mirror with a window.
Instead of replacing the mirror with a window, he should have said he was replacing it with a slammed-shut window because I would like to know how the window is going to be open in so many places across this land. You tell me how the window is open in Windsor; you tell me how it in open in Matane; you tell me how it is open in Sept lies; you tell me how it is open in Windsor. Mr. Veilleux should go back to his board and tell them to reopen the window he thought was opening-because he didn't open it. It needs to be smashed open, if that is his vision.
I would like to know how Calgary TV viewers are going to be served by Edmonton. I would like to know whether it is better to have a one-hour show that is going to include Edmonton and Calgary, instead of the two hours they presently have.
I would like to suggest that Mr. Veilleux go back to the drawing board, and so does the CBC.
First of all, I was in Newfoundland where we just left them floating out in the sea. We have cut so much in Newfoundland and Labrador, but I am sure my colleagues will talk about that. But let us look at Moncton. Programs like Tele-Debate, Tele-Debat, La Revue, Spec Art have already been cut. As I said, Genies en herbe and Musicologie-l mean, we don't have to know anything about music. After all, if we listen to the news we will know everything, we will be so well informed-we will be ignoramuses in this world.
I would say that they are not going to review Les Jeux d'Acadie. Is it not important that people in Prince Edward Island and the rest of Canada can have a sense of profound joy as they look at our youth who are involved in sports, who are showing competence and the potential to become international figures in the world of sport? But, no, we cut that out because it is not important.
Mr. Speaker, all regional programs have been cut except news. Well, I don't know if you agree with me, but I think Canadians are more than news junkies; I think Canadians are interested in a variety of entertainment, so that they can see themselves and find out who they are.
As I move along I would like to point out to you that our party believes that Canada is more than its regions, that Canada is rooted in the realities of its small communities, their singers and performers, their values, their stories. It is the fact that Newfoundland is more than an outport and the west is more than a wheat field. It is more than just the local focus, but the local focus feeds into the regional, which becomes part of the national, and it is how you build a star system. It is how you get to know the Simards of this world, how you get to know the Ann Murrays of this world. It is a way in which you can feel that you belong.

I think A1 Johnson said it best when he said; "The public broadcasting service, to have to reconcile itself to being a network service, would be a little like saying let us have a Canada without the provinces".
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that speaks reams for the vision of my colleagues across the floor.
One of the things that we can ill-afford to do is not promote this vision of Canada. In a time of great financial restraint such as now, in a time when, yes, we must be addressing the deficit, we also have to remember there is a future. If we want to have a sense of belonging, a sense of participation, a sense of peoplehood, a sense of nation, and be prepared to pay for our public broadcaster, then we have to have it rooted in the local community. We have to have a sense of belonging so that our hearts and our minds, of our children and of our public, will be prepared to pay and to continue paying for this excellent service that is the envy of the world, Mr. Speaker.
I only have a minute left. There were a few people I had wanted to bring to your attention. I am afraid that time is of the essence, but I want to point out that-

-Canada's diversity, its magnificent geography, its many languages and cultures, and current political events that are so important to us, are so many reasons why we need a strong Pan-Canadian voice. Therefore, we believe that the CBC must continue to play its public interest role, in other words, to help communicate to Canadians a national spirit, a national awareness that will give them a sense of pride and develop a sense of national unity.
I would say to you that in a real sense, television is to 20th century Canada what the railway was to the 19th. Its visual productions are the medium that allows thousands of Canadians to hear and see themselves.
If I may, I would like to close with a quote from the former Ambassador of Canada to the United States, Mr. Allan Gotlieb, because I believe as he was negotiating the free trade agreement he recognized culture. He said this, and with this I will close: "The communications revolution and the emergence of the homogenizing
Supply
universal software make the role of the state in fostering the cultural life of a nation more important, far more important than ever before in history. The principal challenge for the state today in the cultural sphere is to foster the creation of the content that is carried on those electronic systems and on video screens. The spectacular growth of the homogenized universal software has made this one of the primary national tasks of our time".


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what was said by the hon. member for Mount Royal. We are very much aware of her competence in this area. I read in her motion, and I quote:
- providing local, regional and national services to all Canadians.
She has been working on this matter for several months, and she has had an interest in communications for many years. I would like to ask her the following question, and I would appreciate a sincere answer: Did you get or did you have access to all the details on CBC expenditures, including the salaries of all journalists, members of the board of directors, employees, overtime, and especially spending on coverage of national events, and spending per station? When we talk about $1.4 billion annually, this means that the corporation is entirely free to spend $1.4 billion without being accountable to Parliament. And even that is easy. Every year I receive a nice annual report with a glossy cover and a couple of thousand dollars-just a financial report. But in municipalities, like my own town of Val-d'Or or Matane, Gaspe or Sept-iles, every month residents can check expenditures by their elected representatives and the municipality.
My question is this: Did the hon. member, since she has contacts at the CBC, obtain all the details, not just what it says in the Estimates but details that are confidential, including all expenditures and salaries? Did you have access to that list?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I doubt even the president of the CBC would have all those figures. This is a huge corporation, with a French and an English section, television and radio and of course the parliamentary channel, and there is also the international service. It is impossible to have all the data. In fact, I even considered asking for a royal commission to to examine CBC spending.

March 25, 1991
Supply
There are about 40 unions and groups involved, and there are certainly items where we might have a few questions. Elowever, that is not the issue today. The CBC has been cut practically to the bone. If we look at the cuts that have been made since 1984, we get a total of more than $300 million-closer to $400 million, in current dollars.


Mr. Moore:: What about the other programs?


Sheila Finestone: I beg your pardon?


Guy St-Julien: The other programs?


Sheila Finestone: A lot of programs were cut. A lot of cuts were made, and I am sure some were made in your part of the country.


Guy St-Julien: No, we don't have radio.


Sheila Finestone: You certainly do have radio, and in fact, people hear you often enough on the airwaves. I heard you myself when I was up there. The question is rather -I won't go into all the details, like counting the flowers in the rug. I am not going to get into that. The important thing is-


Guy St-Julien: That is what is so expensive!


Sheila Finestone: Well, who knows. Mr. Mulroney might make you a member of the board of directors, and you could take the books and do your own scrutiny. Meanwhile, we have an administrator who used to be at Treasury Board and who knows how to read the books. He knows how to cut and where to cut, and as the CBC boss, he said they could no longer afford to make cuts and at the same time expect the Corporation to satisfy the criteria set forth in the bill. And that is what counts. You are changing the mandate of the CBC, behind the scenes, behind closed doors, the same as you tried to do in other areas, and we know that won't work.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to compliment my colleague, the hon. member for Mount Royal, for the motion that is before the House today. It is an extremely important motion.
I would like to ask her a question about some of the comments she made in presenting this motion with
regard to Radio-Canada International. As the member well knows, some time ago the Prime Minister-perhaps March 16-said: "I guarantee that Radio-Canada International will survive."
We find out on Friday that the budget for RCI was cut from $20 million to $13.5 million. We find that the staff of 193 have been decimated to a level of 100 staff and the number of languages broadcast has been reduced from 14 to five. When you really start to look at it, Mr. Speaker, the cuts go much deeper than that. The number of producing hours are reduced from 233 to 65.
I would like to ask the member, in light of these very significant and substantial cuts that now face Radio-Canada International, what does she think of the Prime Minister's promise to keep it alive?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say how sad I think it is, particularly in the evolving world of the new democracies and the hope for application of democratic principles which we, as Canadians, like to think we apply.
It is very sad that these countries that listen to us internationally will now not hear our voice. I guess it is another way of seeing how the Prime Minister's word is his bond.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment my colleague on her passionate, pointed speech.
I would like to ask her a very short but specific question. I was always under the impression that when people came before the CRTC, whether it was Global Television or CTV, they set forward a list of criteria they would meet. I think specifically of Much Music. They came before the CRTC and said: "We are going to have a national standard. We will be heard in every part of the country. It will be non-stop, et cetera, et cetera."
My question to my colleague is this. How is it that the CBC can make all of these changes which is cutting it out of regions with reduced programming almost as if it had some kind of special status before the CRTC? Does the regulator of this country not have as its responsibility the jurisdictional mandate to make sure that national standards are maintained?
March 25, 1991

Supply
Or can these politically appointed entrepreneurs for some unknown reason thwart this CRTC mandate? I know for certain that the private sector broadcasters would not get away with it.
I would like to know from my hon. colleague how it is that the CBC has special status.


Sheila Finestone: I thank my hon. colleague from Toronto for that question. It is one of the prime questions and it is one of the issues at stake here.
Can the CBC continue to collect advertising revenue when it is not present in the community, when it cannot help the local businessman so that he can prosper along the way? Can it prevent stations from being changed, as Windsor and Rimouski have asked? Is the promise of performance and the licensing mechanism strictly for the private sector and not true for the public sector?
I suggest that the member's question is a very pertinent one, as was the one of my colleague on Radio-Canada International. Can the CBC be master of its destiny and be the only voice for the public airwaves which are mandated and cared for by laws passed by this House?
I don't know. My view is no, and I think the CRTC should so say.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Mount Royal for her motion today seeking that the CBC be strengthened as an instrument of national identity. However, I regret that she seems unaware of the fact that this strengthening process has already begun. It is under way through efforts of this government in introducing and the passage of Bill C-40, which the hon. member assisted in committee and which will be proclaimed shortly.
In fact, there is no need for this motion.
Indeed, the hon. member's energies would best assist the broadcasting system if she were to recognize that this government is working to preserve Canada's entire broadcasting system, both the public and private, and that only through renewed sensitivity to public environments and needs will broadcasters be able to assure all Canadians of their own unique structure for communications.
Perhaps some background would be helpful for members.
Let me remind the hon. member of the government's support of the CBC mandate. In a speech of the Minister of Communications of January 31, 1990 when he addressed the Legislative Committee on Bill C-40, he said:
I have frequently said that this Crown corporation must be the cornerstone for expression of our cultural reality. It is in this spirit that we tabled before the Parliament of Canada this broadcasting bill, which, for the first time, gives the CBC a mandate to contribute more actively to cultural expression and to the exchange of the various forms it can take. The CBC must distinguish itself from private broadcasters. This is also the first time we have taken a legislative route to ask the CBC to reflect not on our unity alone, but on our cultural identity.
The minister addresses this issue directly, from the beginning. Nor has the position of this government changed. The broadcasting bill which this House has deliberated on and passed specifies a mandate to rejuvenate the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and which clarifies its responsibilities with respect to Canadian, regional and cultural programming needs.
For the first time, this mandate includes specific references to the important role that the CBC has in reflecting Canada, in providing English and French programming services, in meeting the needs of official language minorities, in reflecting Canadian society in all its aspects, in actively contributing to the flow and exchange of cultural expression and, in these ways, contributing to a shared Canadian consciousness and identity.
Certain critics have lamented the removal of the phrase "national unity" from the CBC's mandate, yet there can be no doubt that the objectives which are cited here will indeed contribute to Canadian unity.
The Minister of Communications, speaking before this House on the occasion of the third reading of Bill C-40 on December 4, 1990, asks:
How can there be unity without the flow and exchange of cultural expression in English, and in French, among all component parts in Canada, as foreseen by this bill. And how can there be unity without a shared awareness of Canadian identity?
Let me turn now to the generous support given the CBC by this government. Yes, much is expected of this corporation; however, despite cries to the contrary from certain quarters, it should be recognized that a great deal has also been given and is being given to the CBC to meet these objectives.

Let us look at CBC Radio. From the very beginning of public broadcasting when it was the only technology available, radio has been a keystone of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Our public stereo and monaural broadcast channels have become the envy of much of the world, and rightly so. It can be said without contradiction that the programming developed for English and French language radio services are uniquely Canadian in tone and have provided an important link in our cultural infrastructure.
The CBC has recently enhanced the quality of these services in many communities by making them available on new FM frequencies. For their part the stereo networks provide Canadian listeners with an alternative music selection, as well as foreground programming and theatre.
Partly because radio is a less expensive medium than television, it has been virtually unaffected by the measures announced by the CBC board. That CBC Radio is vulnerable to economic circumstances, as reflected in future budgets; is a fact; however, the goodwill of Parliament toward continued support of these valuable services can be in no doubt.
The hon. member mentioned in her address the Northern Services. We would be remiss if we were not to recognize at this time the importance of the CBC Northern Services. They bring radio and television programming to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and to the northern regions of Quebec in seven native languages as well as in English and French. This service and other regional programming already scheduled or in planning will ensure that all Canadians are in communication with mainstream thought as well as in having the opportunity to meet each other.
In closing, this government recognizes the role played by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation within the larger framework of the Canadian broadcasting system. We have clearly supported this public broadcaster and have every intention to continue to do so. As the same time we require it to act within its mandate as defined by Parliament and to plan responsibly within the resources that this Parliament provides after much thought and deliberation.
We do not come to such decisions lightly or capriciously. In appointing persons of the high quality whom we now see serving on the board of directors of the
Supply
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, we place confidence in their administrative decisions and are firm in our belief that they will be innovative and faithful stewards of this public trust.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to publicly welcome the member for Calgary Southeast, replacing the member for Edmonton Southwest. May he have, and may we have, as enjoyable a tenure on that committee as was enjoyed with the other member. I wish him good luck in his new challenging task.
I would hope that the member from Calgary will have some effective answers for his constituents as they see their voice cut and Edmonton taking over their role. I do not think he is going to have a happy day and it is not going to be a happy birthday that they are going to be wishing him.
I would like to also make the observation that the measure of the Canadian broadcasting system, the CBC, is not measured in the same way by this side of the House as it is by the other side of the House. Prime time, mass audience rating is certainly not the only yardstick of measure. We all rejoice in the successes that have been achieved by CBC. We all know that it is the CBC performers, the CBC news anchors, the CBC level of excellence that has raised the level of broadcasting in both the private and public sector, whether it is the educational sector or the private sector. That does not replace the place that small narrow casting interests have for the Canadian public broadcaster which the private sector should not and cannot afford to do. I find it extremely interesting, and I hope that the parliamentary secretary is very comfortable with the fact, that there are tenders out for the parliamentary channel. I am sure the Canadian public is just thrilled that the private sector can then start to call the shots on which parliamentarians they would like to focus on and which standing committees they would like to hear from. It will be extremely difficult and it is a conflict of interest. I think that is an absolute disgrace. I cannot believe he would even mention it.
I would like to ask the member, while he has got an answer, it would seem, from the nodding of his head with respect to Calgary and Edmonton, tell me how I can answer my constituents and the anglophones, 800,000 of them in Montreal, whose only news service and only

March 25, 1991


S. 0. 31
[Stage Direction]
information is going to come either from what David Halton happens to think is important or Wendy Mesley or perhaps Peter Mansbridge, but there will be no particular broadcaster responsible for reporting to English-speaking Quebecers on what is going on through the voice of their parliamentarians here on Parliament Hill. Does he think it is fair that 800,000 of us have no voice out of this Hill?
Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the hon. member to think for a moment that the people in Montreal never pay any attention to her. I have always been impressed with her contributions to the committee. I also want to thank her for mentioning my predecessor as parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest. I, too, will strive to fill those shoes. He did a remarkable job as I know that the member was pleased to comment on.
With regard to the parliamentary channel mentioned by the hon. member for Mount Royal, I think that that is a matter that is yet to be seen. I think it is a rather hypothetical suggestion for the member to suggest that the service will be different in any way than it is now. Obviously, there is some regulation over the use of the cameras in the House today, and the hon. member can be assured that some similar format will be followed whatever the course of the parliamentary channel in the House.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague on the government side is new to his position as parliamentary secretary, but, with all due respect, the argument that the member had tried to put forward that the CBC is actually being strengthened, that its mandate is actually being revitalized, is just a little beyond credibility.
We have to look at the fact that we are losing 150 hours of programming. We are closing three regional stations and reducing the operations in the remaining eight regional stations. We have turfed 1,100 people in the CBC out on the street and there is a $108 million shortfall. We have just finished emancipating Radio Canada International. You have cut its staff from 193 to 100. You have slashed its budget and reduced its international programming from 14 languages to 5. You have got another $50 million funding shortfall in the next fiscal year. That is going to translate into another 500 to 600 jobs.
How this member can say that they are strengthening the CBC is simply beyond me.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome the hon. member in his new role as a critic of this portfolio. He may, in the course of his acquisition of knowledge in the portfolio, look at Bill C-40, which was passed by this Parliament and has yet to receive Royal Assent. He will note in the mandate of Bill C-40 just what the mandate of the CBC is in fact. We are talking here about a rejuvenation of CBC; allowing the CBC, with the new board of directors, is moving in this direction in addressing its mandate.
As I said in my remarks, its mandate has not concluded many of the services that the hon. member speaks of. What we are talking about here is doing what it does well in addressing its mandate given the resources at a time of restraint that the private sector, as well, is facing. We will just see to what extent they are able to do that.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
[Stage Direction]


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, if you have ever attended a meeting of the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future as I have, you will know that Canadians are hopping mad at us, the federal politicians.
They want members of Parliament to reflect their constituents' views. They are fed up with party discipline and cabinet solidarity. Some want a referendum. Others want fixed election dates and direct election of the Prime Minister. All want changes to the Senate.
If many of these changes were put in place, our government would resemble the American republican system more than our traditional British parliamentary system.
Essentially, however, Canadians want a system of government in which their concerns and not ours are debated in public and not behind closed doors. It sounds to me vety much like our present municipal council system, and that seems to work.
March 25, 1991


SOLAR ENERGY
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, increased environmental concerns on the use of conventional fuels and the need for natural resources conservation are prompting a search for environmentally sensitive energy technologies. In a country that wants both more energy and a cleaner environment, renewable energy resources have both excellent potential and are capable of adding significantly to our energy security.
Tomorrow the Solar Energy Society of Canada and the Liberal Party will host an exposition of solar energy technology on Parliament Hill from 11 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. in Room 200 of the West Block. I would like to invite all members of this hon. House to attend this event.
By and large Canadians still seem to be quite uninformed about solar energy technologies. Some of them even mistakenly believe that solar energy is not feasible in Canada because of our climate and our geography.
I hope that the exposition tomorrow will help us to evaluate existing technologies for harnessing the sun better and to understand the size of the challenge of ensuring an adequate, safe energy supply for the future.


TRIBUTE TO GUY LAFLEUR
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, for several days the sports section in La Presse published letters from admirers of hockey hero Guy Lafleur who was about to retire. Here is one from Mr. Robert Marsolais of Joliette, who says:
Leclerc, Richard, Vigneault, Lafleur -these are only a few of those heroes with whom an entire people spontaneously identifies.
Intensity, determination, perseverance, generosity and professionalism -These words distill the essence of the career of the "blond devil".
Gaze, speech and aim are equally direct. But above all, the man we admire for what he is and what he represents remains simple and unaffected.
Thank you, Guy, for giving us some unforgettable moments and for letting us vent some heatfelt emotions.
Another career beckons. We hope it will bring fulfilment for you, Lise and all your loved ones.
5. 0. 31
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec caucus of the Conservative Party salutes Guy Lafleur and says: Thank you!


JAMES BAY II
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, James Bay II is the largest hydroelectric project ever conceived in the history of North America, and the clear-cutting for the flooding has begun without environmental impact evaluation.
Twenty years ago the James Bay Development Corporation of Quebec launched its scheme to restrain or divert all the major rivers of James Bay and northern Quebec, creating a gigantic series of dams, dikes, and reservoirs.
Premier Bourassa then as now made it clear that the purpose was to provide power to the United States. Cost estimates for James Bay I rose from $1 billion when it began to over $24 billion for its completion in 1996.
The real costs to the Cree, to the Inuit, and to Canada's environment are devastating. Once the land is flooded it is lost forever. Mercury laden fish, drowned caribou, ruined habitat for the Beluga whales and for hundreds of other species, and flooding from the two phases of 26,000 square kilometres, 2 per cent of the entire province of Quebec, six times as much land flooded by this project as is protected in all of its provincial and national parks combined.
The federal and provincial governments are playing a treacherous game in allowing this project to proceed in bits and pieces without an over-all environmental assessment. Even worse, the alternatives to this project are being purposely hidden from Canadians and Quebecers.


MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of the free trade agreement with the United States for the first time American cars can be imported to Canada for resale. Now that American cars have begun coming to Canada, it has become clear that U.S. standards are not at all the same as Canadian

March 25, 1991
5. 0. 31
standards in areas of safety, emissions, language and metric measure.
Departmental officials are struggling with how to address this issue but the answer is very clear: there can be only one set of standards and they must be met in exactly the same way by both domestic and imported cars.
To do otherwise will have a very detrimental effect to Canadian consumers and to the Canadian manufacturing industry, as well as having an inconsistent and confusing set of safety regulations.
I strongly urge the Minister of Transport to demand that the Motor Vehicle Safety Act be applied equally and fairly to both domestic and imported vehicles in exactly the same manner.


RADIO CANADA INTERNATIONAL
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, in 1945 the CBC's overseas broadcasting arm, Radio Canada International, was founded.
The federal government has again shown its myopic approach by its decimating cuts to Radio Canada International. Canadians living abroad and persons living under repressive regimes are being denied what is for many their only touchstone with home and Canada.
At a time when the British, French and Americans are increasing their international broadcasting services for the purposes of furthering trade, human rights and foreign policy issues, our government has decided to sit idly by as $8 million, 100 jobs and at least six language services are slashed out of RCI, a 50 per cent cut.
The PMO said it was embarrassed that RCI employees would announce these cuts to the world. This government should be more than embarrassed. This is just another example of government's short-sightedness in its domestic and foreign policy.
^ ^ %


FORESTRY
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo -Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, the forest industry is vital to Canada. Our nation's forests are a renewable resource.
While in the past we have not always been the best of stewards, we have recently seen real change in attitudes and practices.
Unfortunately among the chorus of critics there are some who have ignored this progress and seem intent on damaging Canada's largest industry. It has gone so far that some even advocate foreign boycotts of Canadian products.
This destructive sentiment was seen in a recent German TV program which was unfairly critical of the B.C. forest industry. The use of partial information and half-truths has resulted in a biased perception of our forestry practices.
Certainly, when it comes to something so important to Canadians, we should be able to count on a certain degree of fairness, accuracy, and possibly even some sense of loyalty from other Canadians.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of a distinguished constituent, Mr. Wayne Meyer. For 25 years he was dedicated to his work and contributed to the building of the British Columbia economy.
Then as a result of a compassionate and humanitarian gesture for his ailing father, he found himself in need of unemployment insurance for a short period but was denied support.
He appealed the decision and eventually sought justice before the Office of the Empire and in June 1990 Mr. Meyer had his case adjudicated.
Nine months have passed. Yet the judge who heard the case has yet to respond. Here is a man who through no fault of his own was in need of UI support, was denied support, appealed to the Empire, and yet had to wait for a decision while he is forced to live in near poverty.
I urge the judge to render a decision as soon as possible to end this travesty of justice.
March 25, 1991

5. ft 31


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, Agriculture Canada and the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently agreed to make the Gross Revenue Income Plan available to the Quebec grain farmers for the 1991-1992 crop year.
This plan which, from the very beginning, called upon the cooperation of the farmers as well as the federal and provincial governments in the Agri-Food Review, clearly shows that, if we work together in a genuine partnership, we can make things better for the producers.
Quebec's participation to the Income Stabilization Plan for grain farmers is vital for the farmers as a permanent and efficient source of support they can count on.
Mr. Speaker, even the UPA applauded to this new trilateral agreement.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans makes a big deal out of consulting fishermen in Atlantic Canada. However, the fishermen see things differently.
The vase majority of lobster fishermen in Prince Edward Island told the minister that they wanted no part in the increase of minimum size of lobsters they catch. A large majority of those who responded to the survey conducted by DFO said that they wanted lobster sizes to remain at two and a half inches. Instead of listening to the fishermen, the minister is ignoring them, determined to increase the sizes in zones 24 and 26A.
The scientific evidence proves that the increases do nothing to protect the stocks. As well, the increases will lower the catches and will take money out of the pockets of fishermen and plant workers. I urge the minister to cancel the increases today.


