Debates of June 21st, 1994

Excise Tax Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 32nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees.

If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in this report in a couple of moments. To save reading at the table, I should say that the report changes the associate members of the Standing Committee on Industry by adding three names.

I ask for the unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, that the 32nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent from the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 32nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and passed.

Excise Tax Act

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 has been introduced by the government to make some changes to the way we tax cigarettes.

Remember that what caused this bill to be tabled in the House was the smuggling problem we had along our border with the United States. I think back and say that a nation is not a nation if it cannot defend its borders and if it cannot enforce its laws.

It is from that beginning that we are debating a bill which is going to dramatically reduce the taxation of cigarettes and tobacco and will cause young people to start smoking. These young people in essence are going to put their lives on the line. They may die an early and difficult death in order for this government to defend its borders and enforce its laws. That is quite a tragedy we are putting on the shoulders of some of our young people.

We have watched while the federal government has frittered away its authority to protect its borders. In January and February the government took questions every day in this House from members regarding what it would do while millions of dollars worth of cigarettes were being smuggled across the border. Unfortunately the government members sat there, took the questions and basically did nothing.

The RCMP would not enforce the laws of the land. Smugglers, criminals, were able to cross over with impugnity bringing cigarettes illegally into this country. The irony and the insult is that the cigarettes being brought into Canada were being exported by this country. They would go through a security check, come back on a tax free basis and compete with cigarettes being sold in the stores. Yet the government did nothing whatsoever about it.

The whole problem arose because this country has a very high tax on cigarettes, which is great because we do not want to encourage people to smoke. We exported the cigarettes tax free and they went into the various native reserves along the border between Canada and the United States. They would come back into Canada on a tax free basis. An illegal distribution system developed over a period of years while the government sat by and did nothing to protect its borders. It did nothing to enforce

the laws and the criminal element raked billions of dollars away from the legitimate businesses of this country.

Who knows where that money is today, but we do know that some of it bought guns. Every night we would see on television boats and skidoos crossing the St. Lawrence River between the United States and Canada. We would hear the crackle of gunfire. Yet this government stood back and did nothing whatsoever to enforce its sovereignty and enforce the laws to ensure that this country protected its citizens from the illegal cigarettes being brought into Canada. The government was elected to uphold democracy in this society and it refused to do its job. Now we have another bill before us, Bill C-33. When I talk about the supremacy of its laws I was rather taken aback to read one particular clause in Bill C-33 regarding land claims agreements:

In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between a final agreement or transboundary agreement that is in effect and any federal or territorial law, including this Act, the agreement prevails to the extent of conflict or inconsistency.

This says that the government has given way and is no longer saying that the laws of this land will have supremacy over Bill C-33. Bill C-32 is another example where the government will not enforce the laws of this country.

The government introduced a law to reduce the duty on cigarettes. It raised the age from 16 to 18 and turned many thousands of young Canadians into criminals instantly. One day they were allowed to buy cigarettes perfectly legally and the following day they could no longer buy cigarettes. Once they were hooked and able to buy cigarettes the government changed the law and said: "That is going to be illegal. You can no longer buy cigarettes if you are under the age of 18".

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately initiate the the privatization of all or part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise and lead off the debate on Motion 278 which urges the immediate, partial or complete privatization of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

On May 4, 1994 the minister said there are some aspects of the CBC operations that could be privatized.

When we look at the question of the future of the Canadian broadcasting system emotions often run high. I hope that the debate today is rational, thought provoking and well intentioned.

Certainly I recognize how difficult this issue is to raise on the floor of this House. There has been a nervousness exhibited by the industry that tells me how very sensitive it has become.

The CBC is made up of five totally distinct organizations: English radio, French radio, English television, French television and Newsworld. My speech today is especially and exclusively concerned with the television organizations.

We are often told that the attitudes of Reformers toward the free market and private enterprise are simply knee-jerk reactions to the deficit and debt situation that Canada faces. As well we often hear that the Reform Party is anti-culture. However, such allegations are quite simply false and do not benefit nor elevate the debate.

In the recent past whenever the subject of the CBC arose and its performance was put into question the charges of anti-CBC and thereby anti-culture emerged. This is a classic case of denial by those who call themselves supporters of the CBC, absolutely unwilling to accept any criticism of the mother court.

We must recognize and acknowledge at the outset of this debate that the CBC has problems and that these problems must be remedied. The CBC has existed in one form or another for a very long time. It has a distinguished history. Before I make my proposal on the matter of privatization I think it necessary to provide an historical backdrop by exploring the when, how, why and what regarding the evolution of the CBC. Having appreciated some of its history we will be in a better position to understand the CBC in its present circumstances to determine if it is accomplishing what it set out to do.

Ultimately, and this will come as no surprise to anyone, I do not believe that the CBC is able to fulfil its mandate any longer. What I hope to accomplish here is to set the process in motion that will assist the CBC in working through these very troubled times.