GOVERNMENT BONDS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of the few developed countries that still pays investment brokers non-negotiated fees to sell government bonds. These handouts cost Canadian taxpayers $20 million to $60 million a year.
The minister of state said the other day that this practice has been going on for decades. It may have been the practice for decades, but the government cannot justify continuing the practice while at the same time taking money from children.
The individual taxpayer is subsidizing the lifestyle of a few hundred Bay Street sharks who cart their fees away in wheel-barrows.
Is it not ironic to see that the very same people who warn us against the deficit are precisely those who thrive on it?
The finance minister, a former executive vice-president at Dominion Securities, is dancing with Bay Street wolves while Canadian taxpayers are being shaved. He has yet to learn to say no to his friends on Bay Street.


CANADA POST
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, many Canadian weekly newspapers face extinction. This government is introducing regulations that would cause Canadian newspaper mailing rates to jump as high as 1,000 per cent or 10 times their present costs.
Last December, Canada Post first gazetted the proposed regulations. The weekly newspapers had no time to react, no opportunity to plan. Subscriptions for 1991 were already sold. Newspaper publishers have cited increases in the thousands of dollars: $5,000, $10,000, up to $30,000 and more.
The local press is important to Canadians. It is another institution being attacked by this government. Newspapers in small towns and rural Canada are asking not for a handout, but just a fair fighting chance.

March 25, 1991
Oral Questions
If postal rates need to rise, they should be phased in over long periods of time. Let us work with Canadians, not against them.


INDEPENDENCE OF GREECE
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, on March 25, 1821 the independence of Greece was officially proclaimed by Archbishop Germanos of Patras over the Ottoman Empire.
This last weekend all over the world we were celebrating this great day. In my city of Montreal thousands and thousands of people of all origins participated in this great event, as did people in Toronto.
My party, the Liberal Party, of Canada and I would like to offer these hard working proud Canadians our sincere best wishes. They chose to come to Canada. Many of them I know personally and they live in my constituency of Saint-Denis.

Yesterday, while celebrating this event, thousands of them reminded us that there is still a country torn apart by internal divisions, and that is Cyprus. They unanimously asked for the immediate implementation of the UN resolutions regarding Cyprus.

As Michael Paidoussis was saying yesterday and as reported in The Gazette of Montreal today: "We see everything that is happening in Kuwait, forcing Iraq to abide by UN resolutions and yet the problem in Cyprus remains unresolved".
Zito i Hellas. Zito o Canadas.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians and indeed those in my constituency of Hamilton West are greeting with a great deal of speculation and suspicion the agenda of the Minister of Transport.
The Minister of Transport is about to embark on negotiations concerning an open skies concept between Canada and the United States.
He is to embark on what may be in the Minister of Transport's opinion a well meaning idea, but the problem
that Canadians have with the Minister of Transport is that the only bargaining chip he has in his hand is the accessibility of the United States and its air carriers to being carriers in Canada.
A system of cabotage within Canada is of great concern to Canadian travellers because it is going to cost them more.
U.S. Air, the seventh largest air carrier, a small one at that compared to other air carriers, is twice the size of Air Canada and Canadian combined. The carriers are concerned. They want to have their input.
We hope the Minister of Transport will at least give them the courtesy of listening.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the incredible weekend statements made by the Minister of Finance in which he blames the attitudes of Canadians for the current malaise gripping this country.
Has the Deputy Prime Minister considered that the malaise gripping this country is not caused by Canadian attitudes but rather by government policies?
I refer him specifically to the report tabled an hour ago by the Commissioner of Official Languages who has this to say about the government's broadcasting policy:
Canadian identity, we fear, cannot be promoted by showing "Dallas" and "L.A. Law" in English and French. The CBC must have a strong national and regional presence. Regional programming has been slashed to such a point that it may never recover-In terms of broadcasting, the people who live outside the largest metropolitan areas have been made second-class citizens.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the assessment of the Commissioner of Official Languages that in fact his government's broadcasting policies are creating second-class citizens?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Of course not, Mr Speaker. The Commissioner of Official Languages presented his report today at noon. I have not yet had a chance to read it all, but on glancing through it, he also
March 25, 1991

says many positive things about the action of the government.
When we deal with official languages and the environment in which we live in Canada, it is always a very delicate area to work in.
The commissioner also said that when we take everything into account, the balance sheet is most positive. We can rest assured that this government is fully committed to this policy and will continue to act in an efficient manner to make sure that the best possible policies are being implemented.
With respect to the CBC, many days of hearings last week provided the managers of CBC with occasion to explain their decision to reorganize their programming within the budget allocated.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that the Prime Minister and his government should be blaming Canadians and their attitudes for the present malaise gripping this country.
Today, the Commissioner of Official Languages criticized the policies of a government that applied the GST to books. He also criticized the cutbacks at the CBC which made people outside our urban centres, and I quote, "second class citizens". Doesn't the minister understand that his government's policies, not the attitudes of Canadians, are undermining Canadian unity?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, when the Commissioner of Official Languages starts commenting on Canada's tax system, he may be somewhat "over-extended".
I may remind the interim Leader of the Opposition that this reform was discussed at length in the House and that the government explained its reasons for introducing the tax. This reform is vital to an exporting country like Canada. It was absolutely necessary. Even opposition members have, over the years, acknowledged the need for removing the former federal sales tax which was disastrous for our exports. The standard of living and the quality of life of Canadians depend on our exports.
It was not just an obligation. It was a duty. And until now, no government had the courage to take this step. We did, and we are proud of it, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, a tax on books is not going to do much for Canadian unity and Canadian identity.
I have this question for the minister: Since he just said that the Commissioner of Official Languages says many positive things about the government, I would like to ask him why, on the very day the government received the report on official languages, it is cutting Treasury Board's budget with respect to official languages to the tune of 22 per cent. Why is the minister killing the jobs of people who are supposed to preserve bilingualism at the federal level?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, when we hear the kind of comments made by the interim Leader of the Official Opposition, we are astonished at their factual content, which is absolutely incorrect!
Last year, expenditures on official languages within government increased by 9.5 per cent, although all other budgets were cut. Next year, there will be an increase of 4.5 per cent, while other expenditures are being reduced. As far as human resources are concerned, this year we prepared regulations which were published in this week's Gazette. We worked very hard for two years, and during the comming months, we will consider how best to manage this sector.
However, I repeat that the government intends to keep managing this sector effectively.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with Canadians' attitudes towards official languages. As a matter of fact, in this report we find that four out of five Canadians accept official bilingualism and that three out of four parents want their children to learn the second language, in this case the other official language.
What is at stake here is the leadership this government is giving to this whole question. I want to ask the minister this, since the report today tabled is quite critical of his department. Mr. Speaker, I will read from page 56:

March 25, 1991
Oral Questions
Efforts to promote the identity and linguistic and cultural integrity
of Canada.
Results this year; insufficient, inconclusive efforts.
Harmonization of commitments to official languages and
multiculturalism policies.
Results of the government; insufficient effort.
Constitutional formula to develop and reduce imbalances to improve services in the minority language services. Government position; not yet stated.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to tell us why today, in his own department, there is talk of cutting 22 per cent of those people directly responsible for the program evaluation branch? Why is the minister cutting 15 people out of a job at this time?


Gilles Loiselle: I would like to repeat what I have said already, Mr. Speaker, we are increasing the budget for this particular department.
As for the commitment of this government and of the Prime Minister, I would like to quote a statement he made saying that bilingualism is an advantage and an asset for this country and that even with its imperfections, and we all recognize that there are some, it serves Canada well. He said that it will always be a challenge. A great deal of success has been achieved and, as is clearly shown in the very report you are quoting, of course it is not perfect. But I would remind the hon. gentleman that his own party had been in power for decades and we were all striving in our own way to improve it.
We introduced a new bill last year, we have introduced a whole new set of regulations that were discussed and debated in this House and in committee, and which are now in front of the public. We have made arrangements with many departments for special arrangements to manage this difficult area, and we are making good progress in the areas declared officially bilingual.
In 1984 when we came in there were 35 per cent bilingual jobs; there are now 70 per cent bilingual people in those particular management jobs.
[!Translation\


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a supplementary. In his annual report the commissioner also refers to the question of
the language of work and to another important question, equitable participation. I want to deal with the regulations designed to favour the actual use of French or English as a working language in federal government departments and agencies. The findings of the commissioner's study show that nothing has been done yet. A study of environments favourable to the use of the working language has been made, but the results have not yet been made public.
So here is my question. True enough, we were given regulations concerning the language of service. But we have absolutely nothing, the government has quite simply refused to tell the Canadian Parliament just where the government stands on the issue of language of work and equitable participation. Now I ask the minister when are we going to have regulations on the language of work?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I remember quite well that a few months ago in this House the hon. member asked me to produce or publish these rather difficult and complex regulations which enable all Canadians to have as much access as possible to services in their mother tongue anywhere in Canada. We did work very hard. I continued the work which my predecessor had begun. I believe we came out with excellent regulations which drew praise from both sides of the House, I would say almost from three sides of the House. We did a good job and we are continuing this work at the departmental level.
With respect to the language of work, outside if you will, I believe the official language is already precise enough. As far as I know there has been no major problem. Should one ever arise we would be glad to deal with it at the appropriate time and place.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question comes from the speech which the Minister of Finance gave this past weekend. It was a speech in which he told Ontario Conservatives that we could lose this country.
March 25, 1991

I think the minister is right. Our unity and the faith our people have in each other are very much at the breaking point. That is why this government must change its economic direction.
I want to ask this government if it will work for Canada's survival by ending its tax breaks to the rich, by giving more support to training and to research and, above all, by getting Canadians back to work in Quebec and all across the rest of this country? That is what we need to make this country survive. Will this government give us that commitment.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I continue to be amazed at the contradictions I hear from members of that particular party. For one week, day after day, they get up in the House and tell us that we must do something because a lot of companies are going into bankruptcy. They then turn around and say: "You should increase the taxes on these companies because it is most unfair". I would like to know exactly where they stand.
It is a fact that many of our companies are in difficulty. It is by providing them with the proper environment and by bringing down the interest rates that we can help them to salvage their companies and get on with their programs. It is not by sheer magic.
The opposition and the NDP seem to think that by pressing a button we can change the course of events. Canada, like all countries, is living in the real world. We have to provide a competitive environment, put our own house in order and reduce the interest rates and then we can get on with the job.
Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor): Mr. Speaker, what this country needs is a lower dollar, a lower set of interest rates and the hundreds of thousands of people who would be back to work as a consequence of those kinds of policies.

I have another question for the government. Mr. D'Iberville Fortier released his report today. He discussed the climate of uncertainty surrounding the future of the official languages. He said that some people are playing with dynamite.
Oral Questions
Is the government willing to confirm unequivocally that our linguistic duality is a fundamental characteristic of this country? Will it provide the required leadership in this field for the future?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised many issues in his question. He mentioned in particular the need for lower interest rates and lower dollar.
I would like to remind him that we are indeed pursuing these objectives, but that the only good way to achieve this is by harmonizing the fiscal policy with the monetary policy. As regards official languages, I think the hon. member should have no doubt about it. This government is totally committed to official languages. If we were not, why would we have increased spendings by 9.5 per cent in that sector last year, when we were cutting back everywhere else? How can one claim a lack of interest on the part of this government?
Next year, while our overall spendings will be reduced by 3 per cent, spendings in that sector will increase by over 4 per cent. I think the figures are eloquent. As regards our commitment, you will find in today's Gazette I think the important draft regulations we are submitting to the Canadian people. That is unequivocal. A few months ago, we introduced a new legislation on the subject. Our commitment is unequivocal. I cannot for the life of me understand why the hon. member is so concerned. I can assure him that we are indeed committed not only to maintain but to improve this policy.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I would like to address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Recently the Prime Minister promised to save Radio Canada International, but despite his assurances, RCI's budget has just been axed, its staff decimated and the number of languages broadcast slashed from 14 to 5. Incredibly, we will no longer be able to tune to RCI programming in Canada's two official languages.

March 25, 1991
Oral Questions
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this question. At a time when the government can find $14 million for a glitzy ad campaign to sell the GST; at a time when it can afford $1 million plus for its budget propaganda leaflet, why can the Prime Minister and this government not find the $7 million to keep open our only newslink to the rest of the world? Or is this just another example of another broken promise by this Prime Minister?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has assured all Canadians that Canada will continue to have an international shortwave service. The government has been searching for new funds to retain a Canadian international shortwave service. That is being done right now.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages has tabled a huge but most interesting report. His major concern as a result of the cuts in funding to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will be an erosion of official language communities. At the same time is the government not undermining our Canadian identity when it is already shaky? Is it not dealing a serious blow to one of the essential characteristics of our country? My question is this: Is the government prepared to allocate the necessary funds for the maintenance and enhancement of programs for Francophones outside Quebec? Yes or no?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the Chairman stated a month ago that he felt total receipts of $1.4 billion was adequate. I can tell you honestly that I watch the CBC. There are a great many programs which I appreciate highly, but it is the responsibility of the CBC and its managers to determine how they could provide a high quality service to all Canadians, and I am sure they will.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Canadian citizens paying their taxes in Windsor, Rimouski, Seven Islands, Matane-
[Translation[
-would be very pleased with the Minister's reply. [English]


Mr. Epp:: In Winnipeg we do not want it any more.


Sheila Finestone: Is that so?
Mr. Speaker, given that the CBC President Veilleux has said that a further $50 million shortfall is looming and more serious cuts are ahead this year if more money is not forthcoming to protect what we now have left of the CBC, will someone, on behalf of the absent minister, assure Canadians that more money will be found for the CBC so that additional services are not cut and more jobs, more than the 1,100 right now, are not lost. Yes or no.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the hon. member that one of the reasons why the government is compelled today to ask every one to tighten their belts is that before we assumed power, the generous Liberal government was spending $1.33 for every dollar Canadian taxpayers were sending to Ottawa.


Sheila Finestone: It costs 11 cents for the CBC.


Gilles Loiselle: Much as we would like to spend-as politicians, we would rather spend more-Canadian taxpayers just cannot afford it.
Therefore, we have asked the CBC-by the way, we have increased its budget from $900 million to $1 billion and something-


Sheila Finestone: No, $300 million.


Gilles Loiselle: ..we have asked the CBC to operate within its budget. Should exceptional requests be made, we would consider them on an individual basis.
March 25, 1991


NATIONAL UNITY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Last weekend at a Conservative policy conference the Minister of Finance in effect reprimanded Canadians for their negative attitudes and told them: "Don't worry. Just be happy." That is quite a view coming from the architect of the very policies that are tearing this country's economy apart.
At that Conservative conference, the Minister of Finance praised the resolutions of the conference which he said would strengthen the country.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister about some of these resolutions. Does he think that eliminating funding for multiculturalism will strengthen the country? Does he think that creating user fees for medicare will strengthen the country?
Tell us just which of these resolutions the government agrees with. Does he admit that it is this government's negative policies that are creating negative attitudes on the part of Canadians.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. member would find encouraging is that 800 Conservatives took the time off from a very busy weekend to talk about the future of the country, and about policies for the future.
While this was going on, the Liberal Party of B.C. was trying to find a way to extricate itself from the federal Liberal Party. Quite a difference; quite a contrast.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, what surprised Canadians was that they could still find 800 people who would call themselves Conservatives and come out in public to have a meeting.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will take a look at the report of the Official Languages Commissioner which was tabled earlier today and see what he says about another
Oral Questions
negative policy of this government, the GST, and its effect on books.
The Official Languages Commissioner says:
The federal government should consider setting up a task force or
other mechanisms to evaluate and report quickly on the linguistic
and cultural dislocations created by application of the GST and
proposed compensatory measures.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the government was wrong in applying the GST on books and on the economy, and set up this task force today?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, we tried to explain to the opposition, which was not very inclined to listen, that this reform had a certain number of characteristics.
We wanted the GST to be widely based. We wanted it to create, by removing the old sales tax on companies, manufacturers and others, a more competitive Canada thereby creating more money for people to buy books.
Second, for Canadians who have the lowest incomes, we set aside what is, in a GST or value added tax country-there are 48 of them-the most generous system to make sure that these people would be in a better position to spend afterwards than they were before. It is up to them whether or not to buy books.
The disaster which was forecast before GST reform has not happened.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The softwood lumber tariff memorandum of understanding signed by this government with the United States has been blamed for the loss of thousands of forestry jobs as well as selling out Canada's ability to make our own forest policy, particularly when it comes to questions like stumpage.
The minister of trade has said he would consult with the provinces to try and get a consensus on how to scrap the MOU.

March 25, 1991
Oral Questions
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is: Does the government have agreement from the major lumber producing provinces and the maritime premiers to go to Washington and scrap the MOU?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can only advise the hon. member that those consultations are ongoing. Obviously there are major concerns about this issue and there are some differences of opinion as regards eastern and western industries. Hopefully we will be able to arrive at a consensus and a common position which we can take as a negotiating position with regard to this important issue with the United States.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, under the memorandum of understanding, section 5 of the agreement that this government signed with the United States, the Government of Canada commits and will agree to impose a new tariff if any of the provinces reduce the stumpage that they levy on their forests.
Has the government been approached by any provinces to reduce their stumpage and is it still the position of the government that it will impose a new tariff if that is done?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not precisely sure about the state of the negotiations at the present time. Obviously these and all other matters will be considered as part of the consultation process, but I can assure the hon. member that the position of the government is that we want to deal with this issue and because it is something that involves very directly the provinces, it is important to have provincial concurrence. That is what we are seeking and when we do, we will be in the position to make a solid case before the United States.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for ACOA.
Since the closing of ADIL, which was given assistance one year and closed the next year, and is operating now only until the summer, can the minister tell the House whether or not he has caused an investigation in to what went wrong in the year that the money was given to ADIL?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to brief my colleague on this matter, but I want to tell her that as is the case with other enterprises in Atlantic Canada, our agency attempts to be helpful and do the most that we can to ensure that these enterprises have every chance of success where the jobs are badly needed.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows I asked this question in committee and as far as I know, I have not received an answer.
My supplementary is for the same minister. I wonder if the minister is aware of how many businesses have closed or gone into bankruptcy in Nova Scotia since the start of the ACOA plan. If he knows the number, would he please tell us, and if not would he table it in the House, as well as tabling what investigation went on for ADIL?.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague, who seems to be far more interested in the negative than the positive in these things, that whatever businesses have run into difficulty have been a very miniscule number compared to the businesses that have succeeded and they have created and maintained many thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada.
If she wishes to have this kind of information which, I guess, more properly should be requested through a question on the Order Paper, I will make certain that she gets some background data.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, My question is for the Minister for Science.
The president of the National Research Council acknowledged last week that the council is hurting badly, that it lacks the resources to adequately support industrial R and D, and that its most popular program with the private sector, the Industrial Research Assistance Program, has been starved for funds by this government.
March 25, 1991

When will the government recognize that the well-being and jobs of Canadians depends on investing in industrial research and development and adequately support industrial R and D through the National Research Council?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, the National Research Council is but one instrument to support industrial research in this country.
The government has a very large number of programs: the Strategic Technologies Program, the sector campaigns and mahy others. These are all designed to promote, encourage and lever funding from the private sector for more research. That is exactly what we are trying to do.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, all of those programs have been cut by this government.

In fact, the president of the National Research Council has acknowledged that the value of contributions to the IRAP Program has dropped more than 20 per cent in the past six years. Seven years ago, the Prime Minister promised to create hundreds of thousands of jobs through investment in research and development, and to increase sales by several billion dollars each year.
That is exactly what the NRC's Industrial Research Assistance Program is doing. Will the minister make a commitment to invest in research and development and give the National Research Council the resources it needs to create jobs and increase sales of Canadian companies, which is exactly what the Prime Minister promised seven years ago?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there are two facets to the IRAP program. The first and, indeed, it may turn out to be the most important facet, is the network that has spread from one end of this country to the other in terms of the industrial strength.
With respect to the IRAP grants, they have continued to go up. In fact, in the last year, I do not know if the hon. member is aware of this or not, but the IRAP funding was not completely used and that is an important factor.
Oral Questions
We are committed to IRAP. We believe it to be a veiy important program. We have no intention of letting it decrease. We have every intention of supporting it. In fact, we have asked if they would please provide us with a new five year plan, for the first time, for the whole IRAP network system.


ENTERPRISE CAPE BRETON
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister responsible for Enterprise Cape Breton.
The Brait report points out that 88 per cent of all financial assistance provided by Enterprise Cape Breton went to companies which were funded in excess of $1 million and that 71 per cent of those failed to produce jobs for Cape Bretoners.
My question to the minister is quite simple. He said last year that he would acknowledge any mistakes. I want, today, to hear him say that he is responsible for that abundant record of mistakes at Enterprise Cape Breton.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that any minister is responsible for what goes on in his department. He also knows that in the last year or so there have been considerable changes made with respect to ACOA. He also, in fairness I think, would want me to put on the record that Mr. Brait, who did an arm's length, very impartial report, said that he was very impressed with the number of small enterprises that were created and the fact that this augured well for the future.
It is true that this or that mistake has tended to be highlighted but, basically, Mr. Brait pointed out that nearly $500 million of additional investment was levered out of Enterprise Cape Breton. He pointed out that there were nearly 2,000 jobs created, although he also pointed out that there was some exaggeration in the number of jobs created.
If I may, I would like to quote briefly to my colleague, what a former member of Parliament from Cape Breton of his party, the Rev. Andy Hogan said about regional development, which is worth noting: "With regard to regional economics, it is time for everyone in this House, who does not accept some of the conventional wisdom

March 25, 1991
Oral Questions
about what can be done to get behind the whole program of regional expansion, to see what can be done. We can and will be partisan in other environments, but we must not just talk, we must ensure that regions and sub-regions of Canada have the opportunity to survive in the future." That is what this government is determined to do. I would hope that deep down, my hon. colleague's thinking on this issue is not shallow.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I trust you have noted that Brait indicated that those projects with which the minister had nothing directly to do with are the ones that were successful and, in fact, only 900 jobs were produced. The failures are specifically those jobs that the minister had to sign off on. I am asking this minister whether he will take responsibility for the failures that he specifically approved and act accordingly.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to my colleague that I am well aware of the responsibilities and that I have indicated this in the past. He may in his trite way say that these large projects are not something that should be encouraged. I would remind him, where would we be in Nova Scotia for example without Michelin Tire?


MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As usual, I am a little confused and perhaps he can clarify something for me.
Although all the laws and regulations of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act are enforced on the Canadian auto industry, the Department of Transport does not enforce some of the regulations on U.S. imported vehicles, in effect creating two sets of rules. This creates a decided advantage for U.S. imports and a confusing set of safety standards.
My question is: Will the minister correct the situation and enforce the Motor Vehicle Safety Act on U.S. imports exactly as it is enforced on Canadian vehicles or change the rules for both imports and domestic vehicles so there is only one set of rules for all to follow?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I know of no incidents such as my hon. friend refers to. The Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the importation of vehicles that do not meet Canadian standards. Transport Canada has been advising individuals and companies to this effect for more than a year. As a matter of fact a leaflet with these requirements has been prepared and has been given wide distribution to associations and customs sites.
If my hon. friend has any specific examples, I would be pleased to look into them.