In the 1920s the Canadian National Railway developed a radio network of stations in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Moncton and Vancouver. Its schedule included concerts, comic opera, school broadcasts and historical dramas. In 1929 the Aird commission recommended to Mackenzie King's government that public ownership of broadcasting was necessary to protect Canada against American cultural penetration. The Aird commission recommended the creation of a national broadcasting company with the status and duties of a public utility and a source of public funds to develop a service capable of fostering a national spirit and interpreting national citizenship.

It specifically called for the elimination of the private stations albeit with compensation. Because of the economic crisis of the times, remembering the Aird report was calling for the further allocation of federal funds in the 1930s when federal coffers were not filled to overflowing, the consideration of the Aird report was delayed. This enabled some of the more powerful private stations and their principal lobbying agency, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, to launch a campaign against it.

The basic principles of the report were defended by the Canadian Radio League, known as CRL, an informal voluntary organization set up in Ottawa in 1930. It prepared pamphlets stating the case for public ownership. The CRL recruited other voluntary organizations as well as representatives from business, banking, trade unions, the farming community and educational institutions and sent a formal delegation to meet the minister of marine.

The new elected Conservative government of R. B. Bennett, after defeating Mackenzie King's Liberals, responded to the appeals of the CRL by passing the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act n 1932. It established a publicly owned Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, known as the CRBC, with a mandate to provide programs and extend coverage to all settled parts of the country. The CRBC took over the radio facilities of the CNR and began to broadcast in English and French.

Researchers who studied the CRBC say that it suffered from underfunding, an uncertain mandate and inappropriate administrative arrangements.

During his second term King was persuaded to replace the CRBC with a stronger public agency rather than abandon broadcasting to the private sector. In response to these pressures a new Canadian Broadcasting Act was introduced in 1936 creating the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the CBC. It was given a better organizational structure, more assured funding through the use of a licence fee and decreased vulnerability to political pressure.

Successive Canadian parliaments have decided that broadcasting should be an instrument of national purpose. For this they set up a publicly owned system within which private and commercial broadcasting have always had a place. The clear intent was then and still is today to give the dominant role to the public service, yet the pressures of the private broadcasters are now stronger than ever and there is still no settlement of the conflict between service and profit as the guiding motive of broadcasting.

What appeared to be the same questions of policy are thought and rethought: Does Canadian broadcasting meet Canadian needs? Are we prepared to pay for a system to meet them? Can Canadian broadcasters provide increasing quantities of American mass entertainment without surrendering totally to the siren's call of a commercial ethos? What public controls should there be, if any? How should they be exercised and by whom?

What is quite interesting to note is these questions were being asked in the early 1930s as policy makers were addressing the need for a national broadcaster. These are the same questions that we as parliamentarians have to ask ourselves today as we consider the future of the CBC. We do the CBC and Canadians a great disservice if we fail to answer these difficult questions.

In fact it is extremely important to continue asking these specific questions as our economic, cultural and technological environment continues to change so rapidly. The expectations of our constituents are changing both in response to and in anticipation of these changes.

Remember the CRBC was underfunded. It had an uncertain mandate, one it could not fulfil. It suffered from inappropriate administrative arrangements. It was in response to those problems that Mackenzie King decided to address the problems of the CRBC. He ultimately decided with the best of intentions toward the health of Canadian broadcasting to strengthen the CRBC. He did that by creating the CBC.

When King decided to create the CBC he entertained arguments from all sectors before coming to a decision. In fact there were a good number of representations made by individuals and groups which were in favour of keeping broadcasting in the private sector.

The problems that plagued the CRBC are the same problems that plague the CBC today as I have mentioned: funding, mandate and administration. Exploring these problems should demonstrate conclusively that the CBC must change.

Before I do that, I want to first discuss a problem that affects today's debate. It affects the CBC. It affects us as parliamentarians and ultimately it affects the Canadian taxpayer.

Quite simply the problem is the lack of access to information about the CBC. The Liberal government and the CBC both espoused an interest in hearing constructive criticism on how the CBC can better fulfil its mandate. I do sincerely acknowledge that.

Yet neither the government nor the CBC has been very accommodating in supplying the public with the information necessary to make constructive suggestions. The CBC receives $1.091 billion. It was requested to appear before the committee for a full discussion on the estimates so that the committee could report to the House as it is permitted pursuant to the standing orders.

Unfortunately the CBC and the government decided that the single largest funded organization in the Department of Canadian Heritage, the CBC, which receives one third of the budget of the portfolio would not appear in time for the committee to make a report on this year's estimates.

The CBC's lack of timely appearance before the committee on the estimates is just one example that highlights perhaps the temerity of the Prime Minister and his government to take fiscal action and demonstrate perhaps a lack of sincerity by the Minister of Canadian Heritage who states that parliamentarians will have a large contribution to make in the future of the CBC. How can the government continue to express this openness to the Canadian taxpayer by such actions? I ask these questions.

In 1991, the Tories introduced a new broadcasting act. The Minister of Canadian Heritage seems content to extol the virtues of this act without meeting its compliance requirements. For example, on April 6, 1994, I sent a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, a letter to which he has yet to reply.