William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, I do have a specific example. It is the example of odometers. There is a very clear rule that even I can understand that says that cars imported into Canada must have metric odometers. It is my understanding that that rule is not being enforced. Perhaps the minister could clarify that.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, what I said to my hon. friend was that if he could bring me a specific example where a car has been imported to that effect, we will look into it.


JUSTICE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. On Friday, I asked about the tragic case of Linda MacDonald who was brainwashed without her consent in 1963. The Solicitor General said that he could not respond because the case is before the courts.
The minister will know that although a statement of claim was issued four years ago, there is a hold on the matter to allow the minister to review the allegations of negligence by the government and to hopefully, after 28 years, offer Mrs. MacDonald some compensation.
Will the government please stop delaying on this matter and offer Mrs. MacDonald the compensation she so richly deserves?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct that with regard to the statement of claim, it was agreed between the parties that pending discussions the case would not be proceeded with.
March 25, 1991

My predecessor, the Minister for International Trade, when he was Minister of Justice, commissioned a report on the facts surrounding Ms. MacDonald's case. That report took a year and the conclusion of that report was that the Government of Canada bears no responsibility for those events at the Allan Memorial Institute.
At the request of Ms. MacDonald's current solicitor, Mr. Berger, I reviewed the submissions again and we heard out his suggestions that perhaps the Cooper report, which had been commissioned by my predecessor was not complete. With respect, and with regret I am afraid, I cannot subscribe to Mr. Berger's view of those facts and we have now made the decision to proceed with the case before the courts.
I have been continuing to review the case, and it would be helpful if litigation could be avoided, but I think it is important to make it very clear that there is a distinction between a terrible situation which resulted in very significant detriment to a Canadian for which we have great sympathy and the concern about legal liability on behalf of the Government of Canada.
With respect, I cannot accept the analysis that finds legal liability by the Government of Canada. Whether a court takes a different view is of course up to the court.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the minister's predecessor, the now Minister for International Trade, did not have the benefit of the case of Orlikow et al. v. the CIA, which produced a lot of important testimony. Also, the minister in her reply said that the government was not guilty of any impropriety. Well, no impropriety has ever been alleged. The allegations have been negligence against the government. And the allegations are also that without her consent what happened was contrary to the Nuremberg Code and contrary to the UN covenant on civil and political rights.
It is a travesty, Mr. Speaker. Will the government look at this matter again? Will the government take some real action in this matter, and will the government not punish this woman for being a victim?


An hon. member:: Hear, hear!


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the
Oral Questions
government is not punishing that woman for being a victim. Ms. MacDonald's case, I think, raises some very serious concerns.
The question that I as Minister of Justice for the Government of Canada have to be concerned with is the question of what is the legal liability of the Government of Canada because the acceptance of liability has implications for a great many other things the government does. I am sure my hon. friend will respect that and will appreciate that.
I compliment him on the care and the detail with which he repeats the submissions made by Mr. Berger, which, with respect, were carefully reviewed by the department. I continue to look at the file. I am not in the position to indicate what I would proceed to do.
I would like to invite the hon. member, if he would care, to have a more thorough briefing from my department. We would be very pleased to give it to him.


TORONTO RAILWAY LANDS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: My question is of the Minister of Transport who is ultimately responsible for the 81-hectares of land in downtown Toronto known as the railway lands, owned by Canadians and held in trust by Canadian National Railways and ultimately by the minister himself.
In view of the strong possibility that decisions will be made on the future of these very valuable lands by the city of Toronto and by Canadian National without holding public hearings, will the minister give today his undertaking that he will ensure there will be a proper public consultation process before decisions on the disposition of these valuable railway lands is made?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am sure my hon. friend will know that there has been a great deal of controversy surrounding these particular lands and a great deal of discussion about them.
CN in its dealings with public lands endeavours to abide by the planning process at all times, and I have no reason to believe that it would not do so in this instance.
Tributes


REVENUE CANADA
[Stage Direction]
March 25, 1991
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: My question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
In 1985 Ottawa began offering retail kitchen cabinet makers in Canada a 33 per cent discount on the manufacturers' sales tax. This discount was withdrawn from Manitoba makers in October 1986, but continued to be applied in other provinces. Imperial Cabinet Company of Winnipeg alone, in my constituency, has suffered over $82,000 in refunds due.
Will the minister admit that his department made a terrible mistake, and tell this House today that he will at once rectify this mistake and direct his department to refund all Manitoba businesses concerned?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: No,
Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot admit that there was a mistake. I would suggest to the hon. member that instead of believing a newspaper report that he should check into the facts before making inappropriate and inaccurate accusations of this sort.
The fact is that the discount applies only to regular lines of furniture and the manufacturers must have published price lists for those lines. The manufacturers mentioned in the Free Press article to which the hon. member refers to do not meet these qualifications.
May I at the same time, Mr. Speaker, say that we are delighted with the number of FST rebates that have taken place. In fact, to date we have completed some
41,000	claims-on time, on schedule-representing nearly half a billion dollars.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Later today Justice Allan Cawley will release his report on aboriginal justice in Alberta. He has apparently levied the charge of judicial and political tyranny against the justice system and its treatment of native people-like Wilson Nepoose of Hobbema, who was convicted of murder in May 1987.
My question is to the Minister of Justice. By now she has received a letter from Alberta Attorney General Ken Rostad indicating that Mr. Nepoose may have been wrongly convicted, based on false evidence coerced by the RCMP from a Crown witness. Mr. Rostad has asked the minister to order the case reheard under section 690
of the Criminal Code, the same section used in the Donald Marshall case.
When will the minister act to order a new hearing so that Wilson Nepoose who has been in prison for the last five years, since July 1986, can be released on bail pending a new trial?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, on the application under section 690,1 am advised that my department has received some correspondence from Mr. Nepoose's counsel. His application will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
I think the hon. member will appreciate that the allegations have to be put forward and investigated to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Before we move on to some other things which I think hon. members would want to stay for, we have been getting into the habit of putting supplemental questions which really have no reference whatsoever to the principal question.
I want to remind hon. members of the following quotation from Beauchesne's:
Although there may be no debate on an answer, further questions, as may be necessary for the elucidation of the answers that have been given, within due limits, may be addressed to a Minister. The extent to which supplementary questions may be asked is in the discretion of the Speaker.
I would ask hon. members to keep that in mind.
We are being asked for a few minutes to pay tributes.


TRIBUTE TO THE LATE HON. LEON BALCER
Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to join all my colleagues in the House of Commons in paying tribute to the Hon. Leon Balcer who died this weekend at the age of 73. Mr. Balcer was a member of this House and a cabinet minister for many years. He was first elected member of Parliament for Trois-Rivieres in 1949. He served his constituents in the electoral district of Trois-Rivieres for six consecutive terms, which at the time was a record for a member from Quebec elected to the House of Commons.
March 25, 1991

Mr. Balcer also served as a minister under the late John Diefenbaker, from 1957 to 1965. He held the post of Solicitor General of Canada, was a member of the Treasury Board and, towards the end of his career, was Minister of Transport. Mr. Balcer finished his political career as an independent member in the House and subsequently tried to start a career in provincial politics which unfortunately proved unsuccessful.
Mr. Balcer also served as a naval officer during World War II on the Annan, one of the ships that helped hunt down German submarines, and he felt he learned a great deal from this experience.
The former member for Trois-Rivieres and minister and member of the Privy Council was a man of great dedication, so much so that he had earned the respect of all his constituents, whatever their political stripe.
This weekend, in the Trois-Rivieres newspaper Le Nouvelliste, journalist Jacques Laberge wrote that Mr. Balcer would be remembered as a member of Parliament who served the interests of his riding with loyalty and dedication. I am sure that all members of this House will join me today in offering our sincere condolences to all the people who knew Mr. Balcer and especially the members of his family.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I knew the hon. Leon Balcer well. My esteemed colleague Mr. Gray and I sat in the House with him. We both recall one of the great moments of his life, among others, when he moved to put a stop to the endless debates on the Canadian flag. It was thanks to him that that very trying debate finally came to an end.
We know as well that he had a very active political career. I remember that he had led the Conservative forces against me during my first electoral campaign back in February 1964. Unlike some other instances, this had resulted in a great friendship between us, while the contrary would normally be expected to occur.
We extend our heart-felt condolences to his family, for we know that Mr. Leon Balcer was a great gentleman, the kind of politician we see ever more rarely. He had a sense of his country, a sense of history, a deep-seated sense of what Canada was and of his place as French-speaking Leon Balcer both in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and in this House, and we are grateful to him for greats memories. He accom-
Tributes
plished a lot more than a number of members can ever expect to do in their lifetime. He was a member of this House in very trying times. He had earned the respect of all his colleagues and of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent.
I am sorry I did not have more time to prepare for this tribute we are paying him today. Still, in these few words, on behalf of my party and of my colleague Mr. Gray who also knew him well and who is the senior member of the House of Commons, I want to offer our most sincere condolences to his family.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I knew Leon Balcer as a person or as a member of Parliament. But when I was young I used to be interested in what was happening on Parliament Hill and I considered Mr. Balcer as one of the most straight forward and honest members of Parliament and ministers of the Diefenbaker Governement. I cannot believe that Mr. Balcer passed away. It is not easy to sum up the work of such a member of Parliament who sat for so long in the House of Commons. But I would like to say in the name of my party that it is also very painful for us to have heard of his death. It is important to mention his contribution to our country.

Leon Balcer was someone who was well regarded in many parts of this country, not just in his own province of Quebec but in many parts of the rest of Canada, for the contributions which he made as a cabinet minister, for his capacity to work hard for his people from Trois-Rivieres, and for his capacity to demonstrate independence, to demonstrate integrity, and to demonstrate to the people of this country what the life and contribution of an excellent member of Parliament can mean for all of us.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister from Quebec region 04, represented by Leon Balcer at the time, and especially as a personal friend of Mr. Balcer, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to him and to offer, on behalf of the government, our sincere condolences to his family and to all who knew him during the years he served in this House and served his country.

March 25, 1991
Tributes
He was a remarkable man with a great sense of duty. When we consider his record in the House and the fact that he was re-elected six times, as my colleague pointed out earlier, we see not only a serious politician but also an individual who, I believe, deserves to be better known. I say this first of all because of his dedication to his constituents. This was apparent throughout his career and well afterwards. There was his sincere commitment to politics as a man who believed in the causes he espoused. He had great personal dignity and earned the support of his constituents by the way he represented them in this House.
And finally, Mr. Speaker, his friendship. Leon Balcer was a good friend, without affectation, sincere, open and dedicated. As a friend, Mr. Speaker, I mourn his loss, but I will always have fond memories of a good friend, Leon Balcer.


THE LATE PAULINE VANIER
Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, it is a sad comment that one of the rare occasions that brings unanimity to this House is when we pay tribute to those who have passed on. On behalf of the government and, I am sure, on behalf of all members of this House, I would like to pay tribute to Pauline Vanier, the wife of one of Canada's governor generals, of a general with a brilliant career and of a Canadian ambassador.
I had the pleasure of meeting him more than 40 years ago on my first trip to France when I, a young Quebecer, marched up to the embassy and asked to meet the ambassador, and so, I had that privilege. I was very impressed. General Vanier's military career had instilled in him a certain rigour which some called rigidity-and great strength of character and discipline which, in turn, he expected of those around him. I think his wife provided an additional dimension because she was, which was unusual even then, not only a remarkable wife but also a remarkable woman as such, with many admirable qualities and also very efficient. In each of the difficult roles her husband was asked to play, she was at his side, and I think she made Canadians take pride in their representative, especially as their head of State.
She was an inspiration to her husband and to all Canadians who met her, and she presided over the destinies of this country at a time when it was making its mark in history. On behalf of the government I wish to express our sincere condolences to all her children and other members of her family.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, a great lady has passed away. With the death of Pauline Vanier, last Saturday, we certainly lost the last member of a real princely couple. We all know the work done by Mr. Georges P. Vanier as Governor General. We also know the work he accomplished with the 22nd Regiment which was known as Vandoo across the country. But we know also that in the Vanier family, Mrs. Vanier gave women an opportunity for fulfilment.
The Canadian Encyclopedia describes the work that Mrs. Vanier accomplished for our poor, our youth and our families. It was not only the work of her husband, but hers, as a person. She was chancelor at the University of Ottawa. She was also a powerful force in the establishment of the Vanier Institute of the Family and everybody across Canada knows that it was Mrs. Vanier who encouraged her son to create the Arche community, which gives hope to those who lost it.
With a family as highly regarded as the Vanier family, we realize that it was the mother, the wife and the woman who was able in all circumstances to give the support that was needed, but it is also true that now-
With the death of Pauline Vanier, we have lost part of a great Canadian family. We have also lost a women who, through her own inspiration, has left a monument to her family that will outlive any of her children, or grandchildren, or great-grandchildren.
Of course her work as Chancellor of the University of Ottawa was extremely well known. Less well known was the influence that she played in the life of her son and the establishment of l'Arche homes for those who really need the help.
Most particular, where I personally have a great respect for the Vanier family was in the work that she did in establishing the Vanier Institute for the Family. The family is a changing institution and even today as we speak the Vanier Institute is able to be on the cutting edge of social reform. At a time when the country is

March 25, 1991

Speaker's Ruling PRIVILEGE
crying out for support of the new family, not just the traditional family, Madam Vanier has made the study of new families, the study of social policy, and in particular the assistance for those who really need it one of her life goals.
Of course she will be missed by her children and her grandchildren, but she will also be missed by all of those who feel that it is the responsibility of someone in public life to help, to support, and to provide inspiration to those who cannot help themselves. Indeed that has been the hallmark of the life of the Vanier family, and the person behind that great hallmark was indeed Madam Vanier.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians were saddened to learn of the passing of Madam Vanier. Madam Vanier had a long and distinguished career, both a career of her own and in support of her husband Georges.
I am sure all of us can think back to many, many occasions when as a family the two of them represented some of the finer aspects of Canadian society and what Canada meant to so many people both here and abroad.
I remember on a number of occasions in discussions with both Madam Vanier and Georges Vanier being enlightened in terms of their view of what our country was and what it could be.
We recognize that Madam Vanier was a very dedicated person in terms of a variety of pursuits. Canada is a better place because of her efforts. She was a person of considerable character. I think the model that she provided for so many Canadians was nothing short of outstanding.
As a family the Vaniers had a long and distinguished career, both of them.
Today our hearts and our thoughts go out to her family on this very sad day.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank all hon. members for the tributes that have been paid both to a former colleague of ours and a distinguished Canadian, and to Madam Vanier who was for many years an inspiration to all of us.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING-SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I must now advise the House with respect to a question of privilege which was raised on Thursday, March 21, by the House leader of the Official Opposition, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, concerning the government advertisements which appeared in newspapers on March 16, 1991 relating to budget highlights.
The advertisement in question entitled "Canada's Plan for Economic Recovery" describes an eight-page newsletter which will be sent to every household explaining important highlights of the 1991 budget recently presented by the Minister of Finance.
The newsletter itself described economic initiatives taken by the government regarding inflation, the national debt, and interest rates. It also describes the government's plan to control expenditures to reduce the deficit, noting among other matters that legislation will be introduced to establish the debt servicing reduction fund.
I might say that on a number of occasions in the document the suggestion is made that legislation will be introduced.
In his presentation, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond argued that by placing the advertisements in newspapers across the country the Minister of Finance acted as if the House had already passed the budget. He went on to suggest that the ad misrepresented the budget document tabled in the House and made several references to the ruling of October 10, 1989 concerning the advertisement on the goods and services tax.

In support of these arguments, the house leader for the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Kamloops, rose to claim that not only were the advertisements contemptuous and misleading, but they also prejudiced the decision of the House on the budget.

In reply, the hon. Minister of Finance stated that he had followed the directions of the Chair as laid down in the ruling of October 10, 1989. He argued that the advertising had made it clear that these were budget

March 25, 1991
Point of Order
proposals and quoted from the brief note in the newsletter he himself signed: "This budget proposes far-reaching initiatives." He then went on to argue that, contrary to the contention of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, the advertisements accurately represented the 1991 budget document tabled in the House.
The interventions on March 21 touch on three major issues: whether the newsletter misrepresents the budget document; whether, in sponsoring this advertising the Minister of Finance acted as if the House had already passed the budget; and whether the advertisement will prejudice a future decision of the House.
On the first question, that is, whether the newsletter misrepresents the budget document, the Chair really has no role to play since it is clearly a dispute as to fact. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and the hon. Minister of Finance have different views on the government's economic initiatives and on the manner in which the newsletter presents those initiatives. The Chair can only conclude that the disagreement between the two hon. members is a matter of debate which could more properly be addressed in another forum. It is, with respect, not a question of privilege.
Another issue raised concerned the actions of the minister in authorizing these advertisements, and whether or not he was acting as if the House had already passed the budget motion.
To the information of all hon. members and the viewing public, on February 26 at the beginning of his budget speech, the Minister of Finance moved a motion reading: "That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government." Following this, the rules of the House establish that there is a six-day debate ending with the decision on whether or not the government's budgetary policy has the support of the House. In the present case, a decision has not yet been taken. There are two days remaining in the budget debate.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond contends that the minister should have waited until a decision of the House was taken on this motion before the advertisements were made. The minister replied that the newsletter was intended to satisfy the needs of Canadians to understand what was being proposed in the complex budget documents. The newsletter was careful to explain that these were proposals and that legislation would soon be introduced.
The Chair has to conclude that prima facie there is no breach of privilege or contempt of the House in this regard since the minister was careful in respecting the role of the House in these matters and indicated in the newsletter that these were proposals.

Another issue raised by the hon. member for Kamloops was that these advertisements prejudiced the decision that the House is to take. I would refer all hon. members to the ruling of October 10, 1989, at page 4460 of Hansard:
"The House and its committees do not work in a vacuum. Members are constantly aware of outside factors and pressures. Since no threats or bribes have been made, it is difficult to see how the work of the House has been prejudiced or which specific privilege has been breached."

I cannot see how these advertisements can prejudice the decision which the House will take on the budget motion. The purpose of the newsletter was to disseminate information and the Chair is satisfied that it did so in full respect of the authority of this House.
I want to thank the hon. Minister of Finance, and the hon. member for Kamloops for their contributions on the matter raised, as I said earlier, succinctly by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. After carefully reviewing the material itself and having considered all the arguments presented, I must conclude, however, prima facie, there is no breach of privilege.


POINT OF ORDER
A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the member for Comox-Albemi asked me a question about an application by Mr. Nepoose. I indicated that material had been received in my department. I am advised that that is not correct. A telephone communication has been received indicating the documents will be arriving in my department, probably tomorrow. I just wanted to correct that. An application has not been received for relief under section 690 of the Criminal Code.
March 25, 1991



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Environment entitled Out of Balance: The Risks of Irreversible Climate Change.
I would like to say that by now practically every Canadian has heard of the greenhouse effect. To respond to its threat will require many years, perhaps several decades of strong action by the world as a whole, and Canada needs to be a leading country in such efforts.
It would be easy to be pessimistic, easy to decide the effort cannot succeed. But we have to act. Global warming is a severe threat to both Canada and to the planet. We in Canada have contributed much more than our share in creating the problem.
The committee's report shows that we have a way to become very much a part of the solution. I believe this third report dealing with global warming and climate change will go a long way toward that.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests the government to table a comprehensive response to this report.


ELEVENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-83, an act to revise and amend the law governing federal loan and trust companies and to provide for related and consequential matters, with many amendments.
Mr. Speaker, may I say we have had extensive public hearings. This report represents the pilot bill dealing with the reform of financial institutions, and hopefully those reforms can be completed during this calendar year.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Routine Proceedings PETITIONS


COMMUNICATIONS
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise under the provisions of the Standing Orders to present a number of petitions to the House today. These petitions, I might add, are from many areas throughout British Columbia: Surrey, North Vancouver, Langley, Delta, Burnaby, Cloverdale, Vernon, Saanich, Victoria, Mission, Sechelt, Abbotsford and many other communities. All of the petitions urge the Minister of Communications to oppose UNITEL's bid to compete with Canada's telephone companies in long distance communication services.
The petitioners are urging the minister to consult with all of the affected parties, specifically those citizens residing outside Canada's urban areas, whom they believe will be impacted very severely by this form of deregulation. Last, they urge the minister to hold local hearings in communities throughout British Columbia before deciding the fate of Canada's long distance telecommunication system.


CANADA POST
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition under Standing Order 36 on behalf of the residents of my riding of Cochrane-Superior, more specifically the township of Terrace Bay.
The 624 petitioners are strongly opposed to the proposed sale by Public Works Canada of the Government of Canada building in Terrace Bay and the possible closure of the Terrace Bay post office. The loss of the post office would greatly reduce the quality of postal service in their community and would seriously impair communication for business and residents in the area. The post office building has evolved to the point where it is considered to be the hub of activity for the township. Its elimination would result in a reduction in the quality of life in the area.

March 25, 1991
Routine Proceedings
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon the Parliament to stop the proposed sale of the Government of Canada building in Terrace Bay, Ontario.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present two petitions. One is signed by petitioners from my own constituency, from Albertville, Shellbrook, Meath Park, Paddockwood and Prince Albert, as well as people from Brandon, Manitoba.
These people are protesting the attack by the Conservatives on their rural way of life in Canada, including the abandonment of VIA Rail, abandonment of small rail lines, neglect of forestry and fisheries, cuts to the CBC and so on. Most particularly, they are requesting that Parliament support Canada's rural way of life and support the maintenance of rural post offices and postal services. They ask Parliament to reject the Conservative agenda of cutbacks and closures.


URANIUM MINING
Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by a large number of Canadians, including those from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Lakefield, Toronto, Kitchener and Ottawa, Ontario and Hull, Quebec.
These people take note of the spill of two million litres of contaminated radioactive waste water at Wollaston Lake in November 1989. They note that the monitoring systems had not been properly inspected by AECB.
Therefore, they are calling for an immediate comprehensive public inquiry into uranium mining in Saskatchewan and northern Canada. They hope as well that an EARP panel be convened immediately to look into the new uranium mine at Eagle Point close to Wollaston Lake.


CANADA POST
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to table five petitions on behalf of constituents of my riding of Ottawa-Vanier. The undersigned now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your
petitioners, in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefor provide a remedy.
These petitions deal with the decision Canada Post made to close down postal station no. 23, located on Rideau Street, which is part of my riding in Ottawa. In the view of these petitioners, it will inconvenience all customers and it will be especially hard on the senior citizens who live nearby to be deprived of an essential service they have been enjoying for a long time.
The undersigned, Mr. Speaker, ask for this decision to be reconsidered and call upon this House to order Canada Post to reconsider its decision to close postal station no. 23, in hope that it will remain open.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of a number of rural British Columbians.
These Canadians believe that there should be a full consultation among all parties affected by any changes in the local and long distance service relationship with the CRTC hearings on UNITEL. The UNITEL bid must be integrated with the development of over-all Canadian telecommunications policy. They are urging Parliament to urge the Minister of Communications to hold local hearings in every community before deciding the fate of Canada's telecommunications system.


STARRED QUESTIONS
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I will be answering Starred Question No. 451 in the name of Mr. Fee today.


ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS
Mr. Fee: For the last 12 months, what has been the approximate costs of researching and answering Order Paper questions in (a) person-days (b) actual disbursement (c) other costs?
March 25, 1991


Albert Glen Cooper: The time required to prepare answers to questions on the Order Paper forms part of the regular duties of those concerned and as such is not recorded separately.
However, selected questions have shown that the estimated cost in time to prepare and produce answers to ministerial questions (one respondent) varies from approximately $100 to $8,000.
To name a few: Question No. 62 in the name of Mr. Plamondon was $8,000; No. 229 in the name of Mr. Comuzzi was $8,000; No. 288 in the name of Mr. Caccia was $3,500; No. 305 in the name of Mrs. Gaffney was $2,500; No. 341 in the name of Mr. Saint-Julien was $2,500; No. 393 in the name of Mr. McGuire was $500.
It can be said that the cost of answering most of the following shared questions-that is, all departments and agencies-would exceed the maximum cost, $8,000, of answering ministerial questions. There are several examples which I will not read, questions such as No. 34 from Mr. Wappel and No. 470 in the name of Mr. Boudria.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Milliken:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just witnessed the most partisan approach to the answering of questions that I have seen in this House for a long time.
For months and months the parliamentary secretary has stood up on questions that are starred in the Order Paper and said that he would like the answer printed in Hansard as though read. Often there has been no excuse that the answer was too long. Indeed, one of mine was extremely short the other day on the cost of royal commissions-it was three figures-and he had it printed in Hansard rather than reading the answer out in this House.
Government Orders
Today he gives a long-winded answer complaining about the costs of the questions. It was a question asked by one of his own backbenchers. I find it quite shocking that he would take such a partisan approach to the answering of questions in this House.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to indicate to my friend that I did not in any way complain about the costs. The reason for reading that particular answer into Hansard is that all members of the House, being very conscious of costs to the Canadian taxpayer, want to be sure that everyone hears those answers and I think, like me might be very shocked that several of those questions cost $8,000 and others would cost more than that.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Finestone (p. 18913).
Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon. The motion that my colleague from Mount Royal has put before the House is a very appropriate motion. As we know, it deals with the current situation which the CBC faces with the severe financial cutbacks and is a question that must address the future of this corporation in Canada and the future role that it plays in building a unique Canadian identity.
The CBC is an institution with a troubled future. Over the last decade, chronic reductions in the level of funding have left the CBC virtually impoverished and unable to provide for Canadians the truly national presence that is its mandate. The mandate stretches back to the creation of the CBC in 1932 as the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission. A crucial element of

March 25, 1991
Government Orders
this mandate was the recognition of the need to foster a sense of national community and to be able to act as an instrument or a tool which allows Canadians a sense of self. Yet today, Canada remains a nation that is virtually awash in foreign culture.
That is why the preservation of the uniqueness of our Canadian way of life has meant that special consideration has to be given to our cultural industries and to our tools of communication, such as public broadcasting through the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Unfortunately over the last seven years, the actions of the federal government which have been committed to implementing a U.S. style market-driven economy, have seriously reduced the CBC's allocation of resources and hence its ability to adequately fulfil its public mandate. If we go back and look at the budgetary allocations to the CBC, since 1984, when inflation is taken into consideration, we find that expenditures in real dollar allocations to the CBC have been reduced by hundreds of millions of dollars.
There is also in place now a plan to cut back another $140 million from the CBC's operation expenditures over the next four years.
Few organizations can be expected to operate properly when they have this kind of a financial broad axe hanging over its head. That is exactly what this government is expecting of the CBC; to make do with less by either cutting services, which it has already had to do, or to make up the losses by relying more and more on a commercial revenue base, as the CBC has also had to do. This kind of chronic underfunding by the federal government has forced the CBC to rely increasingly on commercial revenues.
In looking at the current situation, approximately 30 per cent of the CBC's revenues are gained through increased reliance on the marketplace. That has seriously compromised the corporation's ability to develop the kind of unique Canadian programming and the unique Canadian broadcasting that is required to have this corporation act as a tool of national unity and an instrument of national identity.
Such reliance on commercial revenues has already, and I submit will continue, to blur the distinction between public broadcasting on the one hand and private broadcasting on the other. Hence, it will continue to blur
the distinction of the essence of the CBC. This is not a criticism of CBC management. It is just a reality of the marketplace. It is what is going to happen when you have to rely more and more on commercial revenues. You will have to mimic our U.S. partners, American programming, which has a greater revenue base, attracts more advertising revenue. When you start to mimic that you lose your sense of identity, as the CBC is already beginning to do.
Faced with these fiscal restraints, few options are available to the CBC. Through this gradual submersion into the commercial marketplace, the quintessential Canadian identity of the CBC is being lost. It is being subverted and it is losing its mandate, as I said, to act as an essential tool of nation building.
Soon, if things continue the way they have, all that will remain for this government will be to sell off the pieces to the highest bidder.
Back in 1929 the Aird royal commission on broadcasting at that time concluded that if broadcasting was going to be commercial then it was going to be American. If broadcasting was going to be Canadian, then it was going to have to be public. Back then, Graham Spry, the founder of the Canadian Radio League probably phrased it best when he said, in referring to Canadian broadcasting: "It will either be the state or the United States". I submit that the latter may very well be the consequence for the CBC if we continue with this chronic erosion of public funding.
To their credit, the management of the CBC has tried to make the best out of what is essentially an intolerable situation. Despite the onerous cuts they have presented to the CRTC, the $108 million funding shortfall, and the fact that they have had to slash and basically throw 1,100 workers on to the street, the CBC has simply tried to rationalize as best it can how to operate with this significant reduction in funding levels.
I mentioned the sacrifice of 1,100 jobs, the severing of over 140 local programs, many of which are distinguished examples of what is best about the CBC. Although I disagree with their actions, I understand exactly why they have had to do it. It has been an act that has been brought about, I submit, by a government that is essentially committed to the demise of public broadcasting in Canada.
March 25, 1991

Mr. Veilleux's choices were brutal as president of the CBC. But what options did he have? In an effort to keep the CBC alive his actions, although necessary, have only served to emasculate the CBC and to facilitate this government's agenda.
The government has tried to hide from it, has tried to hide behind the argument that it has nothing to do with the CBC cuts. That was a board decision. That was a decision of the management of the CBC. The fact remains that those decisions would never have been made if the government had not left the corporation twisting in the wind to the tune of $108 million.
I talked with Mr. Veilleux. I talked with Mr. Watson. I asked them: "How many times did you try to see the Minister of Communications and meet with him to discuss this problem?" Their answer was that the Minister of Communications was invisible, that he would not meet with them, that he never offered them a minute of time in discussing the impact of throwing 1,100 people out in the street and reducing the operations in its 11 regional broadcast centres. The minister would not even take the time of day to meet with the management of the CBC. The government is simply trying to abdicate its responsibility in terms of allowing this corporation to do the job that it is through legislation mandated to do.
The CBC's choices, necessary, unfortunate, tragic, simply reflect the economic dynamics of the day. As Mr. Veilleux pointed out recently in the submission to the CRTC, Canadian society is changing and so must the CBC. The fact is that the choices that the CBC was forced to make reflect new values in our Canadian society. They reflect the neo-conservative market-driven values that have been the hallmark of this administration right from the free trade agreement through the GST and onward. I submit to you, Sir, that those market-driven, social Darwinian values are not reflective of the needs, or the wants or desires, of the Canadian people.
Under the Broadcasting Act which is still empowered, still in force until the royal proclamation of Bill C-40, the CBC may in fact be considered to be in violation of sections of that act. I refer to the revised statutes and this is what it says in referring to the CBC: "The National Broadcasting Service should be extended to all
Government Orders
parts of Canada, should be in French and English serving the special needs of the various geographic regions" and last, "should contribute to the development, national unity, and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian identity".
The action that the CBC board has had to take in light of the refusal of this government to fund it adequately is that it is no longer able to meet the requirements that are laid out in that legislation. At a time when Canada is a nation at a crossroads, a nation, I submit, with an uncertain future, for this government to unravel and to dismantle what is essentially a critical tool of nation building through our public broadcasting system is absolute heresy.
It makes no sense whatsoever. That is why the restructuring of the CBC services have to be closely examined and revisited. We are doing that now in the submissions that are being made even today at the CRTC hearings.
I would like to applaud the efforts of the CRTC in going ahead to hold those public hearings even though it is admitted that it really does not have any power to force the CBC to change its course of action.
As the federal regulatory agency, I think it does have the ability to send a very strong and unequivocal message to this government, a message that I think and hope will reflect the extent of the public concerned and the outrage that is being presented at the CRTC hearings as we speak in the House today.
The president of the CBC, Mr. Veilleux, was adamant that the management of the CBC would not be responsible for the next round of cuts, which already loom before us; the necessity of cutting yet another $50 million to $60 million and the necessity of cutting yet another 500 to 600 jobs.
He served notice that he and the chairman-designate, Patrick Watson, are no longer willing to serve as scapegoats for this administration.
Earlier in the week at the same hearings, Mr. Veilleux stated that with future funding cuts, the CBC would no longer be able to maintain its mandate. He warned, very clearly, that it would be up to Parliament to decide on the future of Canadian broadcasting. That sounds very much, to me, like a threat of resignation.

March 25, 1991
Government Orders
Perhaps that is exactly what this government needs in order that it wake up and smell the coffee, in order that it begin to understand the serious nature of these funding reductions that it has visited upon the CBC.
Chairman-designate Patrick Watson just the other day was commenting on the public comments that the Prime Minister had made in relation to the CBC.
In an article here in The Toronto Star, Mr. Watson is saying that the Prime Minister is playing games with the people of Canada in a way that expresses a lofty kind of contempt for all those people who have lost jobs and all those communities that have had service taken away from them. There is even contempt for the process that is going on here in front of the CRTC.
I do not think it is worthy of a Prime Minister. I do not think the management of the CBC is willing to take any more in response to this government's mandate of dismantling and emasculating Canadian public broadcasting. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that all areas of Canada are concerned about the effects of the cutbacks in the CBC.
I have a letter that arrived in my office today from the office of the Leader of the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia. It is addressed to the CBC management, and signed by the Leader of the Nova Scotia New Democratic Party, Alexa McDonough. She says: "I am writing with regard to the proposal for a nightly English TV news magazine which was presented to the corporation at the opening of this week's CRTC hearings."
She goes on to talk about the concern of the loss of local broadcasting, and she says: "At the root of many policy disasters in this region is the failure of those in Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal to hear the men and women who catch and process our fish, who tend our wood lots and who work in our pulp mills, who grow our food and who care for our land. It is absurd to imagine that a nightly news magazine program produced in Toronto, regardless of how many maritime reporters it employed could satisfactorily replace Land and Sea", which, of course is one of the local programs that was axed in the round of cuts.
She goes on to warn that the people in this region properly expect that their public television network can and will serve our environment and the people who rely upon our vital resource industries.
That message is coming through loud and clear from Nova Scotia, the Atlantic provinces, Newfoundland, the Yukon, British Columbia, through our prairie provinces. Canadians are upset and angry with the cutbacks this government has visited upon the CBC.
I want to point out that this government is not the only one that should be blamed for the erosion of CBC funding, because it began some time ago. In fact, our Liberal colleagues made the initial round of cuts way back in 1978. They started the ball rolling by cutting back $78 million, which at that time amounted to 12 per cent of the CBC's budget for 1979-80.
I can go on, Mr. Speaker. We look at 1984 when this government first came to power, we see a reduction of $85 million. In 1985 a reduction of $45 million. In 1986 another $48 million. In 1989 we find, phasing over the next few years, a $140 million funding shortfall.
This leaves the CBC with essentially no choice in the matter. If it cannot make up the revenues through government-allocated expenditures, then it has to rely more on the commercial revenues that will shift its focus away from truly Canadian programming to the more Americanized type of programming. These shows, although granted they are popular-and I am sure all of us watch them from time to time-we have to also remember that these shows do not mirror the Canada which we are trying to present and develop in terms of its distinctive Canadian identify.
We have seen the closures of the three stations at Goose Bay, Matane and Toronto, and the reduction of eight other stations to operating essentially as news bureaus.
We have seen a $12 million cut to network TV and only this weekend -and we were discussing this earlier in the House today-the cutting of funds for Radio Canada International. I think it is an absolute disgrace that this government would allow an institution, Radio Canada International, which basically serves as Canada's voice to the world, being completely disassembled by the reduced funding at this level.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are indicating that my time is up. I had much more to add to the debates, but perhaps I will have an opportunity to do so during the questions that follow. I thank you for your time today.
March 25, 1991


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from the New Democratic Party who just spoke. He said it was a management decision and that Mr. Veilleux would not be responsible for the next cuts. But one could wonder about spendings before 1984. I remember that in 1985 or 1986 the CBC bought a sailboat to cross the Atlantic from Saint-Malo to Quebec City. I think Joel Le Bigot sailed it. In any case, it sank. That was an expenditure. How much did the boat cost the taxpayers? Two, three hundred thousand dollars? Is that our mandate, to by boats for the Saint-Malo-Quebec City race? That is food for thought.
I would like to ask you a question, you who are a champion of labour rights-I too was a union leader, by the way. Did Mr. Veilleux, the president of the CBC, before proceeding to make cuts like those made by GM, ask his employees to reopen their collective agreement as the government of Quebec and the government of Canada did a few years ago? Did he? I do not think so.
I have another question for the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. What did your Party do when Radio-Quebec shut down stations in Eastern Quebec? What did the Liberals do when the government of Quebec forced Radio-Quebec to shut down stations? Nothing. On the financial aspect, we do not have access to the CBC's internal documents. So, we do not know what expenses are involved, how much was spent on national or provincial events. We would like to have access to these documents to try and find an answer to the problem.
My main question is this: Did you contact Mr. Veilleux, the president of the CBC, to find out if he asked the employees to reopen their collective agreement?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the government member has asked whether I would like to see Mr. Veilleux replaced. The answer is that I am not pointing the finger at Mr. Veilleux. I think he has been made a scapegoat for the agenda of this government.
If anybody is to be got rid of, I would hope that it would be our Prime Minister rather than Mr. Veilleux,
Government Orders
because he is the one behind these Draconian cuts that are going to dismantle this corporation.
The member wants to talk about fiscal responsibility. He submits that it is fiscally responsible to carve $108 million out of the budget for the CBC. He submits that it is responsible to throw 1,100 people out on the street. He submits that it is responsible to close 11 regional stations.
The government has already had to give $45 million for the decommissioning costs. It is estimated that another $25 million will be required. It is going to cost the people of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada, $70 million in order to save $108 million.
The member says that is fiscal responsibility. I think it is madness.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is doing such a nice job in this critic area with me. I really appreciate the work he has put in and the collaboration on many occasions. However, there are times when I certainly do not agree with the stance taken.
I am curious, though. I heard him supporting the CBC board and Mr. Veilleux. I understand a sense of sympathy and even a sense of empathy for the role that they had to play, but I am curious to know if he would agree with the following thought. Since they could not meet the public trust and develop the sense of public support for the proposition which they indicated themselves was a destruction of the role of the CBC, how would the hon. member respond to the thought that they should have resigned to have made the point?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I just want to revisit the argument I made earlier: Mr. Veilleux and Mr. Watson, both relatively new to their positions, should not be the ones who are solely targeted.
They are not without blame, I submit that. I certainly do not agree with the direction that they have taken. I am not defending them but simply rationalizing the process when I say that I think they have tried to make the best of what essentially was an intolerable situation. They have indicated very clearly that should they be forced to make another round of cuts, should they have to take that kind of action, which the government seems

March 25, 1991
Government Orders
wont for them to do, they will reach the point of no return in terms of their own ability to continue to serve.
I agree with my colleague that they have said very clearly the CBC will no longer be able to fulfil its mandate if these cuts are made. I submit that the CBC is already incapable of adequately fulfilling its mandate.
They are not without blame, but I want to refocus the cross-hairs on the appropriate target, that is the Prime Minister this government that is hell-bent for election on the demise of public broadcasting in Canada.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague a question with regard to the very excellent remarks that he made.
Many people are perhaps not aware that CBC coverage in fact had never been able to keep up with the mandate provided to it by Parliament.
For instance, in my constituency of Prince Albert- Churchill River, there are thousands of people who do not receive any kind of Saskatchewan television news coverage. There is no Saskatchewan station on cable systems or rebroadcast systems in many northern Saskatchewan communities. Those people certainly cannot follow the debate on public issues within that province nor see cultural or entertainments shows originating in that province, even though they are supposed to be a part of it. They already feel very isolated, and this just increases the feelings of isolation.
Second, with the closure of the Saskatoon station, it means that those northern communities in my constituency that did receive some CBC coverage through cable or whatever, are now reliant on a CBC signal out of Regina, and northern Saskatchewan news is never covered by that CBC station in Regina. It just does not have the resources to do it.
Virtually half the province is without CBC coverage. Is that the kind of thing we can expect more of? Are northern Canadians just the vanguard?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, my colleague presents a very valid argument, the essence of which is very clear. When they move away from local broadcasting and centralize the operations with essentially one bureau in each of what they call the regions, which really are the provinces, there is no way the CBC can adequately reflect the values of individual communities within those regions.
For example, we have the situation in Windsor. Windsor is very much like some isolated communities in the
northern territories. They are isolated in terms of their geography. Now they have basically lost their only Canadian voice, they feel isolated from the larger community of Canada.
The fact is that in Windsor they are essentially awash in American culture. Over 90 per cent of the programming that comes in is American. The only Canadian signal coming in as a local signal was the CBC outlet in Windsor. Now that has been closed their community values are reflected not through a local station, but through a Toronto broadcast.
Whether it be Windsor in the province of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia where the majority of the population on the coast has very different values and views than some of our interior communities, it is impossible for the CBC to reflect those various community values appropriately.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, I will speak for 10 minutes and split the time with a colleague for 10 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Does the House agree with the suggestion of the hon. member.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am pleased to participate in debate on the motion of the member for Mount Royal which reads:
That this House call upon the government as a matter of priority
to ensure that the CBC be strengthened as an instrument of national
identity providing local, regional, and national services to all
Canadians.
May I say in speaking to the motion of the member for Mount Royal that the member has certainly done her colleagues in the the Official Opposition, in the Liberal Party, proud. I believe she has provided a tremendous service to all Canadians concerned about the future of the CBC in the way she has consistently represented them and this issue for such a long period of time in Parliament, in committee and before the CRTC.
The very fact that the member found it necessary today to move this motion really speaks volumes about what is happening in Canada. The motion calls upon the government to ensure that the CBC be strengthened as an instrument of national identity providing local, regional, and national service to all Canadians. The Broadcast Act, both the 1968 act and the new act not yet proclaimed, provide exactly that the CBC ought to have a mandate to provide national, regional, and local service.
March 25, 1991

I am quoting directly from the new act. The words are exactly the same in the old act. They indicate that "the CBC reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences while serving the special needs of those regions". What do the words "special needs"? Who are those special people? What are their special circumstances?
The member who spoke before me talked about Windsor. I agree that Windsor is in a particular situation where its needs are indeed special and important. It is almost isolated, surrounded by that great neighbour of ours, the United States of America. Its connection with the rest of Canada is tenuous, but it is certainly difficult to maintain, particularly when we see the close-down of the CBC station in Windsor.
What about Goose Bay, Labrador, represented by my friend, the member for Labrador? He is the first member for Labrador. An historic position of trust is held by Mr. Rompkey. My friend from Labrador has eloquently told us before the CRTC of the position of the people in Goose Bay, in Churchill Falls, and in Labrador West who occupy a huge sparsely populated land mass and have lost their only vehicle to speak directly to their fellow Newfoundlanders and fellow Canadians. In speaking as he has with such eloquence, the member has reminded us of the special plight of all northern Canadians who need every possible vehicle to speak to their fellow Canadians.
I represent the town of Corner Brook which lost its local station. However, it is not just Comer Brook that has lost a local station. Comer Brook serves an area of some 600 or 700 miles of coast line stretching from Port aux Basques in the south to St. Anthony in the north. It is 600 or 700 miles as the crow flies, in a straight line, but it covers thousands of miles of coast line and hundreds of small isolated communities for whom the CBC is not a luxury. It is not a selection on the channel. It is not a question of taking out the remote and flicking around until something grabs their attention. The CBC is how they find out whether or not they should go out and fish today. It tells them whether the weather is any good, whether they might catch fish or drown in a storm. It is that fundamental. There are no other stations.
Government Orders
The CBC is the only opportunity to speak of the potential and the problems of the people who live in those communities, the people who harvest the sea, who live off the land, who do not wake up in the morning and find six metal boxes containing six national newspapers on their sidewalks, who do not walk down to the drug store and pick up variety of magazines, who do not turn on the radio and go through a selection of Am-FM channels. These are people who turn on their radio and turn on their television and connect to the CBC because the CBC has a mandate to serve them.
The private sector is not there. The private sector is never going to be there, nor should it. There is not a buck to be made. There is not an advertising dollar to be picked up and banked. That is why Parliament mandated the CBC to serve Canadians no matter where they live, no matter what their circumstance.
The greatest irony of all is if we look at the history of the institution. Where did it come from? The notion or the idea of the CBC was born almost 60 years ago. Prime Minister R. B. Bennett, in the middle of the Great Depression in 1931, brought in the Broadcast Act. He understood in the middle of a depression, at a time when the fabric that normally holds a country together is strained, frayed and tom and when the country is having its heart ripped out by the Great Depression, that he needed another instrument to pull this country back together. He envisaged the CBC, and it was bom in the Great Depression of 1931.
In the recession of 1991, what does this Conservative Prime Minister do, this inheritor of R. B. Bennett's mandate? Does he understand the need to pull the country together when the ties that bind are strained?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: No.


Brian Vincent Tobin: No, Mr. Speaker. He pulls out a huge pair of fiscal scissors and he severs the last remaining strands of the fabric of this country. He cuts off and isolates the people of Comer Brook, St. Anthony, Coxes Cove, La Scie, White Bay and Hampden. He cuts adrift the people of Windsor. He completely severs the people of Labrador. He closes down Calgary, and he says it is all done in the name of fiscal responsibility.