The letter reminded the minister of his obligation under section 54 of the act. Let me share with this House that obligation. The CBC is required to provide every year for the minister a copy of the corporate plan of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. As well, the CBC must also provide a summary of this plan under section 55(4) of the Broadcasting Act.

The minister must submit the summary to the House. Since the Broadcasting Act has been enforced since 1991, no summary has been tabled in the House of Commons. This is in direct violation of the act. Today however, curiously the summaries for these years 1991 to 1994 did appear at the standing committee.

How can we as parliamentarians participate in the debate when the government withholds information? Unfortunately this is not the only example we have of finding the CBC in a closet environment. In early May my office contacted the CBC seeking budgetary information on the CBC sponsored national journalism symposium.

The CBC would not provide the information. Therefore on May 24 I wrote to the minister requesting the information. The questions were simple. How much money was spent on the symposium? The CBC brought people from all over the world at taxpayer expense to this conference, a conference which was not even open to the public.

How much was spent on travel for the symposium? The symposium was held for the first time last year and even last year's figures are being withheld. As well, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has admitted that the federal government commissioned a study from the Nordicity group to explore alternative means by which the CBC could generate revenue.

When my office approached Nordicity and the government for a copy of this report, neither would produce it. What is this government hiding?

Despite the fact that there is a great deal of information that we cannot access, there is enough information in the public domain to adequately demonstrate that the CBC is facing a crisis. When I say that I am not fearmongering. I am simply stating the obvious. As a nation, we are not poor. We are just broke. We are $519 billion in debt.

Public television is facing a reality jolt. Canadians are being asked to make priority choices. The primary services competing with public television include education, health and welfare. I believe that we can keep the necessities that both serve the public interest and ensure the survival of the company.

Consumers are faced with a multiplicity of channels today. Most areas that receive cable already have some 50 channels and just two weeks ago the CRTC issued licences to 10 more channels. As technology continues to develop at this rate, there will no longer be a need for the CRTC to issue licences.

The reality of a much heralded 500 channel universe is with us. Regardless of whether there will be 100 channels or 500 channels there is going to be in the very near future extraordinary competition to maintain market share. There seems to be a consensus in the history that one of the best ways for a broadcaster to survive in the market would be to specialize. The CBC will have to dare to spend more time doing less but better and make itself unique.

The CBC has hit the wall. It is continuing to lose its audience support at least in its English television market. One needs only to look at how much ground it has lost in its news broadcasting in the last five years to prove this.

In 1993-94 the CBC actually fell dramatically from its previous year. We saw another television station, the CTV, jump dramatically. Also employees within that environment are becoming increasingly nervous. In the last few months in order to replace people who have quit the corporation the CBC English television network has witnessed a new president, several new vice-presidents, and the resignation of the chairman of the board of the CBC.

The sad truth is that the CBC is undergoing a profound transformation but in an unsatisfactory, unsystematic and ad hoc manner directed by those who have magnificently proven how little they deserve the confidence of the viewing public or the employees of the corporation.

I would like to reiterate some of the problems that face the CBC, all of which are interrelated. We have tough economic times with competing priorities for government funds. CBC appropriations are not likely to be increased. Technological convergence has caused great competition throughout all the industry, but it is contributing to decreased audience support not only for the CBC but for others.

The CBC has been forced to seek out greater advertising revenues to make up for its budgetary shortfalls. This has resulted in the perception that the CBC is airing too much American material and that Canadian content is being sacrificed. I have also mentioned the criticism about the CBC withholding information from the public. Surveys show that there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of people who believe that the CBC assists in maintaining distinctive Canadian culture.

In the light of these problems what should we do, acknowledging that I am not the definitive catalyst to resolving these problems but only a foot soldier attempting to clear a path for more open debate? As mentioned it is my understanding that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has commissioned a study to seek out alternative means of funding for the CBC. He has also stated publicly that he is in favour of partially privatizing the CBC.

Now that the CBC needs a new chairman, the minister has an opportunity to do two things. He can make good on the promise the Prime Minister made to give the standing committee more power by asking the committee to provide him with a list of three names for his consideration and appointment to the chair of the board of directors of the CBC.

The CBC already procures more than 50 per cent of its Canadian drama from independent producers, up from essentially zero a decade ago. A policy to increase external drama purchases further would provide additional stimulus to the development of the competitive independent production industry and I suspect lead to lower production costs. As well, an idea to save money would be to encourage more co-operation between CBC's English language and French language network services. The exchange of programs should be actively pursued and some programs jointly produced or procured.

Further to this we should do three things. First, the Canadian public needs more access to information about the CBC. The arm's length principle is often trotted out as an excuse to keep information from the public. Providing such information does not violate the cultural integrity of this crown corporation, and it should not be exempt from the Access to Information Act.

Second, all financial information should be readily available to the public just as it is for any other government department. The auditor general should be required to regularly perform audits within the CBC based on general accounting principles. As well the AG should regularly perform forensic audits which should also be made public because presently this crown corporation under part X of the Financial Administration Act is exempt from regular forensic audits.