March 25, 1991
Government Orders
This issue is not going away. It is not just about the 11 television stations, the 150 local programs, the 1,100 staff that have been brutally, mindlessly and stupidly cut adrift. That is not what it is about. It is about a visceral understanding deep in the gut of this country that our institutions are being melted down and are vanishing just as the snow vanishes in the spring. Canadians know that if they do not hold on, if they do not stand up now and stop this meltdown of the institutions that define Canada, then Canada will surely follow the fate of the CBC, VTA Rail, Air Canada, and all the other national services that have disappeared.
I come from Newfoundland. I know my province is not as wealthy as some others. I do not envy those who have greater opportunity than mine. I know that we will never be as wealthy as some others, but I have always know that in some ways, in some areas, notwithstanding the disparity of resources, as a Canadian I was equal to any other Canadian.
I have always known that our health care system was there, giving us a measure of equality. I am not sure whether that will be there in a few years. I have always known that in my retirement I would have the dignity of a Canada pension. If all else failed, my country provided that. I have always known that my children and I would have access to quality education; at least I used to think that. I have always known that I could speak to my fellow Canadian. Even though I lived on an island province 19 miles away from the mainland of of Canada, on the east coast of Canada, through the most vicious storm and the thickest fog our voice could cut and be heard because we had a vehicle called the CBC.
We oppose what is happening to the CBC. We believe the CRTC now must be the voice of the people of Canada who do not have the privilege of standing in this Chamber to be heard. The CRTC must say no, just as the people of Canada are saying no to the meltdown of this country. The sooner that Mr. Veilleux and Mr. Watson, who orchestrated the assassination in the dead of night of 1,100 employees and 11 stations, leave the CBC, the sooner the CBC can be better served by new management.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague
from Newfoundland. Ele speaks with great passion, great eloquence and makes a lot of sense.
The kind of passion that we have just heard enunciated in the Chamber by the member from Newfoundland is the very kind of passion that we are seeing pouring forth in support of the CBC by groups that are coming to the CRTC hearings from one end of Canada to the other. People are coming of their own goodwill and expense to defend this institution of public broadcasting and to tell the CRTC in no uncertain terms that it has to do whatever it can to turn this government in its tracks and stop the kind of bludgeoning that is taking place to this institution. Let us stop the kind of emancipation that is taking place and the dismantling of a broadcasting system that is more than a broadcasting system. It is very much, in every part, a tool to help Canadians understand themselves, a tool to help us listen to our own Canadian voices.
I want to ask the member, because he touched very briefly on one aspect of the CBC that I think is extremely important, and that is in our international role. As the member knows, Radio Canada International has had a severe reduction in its funding in the latest round of cuts to the CBC. As a result of that, we have almost another 100 people thrown out on the street. This government loves to throw them out on the street. We have a reduction of foreign programming from 14 languages down to 5.
I just want to ask the member to perhaps reflect on what that is going to do to Canada's international reputation and Canada's voice in the world at large.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question because this is an area that I touched upon only very quickly.
Let me just say that one would be tempted to suspect that just as the United States, all too frequently in the last year or two, appears to speak for Canada when it comes to foreign policy and, all too often, the Prime Minister, appears to be a bare echo of the Bush league that has been launched south of the border-


A. Kim Campbell: Your inferiority complex is showing.
March 25, 1991


Brian Vincent Tobin: -one really has to wonder whether or not the policy of the Minister of Justice, who is speaking across the way, is that Radio Canada International need not exist in the nine languages that are being cut out because the Voice of America is there. Of course, as long as this government is in power, whatever the Voice of America says we can just say ditto for Radio Canada International. One would presume that would be the policy of the Minister of Justice. She is now making some rather unintelligent noises from her seat, obviously finally discovering, after several hours of debate, some pangs of conscience bothering her in great measure.
I have one other comment for the member. I find it ironic that the former chairman of the CRTC, Mr. Keith Spicer, is now heading up a citizens' forum trying to find out what makes this country sick, angry and upset and what would pull it back together. I want to tell the remaining members of the CRTC, the commissioners now there, that they have within their grasp the ability to excite this country, to turn this country on, to inspire this country in ways that Keith Spicer can only dream about. They can do that by showing the people of Canada that the airwaves truly belong to the people. They do not belong to the NDP, Liberals, Tories, governments or oppositions; they do not belong to the CBC, CTV nor Global. They belong to the people. And the people, somewhere, have a regulator who works for the people, regulating the people's airwaves.
The CRTC can make a statement about Canada, in spite of all the doom and gloom and negative predictions about our future, that shows the people of Canada the system can work. The regulator is there and the integrity of the people on their airwaves can be maintained by simply saying no to the arrogance of the government, the Minister of Justice and the CBC.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, it might be appropriate to start a discussion on the CBC with a piece of poetry. The lines that I have in mind are from The Merchant of Venice where Shylock says: "You take my house when you take the prop that sustains my house". There are scholars in the Elouse who will correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection is that is what he says: "You take my house when you take the prop that sustains my house."
It is appropriate because that is exactly what the CBC is. It is the prop that sustains our house. It is appropriate to use a little poetry because we should not underesti-
Government Orders
mate the contribution of the CBC to the arts in this country. Gordon Pinsent, who is a famous Canadian actor now and a famous international actor, came from my province. Would he be where he is today had it not been for the CBC? Would shows like Codco be on the air? Would troops like the Mummers have grown up? Would drama reflecting the soul of my province be as alive as it is today without the CBC? The answer is clearly no.
That is why it is appropriate to start the discussion with that particular quotation. It seems to me it is the prop that sustains this House. The government may do away with the railway. We never had a railway in Labrador so we are not going to miss it. The government may do away with Petro-Canada, but we will find other oil companies to develop the oil and the gas off our coasts. The government may do away with the post office, and that will make a difference to us. It will make it tough for us, but we will survive. We will be the same as we are without the post office.
But when you tamper with the CBC, you tamper with the last fundamental unifying force in this country. The CBC is the way we talk to each other. The CBC is the way we communicate. This government is responsible for tampering with, and starting to dismantle by atrophy, the last unifying force in this country.
Mr. Watson tells us that he uses this occasion of a budget cut to create a new vision for the CBC. His vision is a window, a regional window whereby Canadians talk to each other. They see through that window and they talk to each other. That is Mr. Watson's new vision. Mr. Watson robs us of our window in the north in order to create his new regional vision.
That is exactly what the CBC was. It was a window that reflected us to ourselves, that told us about each other, a way we talked to each other at the local level. It was also a window through which we expressed ourselves to the rest of Canada and hopefully to the world, but certainly to the rest of Canada.
In creating his new window, he has robbed us of what made us unique, that unique possibility for expression and communication because, as my hon. friend from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte has said so eloquently: "There is no option for us". The private sector does not exist in Labrador. There are no private stations. Why? Because there is no market for them. There is no money to be made.

March 25, 1991
Government Orders
All the signals we get are from satellites. All the signals we get are sitcoms from the United States and elsewhere. There is no other local vehicle except the CBC.
In the north it is important now that we be able to talk back to the south, to those signals that come to us from the south. If we do not, we are going to be inundated by those signals, swamped by those signals and whatever culture and whatever identity we have will be submerged and eventually destroyed unless we have some way of talking back.
If you think, Mr. Speaker, there are solitudes in this country, and that they are east and west, and that they are French and English, I will tell you about other solitudes. They are north and south. The north believes that the south does not understand what it is all about, that it is on the margin, that it is not important, that it is out there and not really fundamentally part of this country. At a time in the history of this country when there are forces at work tearing us apart, it is essential more so than ever before that we have a local means of making our voice heard in this national debate.
That is what the CBC is all about. If the 30,000 people I represent were here today, they would say the same thing. Not just me; the mayor of Fermont, which is our sister community across the border in Quebec, was at the CRTC hearing the morning before I was there. He said exactly the same thing. If the mayor of Sept-Iles was here, he would say the same thing.
It does not really matter. We are not unique in Labrador except that we are part of the north, except that we are on the margin, except that we need that voice, the voice that CBC was for us. That is why this is so important. We have depended on the CBC.
Let me give credit where credit is due. The CBC, certainly as far as radio is concerned, has been a unifying factor and has reflected our local reality. We cannot say the same for CBC television.
I understand that camera crews have been on the coast of Labrador doing set pieces: a piece on alcoholism,
another piece that can be shown at any time that they can slip in for 10 or 15 minutes to reflect that particular part of Canada. But that is not the local day-to-day reality of the Labrador coast. It is the difference between the play-by-play of Bob Cole and the Hot Stove League between periods.
We want the local day-by-day reality reflected in this country now, and that is what CBC region has not done up to now. The track record is not there for us. My people in Labrador know more about what is going on in the St. John's city council than they do about the Goose Bay town council or the Labrador City town council.
The stations at Goose Bay and Labrador City reflected that local reality, created a way whereby people could talk to each other and created a way whereby those Canadians could talk to their counterparts in the south in this debate.
The money saved is minimal. The jobs lost are minimal compared to the importance of those stations to us. As my colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte has said, it is now up to the CRTC as the final court of appeal in the country to recognize the reality of those local stations. As our colleague from Winnipeg said so eloquently and so passionately the other day, the regional vision of Mr. Watson is not going to reach deep into the roots of this country, is not going to reflect the heart and soul of rural Canada, of small town Canada, of northern Canada. Only those local stations could do that.
It is now up to the CRTC, and I hope that this House will reflect it, up to the CRTC to rule that we must not tamper with what is the last and greatest unifying force in this country. We can only hope, and the people who I represent can only hope that the CRTC will recognize that and rule accordingly. If they do not we will have lost out in this great national debate.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as I think my friend will agree, one of the delights of living in a democratic country like Canada is that if a manufacturer manufactures an item, it is his privilege to do it, but it is also the privilege of a customer not to buy it if he does not want to.
March 25, 1991

It is the privilege of a broadcaster to broadcast but it is not an obligation on the part of the citizen to listen to that broadcast. So I find it strange that while we have a-


David Kilgour: We know that, Benno.


Benno Friesen: I hear the member for Edmonton Southeast mumbling there, and I suspect he is a pretty good supporter of public broadcasting in the United States, maybe more so than he is of the CBC.
Here we have PBS broadcasting from New York State and, as I understand it, fully 40 per cent of their revenue comes from listeners in Ontario. I find it passing strange that the listeners in Ontario seem to be more interested in supporting PBS than they are in supporting some of the broadcasters in Canada.
When I watch the ratings of stations in the city of Vancouver I find that in the evening news the private broadcaster has about 75 per cent of the viewing audience while the remaining 25 per cent is split between the CBC and the other private broadcasters.
I would like to ask the member who just spoke how he can make such an emotional speech about the CBC unifying the country. That could surely only be true if people are watching. But if they are more interested in supporting the PBS in certain areas, and more interested in watching the other channels, then how can that be a unifying effect for the country?
Second, when they do watch CBC I would like to ask you how it could be that watching Hill Street Blues, on CBC or L.A. Law, or any of the other American shows on Canadian television, via the CBC, is a unifying effect for the country?
Finally, I would ask him how he could justify the cost of broadcasting through the CBC which is far higher, and I hesitate to use the proportions, than private broadcasting? How can he justify that in the support of the public broadcaster?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been listening, he would have heard both in the remarks of my colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte and in my own, the essential fundamental point that there is no option for us.
Government Orders
We do not have the luxury of watching other stations. We have the luxury of watching satellite signals, but we do not have the luxury of expressing ourselves or talking among ourselves through private stations.
It exists in Ontario and Quebec. It probably exists in British Columbia, but it does not exist where we live. Let us understand that it is a fundamental point. Do not let that escape you. If you take that away, you take away something that cannot be replaced, because it does not exist in the private sector.
It could be that my colleagues across the way want to privatize the CBC. I do not know. Let them say that. I hope they will be honest enough in this debate, if that is part of their agenda, as they have been with other institutions in this country.
I happen to believe that, for us, where I live, in the past, now and in the future the only option for us with regard to local television and expressing our voice nationally is the CBC. That is it. There is no other game in town.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I understand what my friend says about the difficulty of getting a diversity of broadcasting in the regions where he lives.
Is he suggesting that we should forgo the broadcasting of the public system in cities like Toronto and Vancouver, and simply concentrate on the regions?


Bill Rompkey: All we are asking for, Mr. Speaker, is some fairness in the system.
I cannot pretend to speak for Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, or any other part of the country. If a public broadcasting system is important in this country-as I believe it is, was and will continue to be-of 25 million or 26 million people spread out over 5,000 or 6,000 miles and if public broadcasting is important as a vehicle to communicate among each other, then it is fair to have access to it from Labrador and other parts of my province. That is what I am saying.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice.


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, I jotted down some rules because I wanted to speak to this motion moved by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.

March 25, 1991
Government Orders
I could not leave unanswered the absurd statements made by the Hon. Member for Labrador as well as the Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte. When listening to the Hon. Member for Labrador, one gets the impression that people in Newfoundland and Labrador have no access to television service in this country. Such is not the case, Mr. Speaker, because on the basis of the statistics in our possession, which by the way are available to any one, 99 per cent of the people in Labrador and Newfoundland own a television set. Well, if 99 per cent of people in Newfoundland and Labrador have their own television sets, Mr. Speaker, they must certainly watch television programming. It is quite untrue and unacceptable to be told today in the House that Newfoundlanders are at a disadvantage by comparison with other Canadians.
We understand that it is this Parliament's duty to provide free and equal access without charge to all Canadians, even those in some remote areas. We understand that. However, Mr. Speaker, our colleagues from Newfoundland are telling us they are at a disadvantage in comparison with other Canadians as far as television programming is concerned. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the statistics compiled by the CBC, it is strange to see that nowadays in Newfoundland, not only in St. John's, but throughout the province, and even in small municipalities, 64 per cent of households have cable TV. That figure is pretty considerable. Besides the basic service everyone-that is 99 per cent of the people-can get with an antenna, 64 per cent of households in that province also have cable TV. That is more than in Prince Edward Island, where only 48 per cent have cable TV than in New Brunswick, and even than in Quebec with 59 per cent.
So if the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte thought he could move us to tears today, he was dead wrong, Mr. Speaker, because with these options, he has access to all the TV stations and radio channels the people in Newfoundland, just like people all over Canada, can choose from.
Mr. Speaker, in this debate proposed by the hon. member for Mount Royal, her colleagues in the Liberal Party and also to some extent in the New Democratic Party have painted a picture which is all black. They tried
to tell us that the last chance to save Canadian unity was to add to the $1.4 billion we already give to the CBC.
However, when you look at the figures, and we must, Mr. Speaker, since we need to back up what we say. One should not throw words which have more to do with paranoia than anything else. There is a lot of paranoia in the opposition, but arguments must be based on facts.
The hon. member told us a while ago that the last instrument to save national unity was the CBC. Watching "The National" and "The Journal" was the thing to do. If we don't watch those, Canada can't be saved. Then, Mr. Speaker, what could my friend from Labrador say about the TV watching habits of English-speaking Canadians.
Let us look, for example, at the results of the latest poll conducted by BBM, in the Fall of 1988, on the TV watching habits of English-speaking Canadians. Some 25.8 per cent of their viewing-time was devoted to the English Canadian network CTV; 26 per cent, to English Canadian independant stations; 28 per cent, to the American broadcasting stations, and 18 per cent, to the English CBC.
Mr. Speaker, does that mean, according to what the Liberal members are saying, that for 82 per cent of the time spent watching TV in English Canada, people do not contribute to the national unity? That would mean that most of the time, 82 per cent of the time people in Vancouver, in Montreal or in Saint John's watch an English broadcasting station other than CBC and they are not contributing to the national unity.
I think we have been presented with a false debate today and I find most regrettable that attempts are being made now to make political propaganda or partisan politics out of the current situation of the CBC. It is a fact that we have had to make the best of past mistakes for which we were not responsible. In 1984, our government inherited a debt that all of us, as Canadians, will have to pay for a long time to come.
That problem cannot be settled in 5, 6, 7 or 10 years. We have taken actions that will allow for a gradual reduction of our national debt over the next several years. However, one important thing must be said to the Canadian population. This year alone, Canadian taxpayers across the land will spend 1.4 billion dollars to allow CBC to maintain its radio and television services in French and in English.
March 25, 1991

It is, a considerable amount of money. As for me, what makes me angry when I hear Liberal members in particular speak on this matter, it is that we have the impression that in Canada there is only Radio-Canada and the CBC. What about the rest? How many times have liberal members stood in the House to speak of the problems plaguing private television stations in Canada, Mr. Speaker?
In my constituency of Shawinigan, people can listen every day to programs on their radio or television, a fact which contradicts what our colleagues opposite say, that our radio and television in Canada is pityful, of poor quality, and that it is not diversified.
Shawinigan is a town of 23,000 inhabitants. A small town similar to others across the country. Every day, the people of Shawinigan can tune in 29 FM radio stations, on cable, in French and English. Not bad for a small town of 23,000. And when they have had enough of radio, because people in Quebec listen to 15 hours of radio weekly, they switch to their favorite hobby, television. Quebecers watch 27 hours of television per week; half the time, they watch programs on CBC. But if the people of Shawinigan or other small towns in Canada can tune in to 29 radio stations on cable-
Mr. Speaker, the people of Shawinigan can also tune in to a grand total of 33 TV stations, a pretty fair choice I would suggest.
I wish one NDP or one Liberal member on the other side of this House would point to one country in the world with a small population of 27 million as we are in Canada, including 7 million in Quebec, where TV viewers and radio listeners have access to such a wide variety of means of communications.
Last November, Mr. Speaker, I went to Belgium, which happens to be a fairly important country in Europe. I turned on the TV and began searching for stations. As I just said a moment ago, cable TV in Shawinigan enables the wiewer to choose among 33 stations, a good selection. As people are wont to do, I began zapping to locate other stations. Well, I got the two stations in Belgium, the RTBF1 network and the RTBF2 network.
Now over to France, Mr. Speaker. Switch on the TV. In terms of population, France is bigger than either Quebec or Canada. You turn on the TV and get
Government Orders
Antenne 1, there are three basic stations plus a private station. Four all told.
Mr. Speaker, the CBC alone has 1,600 antennas from coast to coast for French and English TV and radio broadcasting.
These media provide us with information services that are second to none. Of course the CBC network is not the only choice we have to get the good and the bad news. To inform us of all the radio broadcasting services available to us.
The private sector plays an extremely important role in this area. For instance, in the province of Quebec, there is the TVA network which broadcasts a whole series of very high quality public affairs programs.
The Members of the Opposition, either the NDP or the Liberal Party, refer to the service provided by the CBC as though it was the end of the world. The reality is quite different.
In my region, there are three private television broadcasting stations, namely, the Quatre Saisons network affiliate, the CBC affiliate and the TVA network affiliate which, at 6 o'clock, provide us with news bulletins. The news bulletins are prepared by the private sector, something the people in my area do not complain about.
In my own region, we never had a CBC news bulletin telling us that at the corner of the fourth street where the station is located in Shawinigan, there was a traffic jam. I suggest that this type of service can very well be provided by local radio or television stations which belong to the private sector.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, all Hon. Members agree-we clearly said so when dealing with Bill C-40 with which I was very actively involved by moving a number of amendments-that the CBC has a vital and very important role to play.
Mr. Speaker, the government is well aware of that. That is why we raise through taxes in my riding and the whole country a considerable amount of money which is used for only part of our broadcasting system. For the CBC, which is just one element in our system, we raise $1.4 billion in Canada.
I think that that is enough. I find it strange that on just about any matter the Liberals always think we should spend more. We do not spend enough money for this, we should spend more for that, and so on.

March 25, 1991
Government Orders
I feel, and I say it again because it is important, that $1.4 billion annually is a reasonable amount of money. It is enough and, Mr. Speaker, considering the economic situation, the CBC has a duty to spend this money wisely, because I think those people in the CBC tower on Dorchester in Montreal-excuse me, on Rene Levesque Boulevard-should remember one thing: They are spending taxpayers' money.
The other issue, Mr. Speaker, is that the CBC is competing unfairly with the private sector, especially in Quebec but also in English Canada.
In recent years, the CBC's market share of commercials has increased at the expense of the private sector. The Minister of Communications, Mr. Masse, made a surprise statement here in the House, indicating quite clearly that perhaps the whole principle should be reviewed- Perhaps the hon. member for the New Democratic Party would care to hear me out- So the whole principle should be reviewed, and perhaps one way would be to remove commercials altogether.
The motion put forward by my colleague, the Minister of Communications, is an idea that we should be looking at together because, right now, the private sector of Canada, which creates jobs, Mr. Speaker, is going through very difficult times. I would like to hear the NDP and liberal members talk to us more often about the problems faced by private television broadcasting in Canada, they certainly can talk to us about CBC, but they should also mention all the other broadcasters in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to talk very briefly about RCI, our short wave international service. Many Canadians do not know exactly what it is. RCI is Canada's voice abroad which allows millions of listeners in Europe, in Asia, in Africa and in the Middle East to hear from Canada. We expect that the government will soon tell us what it intends to do exactly with this service. The Opposition has already mentioned some further cuts. It is possible, Mr. Speaker, that there may be some cuts. I will probably be the first one to regret it because I think the Canadian government must provide an international
short wave service through RCI which is accessible to the largest possible number of people throughout the world.
However, Mr Speaker, we must also acknowledge the fact that Canada is not the only country in the world reviewing its policy with regard to short wave radio service. Radio-Australia is in the process of doing so and so are Radio-Denmark, Radio-Sweden, Radio-Finland. Radio-4 in Belgium is cutting its short wave international service level and is even thinking of doing away with it altogether. RSA, the voice of South Africa, has cut the bulk of its services in French and in English to North America. Radio-Prague, in Czechoslovakia, is in the process of redefining its services as a whole. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because, unfortunately, shortwaves are no longer the modern way of communicating.
Of course, I really think we must keep some shortwave services. Russia, for example. For my part, I wholeheartedly wish the government will maintain our service in the Russian language, because there is one thing we must aknowledge, Radio-Canada International is not listened by only a few hundred listeners in the Soviet Union. In fact, Radio Canada International has a higher rating in the Soviet Union than the CBC here in Canada, which shows how important that service is to us.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, 7,460,000 Soviet citizens listened to Radio Canada International. I believe it is a useful service, and I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to maintain Russian language broadcasting which represent a very important part of RCI's activities. According to a 1987 survey, Mr. Speaker, Radio Canada International had 16 millions listeners around the world. Maybe, in a few days, we will not be able to serve all the international community. However, considering the importance of the Russian broadcasting for the Soviet Union, I really wish it be maintained.
Also, Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that the CBC International German broadcasting for West Germany and East Germany is listened to by only 50 000 people. I wonder why we are still providing this service. If there is a service that should be cut given our priorities, it is that one. However, Mr. Speaker, I think we must keep and even improve our Spanish broadcasting which is widely listened to in Cuba.