Third and most important, it is not my job to develop the plan by which the CBC will reorganize itself. That is the job of the experts within the CBC and those financial advisers with the capabilities to assist them. Quite bluntly, and this is the core of my message, I believe the government should now direct the CBC as it directed Petro-Canada to prepare an initial public offering on the basis of complete or partial privatization of the CBC by the end of 1995. If the minister believes in partial privatization as he has stated then he can do no less.

The timing for this share issue is critical. Employees in the CBC must sense that something is wrong. Talented individuals are defecting. They are bailing out. Ill-planned, unexpected budget cuts and juggling schedules have resulted in the loss of talent as well as lost corporate support. Something surely is rotten.

What seems clear is that in an increasingly multichannel environment the current mandate of the CBC to provide a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains is too broad. Therefore the mandate of the CBC also needs to be revisited and made dramatically more specific so that the CBC is able to specialize as it downsizes and privatizes.

It cannot do everything it did, but if we make the difficult decisions now, it will survive in some form that can last for years.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, in the next few minutes, I would like to comment on the motion presented by the Reform member for Calgary Southeast. It is Motion No. 278, which advocates the partial or total privatization of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

First of all, I want to say that my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, is not considering any privatization of the CBC. This corporation was created in 1936 by the Liberal government of the day especially to give Canadians control over broadcasting in Canada.

Even today, the CBC remains the cornerstone of Canadian broadcasting policy. The present Liberal government also considers this national public broadcaster to be essential.

The CBC has followed the evolution of our country over the decades and today its importance justifies its continuing to receive public funding. After all, it is thanks to the CBC that Canadians get to know one another better and stay in touch locally, regionally, nationally and with the whole world.

The previous government had an addiction to privatization. It even had in hand a resolution passed by its party membership calling for the complete privatization of the CBC, but it too recognized that this was not a viable option. It was also the Mulroney government that took a scalpel to the corporation and forced some very painful surgery. In an interview given shortly after his appointment the Minister of Canadian Heritage described such treatment as de facto privatization.

Our new government made a clear commitment prior to the October election. We committed to stop forcing the CBC into anorexic behaviour in recognition of the vital role it plays as a national cultural institution. We also committed to finding the right means of providing the corporation with stable, multiyear funding.

Just three months after the election, on February 3, the government made its first stride toward meeting our commitment. At that time the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced a strategy for the CBC designed to give the corporation the capacity to plan for the future with confidence and to be the distinct Canadian voice we need as we continue to forge our national identity.

The first step in this strategy was the Prime Minister's announcement of a new president for the CBC. With the appointment of Anthony Manera, the CBC can continue to benefit from the talents of an individual with a distinguished career both within the corporation and beyond. I beg to differ with the hon. member. I understand Mr. Manera has appeared twice before the committee and has been very forthcoming.

Mr. Manera's commitment to the ideals of public broadcasting and his intimate understanding of the challenges facing the corporation were among the attributes which earned him the reins of our most important cultural institution.

While the previous government's commitments are still filed under fiction our government has taken decisive action to achieve our commitment to stable, multiyear funding.

The government has already announced that it does not intend to impose new cuts on the CBC over the next five years. It is prepared to reprofile the cuts announced in April 1993 so that they can be more easily digested by the CBC. In effect this reprofiling represents an investment of $100 million from the consolidated revenue fund as the program cuts will start to be implemented in 1996-97 rather than 1995-96.

In addition to this reprieve the government has also recognized that the corporation needs more businesslike flexibility. This is being provided through the CBC's new power to borrow up to $25 million under highly specified circumstances and with the case by case approval of the Minister of Finance.

Most recently the minister announced his intention to consult with his colleagues, the new CBC president, and other players in the industry to identify other revenue generating mechanisms for the CBC which could lead to a reduction in the corporation's dependence on commercial advertising revenues. The minister also confirmed recently that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of the House would undertake the review.

These commitments are consistent with the government's desire to give the corporation some flexibility in terms of its strategic orientation.

This government believes that instead of taking financial resources from public broadcasting for the benefit of private broadcasting, as the Reform Party's privatization proposal suggests, we must try to find ways to do the opposite.

With the advent of many television services, all private, the government must mobilize resources for the public sector and for the production and dissemination of Canadian programs. In this multi-channel world, the government must ensure the survival of the distinctive Canadian voice which the CBC represents.

That said, this government believes that the goal of redistributing resources for the benefit of the national public broadcaster can only be achieved through a public process in which parliamentarians, the general public and all concerned can participate.

The government is mindful of the concern felt by all Canadians about the economic situation we are currently facing. Our strategy for the CBC is based on a shared approach. We have granted the CBC important tools designed to restore financial stability and provide the corporation with a clear planning horizon. At the same time we have made clear to the CBC that our financial flexibility is severely limited and that we have expectations on how the CBC will manage its affairs.

Specifically the minister has notified the new president that the CBC would be expected to eliminate its structural shortfall and to absorb other costs, inflationary or otherwise, which may be required to carry out its operations. The government has asked that the CBC's development of a new corporate plan

remain faithful to the objective of maintaining its regional presence and existing radio services.

These restrictions were deemed necessary in light of the unique and highly prized reputation of CBC radio services and the corporation's ability to serve national and regional audiences. We recognize the CBC is being asked to scale many challenges. We expect the corporation will have to adapt aspects of its operations. Over the course of the next several months the CBC will be on the receiving end of many suggestions about what kind of changes Canadians would be prepared to see undertaken.

Nevertheless the uncertainty which has prevented the corporation from planning beyond the current fiscal year has been eliminated. It is now possible for the corporation to take long term decisions and make multiyear commitments or investments aimed at improving the efficiency of the corporation.

The most important result of these efficiencies is that they will allow the CBC to maximize its investment in the kind of quality Canadian programming we expect and need from CBC. It may be interesting to note that while technology has changed the issues and principles related to public broadcasting remained largely unchanged since the genesis of the CBC and its mandate.

The royal commission on radio broadcasting examined the possibility of establishing a Canadian public broadcasting corporation for radio in 1929. This commission, the Aird commission, stressed that a public broadcasting system should provide national coverage and varied programming which would be informative, educational and entertaining.

These principles have been echoed repeatedly in the parliamentary committee hearings, task forces and royal commissions dealing with broadcasting in 1951, 1957, 1963 and 1986 and they remain as relevant today as they were 60 years ago.

The Canadian broadcasting system is definitely characterized by a fair sharing of-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary's time has expired. The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata has the floor.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although the Bloc Quebecois may disagree emphatically with the way certain situations are dealt with at the CBC, it does not support the motion presented by the Reform Party member for Calgary-Southeast to privatize the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a name that is indeed more in tune with the cultural profile of this Crown corporation.

According to the Bloc Quebecois, our public radio and television network should be preserved, but the government should oblige the corporation to deal with its problems. We are primarily concerned about the challenge to the corporation in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act, especially in paragraphs (l) and (m) and in a number of subparagraphs which read as follows: "The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should provide a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains". The programming should reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions.

The programming should be 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. Finally, the programming should contribute to shared national consciousness and identity.

But what is national identity and how should this mandate be interpreted? In Canada, the national identity is Canadian. So what is Canada? What is Canada about? How is it constituted? In addition to its aboriginal peoples, Canada has two founding peoples. There is more than one national identity in Canada and hence a problem for the CBC. Furthermore, the concept of Canadian identity does not include the Quebec identity. In fact, its purpose is to assimilate or even deny it. Canadian identity has the effect of acculturating Quebecers.

Quebec's march towards sovereignty started in 1960 with Jean Lesage. It seems to me that if the CBC had fulfilled its mandate while remaining neutral and objective, if it had tried to inform and enlighten, the rest of Canada would not ask what does Quebec want. We have said many times that we want to control the economic, social, political and cultural levers that are essential to our development as a nation.

Despite the reassurances of CBC president Anthony Manera that the mandate to contribute to a national identity will not interfere with the mandate to provide objective information and reflect the various views held in Canada, we are inclined to be sceptical. In fact, the most senior politicians in this country put a very different spin on this mandate and tend to cloud the issue.

To the Prime Minister of Canada, this mandate means, and I will quote what he said in this House on June 16: "The law says, in defining the mandate of the CBC, that it must inform people on the advantages Canada represents. This is the reason for the creation of the corporation. Objectivity is all we ask for".

As if objectivity only meant showing the advantages.

To the Deputy Prime Minister, the corporation's mandate to contribute to national identity means, according to what she said on CBC radio on June 17, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has a responsibility to acknowledge that one of its responsibilities is to promote Canadian unity.

As for Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, we know now that his political assistants regularly called the CBC to order it to promote Canadian unity, especially, it seems, during the Charlottetown episode.

At that time, CBC management had issued instructions reminding its journalists of current policy on the coverage of the constitutional debate. A document, and I quote: "also contains details concerning analysts and commentators". According to management, any guests who had publicly taken a position on the question at issue were to be clearly identified as such. The document went on to say: "If a political expert is an active sovereigntist, he must not be introduced simply as a professor of political science. If a commentator is a known supporter of unilingualism, this should be included in the introduction. Furthermore, one should point out, as appropriate, whether an editorial writer or columnist has taken a definite stand on the issues to be discussed.

As for the separatist witch hunt within the CBC, this goes back a long time.

In 1969, then president George Davidson was literally besieged by federal politicians who criticized the corporation's coverage that was biased towards the separatists.

Tensions had risen to such a degree that when the Parti Quebecois was elected in 1976, the CRTC held public hearings on the subject, and its report made it clear that CBC reporting had observed the standards of professional reporting. However, many federal politicians, especially Quebec Liberals, argued that these journalists were not doing their job since the corporation had a mandate to promote national unity.

Former president Al Johnson said, and I am quoting Wayne Skene in his Fade to Black: a requiem for the CBC , referring to interference from federal Liberal members: ``They made my life hell''.