March 25, 1991

Government Orders
During a trip to Cuba, a few years ago, I met many Cubans whose only source of information coming from North America was Radio Canada International, for its waves are very well received in Havana. That is a service which, Mr. Speaker, I think we should maintain. On the other hand, other short wave services could be dropped, or revised as most other average countries like Canada have done-I have mentioned these countries just before-before cutting or reducing the whole of their short wave services.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say to my friend from Mount Royal that her motion, as interesting as it might be, does not reflect the reality, because this government will continue to invest large amounts in its public broadcasting system, and Canadians will still choose between a public and a private system, because we can afford both.
For my part and in the opinion of my constituents, from my riding of Saint-Maurice, I must say, Mr. Speaker, that $1.4 billion represent a appropriate sum which we committed ourselves to maintain this year. I am sure that CBC management will know how to spend that money discreetly while securing the linguistic duality the federal government wishes to maintain and ensuring that official language minorities, anglophone everywhere in Quebec and francophone outside Quebec, will obtain a better service.
This is the rule we applied during the last few years, Mr. Speaker. The English-speaking minority in the Mauricie, Trois-Rivieres and Shawinigan area did not have, when Liberals were in power, a local relay for the signals originating in Montreal, Quebec City and Toronto. Now they have. A whole series of French-speaking communities outside Quebec did not have this service. Since 1984, we have worked to give Canadians, from both language groups, access to these services. Our work is not over yet, Mr. Speaker, but we will keep at it. I am sure that Canadian citizens know that we are using their tax money with the utmost prudence and that we try to protect the high quality and reputation of the CBC, renowned around the world.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member. I have a question to ask, but before doing so I would like to make a couple of comments.
One would think that this period of national uncertainty would bring about a strengthening of the institutions that bring us together as Canadians. However, during this period of constitutional negotiations the very essence of our national identity-the institutions that reflect our culture, our traditions, our priorities-was and still is being slowly destroyed.
The privatization of Petro-Canada, cutbacks to VIA Rail, closure of rural post offices, privatization of Air Canada, the free trade agreement, the watering down of CBC's role in the development of our national identity have all chipped away at these national institutions that were such an important element in our cultural and practical Canadian way of life. As a result of this government's lack of financial support for the CBC, the CBC was forced to cut back. In cutting back, regional coverage was made to suffer, in addition to a number of other important services.
In my area in eastern Canada a very important element of our culture was brought to an end. For 20 years eastern Canadians watched the program Land and Sea. This show provided eastern Canadians with a reflection of the people, the activities and the culture of the Atlantic area. The program gave the dairy farmer in Malpeque an understanding of the way of life and the problems of the lobster fishermen. It provided the tourist operator an opportunity to comprehend the needs and concerns of the potato farmer. It gave all islanders an outlet to enjoy and understand the diverse priorities that exist in our region of the country.
The dropping of the program Land and Sea has reduced the ability of eastern Canadians to understand ourselves, our identity and our differences and similarities.
Does my hon. colleague not agree that it is totally unacceptable for CBC to cut the program Land and Seal

March 25, 1991
Government Orders


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, we could analyze CBC programming and we could take a good look at all this and look at each program individually to decide whether they should be cut or not.
I don't think it is up to the politicians in this House to decide whether or not a program should be heard. Mr. Speaker, in Saint-Maurice-and I am going to talk about what I know-according to the latest BBM survey, 7 per cent of the people listen to CBC Radio's French network. This means that 93 per cent, as far as I know, although the Liberals don't seem to use the same arithmetic-93 per cent of the people in my riding never listen to CBC Radio. I am not saying we should get rid of it. I am saying we should keep all these programs in perspective.
The program mentionned my colleague from Malpe-que is special program that we could see. You know, Mr. Speaker, we could have programs on all sorts of subjects. Unfortunately, the CBC must limit itself to a certain number of programs and God knows that, all things considered, it is still a significant number.
Lets' look at Canadian television as a whole. I would remind the hon. member and the people listening to us that it is important to compare Canada with countries with a similar population in order to get a true picture of what Canada produces in terms of French and English television. In those comparisons, ten times out of ten, Mr. Speaker, Canada comes out above average considering the amount of money we invest in our television.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we cannot compare Canada and the United States. It is totally impossible, considering the population pool and existing resources. However, the problem with liberals is that they compare themselves with Americans only when it suits their purpose. You can be sure that when it doesn't, they see the Americans as a bunch of villains. That is their attitude. They would like us to have as much as the Americans have, while the reality is not quite the same.
However, Mr. Speaker, look at countries of Northern Europe like Sweden, Norway and Finland. Look at the Netherlands, which have a larger population than us,
and you will see very easily, Mr. Speaker, that we have a national television system, French and English, public and private, which is by far superior to all others systems in the world and offers a wider choice than anywhere else.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the member has made some rather provocative statements here today. One of the comments he made earlier in his presentation was that the CBC should be essentially chastized for going more and more into the commercial market for what he calls unfair competition with private broadcasters in Canada.
I just want to point out to the member that he cannot have it both ways. The fact is that the CBC has had to go more and more into commercial revenues because this government has cut back more and more of its public revenues.
If the corporation were facing fixed costs as any business enterprise does-it faces fixed or increasing costs year after year as inflation takes place-it has to make up that funding somewhere. If it cannot get it from the government, if it cannot get it from the public purse, then it will have to raise those revenues through competition in the commercial field.
I say to the member that he cannot have it both ways. He is complaining that this unfair competition is happening when his government is the very culprit that is forcing the CBC to rely more and more heavily on those commercial revenues.
I would also like to ask the member if he would wish to comment on this point. Earlier in the day the parliamentary secretary said that in fact the CBC was strengthening its mandate, that it was revitalizing its mandate. We find 1,100 people turfed out on the street, 11 regional broadcast centres closed, the cutting of over 140 programs, and the CBC facing another budget cut of $50 million to $60 million and another 500 jobs on the line.
Is this strengthening the public mandate of the CBC? [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Saint-Maurice has two minutes.
March 25, 1991


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, I would need ten minutes, but you decided to limit my speaking time and that is perfectly understandable.
I think that this question can be answered quickly by saying that the Canadian people cannot be made to watch this or that television station. That is how it works in Cuba, Mr. Speaker. The Cubans watch a particular television station. My hon. friend should know that. In the Soviet Union, it was the same thing, at least until recently. They had to watch a given station. But here, we cannot do that. In English Canada, through no fault of mine or of any other member of this House, the television station the people choose to watch 82 per cent of the time is not the CBC. I have nothing to do with that. It is just how it is, Mr. Speaker. In Canada, 18 per cent of the total English television viewing time is taken up by the CBC, compared to 82 per cent by other stations.
The CTV Network manages to produce excellent programs without public funding. The Canadian taxpayers do not pay one penny to finance that network, except maybe indirectly through Telefilms Canada for some shows. All in all, it is an excellent television network. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell seems to disagree. I can tell him that CTV makes good television and, on top of that, they do it without taking a penny out of our pockets.
What I am saying is that, in a competitive context, we should remember what the Minister of Communications once said, namely that the role of the CBC should be completely redefined and that we should contemplate the possibility for the state-run television to play a role complementary to the existing networks but without having to count on advertising revenues. That is already the case with CBC Radio, Mr. Speaker, and I can see no reason why it could not be the same with television some day.
However, and I will finish on that, we have set clear markers in Bill C-40 to distinguish between the CBC French and English services. Since we are dealing with two different markets, the viewing habits are totally different in each of them, whether we like it or not, and, in that regard, Mr. Speaker, the bill passed by this Parliament will produce dividends in the medium term as well as the long term.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would like to make something clear before we go on. The hon. member just said that the Speaker was restricting his speaking time. I have to point out that the Speaker is a servant of the House and of the Standing Orders and if an hon. member wants to speak for a longer period of time, he just has to ask for the unanimous consent of the House and the Speaker will be happy to comply.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all request the indulgence of the House to share my time with my learned colleague from Edmonton Southeast.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate this afternoon. First, I would like to congratulate my colleague the hon. member for Mount Royal who moved the motion to which I bring the attention of the House:
That this House call upon the Government as a matter of priority to
ensure that the CBC be strenghtened as an instrument of national
identity providing local, regional, and national services to all
Canadians.
This motion, Mr. Speaker, deserves our support, in fact, the unanimous support of the House of Commons. At the beginning of the proceedings today, at one o'clock, I think, the House was presented with the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Mr. D'Iberville Fortier, the Commissioner of Official Languages, who is not an Opposition member nor a NDP member nor a partisan of any sort but rather a servant of this House, precisely says in his report concerning CBC- and I call to your attention, Mr. Speaker, what is said on page 20 of the English version: "In spite of the brave front put on by CBC executives, it is hard to believe that the Corporation will be able to fulfill its current basic mandate. Canadian identity, we fear, cannot be promoted by showing "Dallas" and "L.A. Law" in English and French. The CBC must have a strong national and regional presence. Regional programming has been slashed to such a point that it may never recover".
This is what Mr. D'Iberville Fortier, the Commissioner of Official languages, says in his report tabled here in this House, already a few hours ago.

March 25, 1991
Government Orders
In the recommendations contained in Mr. Fortier's report, on page 65, we can read the following about broadcasting and more particurlarly about television: "A recommendation to the CRTC on improved access by minorities to broadcasts of House of Commons debates."
Here is the next recommendation: "A recommendation to the CBC on improved services to minority language communities. Result: not implemented. Situation in 1991 will likely be considerably worse than in 1988 because of budget cuts."
This is what the Commissioner of Official languages had to say about this government's broadcasting policy, a government which has cut funding to the CBC and forcing it to reduce its local and regional programming.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice told us earlier-and I can see him in the House-about the cuts to CBC's funding and he was saying, and I want to make sure I am quoting him accurately, that in Canada we also have private broadcasters and that we should talk about them. I did not have the opportunity earlier to ask questions to my colleague from Saint-Maurice, but I still want to remind him that outside Quebec, there is no private French television station in all of Canada. Not one, Mr. Speaker. Francophones outside Quebec have either access to Radio-Canada services or none at all. As people from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell would say: "We ain't have any." And that's that.
So, as Francophones outside Quebec, we need this tool to preserve our cultural identity and our language, Mr. Speaker.
We talk about local programming. Mr. Speaker, let me give you some examples of what is happening in Ontario. We have the television station CBOFT, in Ottawa, of course, and there is another CBC television station, in Toronto, CBLFT, which serves the greater Toronto, and then one station for Northern Ontario. Now, CBOFT serves the Ottawa-Hull area. CBC has announced that from now on programming in French for all of Ontario would be done out of Ottawa. When Mr. Gougeon, of the CBC, testified before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, on December 11, 1990, I asked him how they would serve the people in those
areas. Or rather it was Mr. Veilleux I had the opportunity to question.
So, before this Parliamentary Committee, Mr. Veilleux answered: "You know, we will serve the people in Ontario through our station in Ottawa." So, I said: "All right." So if that is what they do, how are they going to serve western Quebec, Mr. Veilleux, because right now we have the news-or we had the news-from Ottawa-Hull on the CBC". Here is what he said: "Hull and western Quebec will be served from Montreal". "Fair enough, I said, but how? There is no broadcasting antenna. You will need another antenna if you want all that". From Hull you cannot directly tune in a station from Montreal; it cannot be done, unless of course they are directly linked by cable. Otherwise it does not work, we are out of range, the two cities are 100 miles apart, or 160 kilometres. There is no way to tune in directly. To that he replied: "We can review our plans to see what can be done to serve both audiences".
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the people in Timmins would hear all about a traffic jam in Gatineau. Imagine what that would do, how logical it would be to have that kind of programming. The CBC management insist on the fact that they now serve a region instead of a locality. They even have a rather loose interpretation of the word "region". For instance, Hawkesbury, in my riding, and Kakabeka Falls, along the Manitoba border, are part of the same region according to CBC. Mr. Speaker, it is like saying-if we transpose that to United States for a moment-that New York, Denver and Atlanta are part of the same region. Distances are almost the same. Hawkesbury is almost as far from Orlando, Florida, as from Kakabeka Falls, Ontario. And yet, they are considered to be in the same region. What do they have in common for programming, Mr. Speaker? Not much, and that kind of programming is not possible. People will get bad services.
Ontario is not the only region to suffer from CBC cuts.
I myself welcome young students from the Embrun Secondary School who are visiting Parliament today. These young people know, for example, how important it is to have programs like Genies en Herbe, Smac, Tele-Relais, L'Acadie and other programs produced by CBC. Of course, everything is cut now.
March 25, 1991

I see the Secretary of State is here, in the House, now, Mr. Speaker. He is a man I rather appreciate and I would like to remind him that he is responsible for linguistic minorities in Canada-as he knows well-and tell him that I trust he will convince his colleagues to do something in order to ensure that CBC maintains its local programming to serve French speaking minorities in Canada, the French speaking Canadians outside Quebec. I agree with Mr. Rolland Beaulieu, the New Brunswick minister who, appearing before the CRTC a while ago, declared that CBC and the federal government must act to correct an unfair situation which leaves Acadians defenceless against assimilation and endangers their very existence.
So, the Secretary of State, who is a sensitive man, and I know he is, when it comes to linguistic minorities, will, I hope, communicate with his colleagues, the Minister of Communications, and particularly the one who sits in front of him, the Minister of Finance, to let them know of the complaints of French minorities outside of Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Five minute period for questions and comments. The member for Saint-Maurice.


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great pleasure to the remarks of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who pointed out a number of problems, and I think all members of this House will always be sensitive to issues concerning official languages minorities, anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec. We are all very sensitive to those issues.
The member should have listened to the part of my speech where I explained that the French service of the CBC outside Quebec has been considerably expanded in almost all the little towns of English Canada because people were not receiving that service before.
In my area, the English speaking people of Shawinigan could not tune in to CBC programs with a repeater antenna. They have it now. Listen, we cannot have a television station for each village in Canada. We have to be realistic. I saw a while ago the hon. member for Edmonton who, as usual, was nodding his agreement as his colleague said that the French speaking Canadians outside Quebec-it is true that there is no private station. Well, it is a matter of economics. You cannot operate a private station if- There must be a viewing public, Mr. Speaker, to open a private station. However,
Government Orders
in Edmonton, my colleague should know about it, beside CBC in French, one can get, through cablevision, the TVA network from Montreal in French which broadcasts a whole series of programs which are different from those of CBC.
In Nova-Scotia, Mr. Speaker, I was in Halifax quite recently, and I saw it in my hotel room, one can watch, beside the basic French service provided by CBC, the television network Quatre Saisons from Montreal, Quebec. There are all sorts of programs which are different. I cannot think of a single Liberal member of this House who would leave for Nova Scotia tomorrow morning to open a private TV station over there. That is not what we are asking them. But the CBC is there and it can be tuned in easily enough in most of these municipalities.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, since 1984 we have extended the coverage of CBC antennas so as to serve the greatest number of small English-speaking localities in Quebec and French-speaking communities outside Quebec.
In that respect I must say that we have no lesson to take from the Liberal Party, for they put a stop to the antenna network expansion. The CBC now has 1,600 antennas right across the country, compared with only 950 in 1982.


Don Boudria: had no intention to deal with this issue, Mr. Speaker, but our colleague has just said that he has no lesson to learn from the Liberals. I should like to tell him that it is becoming increasingly clear that he has indeed quite a lot to learn from my hon. colleagues. With the national unity crisis Canada is now facing, the government opposite has a lot to learn, and most Canadians share this view.
I should like to tell my hon. friend opposite that assimilation is especially a problem for teens who speak their mother tongue at home but often lose it gradually when they attend school. Such is the reality for francophones outside Quebec.
When I appeared before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture on December 11 last, I raised the issue of youth oriented television programs produced by the CBC outside Quebec including Smac and Genies en herbe. After all, when young people watching television cannot see themselves, they like to see other young people. Television should mean something to them, Mr. Speaker.

March 25, 1991
Government Orders
As a francophone outside Quebec, I directed a question and received an answer which I will quote briefly, in view of the limited time available. As reported on page 1871 of the official report of the committee proceedings, I asked how many network programs produced outside Quebec for young people were left and Mr. Gougeon replied that there were none. Period. That is what I was told and such is the sad result of the cuts to the CBC budget. There is almost nothing left for francophones outside Quebec, something hon. members opposite should understand.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, a greater unity is essential if we are going to survive as a single great nation.
A CBC which respects its regional mandate-I am not saying that it does that now as well as it should-could be a major unifying vehicle to allow all Canadians equally, without regional favourites, to share a cultural heritage which reflects our full national identity.
Those opposite, some of whom detest the CBC, clearly have it in their sights as a candidate for dismantling by denying it funds, or oxygen, as they have done with VIA Rail and other national institutions in the past.
If we can judge from news reports over the weekend, the government wants us to increase defence spending. The headline in one paper today is "Tories Urge Big Increase in Spending on Military."
By the way, the Minister of Transport will know that $13 billion is already being spent on defence in this country. Some of us think that that is not the priority to keep this country together.
The new Broadcasting Act says that the programming provided by the CBC should "reflect Canada and its regions to the national regional audiences while serving the special needs of those regions".
CBC cuts have resulted in the closing of three local television stations, downsizing eight others and cancelling hundreds of hours per year of programs, particularly in local and regional television, thus shutting off the
voice input of many of our regions of Canada. It has become impossible for the CBC regions to fulfil their mandate, to reflect the regions to themselves and to one another.
I do not think the CBC is doing well enough in this regional mandate and what is happening now is just going to make it harder. Fil Fraser of Edmonton, the former CBC broadcaster and a member of the Spicer commission has described the CBC regions in the past as "a sham". "The regions are not producing programs because they have no access to the network schedules, and they do not have any money to produce with." What was true several years ago when Mr. Fraser said that is undoubtedly more true today.
There seems to be no end in sight for the CBC's budget cuts as the corporation expects a further shortfall in annual operating resources of almost $50 million by fiscal year 1992-93. The foreseeable strategy for the corporation's survival should be, presumably, further cuts to regional programming.
I might indicate that a friend of mine who works for the CBC tells me that CBC stereo is expected to be the next thing to be cut by this so-called government opposite. It that happens, some of us who listen to it will feel that we have lost a very close friend.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You have got a friend? You never had any.


David Kilgour: I must be getting to these fellows opposite, Mr. Speaker.


Coline M. Campbell: You're rattling them.


David Kilgour: Pierre Juneau, the former CBC president, told the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission that "the CBC has already been put on a steep slippery slope downwards". He linked the latest round of cutbacks to what he called a six-year budgetary onslaught by the Mulroney government.
CBC president Gerard Veilleux has put last year's CBC cuts-15 per cent in jobs with 10 per cent in spending-in stark perspective: He said:
March 25, 1991

If the Government of Canada were to do what we did, it would
reduce the size of the Public Service by 35,000 jobs-
-I interject parenthetically that I think many of those opposite would like to do that and more.
-and they would reduce their expenditure budget by $10 billion.
If the CBC is to remain a vital link between all the regions of Canada and protect Canadians against cultural absorption by another neighbouring country, the CBC should have an assured and predictable income.
The CBC has every reason to ask for stability in its funding. If the government is unwilling to provide the money for the corporation to do its legislated jobs, it should change the CBC's mandate on a national public broadcasting system.
The cabinet's termination of several Radio Canada International services is yet another example of Tory government contempt for the CBC.
For many years, as some members will know, the very existence of RCI has been endangered by cuts to the mother corporation. The service had 193 employees, a budget of approximately $20 million, a financially insignificant part of CBC's budget-1.7 per cent-with transmitters in Canada, Britain, Portugal, Austria, South Korea, China and Japan. RCI disseminates its radio programs all over the world in 14 languages. As of March 31, 93 out of 193 staff, most of whom are located in Montreal, will be declared redundant. All Polish, German, Japanese, Czechoslovakian and Slovak and Hungarian language broadcasts, and half of the Russian ones, all English and French broadcasts except for pick-ups from the CBC and Radio Canada are cancelled.
RCI's audience around the world is expected to drop from 10-12 million now to an estimated 6-7 million and fewer than half of its present listeners would be able to understand broadcasts restricted to English and French.
The cabinet's decision to decimate RCI will be hard to explain to its listeners who would like to know how Canada can be so short-sighted. Since RCI's broadcasts are unavailable-a former RCI employee wrote this part of the speech to the member who is going to lose his seat in the next election-
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Coline M. Campbell: Hear, hear. Listen to their cacophony of protest.


Mr. Hughes:: Who wrote the speech?


David Kilgour: I said a former employee. She is now working with the Official Opposition.
There will not be angiy rallies on Parliament Hill, but perhaps more supportive letters of which RCI receives about 40,000 a year. I bet you that is more than the member opposite receives from his constituents. More than 80 countries have international radio services; the British, French and American governments have recently increased their broadcast services abroad for trade, human rights and foreign policy reasons. The BBC World Service and Voice of America are now spending about $200 million yearly on broadcasting abroad while our cabinet has slashed RCI's budget from $20 million to $12.7 million.
RCI has contributed to Canada's image and prestige in the world for more than 45 years, providing a variety of news and information about Canada within an international context, tailored to suit targeted Canadians.
Anyone who understands the history of 45 years of the complex and potentially explosive relations between the west and former communist bloc countries appreciates the accomplishments and the enormous potential of RCI since its inauguration in 1945.
A long-term objective was that of keeping the captive peoples well informed about this country and the world so that they could retain hope, espoir. For millions of citizens in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, denied any ideas, information and news that could upset the carefully pre-ordained diet prescribed by the leadership there, RCI was a lifeline of information about this country: its democratic institutions, its multicultural communities, its technological, scientific and cultural achievements.
Now, when the young democracies in eastern Europe have begun to enjoy a better environment-censorship is lessened or gone-what do these dough-heads opposite do? They want to cut its budget in half.

March 25, 1991
Government Orders
How can the government possibly declare "it is time to dismantle the machinery and shut down the transmitters"? The new democracies in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary are now rebroadcasting RCI programs on their national FM networks. For the near future, RCI had plans to relay, live, its daily broadcasts on the national radio networks in the Ukraine. RCI has extended its contractual agreements with national broadcasters in all of these countries, and the shutdown of the operation would understandably result in bewilderment as to Canadian intentions.
RCI's communication to such countries is that Canada is dedicated to democratic ideals, a country sensitive to its multicultural composition, a message that tends to affect the climate of opinion on which political leaders make decisions. Such feature programs as Innovation Canada introduced listeners to Canadian entrepreneurs, inventors and researchers whose ideas and discoveries are practical and profitable. Earth Watch looks at environmental issues informing how Canadian ecologists and scientists are attacking the problems that could face us all coast to coast. It brings a wealth of information about the events and issues that are making headlines in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the prairies, B.C. and the north, and about native affairs across Canada.
RCI broadcasts in Polish, for example, translate into trade benefits. Some budding Polish entrepreneurs have been contacting the Polish section of RCI asking information about Canadian products, inventions and companies. As a result, a number of Canadian companies have established business contacts in Poland. In view of Canada's effort to expand trade with Pacific Rim countries, the termination of RCI in Japanese in Japan, for example, is difficult for any sane person to comprehend. Has our interest in Pacific Rim countries changed in the meantime?

My time is almost up, is it not Mr. Speaker?
To sum up, Radio Canada International spent many years skilfully and carefully building a system with credibility around the world. It seems that our colleagues opposite are about to cut all that by half now and maybe even more in the future.
[English\


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the member speak. I know that he is from western Canada, and the generalization for western Canadian members is that they are very cost conscious. They want to see most for their tax dollar, and do not like to see money wasted.
I have no real truck for either of the television networks in Canada; I don't watch enough to make an evaluation as to the comparative value of either one of them. However, I do know that both of them have roughly between 90 and 100 per cent penetration into the market. They cover most of Canada. It so happens that the employees of the private network total about 3,800 for total penetration, or 90 per cent penetration of the Canadian market, whereas the public broadcaster has about 10,000 employees. Take away the radio side of it and you still have 7,000 or 8,000, at least double the number of employees for the public broadcaster versus the private broadcaster. Both of them have about equal penetration of the market.
Could the member for Edmonton tell us whether he thinks that is good economics and good buying for the buck.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt there can be efficiencies made in any private or public organization. In the case of RCI, the perception is that by almost halving RCI's budget you have gutted it. It is called critical mass. I realize the hon. member does not have a lot of business experience, or do not believe he has. It is called critical mass and if you get below a certain level, you disappear, much the way I am afraid VIA Rail is probably going to disappear in a few years as well.
There is no doubt there is fat. There is lots and lots of fat in many institutions. I am not denying that. I think the government dislikes the CBC intensely. I have some personal knowledge of that. I think most of the members opposite think they do not get a fair shake from the CBC. Most of those opposite, not just the ones present, would like to get rid of CBC altogether.
The member for Macleod, who is going to lose his seat in the next election, may disagree with that. I was in Macleod last week, Mr. Speaker, and I tell you I will
March 25, 1991

Government Orders
make a wager with the member for Macleod that he is not here after the next election.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: I've got news for you.


David Kilgour: The member for Mount Royal wants you to be more polite.
We can talk about efficiencies the way the member for Surrey-White Rock was just doing, but I do not think that is what the government has in mind. What the government has in mind is bleeding CBC to the point where it ceases to be a tool for national unity. I do not know about the south lower mainland, but now is not the time to be gutting Radio Canada International, to be gutting CBC and to be dismantling a lot of institutions across Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Saint-Maurice has one minute and fifteen seconds left.