Meanwhile, considering the position taken by government members and their interpretation of the corporation's mandate, there is no indication it will be any different during the next provincial election and an eventual referendum, except for the assurances given by the president of the CBC. We will take him at his word, until further notice.

Before the advent of television, Quebecers listened to the radio. They listened to radio serials and to the daily news programs throughout the war. Not long after television appeared, Quebec was coming out of the so-called Dark Ages. Father Legault and his Compagnons de Saint-Laurent, the TNM, the Rideau-Vert and a number of celebrities who came over from France had made Quebecers develop an appetite for culture. The corporation was to continue this work, and the development of Quebec's cultural potential during the past thirty years was possible largely to the existence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

We remember travel documentaries with commentary by André Laurendeau, important political broadcasts with Judith Jasmin, "Point de mire" with René Lévesque, "Le 60" with Pierre Nadeau, "Noir sur Blanc" with Denise Bombardier, big variety shows, tv dramas which introduced us to a host of authors and which were also an opportunity for Quebecers to make a living by writing; tv series, either historical or contemporary, with rural or urban settings, concerts of every description, the "Soirée du hockey", and many more.

There is one particular sector I know very well, in which the corporation performed superbly, and I am referring to television programming for children, which has left several generations with some unforgettable memories. Remember "Pépinot et Capucine", "M. Surprise", "Grugeot et Délicat", "Marie Quat'poches", "la Souris verte" and "Bobino"!

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I feel I must mention one area where the corporation showed poor judgment, and I am referring to its decision to close television stations in eastern Quebec. I hope that as the corporation considers ways to deal with its problems, it will find a way to give eastern Quebec its voice again and thus improve the way it fulfils one of its mandates which is, and I quote: "to reflect Canada and its regions to national and regional audiences, while serving the special needs of those regions".

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in this House in support of my colleague's private members' motion 278 which calls for the federal government to immediately initiate the privatization of all or part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

The topic of privatizing the CBC comes at a very interesting time. During debate on Bill C-17, the ominbus bill on budget implementation, it was no surprise that members of the government opposite were staunchly defending the CBC. They claimed the CBC is the vehicle for protecting Canadian tradition and heritage with its programming.

However, today I would be very interested to hear what these same members of the Liberal Party would say. Several weeks ago CBC television announced it was changing its programming. It is now going to make a grab for ratings and revenue with a fall schedule that has more U.S. drama and fewer Canadian entertainment programs in prime time.

It would appear that CBC television is moving away from being the voice which preserves Canadian culture. It would appear the CBC television is moving away from programming which is chock full of Canadian heritage.

It would appear the arguments used by numerous Liberals during the Bill C-17 debate now have a somewhat hollow ring to them. The fiscal and economic realities of the day demand that the CBC make these changes. I submit that for the CBC to become truly viable and competitive it should move toward privatization.

It is quite interesting to note how times have changed. In the words of CBC vice president, Jim Byrd, it would be nice if we could stick our heads in the sand and say let us not worry about revenue. Mr. Byrd realizes that the CBC cannot proceed this way as he explained why the corporation is moving toward more U.S. programming. Not long ago this type of head in the sand thinking was indeed the norm for CBC. Given the debate on Bill C-17 it would appear that line of thinking was prevalent among some members of this House.

Unfortunately Canadian taxpayers can no longer afford to foot the $1 billion plus bill it costs to run the CBC every year. The taxpayer thinks in terms of dollars and cents. The taxpayer cannot understand why he or she must pay for something they generally seem not to want.

If one looks at the ratings of the CBC it becomes apparent that the CBC is not a very high priority for Canadians. In the interests of clarity I will outline 10 reasons why the CBC should move toward privatization.

The taxpayer of this country would seem to demand it according to the ratings and the fiscal realities that face the government demand it as well.

First, only 15 per cent of television viewers watched the CBC's English network for some part of the day in the 1990-91 season. The trend continued into the 1992-93 season when only 13.5 per cent of the viewing audience were tuning in to CBC television.

Reason number two is the declining audience viewing CBC during prime time which is between 7 and 11 p.m. In 1990-91 only 15.8 per cent of viewers were watching the CBC during prime time hours, which is any network's bread and butter. Two years later only 13.6 per cent were watching.

The third reason the CBC should be privatized lies within the programming. Huge sums of money are being squandered. A case in point is the marginal French service being offered by CBC radio stations in many parts of the country. CBUF-FM, the CBC's French language FM radio station in Vancouver, has a staff of 25 and an annual budget of $2.2 million. Its average audience in any given quarter hour over its entire broadcast area is 100 people. This is according to the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement. It is quite obvious that this is not an optimum use of taxpayers' money.

The fourth reason, and it is similar to the previous one, can be seen in Edmonton's French language station, CHFA, which has a staff of 32 and an annual budget of $2.4 million. Again, according to the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement, the station is lucky if it tops 600 listeners.

The fifth reason is that overall funding is increasing for the CBC while the number of people tuning in is decreasing. According to the CBC's 1993 financial statement, over $941 million was spent on CBC television. One year earlier $913 million was spent. What is the justification for spending $28 million more on CBC television when fewer people are watching?

The sixth reason is that overall funding for CBC radio services went up from $293 million in 1992 to over $307 million in 1993 but listnership is declining. In 1991, 12.6 per cent of the listening audience had their dial tuned into CBC English radio. One year later only 11.7 per cent were listening.

A similar pattern occurs when we consider CBC French radio. In the spring of 1990, 9.1 per cent were tuned in compared to only 8.7 per cent in the fall of 1992. What is the justification for funding increases?

Reason number seven is the poor performance of CBC English television during the supper hour from 6 to 7 p.m. The regional CBC television stations cannot compete with their private counterparts during the all-important news hour.

In Edmonton the CBC news hauled in a paltry 8 per cent of viewers during the supper hour in 1992. In 1993 viewership dropped to 5 per cent. The same can be said on almost all regional CBC networks. In Regina the CBC was watched by 25 per cent of the viewers during the news hour in 1992. That number was cut by over half with only 12 per cent watching in 1993. The trend seems to be nationwide, fewer people watching, yet it takes more and more money to run the CBC.

Reason number eight is something called debt. Recent estimates put the CBC at a shortfall of $180 million over the next four years. The CBC has a $45 million deficit on its operating budget on revenues of over $1 billion.

Reason number nine deals with the CBC's power to borrow money. Why is the federal government allowing the CBC to borrow money in the first place? Would it not be more financially sound to privatize, at the very least, portions of its operations, thereby realizing substantial savings? The savings could then be applied to finance new cost effective ventures.

Last but not least, the tenth reason for privatizing the CBC is the very nature of its existence. The CBC is changing its mandate. No longer will CBC television be the vehicle for Canadian culture and heritage. It is moving to more U.S. content in order to boost its ratings. Taxpayer dollars are no longer required to support the old mandate of protecting and promoting Canadian culture.

For the CBC to have the incentive to go after advertising dollars and increase its ratings, it certainly should move toward privatization. Privatization would ensure a viable CBC that should make money rather than fritter it away.

In the last 10 years about 2,000 jobs have been cut at the CBC in an effort to downsize and streamline the crown corporation. Despite drastic cuts to the staff budget, CBC's deficit continues to climb. There is no incentive at the management level to ensure a bottom line.

The federal government took another step toward killing the CBC's profit motive by giving it the authority to borrow another $25 million. As long as this type of practice continues the CBC will remain an indebted corporation, and that is unacceptable to Canadian taxpayers. It is time for a major overhaul of "mother corporation".

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech on this motion by reading an excerpt from my party's official pre-election program "Creating Opportunities", commonly referred to as the red book.

"Canadian culture embraces our shared perceptions and beliefs, common experiences and values, and diverse linguistic and cultural identities: everything that makes us uniquely Canadian. Culture is the very essence of national identity, the bedrock of national sovereignty and national pride. It gives meaning to the lives of every Canadian and enriches the country socially, politically and economically".

At a time when globalization and the information and communications revolution are erasing national borders, Canada needs more than ever to commit itself to cultural development.

Since its creation in 1936, the CBC has been and continues to be an essential mechanism for defending our national cultural sovereignty.

The motion now before the House deals with the possibility of privatizing all or part of the CBC. Let me just take a few minutes to remind the House of the services provided by the CBC and the raison d'être of Crown corporations. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was created on November 2, 1936 pursuant to an act of Parliament. It reports annually to Parliament on its activities through the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Its provides comprehensive national broadcasting services in both official languages, that is French and English, in addition to running the Northern Service and Radio Canada International, a shortwave service for listeners abroad.

The CBC is governed by the Broadcasting Act and is regulated by the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

The CBC has a permanent staff level of approximately 9,100 people. Seventy-five per cent of these employees are involved in program production and distribution, with the remainder providing administrative and support services. Apart from its own employees, each year the CBC provides work to about 25,000 Canadian artists, writers and performers such as musicians, soloists, members of groups or orchestras, singers, graphic artists, authors, critics, dancers, actors and actresses, to name a few.

It is the largest single employer of Canadian artists and has provided a training ground for many of our finest Canadian stars. Anne Murray, receiving one of her numerous and well deserved awards recently, thanked the CBC for giving her the chance so many years ago to launch her career.

The CBC has helped to develop and establish a wealth of Canadian stars whose unique ability to express their vision of Canada and what it is to be Canadian has helped us to know ourselves and each other. Without the CBC, Canadians would not have had the opportunity to share and appreciate the rich cultural diversity of our English, French, aboriginal and ethnic communities.

Talent development remains a key objective for the CBC. Variety specials with Canadian music stars and new Canadian artists as guests, the broadcasting of the Genie, Gemini and Juno awards programs are important tools through which our artists reach their public and gain national and international exposure.

The need for talent development is critical today, and of course more remains to be done. In an era in which new technology further fragments audiences and globalization diminishes national boundaries, the CBC's role in ensuring that there is a service to which Canadians can turn to see our images, hear our stories and be inspired by our artists is now more vital than ever.