Denis Pronovost: Mr. Speaker, I was quite pleased to hear that the hon. member for Edmonton is interested in Radio Canada International, but I was less happy when I learned that his speech had been prepared by a former employee of that agency. I would hope he has a keener interest than that in RCI.
Concerning the Polish language service, I am not aware of any decision by the government, but I have to admit I would be concerned if it were cut. As I said this afternoon in the House, nearly 3 million Polish listen daily to Radio Canada International. I do not think this service should be cut, Mr. Speaker. The minister in charge is not in the House, but I will tell him personally what I think about that.
My honourable colleague spoke of efficiency and good management. Then, he should know that only 50,630 Germans listen to Radio Canada International. I do not think we should spend a fortune to broadcast German programs that nobody listens to. We should cut that services, and we will probably do it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate, the hon. member for York-Simcoe. I apologize the time is over. On a point of order, the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, you were in the Chair last week, when I asked a question and you gave the hon. member who had the floor a few minutes to answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member for Edmonton-South-East to answer the question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We do not have unanimous consent. Resuming debate, the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today is one which touches the daily lives of virtually every Canadian. It asks that the national broadcaster of Canada, the CBC, and I quote from the motion: "be strengthened as an instrument of national identity providing local, regional, and national services to all Canadians".
Quite frankly, I am surprised that the members would want to bring this up again today after all of the discussion we have had over the last four months. Actually, we have been debating this particular matter for a number of years. I guess there may be some connection to the fact that there is a lobby group that is meeting here in the House this afternoon. That is probably why the opposition benches are virtually empty as well. There are probably a lot of people over there. That may be the reason, and I do not know if it is a very substantive reason, for bringing this kind of debate up here in the House.
I thought it was important to talk about the mandate that has been given to the CBC and in fact to all the broadcasters in this new legislation. We have heard a lot of rhetoric about what is going on, but I think it is important that we discuss the actual facts.
I think we should also look at the process that has gone through since 1985 when a task force on the future of broadcasting in Canada reported right through until February 1, 1991, when Royal Assent was given.
This long, exhaustive process has had as its raison d'etre the shape of our broadcasting system, and the CBC's role within it. The 1985 report of the task force recognized the vital role that the CBC plays in the lives of all Canadians, but suggested that its activities could be more

March 25, 1991
Government Orders
focused. The government's response to that suggestion was very positive. It acted on a number of recommendations to focus the CBC's mandate on its Canadian contributions.
A new broadcasting policy was put in place in June 1988. It recognized that the CBC was the cornerstone of the Canadian broadcasting system. At the same time, it recognized that the corporation was no longer the only broadcaster. Therefore, its mandate was focused toward reflecting Canada to its audience, and to being predominantly and distinctively Canadian.
That legislation died in the other place when the election of 1988 was called, but new legislation was introduced in 1989. Following extensive parliamentary committee hearings, where the hon. member for Mount Royal played an important and influential role, the bill finally received Royal Assent seven weeks ago.
The question of the role of the CBC has been in the public eye for nearly six years. It has been under examination in Parliament more or less continuously for the past three.
I would respectfully submit that the passage of this important legislation reflects in the strongest possible way this government's commitment to Canadian broadcasting, programming and to the renewal of a vital and meaningful public broadcaster. This new legislation will come into force in the near future.
I think it is appropriate to very quickly point out the important mandate which this legislation places on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Recognizing the enormous contribution of public broadcasting to the creation and exhibition of all forms of Canadian programming, this new Broadcasting Act reaffirms in strong and clear terms the role of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as the primary instrument of broadcasting and cultural policy in Canada.
Time and time again, this government has reiterated its primary policy objective in introducing and passing new broadcasting legislation which will make more and better Canadian programs accessible to all Canadians.
The new Broadcasting Act makes it clear that the CBC is vital in this enterprise. Indeed, it redefines the mandate of the CBC to permit it to better concentrate
on this activity. For the first time, it recognizes that other Canadian broadcasters should do their fair share to contribute to a vital Canadian programming industry as well.
The new Broadcasting Act builds this Canadian programming strategy around the CBC. There is absolutely no doubt that the CBC will continue to play its central role as the national broadcaster.
The new Broadcasting Act ensures that the CBC will remain the principal vehicle for cultural expression in Canada. It will continue to serve Canadians by providing a distinctly Canadian viewpoint and a broad range of programming, including news, variety, drama and sports.
The mandate of the CBC as contained in the new act expects the CBC to continue to lead in providing authentically Canadian choices, particularly in popular drama in both official languages. By tradition the CBC has enjoyed an arm's length relationship with the government. In fact, for the first time the CBC's freedom of expression and its journalistic and programming independence are clearly stated in the legislation.
As the national public broadcaster, the CBC is and will remain under the new Broadcasting Act a strong and independent voice and the foremost producer of Canadian radio and television programming.
The new Broadcasting Act reformulates the CBC's mandate to place greater emphasis on the distinctly Canadian character of CBC programming. For the first time this mandate includes specific references to the important role that the CBC performs in reflecting Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, in providing English and French programming services, in meeting the needs of official language minorities, in reflecting Canadian society in all its aspects, in actively contributing to the flow and exchange of cultural expression; and in all these ways contributing to a shared national consciousness and identity.
Critics have lamented the removal of the phrase "national unity" from the CBC's mandate. Yet there can be no doubt that the objectives, which I have just cited, will indeed contribute to Canadian unity. But how can there be unity without the flow and exchange of cultural expression in English and in French among all regions of Canada? How can there be unity without a shared national consciousness and identity?
March 25, 1991

The new Broadcasting Act reinterprets the objective of Canadian unity, now in the CBC's mandate, in terms which are more appropriate to a truly independent public broadcaster. The CBC's mandate is refocused to emphasize that its programming should be predominantly and distinctively Canadian, reflecting Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences.
The mandate of the CBC as contained in this new Broadcasting Act expects the CBC to continue to lead in providing authentically Canadian programming choices in both official languages. At the same time, the new act introduces measures governing the corporation's operations and its financial and administrative accountability to government and to Parliament.
It rationalizes the CBC management structure by separating the very different functions of president and chief executive officer from those of the chairman of the board of directors. This division of responsibilities is consistent with the practices that take place in large corporations and dynamic businesses in the world in which we live today. In fact, it is a change which is long overdue.
The chairman is responsible with the board of directors for establishing broad policies and direction, whereas the president is responsible for the day-to-day management of the corporation within the framework established by the board of directors. Both functions are essential and the positions are complementary.
Mr. Watson and Mr. Veilleux have demonstrated their ability to work well together to provide the CBC with the essential combination of creative vision and sound management which a corporation of its mandate and its scale of operations needs and deserves.
Consistent with the new act's recognition that French and English language broadcasting operate under different conditions, and in fact may have different requirements, the new act establishes standing committees of the CBC board of directors to deal with matters related to French and English language broadcasting. The committees will both be headed by the chairman and the president of the CBC so that those committees can discuss different ideas and different programming and different mandates within the over-all mandate of the
Government Orders
CBC to encourage exchange of ideas between English programming and French programming.
The new act clarifies the nature of the CBC's accountability to Parliament by bringing under the Broadcasting Act measures previously found in other legislation.
It is abundantly clear, by these actions, enshrined in this legislation that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a vital instrument of Canada's national identity. Its mandate is a strong, clear declaration by Parliament. The mandate is realistic, having been crafted and defined in today's circumstances, both within the broadcasting industry and for the country as a whole.
I would like for a moment to address the notion that national identity can only be preserved by the CBC providing local community services as well as regional and national services. I want to talk about the local service just for a moment.
The new act recognizes that the CBC is but one voice in many. Everywhere in this land there are other Canadian broadcasters and other choices. Clearly, the CBC does not need to nor in fact should it try to provide every conceivable service in broadcasting. There are other methods of doing this. There are private broadcasters who provide excellent services. They operate at the local level in their own towns and their own communities to provide the service to their individual communities as they see fit.
It may be that the CBC should not try to duplicate already strong local services, but use its resources to fill its legislated national and regional responsibilities.
As members well know, the CBC provides local, regional and national radio service complemented by regional, national and international television service.
In closing, I would like to place on the record the specific mandate of the CBC as contained in the new Broadcasting Act. I believe members will find it provides for a vibrant and meaningful CBC for the coming decade and beyond. It requires that the CBC, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains.

March 25, 1991
Government Orders
The programming provided by the corporation should be predominantly and distinctively Canadian. It should reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions. It should actively contribute to the flow and exchange of cultural expression, in English and in French, reflecting the different needs and circumstances of each official language community, including the particular needs and circumstances of English and French linguistic minorities. It should strive to be of an equivalent quality in both English and in French. It should contribute to the shared national consciousness and identity. It should be made available throughout Canada by the most appropriate and efficient means and as resources become available for that purpose. It should reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada.
This mandate for our national broadcaster, the CBC, is unequivocal as to the important role of the CBC in providing programming which will contribute to our shared consciousness of who we are as Canadians, of where we are going and what being Canadian means.
The government is confident that CBC is better equipped today to fulfil this important role. The concerns expressed in this motion, I submit, are unfounded. The new Broadcasting Act gives the corporation both a streamlined mandate and a new corporate structure, both of which will permit the CBC to fulfil its important role in reflecting the Canadian national identity from one coast to the other.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the member that CBC is more than a mere symbol of our countiy, but it is truly a living institution now almost doomed to failure and death by this government. It ought to continue as a living institution to reflect the collective conscience of all Canadians.
The member indicated that Mr. Veilleux had done a good job. I am trying to paraphrase him.
In appearing before the CRTC, Mr. Veilleux gave the message that the CBC had been unfairly treated by this government, and more harshly than any department of government. If I were to follow the member in his logic, if Mr. Veilleux had indeed done a good job, then he had to follow Mr. Veilleux's comment and advice and admit that the government had made a terrible mistake in allowing this financial situation to happen to the CBC.
This, in fact, was also echoed by Mr. Pierre Juneau, a former CBC chief who served for seven years; that unless we move quickly, we may lose the living institution that really has to protect our culture and our soul as a nation.
So, I ask the member a few questions. Would the member agree that Parliament must review the CBC's legal mandate in light of this government's condoning eyes and hands to what CBC has done to its operations, cut 1,100 jobs, cancelled 150 local programs and closed 11 of its 31 TV stations, about one third of its TV stations.
The second question, through you, Mr. Speaker, is how could the member tell the House that the CBC is continuing to serve its mandate when it has now divided regions into provinces?


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned a couple of questions at the end, but I think there are a few things he mentioned related to what I was talking about earlier. If he checks Hansard tomorrow, he will see very clearly that I did not at any time say that the CBC was a mere symbol. I am quoting him quoting me. I did not say that, Sir.
To suggest that it is a living institution, I agree.


Sheila Finestone: He did not say that either.


John Cole: Yes, he did. Very clearly.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: I said it, but it was my own statement.


John Cole: That is right.
I do not think a living institution can just continue running rampant and going in all different directions at any one time. I think we have to accept some realities.
I understand that Mr. Veilleux has said that the CBC was cut and cut more substantively and that we should not allow this financial predicament to be what it is today.
I would like to tell the member: If the government was not in this financial predicament, if it had not been started about 10 years ago when there was another government in power, we would not be in the position where we would have to make cuts. This government has been very consistent in its ability to try and balance its budget, to do something with this deficit. Quite frankly, unless we are able to continue working at that and making cuts to government programs, it is going to be impossible to do that.
March 25, 1991

The member also suggests that we go back to its mandate. I think the mandate has been very clearly discussed for the past six years. It has been discussed in this House and the other place and it is very clear that there is a new mandate now that will allow the CBC to do the things that we have suggested to make this a better national broadcasting system. I hope to see the CBC flourish to a great extent with a new mandate and a new focus in the future.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring forward six points. The member does not have to answer them, but if he cares to analyse them, I would appreciate it.
First, I suggest that Canadians are the only people who pull themselves up by the roots to see if they are still alive and breathing.
The primary policy of the CBC was to ensure that we would be more Canadian in our programming. So what does this bill do? It allows for more Americanization of our air waves, which the member did not happen to mention.
The CBC contributes, even at 80 per cent Canadian content at prime time, only 65 per cent throughout the course of the day. So it still has not, with the resources that are at its disposal, been able to reach that 80 to 100 per cent the member was talking about.
Third, as my colleague phrased the question so well: Do you recognize that they have now defined regions as provinces? A slight change in the structure of the tree.
There is no attention paid to minority rights. The member has talked about les francophones hors Quebec. He should go and tell the story he just told this House in Regina, Moncton and a few other French communities such as Sept lies, Matane, et cetera. I suggest that he talk to the private broadcasters to see if they could even possibly want to, let alone financially undertake, reach rural Canada and all its small towns. It is not possible. They should not be asked to fill the same kind of mandate as the public should.
The last point he talked about about was cultural expression in Canada. How are we to do that and have any kind of artistic input when the directive from the CBC has been to cut out all regional programs except news? I know-and I said it earlier-that we may be
Government Orders
news junkies. We also have another dimension to our personality.
I would like to know how the hon. member sees it. The CRTC cannot rule because it is not fulfilling either the 1968 bill that is in place or the 1990 bill, if it were to be proclaimed, and the CBC should not be allowed to carry it out because it is in contravention of both bills.
The member should read all the definitions of local, regional and national. He will see where they are in contravention of their own bill. What we really need to do is to send this bill back to the House of Commons, to parliamentarians, everyone in this room, so that we can find an appropriate solution.
It is not the role of the CBC board to determine the public airwaves. Unfortunately it is not possible within the CRTC's mandate to do even what the member is suggesting it do: let the CBC carry on the way it is. The role and the destruction will be irreparable if the government continues.
The hon. member laughed when I talked about the tree that we are busy examining. There will be no roots left. The leaves will wither, as will the branches, and Canada will die and it will be your fault.


John Cole: Mr. Speaker, I have two minutes to answer about eight questions the member put forward.
I am not quite convinced of the analogy that she refers to with the tree and the roots. I think the tree is going to blossom because Canadians want it to blossom. Canadians will show their kind of support. That is the way we need to do it. We cannot force a tree to put down its roots. We cannot force a tree to grow, but we can encourage it by admiring it and by doing all the other things.
The member mentioned some other things with regard to regional and local. I want to mention a particular situation in my area where we have not had local CBC television for a long time.


Sheila Finestone: You are in Toronto.


John Cole: I am not in Toronto. I am in York Simcoe, north of Toronto. Toronto is a suburb to the south. Nothing is wrong with Toronto. I just want to use an example of the closest television station to me, which is the CBC in Barrie. It is a locally operated station. It provides local news to the communities. We found it very effective. The national and regional news are provided by the main station. It contains the news of local interest. It has become a very popular program. I think that is the

March 25, 1991
Government Orders
way for the CBC to go in the future. It should provide these small stations with the opportunity for local programming, local sponsorship and local mandates. I for one would be very supportive of that type of increase. It would put the responsibility back with the people who require it.
The member mentions that she does not like the idea of the direction coming from somewhere else: from regional, non-provincial, or whatever. Maybe the direction should be coming from the end user, the people who are providing the service. If the people providing that service and the people who are receiving that service feel there is a need, obviously they will support it in that particular area.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to divide my speaking time with the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House in agreement with the suggestion of the hon. member?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: We are debating the question of the CBC and its role as a national broadcaster. We are also discussing the cuts that have occurred at least twice in the last two years. As a consequence of those cuts, the whole question as to whether the CBC is still considered by this government to be a national broadcasting agency is very much a moot point. The original intention of the CBC to provide communications from sea to sea to sea and to permit all of us in Canada, this vast disparate land, to understand a little bit through listening to radio or through watching television about how other people in other regions live. This is somewhat in doubt with these cuts.
I look at the cuts that have occurred in my own region in the last two years. I find it very difficult to convince myself that somebody up there thinks that we are still part of Canada. The food show has been cut. Agricultural reporting during the noon hour has been cut back dramatically. A number of well-known programs in the Atlantic region and sometimes broadcast nationally were cut such as the Land and Sea program. Country Canada is still going but how much longer? As well the farm business news which was aired on the news channel has now been cut after a very successful run of some 16 months.
It makes us wonder just where the commitment went for CBC. We are finding that there are cuts right across the country. Out of Saskatoon the TV channel there has been taken off the air with these cuts. This means that stories which emanate from Saskatchewan that might be picked up on the national feed no longer have a place to come from except out of Regina. I do not know whether all members of the government realize that Saskatchewan is 700 or 800 miles from end to end. It is pretty hard for one station in the very southern part of the province to cover all of that territory. Saskatoon had a chance of making it possible.
I have a list here in my hand of CBC programs cut in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and it goes on. There must be 23 or 24 programs that have been cut, some of which were heard nationally.
The cuts have been there. They have been real. They have been progressive. What about the cuts that were made a year ago? We were told by the president of CBC, in defending those cuts, that we still had a lot of regionally programming and a lot of resource programming. We were complaining at that time about the imminent departure of George Price who was a fixture around Parliament Hill and came into everyone's living rooms and kitchens at noon across the country. That voice is now dead. There is nobody reporting on food, agriculture and resource matters from Ottawa to the rest of the country.
Some government members and people at CBC who are defending the cuts say that this is simply taking away ghetto broadcasting. Was the food show a ghetto broadcast show? They are arguing that only a few hundred thousand farmers were interested in the food show, yet the main audience for the food show were consumers. Don't we need food? That is the new authority being granted to the CBC: if it is only as universal as food, it is not important.
How far do we carry this kind of thinking? The most popular show on CBC television at the moment is the news show-The National and The Journal-which takes an hour every night. It has very high ratings. Most of the people who are reported on those shows are some 295 people sitting in this Chamber. They take most of the coverage out of that hour every night. They said that
March 25, 1991

they have been told to cut broadcasting because there are only a few hundred thousand farmers left and there are only 26 million consumers in this country who are not interested in food. Yet a program that basically places forward the names and faces of some, if not all, of the 295 people in this Chamber still continues to get plenty of coverage. I suspect that that would be, from this government's point of view, one of the last places that cuts would be proposed. It is just a question of whose ox is being gored, I suppose.
I have mentioned the various cuts that have occurred. They were step by step. We were told when George Price went that we still had programs like Country Canada and the video programs and the all-news program. In fact, one of the quotations from a letter received almost a year ago, April 6, 1990, from the president of CBC defending the cuts that the government had forced on him at that point, justified laying off Mr. Price not because he was being retired, but by not filling the position. He said this was because there were changes, that times change and that it was time that particular show and format disappeared. He wrote: "Today only a very small percentage of CBC's audience claims farming as an occupation. These farmers get up to the minute information from computers, fax, wire services, all-news television and a variety of other sources, as well as CBC Radio".
Since that time, since this last round of cuts, we can forget about all-news television as one of the sources for farm information because that was one of the things that went this time. Farm Business News which was produced in Regina by Agcom Productions aired its last episode last February 16. It was part of the Newsworld operation. It was the only western and agricultural show that appeared on CBC affiliates and channels. It was on the all-news channel and has now disappeared.
I do not think it is just an accident that the shows being pulled not only represent agriculture, the land and the sea, but they were also produced in the regions. That regional ability to employ technicians, producers, writers and broadcasters is now disappearing.
It is more than just losing the service. It is a question of losing the technical ability in those regions to produce this kind of programming either in CBC or outside CBC.
Government Orders
By pulling away this financing and this ability to hold the nation together and to provide the kind of expertise at the regional level, the country is going to be much poorer for it. I think we have lost far more than we are saving with these cuts.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my friend's remarks, he made it sound as though we were presiding over the demise of CBC because of the $100 million cutback. I am sure he is aware that the total budget of the CBC is $1.4 billion and that every year it gets bigger.
I would like to ask my friend from Saskatchewan-and his farming community knows a lot about cutting back, where it has to be done-how he would project that in a budget of $1.4 billion a cutback of $100 million would bring about the demise of that corporation.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, this is the second of those types of cutbacks. It is becoming a habit. If it were only going to be a one-time shot, I am sure CBC could adjust. But each year it makes the cuts, lays off the people and closes the stations. Then it finds at the end of the year that it was not good enough and that it has to do it again the following year.
That is not the way this government has been operating in other areas. It has not had this kind of cutting back in crucial departments. In fact it has been increasing the expenditures in most departments.


Benno Friesen: Would you repeat that?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: We have not seen these kinds of cutbacks in departmental expenditures. The expenditures of this government now are much higher than they were when it took office. They have gone up each of those years. The deficit has gone up. The expenditures have gone up. Expenditures have not been brought down on a continuous curve, the same way that the CBC has been asked to make its cuts in the last couple of years.
If there was an assurance that these were the last cuts, I am sure the country and CBC could make adjustments. They had a cut last year. Then they got this year's cut. How many more years of cutting will it take? Will people who are interested in a career in writing or producing tie into CBC, or will they go south or to Great Britain to do their life work?

March 25, 1991
Government Orders
This kind of message is sending a lot of good people away unnecessarily. If the government wants to provide some stability to CBC, it should make it quite clear that was the last cut and there will be no more.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the hon. member what he thinks. If budgets have increased year after year since 1984, how can they be characterized as cuts? If he believes that CBC should be given a blank cheque over other more needy institutions or people in the country, how does he expect people who are taking cuts in social spending and all sorts of other areas across the country, at all levels of government, municipal and provincial levels, to be able to deal with the fact that CBC expects to have year after year after year excessive spending habits?
How does the hon. member expect CBC to be able to carry on with its profligate spending with a blank cheque and not be asked once in a while to use a little bit of good, common business sense?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anyone expects the CBC to go on with profligate spending. I believe those were the words the hon. member used. However, I think the public expects their government to make it quite clear to CBC that it still has a role to play in this country. I think the public expects that mandate to be made quite clear.
When they go into a budget each year for two consecutive years and ask for massive cuts, it does not send signals that CBC is going to have a continuing mandate. It begins to look as if there is a policy of attack rather than of sustaining that organization.
As a government it is possible to lay out the guidelines and stick with it. If we are going to have CBC as we all think we should, then they say so. If the budget is going to be frozen, then they should say so. But they should not come in with new budgets every year with a big surprise that there is going to be $100 million cut in consecutive years.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to join in this debate with respect to the future of CBC.
The role of the CBC has been an integral part of
encouraging, developing and maintaining the cultural fabric of this nation for over half a century. The cuts that have been made to the CBC in the last couple of years have in fact affected that very fabric.
The cuts that this government has made to the CBC has had an impact in this country. Certainly Canadians have voiced their concerns. In many ridings right across the country including my own-in fact most of them-I am sure members have been hearing comments. I have been receiving both telephone calls and letters from constituents.
It so happens that I recently received a letter from a Moose Jaw resident, Cathy Anderson. She wrote a very eloquent, in fact very passionate letter. I think she outlined very well the feelings and the concerns of many Canadians, including certainly the people in my riding. I would like to read a few parts of this letter that Cathy Anderson has written. She talks first of all of radio:
I heard the Stamp Club, Just Mary stories, and my first symphony and opera, just to name a few. When CBC began TV programming, I was viewing. With CBC programming there was a certain quality that was ours, the players ours, the production ours, and unconsciously I was proud to be a Canadian.
She goes on to state:
I think that this is when I first began to have a feeling of being a Canadian, and that all Canadians across Canada were seeing or hearing our own.
She continues:
So for me CBC represents a reality of a united Canada, and with the CBC cuts I feel it will harm the ability of CBC to bind Canada as a nation. CBC is our mirror and our window.
CBC is crucial to the Canadian fabric, and to weaken it implies to me the Canadian voice no longer matters to my government.
Actually this was a letter sent to the Prime Minister with a copy to myself.
I think Cathy Anderson sums up very well the feelings of many Canadians right across the country of the cuts and the effect this government has had on the corporation.
March 25, 1991

One of the concerns about the cuts to the CBC is that regional differences and regional diversification are not going to be represented any more at the CBC. There was a report by the standing committee in 1988 which summarized that. It said: "If the CBC is to function as a genuinely national broadcasting service, then it must be rooted firmly in all regions of Canada. If the CBC ignores the regional nature of this country, its relevance, importance and effectiveness as a national broadcasting service will be reduced".
It is interesting that the cuts which have been effected at the CBC have resulted in those very regional cuts. Many of the programs that reflected the regional diversity and uniqueness of this nation are gone. One of the important factors, certainly for me living in Saskatchewan, which is not a overly populated province, is that it is important for the Saskatchewan message to get out. It is also interesting and important for us to know what is happening in the rest of the country.
Places in the maritimes, like Newfoundland, have lost programs unique to their area just as we in the west have lost programs that are unique to our area. The cuts at the television station in Saskatoon leave Saskatchewan with one television station to cover news broadcasting in the province, that is, the major news broadcasting.
It is hard to believe that a city of 200,000 people, the city of Saskatoon, has lost its television station for local news. That certainly affects people in the northern part of my riding who receive Saskatoon television. They have expressed concern that their local station is no longer reflecting some of the local issues which occur in Saskatoon.
The loss of shows such as the food show have also affected people in my riding. As mentioned earlier, loss of shows such as the Farm Business News which was broadcast on Newsworld, mean people in Saskatchewan are not given full information with respect to what is happening in agriculture in this country.
It is interesting that in the city of Regina there is a major broadcasting station, a beautiful building sitting in Wascana Park with beautiful facilities that is not being used. It has some of the best studios and best facilities in western Canada and it is sitting idle. It is a white elephant, and it is not that old. The purpose of that building in the mid-1980s was to provide regional pro-
Govemment Orders
gramming, and to develop and promote some of the culture in that area of the country. It is not doing it.
That is why we have people such as Cathy Anderson writing to me concerned that the CBC is not reflecting the various regions of this country.
If we do not reflect the regions of this nation, what have we got as a nation? In these days, with the concerns over the Constitution and the future of our country, there are many regions and areas that need the support of the CBC to tie the fabric of this nation together. The CBC is unable to do this more and more.
It is unable to reflect those areas so that we can feel that we are Canadian no matter what part of the country we live in. It is important that, as a country, we encourage regional development.
This is one of many directions that this government has taken which is having a direct impact on the regions of Canada. The CBC is one area. It also includes deregulation of transportation, cuts in VIA Rail, post offices, communications. The list goes on. Regions of this country are suffering. They are not being represented or promoted.
If this continues, it does not bode well for the future of our nation as a united nation. There has long been a feeling of western alienation, eastern alienation and northern alienation. Unless there is a concerted effort and a fundamental goal to promote regional development, then we are going to continue to suffer and to have an alienation feeling. The future of the nation is in danger.
As a nation that was born and built on regional development, we seem to have lost that objective. I feel it is very sad. I know that people in my riding feel it is very sad. Canadians right across this nation are lamenting that fact this very day.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the member who just spoke that when he talks about cutbacks, he is using jargon that is actually very misleading.
If he has looked at the evidence at all, he knows that the budget will be bigger next year than it was this year. The proposal before us is that the size of the growth will be less than it has been other years, but they are not in fact cutbacks.

March 25, 1991
Government Orders
I am glad the member spoke because he mentioned a brand new CBC building in Regina. He called it a "white elephant" that is now sitting empty.
I asked him when the building was put up. His friend over there said it was 1985. If it was built in 1985, it was on the drawing board two and three years before that, and maybe planned four or five years before that.
If the CBC could plan a building roughly 10 years before the so-called cuts came in, is that not a symptom of a fat-cat corporation that is spending money recklessly and deserves to have its budget reined in a little bit in order to be a little bit more conscientious with a taxpayer's dollar.
If a building in Regina can sit there empty because of poor planning and too much money, is it not time that we cut back the authority of the CBC just a little bit so that its growth in spending will slow down?


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, it is no doubt true that the CBC facility in Regina was planned many years ago, before this government came to power, knowing that its objective would be to destroy CBC as a national network. The building is not sitting empty; the CBC still broadcasts its news programs from there. But it is largely empty. It is not being used to its full capacity. The reason that it was built was to provide a facility for regional programming, to highlight some of the cultural and regional aspects of that area of the country. Now it cannot fulfil that mandate.
The member talks about the growth of the CBC. He should go out to Saskatoon and tell the people in Saskatoon that the CBC is growing, and do it in front of the former CBC television station. He should come to Moose Jaw and tell the people that the CBC is growing. When he is there, he can remind them of the cuts of This Week right across western Canada; This Week in B.C. is gone. Sportsline, Down to Earth, Forum, Diversity, Network Night Off, parades, annual sports dinners, and Christmas concerts have all been cut from British Columbia.
In Regina we have lost the food show, which was a national show from Regina. We have lost agricultural programs. In western Canada, the CBC agriculture affairs person, George Price, retired and his position was cut. In fact, his colleagues in the agriculture standing
committee were also lamenting the fact that agriculture would no longer be getting the thorough representation that it should. He should talk to his colleagues on that side of the House on the committee and find out if it has been growing.
The member should come to Saskatchewan and tell people that the CBC is growing. It is not growing. It is not being representative. He should tell francophones in Saskatchewan that CBC is growing. The only French network programming in western Canada is on the CBC; one channel on CBC-TV and one channel on the radio, period. That is a service.
Come to Saskatchewan and tell people that the CBC is growing. It is not growing.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address the motion presented by the hon. member for Mount Royal and to speak on a matter which is of great importance to all Canadians.
I can readily understand the member's concern for the continued strength and well-being of our national public broadcaster, the CBC. I would like to assure the hon. member that the government shares that concern and to ask her to understand that the restructuring of the CBC is not a dismantling of this great public broadcaster; rather, it is a response to changing circumstances and changing times.
There is no question that many businesses and individual Canadians are having to adjust to the present economic circumstances. This is always a difficult exercise but often the result is that one is better equipped for a changed environment. This may well be what the CBC is presently going through.
I would first like to make one thing clear. More than 1,600 CBC transmitters remain on the air serving Canadians from coast to coast. This is something that tends to be forgotten amid all the emotional pleas and cries of woe over the future of CBC. The CBC television service reaches 99 per cent of Canadians in both isolated regions and the large cities in Canada. Those 99 per cent of Canadians continue to receive CBC national and regional television. We have all been made aware that these are tough times. But they are also different times, very different from the 1950s when the CBC was the only channel in town. Different times require different thinking, different approaches, different strategies.
March 25, 1991

While I admire the hon. member's impassioned defence of the CBC and while I respect her tenacity for keeping the issue of the importance of the CBC alive before this House, I respectfully suggest that the hon. member should recognize that nothing is static and that one should adopt an outlook more relevant to today's environment and circumstances and to the rest of the 1990s.
It would be nice if we as Canadians could afford to say to the CBC: "Okay, here is an additional $100 million for this year. Yes, next year you can count on bigger increases from Parliament". But where is the money going to come from? We live in a time of severe economic restraint. Canadians everywhere are reassessing priorities. They are struggling to live within their means and they must balance their resources.
More importantly, asking the CBC to do all the things the hon. member would like to do, and asking Parliament to give it the money to do all of those things, fails to take into account the real environment in which CBC operates.
To be sure, dreams and ideals are all worth pursuing, but let us be practical. In our pursuit of a vision for the CBC, let us be a little more realistic, a little more modern. To do that, we have to place the CBC's mandate and its recent restructuring into the proper context.
The context is this. Broadcasting is a tough, competitive business that is constantly changing. Money is tight for private and for public enterprises alike and money is tight for all broadcasters, not just the CBC.
If we are going to ensure that CBC continues to provide a strong, quality Canadian television service, let us recognize the reality it finds itself in and embrace practical solutions, practical strategies so that CBC remains the cornerstone, not only of Canadian broadcasting but, indeed, of Canadian culture.
We must change our way of looking at things, of looking at the CBC, of thinking about what it should be doing. There is little to be gained by using old thinking and old solutions to address new challenges and changing circumstances that are vastly different today than even just 20 years ago.
Government Orders
What kind of environment is CBC facing? Well, as Mr. Veilleux explained in announcing the CBC's restructuring; among other things, the CBC has experienced a drop in advertising revenues. It has additional expenses as a result of inflation and of covering unforeseen world events, such as the war in the gulf.
The CBC is not alone. The entire Canadian broadcasting system is facing similar circumstances; rising costs, shrinking audiences, reduced advertising revenues and tougher competition.
Private broadcasters are also facing dramatically rising programming costs and shrinking advertising revenues. People do not watch as much television as they used to and the average television viewing in Canada is one hour less per week than it was ten years ago. Ten years ago there were a total of 103 television stations in Canada. Today, there are 129.
In 1985, CBC Television was watched by 30.6 per cent of the English-speaking Canadian audience. In 1989, this figure had dropped to 25.6 per cent.
Since 1985, the CITY network has lost 21 per cent of its audience.
The cost of programming has more than tripled in the last 10 years.
The shrinking audiences and rising costs have had a profound effect on the Canadian broadcasting system, not only on CBC, but on the private broadcasters as well.
The CBC is but one of many broadcasters that has had to change the way it operates. Other public broadcasters and private broadcasters, too, have been forced to change the way they operate to deal with these pressures. For instance, in 1987, TV Ontario and Access Alberta had to change their programming schedules substantially in response to financial pressures.
Radio Quebec has closed production centres in recent years.
The CTV network had to lay off 10 per cent of its total staff in 1987 in response to rising costs and decreasing revenues.

March 25, 1991
Supply
Private broadcasting's profits totalled 19 per cent of revenues in 1985, and then dropped to just 7.5 per cent of revenues by 1989.
This situation is not unique to Canada. In the United States, the big three networks' share of the viewing audience has plummeted from 90 per cent down to 60 per cent in just over the last 10 years.
The economics of broadcasting is changing. The structure of broadcasting is constantly evolving. This is happening in Canada and all around the world.
This is the reality of broadcasting today. This is the situation that the CBC and other broadcasters must adapt to.
Broadcasters in general, but public broadcasters especially, must adopt new strategies to deal with the ever changing broadcasting environment. This is the situation that Parliament has already faced up to and accepted. That is why Parliament passed a new Broadcasting Act recently. TTtis followed months of consultation, debate, committee hearings, discussions in the media, not to mention a number of studies.
The new act updates the CBC's mandate in a very practical manner that ensures that CBC will be a relevant national and regional public broadcaster, not only for the 1990s, but well beyond.
This mandate reflects the fact that the CBC is not the only broadcaster in Canada today. It is one of many services, each vying for the attention of the Canadian viewing public.
There is a huge, diverse Canadian broadcasting system out there with private, provincial and local cable programming services. The CBC's mandate reflects this reality. The CBC's restructuring reflects all of this.
Indeed, it has been suggested in numerous studies over the last few years that the CBC should be restructured. For example, the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee proposed quite emphatically that the CBC withdraw from local programming and concentrate its efforts on regional production.
More recently, the Caplan-Sauvageau task force said of CBC's regional mandate, and I quote:
The time has come for the CBC to send out a psychological message: That it is prepared to re-examine its commitments to a certain level of facilities and even to certain kinds of programming for the sake of a few hours of something more distinctive with higher production values and lower cost per viewer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 6.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81(15), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Does the hon. member for Mount Royal wish to raise a point of order?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, because you interrupted the debate, I would like to know if I will have the privilege to ask some questions to the hon. member for Wild Rose, in Alberta? Would that be possible? The debate was supposed to go on until-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry but I have to answer no because the Standing Orders are very strict and I will have to put an end to anything that is before the House at 6:45 p.m.


CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (C), 1990-91
Gilles Loiselle: That Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1991, laid upon the table Tuesday, March 5,1991, except
Vote 2c under "Parliament" which was ordered deleted from the
Estimates by the Speaker on Wednesday, March 20, 1991, be
concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
March 25, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Call in the members.
Supply
++NAYS
Members


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, considering the number of votes on the next two bills, I wonder if you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote we have just taken on the concurrence motion to the first reading of the Appropriation Act, Bill C-99; second reading of the Appropriation Act, with clauses 1 to 7 including the schedule, the title and reporting to carry on division; and concurrence in Bill C-99; and third reading. I would ask that all those votes be applied.
We could actually do the same, that is apply the votes just taken, to first reading of Bill C-100, the interim supply bill; second reading of that bill, with clauses 1 to 5 carrying on division, as well as the schedule, the title and reporting to the House; concurrence; and third reading of Bill C-100.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, prior to giving our consent, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board if he could give the usual assurances to the House that these bills are in their standard form and that there are

March 25, 1991
no extraneous issues which he would want to take in with regard to those items.


Gilles Loiselle: I can give assurance to the hon. member and to this Elouse, Mr. Speaker, that the form of this bill is the same as the bill for other supplementary estimates passed in previous years.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I accept the suggestion of my hon. friend and the concurrence of the Liberal Party.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the House for its indulgence and maybe record my vote with my party in the forthcoming votes.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Gilles Loiselle: that Bill C-99, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1991, be read the first time.


Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.


Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be concurred in.


Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


INTERIM SUPPLY
Gilles Loiselle: That the House concur in Interim Supply as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $13,144,733,701.68 being composed of:
(1)	three-twelfths ($9,810,806,535.00) of the total of the amounts of the items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992, which were laid upon the Table Thursday, February 28,1991, except for Parliament Vote 5 which was ordered deleted from the Estimates by the Speaker on Wednesday, March 20, 1991 and except those items below;
(2)	eleven-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Transport Vote 15, and Treasury Board Vote 10 (Schedule A) of the said Estimates, $171,116,000.00;
(3)	nine-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Employment and Immigration Vote 20, and Treasury Board Vote 5 (Schedule B) of the said Estimates, $305,918,250.00;
(4)	eight-twelfths of the total of the amount of Agriculture Vote 30 (Schedule C) of the said Estimates, $29,896,000.00;
(5)	six-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote 40, and Labour Vote 15, and Secretary of State Vote 20 (Schedule D) of the said Estimates, $156,326,500.00;
(6)	five-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Communications Vote 45, and Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 15 and 45, and Industry, Science and Technology Vote 45, and Transport Vote 1 (Schedule E) of the said Estimates, $1,568,493,750.00; and
(7)	four-twelfths of the total of the amounts of Communications Votes 25, 30, 55 and 70, and Consumer and Corporate Affairs Votes 1 and 20, and Energy, Mines and Resources Vote 35, and Environment Vote 1, and Finance Vote 25, and Indian Affairs and Northern Development Vote 30, and Industry, Science and Technology Votes 40 and 100, and Justice Vote 1, and Labour Vote
Supply
5, and National Health and Welfare Vote 15, and National Revenue Vote 5, and Privy Council Vote 1, and Secretary of State Vote 15, and Solicitor General Vote 1, and Supply and Services Vote 1, and Transport Vote 35 (Schedule F) of the said Estimates, $1,102,176,666.68;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992.


Gilles Loiselle: that Bill C-100, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1992, be read the first time.


Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be read the second time.
The House was divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 404)
++YEAS
Andre
Altewell
Belsher
Bird
Blais
Bouchard (Roberval)
Brightwell
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Casey
Champagne (Champlain)
Clark (Yellowhead)
Collins
Corbett
Darling
de Cot ret
Desjardins
Dobbie
Epp
Feltham
Fontaine
Friesen
Greene
Gustafson
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hudon
Jacques
Johnson
Jourdenais
Koury
Layton
Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)
Malone
Martin (Lincoln)
Mayer
McCreath
McKnight
Merrithew
Moore
O'Kurley
Porter
Redway
Richardson
Schneider
Siddon
Soetens
Stevenson
Thacker
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Valcourt
Venne
Vien
White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Winegard
Members
Atkinson
Beatty
Bernier
Bjomson
Blenkam
Boyer
Cadieux
Cardiff
Chadwick
Charest
Cole
Cooper
Cote
DeBlois
Della Noce
Dick
Duplessis
Fee
Ferland
Fretz
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Guilbault
Halliday
Hawkes
Hughes
Jelinek
Joncas
Kempling
Larrivee
Lewis
Lopez
MacKay
Marin
Masse
Mazankowski McDougall (St. Paul's)
McLean
Monteith
Oberle
Plourde
Pronovost
Ricard
Saint-Julien
Shields
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tardif
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
1\imer (Halton-Peel)
Van De Walle Vezina Weiner Wilbee -Assiniboia)
Worthy-111
++NAYS
Members
Allmand	Althouse
Arseneault	Assad
Baker	Belair
Bellemare	Berger
Bevilacqua	Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria	Brewin
Caccia	Callbeck
Campbell (South West Nova)	Catterall
Copps	Crawford
de Jong	Dingwall
Ferguson	Finestone
Fontana	Foster
FUlton	Funk
Gagliano	Gardiner
Gauthier	Grey (Beaver River)
Guamieri	Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hopkins	Hovdebo
Jordan	Karpoff
Keyes	Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Kristiansen
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)	Laporte
Lee	MacAulay
MacLaren	MacLellan
MacWilliam	Marchi
Marleau	Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
McCurdy	Milliken
Nault	Pagtakhan
Peterson	Phinney
Pickard	Proud
Prud'homme	Riis
Robinson	Rodriguez
Rompkey	Simmons
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Speller	Stewart
Stupich	Taylor
Tobin	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Walker	Wappel
Whittaker Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-77	Wood


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Bill deemed considered in committee.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill deemed reported.
Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be concurred in.


Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


FARM INCOME PROTECTION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 21, consideration of Bill C-98, an Act authorizing agreements between the Government of Canada and the provinces to provide for protection for the income of producers of agricultural products and to enable the Government of Canada to take additional measures for that purpose, as reported with amendments from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(b), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-98, an Act authorizing agreements between the Government of Canada and the provinces to provide for protection for
Supply
the income of producers of agricultural products and to enable the Government of Canada to take additional measures for that purpose.
May I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member on a point of order.


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, you may find that there is unanimous consent to apply to this division the results of the previous one, but conversely.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I agree, Mr. Speaker.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is in reverse, except for the concurrence motion, which would move it forward to the third stage. That would be as the first vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Miss Grey:: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of saving time, I would not want to have a recorded vote on all of these motions, but I would like to ask the Table to record my votes. My vote on Motion No. 1, no; Motion No. 7, no; Motions Nos. 8, 10 and 11, yea.


Mr. Speaker:: The first vote is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of Mr. Althouse.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived. Motions Nos. 2 and 3 are therefore negatived.
The next vote is on Motion No. 7, standing in the name of Mr. Foster.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived.
The next question is on Motion no. 8 standing in the name of Mr. Foster.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived.		Friesen	Gray (Bonaventu re-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
		Greene	Guilbault
		Gustafson	Halliday
The next question is on Motion No. 10 standmg m the name of Mr. Vanclief.		Harvey (Chicoutimi) Hudon Jacques	Hawkes Hughes Jelinek
		Johnson	Joncas
		Jourdenais	Kempling
The House divided on the motion, which was nega-	Koury	Larriveetived on the following division:	Layton Loiselle	Lewis LopezMacDonald (Rosedale)	MacKayMalone	Marin(Division No. 410)	Martin (Lincoln) Mayer	Masse MazankowskiMcCreath	McDougall (St. Paul's)YEAS	McKnight Merrithew	McLean MonteithMoore	OberleMembers	O'Kurley	PlourdePorter	PronovostAllmand	Althouse	Redway	RicardArseneault	Assad	Richardson	Saint-JulienBaker	Belair	Schneider	ShieldsBellemare	Berger	Siddon	SobeskiBevilacqua	Blackburn (Brant)	Soetens	SparrowBoudria	Brew in	Stevenson	TardifCaccia	Callbeck	Thacker	ThompsonCampbell (South West Nova)	Catterall	Thorkelson	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)Copps	Crawford	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)	Lamer (Halton-Peel)de Jong	Dingwall	Valcourt	Van De WalleFerguson	Finestone	Venne	VezinaFontana	Foster	Vien	WeinerFlilton	Funk	White	WilbeeGagliano	Gardiner	Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)Gauthier	Grey (Beaver River)	Winegard	Worthy-111Guamieri	Harvey (Edmonton East)	Hopkins	Hovdebo	Jordan Keyes	Karpoff Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)	Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion negatived.	Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Kristiansen	Langdon (Essex-Windsor) Lee MacLaren	Laporte MacAulay MacLellan	The next question is on Motion No. 11 standmg in the name of Mr. Laporte.	Mac William	Marchi	Marleau McCurdy	Martin (Lasalle-Emard) Milliken	The House divided on the motion, which was nega-	Nault Peterson	Pagtakhan Phinney	tived on the following division:	Pickard Prud'homme	Proud Riis	{Division No. 411)	Robinson	Rodriguez	Rompkey Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Simmons S kelly (Comox-Albemi)	YEASSpeller	Stewart	Stupich	Taylor	MembersTobin	Tremblay (Rosemont)	Allmand	AlthouseWalker	Wappel	Arseneault	AssadWhittaker Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-77	Wood	Baker Bellemare	Belair BergerBevilacqua	Blackburn (Brant)NAYS	Boudria Caccia	Brew in CallbeckCampbell (South West Nova)	CatterallMembers	Copps	Crawfordde Jong	DingwallAndre	Atkinson	Ferguson	FinestoneAltewell	Beatty	Fontana	FosterBelsher	Bernier	Rilton	FhnkBird	Bjornson	Gagliano	GardinerBlais	Blenkam	Gauthier	Grey (Beaver River)Bouchard (Roberval)	Boyer	Guamieri	Harvey (Edmonton East)Brightwell	Cadieux	Hopkins	HovdeboCampbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff	Jordan	KarpoffCasey	Chadwick	Keyes	Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)Champagne (Champlain)	Charest	Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	KristiansenClark (Yellowhead)	Cole	Langdon (Essex-Windsor)	LaporteCollins	Cooper	Lee	MacAulayCorbett	Cote	MacLaren	MacLellanDarling	DeBlois	MacWilliam	Marchide Cotret	Della Noce	Marleau	Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
March 25, 1991

McCurdy	Milliken
Nault	Pagtakhan
Peterson	Phinney
Pickard	Proud
Prud'homme	Riis
Robinson	Rodriguez
Rompkey	Simmons
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)	Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Speller	Stewart
Stupich	Taylor
Tobin	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Walker	Wappel
Whittaker	Wood
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-77 Andre	NAYS Members Atkinson
Attewell	Beatty
Belsher	Bernier
Bird	Bjomson
Blais	Blenkam
Bouchard (Roberval)	Boyer
Brightwell	Cadieux
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Casey	Chadwick
Champagne (Champlain)	Charest
Clark (Yellowhead)	Cole
Collins	Cooper
Corbett	Cote
Darling	DeBlois
de Cotret	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dick
Dobbie	Duplessis
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferland
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gray (Bonaventure-lies
Greene	Guilbault
Gustafson	Halliday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hudon	Hughes
Jacques	Jelinek
Johnson	Joncas
Jourdenais	Kempling
Koury	Larrivee
Layton	Lewis
Loiselle	Lopez
MacDonald (Rosedale)	MacKay
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
Mayer	Mazankowski
McCreath	McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKnight	McLean
Merrithew	Monteith
Moore	Oberle
O'Kurley	Plourde
Porter	Pronovost
Redway	Ricard
Richardson	Saint-Julien
Schneider	Shields
Siddon	Sobeski
Soetens	Sparrow
Stevenson	Tardif
Thacker	Thompson
Thorkelson	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)	*Rimer (Halton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van De Walle
Venne	Vezina
Vien	Weiner
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)
Winegard	Worthy-111
-de-la-Madeleine)
Supply


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the bill be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.

It being 7.22 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.22 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 26, 1991