The CBC is the principal instrument of the government's cultural policy. In 1994-95 its parliamentary appropriation is approximately $1 billion, representing 62 per cent of all federal appropriations to cultural agencies in the portfolio of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In addition the corporation expects to raise some $396 million this fiscal year, mostly from television advertising, bringing its total resources to $1.4 billion.

With this funding the CBC offers and extensive array of separate services:

English and French television networks;

English and French AM mono and FM stereo radio networks, free of commercial advertising;

CBC North which covers more than four million square kilometres encompassing the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Arctic Quebec by providing radio and television programs in English, French and eight native languages, also provides specialized training services for native broadcasters and journalists;

Newsworld, 24-hour national satellite to cable English language news and information service funded entirely by cable subscription and commercial advertising revenues but achieves its quality level by making extensive re-use of news and current affairs programming that is drawing on public funding;

Radio Canada International, a shortwave radio service which broadcasts in seven languages, provides material specifically targeted for Canadians abroad, consisting of the most popular domestic CBC programs, and plays an important role in promoting Canadian artists abroad, is managed by the CBC and financed by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Both the English and French television networks have reached a remarkable 88 per cent Canadian content level in prime time. The television networks provide a balanced mix of news, current affairs, dramas, arts, science, music, variety, sports and children's programs.

Including the non-prime time schedule, about 69 per cent of CBC television broadcast by the English and French networks is Canadian produced though not necessarily all by the CBC.

The corporation is an important outlet for the work of Canada's independent production community. In fact, about 48 per cent of Canadian entertainment programs shown in prime time are produced either entirely by independent producers or in conjunction with outside producers or agencies.

While AM radio covers music and entertainment, its programming is primarily informational. FM stereo produces a wide variety of music, drama, arts and literary programs. All four radio networks offer Canadians commercial free, intelligent, appealing, and unique Canadian programming for which they have achieved a devoted following.

About 99 per cent of English and French speaking Canadians have access to CBC television. Almost 94 per cent of English and French speaking Canadians have access to CBC AM mono radio in their respective languages and 70 per cent of anglophones and 76 per cent of francophones have access to CBC FM stereo in their respective languages.

The ability to reach so much of our population comprised of two official language communities, scattered over a huge amount of rugged terrain and no less than six different time zones is a major technological challenge for the corporation.

Like the railroad, the CBC links Canadians every single day of the year in my riding with aboriginal peoples in the north, farmers on the prairies, fishermen on the east and west coasts, and everyone in between.

The CBC is also a proud ambassador abroad. In addition to the important role played by Radio Canada International, it maintains formal and informal contact with at least 10 international broadcasting unions and associations. It also encourages program exchanges and participates in more than 50 radio and television festivals around the world through which our artists and programming are promoted.

Of course, the CBC's mission is to carry out the official purposes set forth in the Broadcasting Act and it has the duty to conduct its activities in accordance with sound business practices. I fully agree with hon. opposition members in this House who think that we are going through a difficult economic period and that we should scrutinize every dollar of taxpayers' money that we spend. Nevertheless, advocating the total privatization of the CBC suggests that section 3 of the Broadcasting Act could be satisfied by the private sector or that we are prepared to forget about meeting the objectives stated there. Neither of these assertions is correct. Providing authentically Canadian broadcasting services of good quality to the whole country has never been and undoubtedly never will be something that the private sector could do profitably.

The efforts made to build our country never met the criteria of strict profitability. Nevertheless, we have built a remarkable country of which my constituents and I are immensely proud and the CBC has helped to shape it.

My colleague has already told you about the significant support measures that the government has offered the CBC. Nevertheless, given the serious financial difficulties before the government in the coming days, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is fully aware that it might have to change some aspects of its activities. If the CBC, in assessing how to face future difficulties, concludes that it could better serve the Canadian public by privatizing some particular aspects of its activities, the Minister of Canadian Heritage will let the CBC make that decision, as he said.

In conclusion, the committee of which I have the pleasure to be the chairman, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, will be developing in conjunction with the CBC some of these ideas and sharing them with Parliament at a later date.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the item is dropped from the Order Paper.

Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that an agreement has been reached, pursuant to Standing Order 78(2), with regard to an allocation of time to the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-34. Therefore, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-34, an act respecting self-government for First Nations in the Yukon Territory, not more than one hour shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the said bill, and not more than one hour shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill and, at the expiry of each of the said hours, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the report stage or the third reading stage, as the case may be, of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is it appropriate or permissible for the government to bring in closure before the bill is even debated?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. House leader for the Reform Party has asked a question to which the answer appears to be yes. Standing Order 78(2) which the member will have on his desk makes it very clear that in a situation such as outlined, the motion can be moved.

For example, it was a minister of the crown who moved it. More important, it is the majority of the representatives of several parties who have come to an agreement in respect of the proposed allotment of time and so on, it seems to me, down the line. I believe that this motion is a sharper one.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen: