Jan Brown

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, June 21st, 1994]

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.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government will be seen as the government that presided over the death of the CBC if it fails to act quickly and decisively.

The CBC had a heart attack years ago but somebody forgot to tell the government. Continuing to fund the CBC as it is now is like embalming a corpse: you add juice to it but you know it is not going to get any better. What is needed is radical surgery. We need to repair its faltering heart and infuse it with a healthy, vigorous new life.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has stated publicly that he is in favour of partial privatization of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. When will he act on this commitment?

Start the process now. The CBC will not recover right away but when it does it will be leaner and more competitive. It will not do all the things it used to do, but if we are decisive now the CBC will survive in some form.

The Liberal government can continue to embalm the corpse or it can privatize the CBC. What will it be?

[Petitions, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition duly signed by 95 constituents from my riding of Calgary Southeast.

These 95 constituents are petitioning Parliament to use trade sanctions to urge the communist government in Hanoi, Vietnam to eliminate human rights abuses, establish a multi-party democracy by the means of free elections, respect human rights, release all political prisoners and respect religious freedom.

Finally, the petitioners urge that Parliament make representation to the United Nations High Commissioner to ensure that all Vietnamese refugees are treated with fairness and dignity.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the motion to refer Bill C-43 to committee prior to second reading. That is significant in that a broader discussion regarding the transparency of the political process and the accountability of politicians to the Canadian public may take place before coming to the House for full debate. Therefore I am pleased to endorse the motion referring the bill to committee prior to second reading. In my support for

the motion I will explain what I believe to be the strengths and the weaknesses of the bill and then I will suggest some changes.

There is an attempt here to make the political process more open. This is a necessary move, given that there are today few professions despised more than a political career. There is a good reason for this sorry fact. Constituents in my riding of Calgary Southeast have told me time and time again that they want to be included in the governance of their country. They want to have decisions made that reflect their wishes and that benefit their best interests. These Canadians are tired of a government that ignores them and succumbs to the special interests of powerful lobbyists. Part of the mandate that members of my party have received is to put an end to this disempowerment.

In my last town hall meeting we were discussing the issue of criminal justice reform when a man rose to express his concerns. He challenged me when he said to all in attendance that their input would not make any difference, that politicians were not interested in hearing what constituents had to say, and that if politicians did hear the message was ultimately ignored. That was pretty harsh criticism. All of us here should take note that Canadians remain frustrated and worried about where their country is going.

It is often said that perception is reality. In the case of disempowered Canadians the opposite is true. In fact reality was perceived. My colleagues on this side of the House in the Reform Party have a comprehensive package of policy proposals that will change that cynical reality. Our proposals will give the power back to the constituents where it rightfully belongs.

The government has borrowed another idea from the Reform Party by allowing Bill C-43 to go to committee prior to second reading. It is easy therefore for me to support the motion when it has come so clearly right out of our blue book.

The motion engenders everything that Reform stands for when we speak of opening up the political system and making access to the political process more transparent. As well, the intent of the government to make amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act, the LRA, is to require lobbyists to disclose more information to the public. I applaud some of these changes for they too are right out of the Reform blue book.

Maybe I should send a copy of the blue book to the other side of the House because we hear there is confusion among Liberal backbenches as to what legislation will be brought forward next in the House. We can end their guesswork. They need only check our blue book to find out what the government plans to do next.

What is happening in the House this session is quite interesting. We have Liberals trying to pretend that they are Reformers. They recognize that our policies are those Canadians want to see enacted in legislation. However and unfortunately we see what happens when Liberals try to be Reformers. They cannot get things quite right. They tried for criminal justice reform but because they are not Reformers they miss the big picture. The same thing is happening with Bill C-43. The Liberals are missing the big picture. Making changes to the LRA and appointing an ethics counsellor are fine as far as they go, but typically they go off track in some important respects and they definitely do not go far enough.

Bill C-43 will give the ethics counsellor the power to require lobbyists to report lobbying fees with respect to government contracts. In giving the ethics counsellor this power the bill fails to define clearly his authority. A question comes immediately to mind such as: Under what circumstances will the ethics counsellor require a lobbyist to disclose this information? The circumstances appear to be discretionary and given that the counsellor reports directly to the Prime Minister he may be subject to undue influence.

Bill C-43 is a classic example of a bill with much bark but no bite. There is a simple solution to the problem. The bill should require all lobbyists to disclose all donations and fees received over $500 and expenditures over $10. They should be required to file quarterly reports and to file year to date information as well. This process is currently used in the United States. It appears to be an appropriate and adequate model.

In the last Parliament another bill on the same topic died on the Order Paper. It was coincidentally also labelled Bill C-43. The reason that bill did not go anywhere was that it created another layer of bureaucracy. We were assured during the briefing on the bill yesterday that Bill C-43 would not do that. We have yet again more verbal assurance from the government. We know what happens when we get verbal assurances, do we not? We need only to look to the Ministry of Canadian Heritage to confirm that.

Bill C-43 would appoint the existing assistant deputy registrar general as the ethics counsellor. However we are told that he will keep his old job as the ADRG. Now I ask: Will he receive two salaries? He presently requires a staff of 25 to fulfil his responsibilities as ADRG. Now that he has two jobs it would seem that his staff will have a lot more work to do. There are only three possibilities here. He could do one job terribly. He could do both jobs poorly. Or, he could hire more staff in order to do both jobs well. I suspect he will want to do both jobs well. At least I hope he will.

How much more money will his office require to fulfil his new responsibilities? Can the government tell us how much this new ethics counsellor will cost the Canadian taxpayer? Despite the

assurances the government has given us that it will cost nothing to implement the bill I remain highly sceptical.

The Liberal government talks the good talk of opening up the political process but it does not understand what that really means. When it states that it wants to facilitate better action to the political system it demonstrates through legislation like this that it does not fully understand the magnitude of the problem. Tinkering with the LRA will only take us one small step toward regaining the confidence of Canadians. The focus of this discussion for me is the confidence of Canadians. Tinkering with the lobbyists act demonstrates that the government recognizes special interest groups, endorses special interest groups, listens to special interests, funds special interest groups, and enacts legislation to satisfy special interest groups.

The Prime Minister speaks often of restoring the trust of Canadians. Neither the bill nor the motion will allow Canadians to control the government's overspending or to control its deficit of some $40 billion and its debt of some $519 billion. If the government were serious about winning the trust of Canadians it would get its fiscal house in order. Let me remind members opposite who have forgotten what real access to the political process means that the last government did not know what it meant. We all know where its members are buried. It appears that this one does not either.

Real access to the political process means giving real power back to Canadians as individual constituents. Let me share with the House, as I conclude, some beliefs that will demonstrate this. The government should be guided by stated values and principles shared by Canadians in their political beliefs. We believe public policy and democratic society should reflect the will the majority of the citizens as determined by free and fair elections, referendums, and the decisions of legally constituted and representative parliaments and assemblies elected by the people. This does not include buckling to undue pressure from lobbyists.

We believe in the common sense of the common people, their right to be consulted on policy matters that are public ones before major decisions are made, their right to choose and recall their own representatives and to govern themselves through truly representative and responsive institutions, and their right to directly initiate legislation for which substantial public support is demonstrated.

Unlike the hon. member for Saint-Denis we do not believe the average voter is illiterate and cannot print his or her name on a voting list. We believe in the accountability of elected representatives to the people who elect them and that the duty of elected members to their constituents should outweigh pressure from lobbyists and special interests.

Above all else, we must listen to the voices of our constituents. We will not permit the lobby of special interest groups to narrow our agenda.

[Discrimination, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Minister for Canadian Heritage opposes discrimination on the basis of race. We in the Reform party agree with him. We oppose discrimination of any kind.

Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for the Status of Women supports special interest groups that discriminate if she thinks that they are in the interest of society. It is clear the government will only fight discrimination when it favours its policy.

Will the Prime Minister explain exactly what criteria the government uses when it decides to discriminate or not to discriminate?

[Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak during the third reading of Bill C-31. It was quite interesting to see how we moved through the previous discussion regarding the CBC.

I am going to make the comment at the start of my remarks that the CBC is indeed a billion dollar boondoggle. It is really unfortunate that we do not have a longer period of time to discuss the CBC, that we have not had the opportunity in this session of Parliament to have the full discussion that is required.

This opportunity permits me also to set the record straight with respect to the Reform Party's interest in advancing Canadian cultural industries and encouraging artistic freedom. Many people in the House have a definitive opinion, but there definitely is a clear lack of understanding. I am not sure if it is intentional or otherwise, but there seems to be this perception that we are disinterested in Canadian culture. That really is a rather simplistic criticism because we have been suggesting and encouraging less government involvement. Since we stood in the House in the early days of this Parliament, we have been consistent in that message; we want to see less government involvement. That is particularly elemental to this discussion.

We advance the idea that the cultural community be given the tools necessary to flourish in an open, competitive and changing marketplace. That includes less government intervention, less taxation and regulatory controls that permit competition, not strangle it.

The hon. member across the floor talked about the CBC and the CRTC. The CRTC is an excellent example of how the television and radio production sectors are impeded by an inconsistent regulatory environment.

Quite frankly the CRTC was quite arbitrary and paternalistic in its selection process and granting of licences only last week. Imagine 500 channels. We are moving toward that environment like a sputtering Model T. It is a ridiculous licensing process that does not do anything to promote the richness of our industries as indeed it could.

Our approach recognizes that Canadian cultural policy must be sustainable in a world of rapid technological change and is fostered in an environment in which individuals are free to choose.

The intent of the bill is to foster better relationships between Canadian producers and Canadian financial institutions. On this side of the House in the Reform Party we have to question whether there is a poor relationship between these groups. My colleagues spoke of their concern about that issue during second reading of the bill.

A bit later I will provide information to the House that will demonstrate why this question is worthy of an answer. The evidence I have would suggest that the industry has been thriving and is in no need of government guaranteed loans. We do not have the money to go forward with proposals like this one. We need to ensure the industry can make it on its own by less regulation and less taxation.

In the face of the overwhelming evidence that supports this conclusion we must question the motivation of the government and all the supporters of the bill, one of which is the Royal Bank of Canada interestingly enough.

I should like to go through the process of taking the bill into committee and the discussion that took place there. It was my very first experience in this kind of an environment. What happened there was of particular interest to me. At committee after second reading representatives of the Royal Bank of Canada appeared as impartial witnesses to give testimony on their appreciation of Bill C-31. The Royal Bank is the bank with which the Department of Canadian Heritage has been negotiating to establish the parameters of the bill.

I suggest they had a vested interest in speaking at committee in favour of the legislation. When other financial players were asked if they would like to address the committee on the bill they declined the opportunity, not because they were in favour of the bill but because they did not want to be seen as opposing it for fear that it would be perceived to be anti-culture. Now what a sorry comment.

We have come to a point in time where individuals and corporations do not speak their minds on an issue because they are concerned about possible recrimination. The powerful cultural lobbies and special interest groups in Canada have had such a profound impact that witnesses now feel uncomfortable to appear at committee to speak frankly. This is an issue that directly affects the operations of their businesses.

That kind of special interest pressure has little or no effect on members of my party or members of my caucus. We were elected with a mandate from our constituents to bring to this public forum their comments and their concerns, and we will not be intimidated by special interest groups. We do not support the bill in principle. Nor do we support it as it was presented.

Members of the government and people from the Department of Canadian Heritage continually reassure us that the bill will not result in financial losses for the government and that its effectiveness will be reviewed after two years.

Despite the fact that we do not agree with the principle of the bill we proposed a reasonable amendment to it. The bill states that loans will be for a maximum of 18 months. In order to provide an accurate evaluation of the performance of the program we proposed an amendment which, although defeated, I still believe to be a necessary legislative tool to evaluate the bill at some future time.

I moved that after 36 months the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage should review the progress of the guaranteed loan program introduced by the bill and report on that progress to the House. This amendment was simply a review and report amendment, which is quite similar to a sunset clause. If included as an amendment within the bill it would have legislatively assured the program of loan guarantees would receive a formal review.

The 36-month review I proposed provided a longer review period than even the government was requesting. It would allow for two full sets of loans to be completed before review, a review the government states it will conduct. How could a review be completed after only 24 months as the government suggests? There will have been only a handful of loans, the success of which we are to use to judge and evaluate the program. Why not make the trial period a little longer to give the program a solid evaluation based on historical trends? I fail to understand how the government could not support such a common sense focus within the amendment. I would like to read it for the record:

Three years after the coming into force of this act, a comprehensive review of the application and operation of the amendments to the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act as enacted by this act shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.

That was to be subclause 3(1). Subclause 3(2) read:

The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within three months after the review is undertaken or within such further time as the House of Commons may authorize, submit a report on the review to the House including a statement of any changes the committee recommends.

Further, if there will be a review, why not require the review to be in the statutes? Is the government sincere about its intention to conduct such a review? Why not open the process to the committee to evaluate the performance of the program? Such a review would provide the standing committee with the opportunity to be involved at a more effective level, something the Prime Minister continues to talk about. Despite the Prime Minister's commitments to greater committee involvement, his caucus continues to keep standing committees from being involved.

As it now stands this legislative review and report stage will not take place. The amendment was lost. We have only the verbal assurances that this evaluation is inherent within the bill. We know from experience in the House what kind of trouble occurs on the basis of verbal assurances. Who can say if the bill will ever be addressed again?

Let me return to the question of the intent of the bill. We have heard the government, the producers and the banks that seem to be speaking in favour of the bill. If I had someone who would assume 85 per cent liability for a loan for me I would be very pleased. I would be running to the first bank that would support it.

The reality is that in the private sector and for individual taxpayers like you and me, Mr. Speaker, we do not have the government to intervene and assume liability for our business endeavours. The point is that the government should not be in the business of guaranteeing loans, period, be they for small business, big business or for cultural agencies.

The bill presupposes an ineffective working relationship between Canadian producers and Canadian financial institutions. This assumption is quite simply a false one. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the production industry has been booming in recent years. This increase in the production industry has transpired despite the difficult economic times we face.

How can the government dispute the following facts that clearly demonstrate how well the industry is doing? We certainly heard our colleague across the floor talk about how much help the CBC needs. It has a billion dollars out there every year and it still needs more help. Its offices still need to expand more.

Let me remind the House that the increased performance of the industry has come without any federally guaranteed loans. Here are some statistics I would like to present which demonstrate its healthy performance. Since 1987-88 the film industry has experienced an overall growth of 34 per cent in the number of production companies. A 39 per cent increase in full and part time employment accompanied the rise in the number of production companies since 1987-88. This growth was largely due to the creation of part time jobs, jobs which more than doubled over this period to 2,500 in 1991-92.

Interestingly the number of producers specializing in television production increased substantially from 119 in 1990-91 to 137 in 1991-92. The number of television productions measured separately for the first time in 1991-92 accounted for 38 per cent of all films produced in Canada. Corporate videos and television commercials each represented a further 20 per cent of the total volume of production. Overall between 1990-91 and 1991-92 the level of film, video and audio-visual production jumped from 17,634 to 19,891. It was an increase of 13 per cent. Feature film production remained steady in 1992 with 20 companies producing 56 theatrical productions.

The overall profitability of Canadian film producers improved dramatically in 1991-92. The profit margin of production companies jumped to 11.1 per cent from a 10-year low of 1.5 per cent the previous year. The industry is booming and it is booming on its own. It is making it on its own in the private sector without government intervention.

After accounting for inflation in the motion picture laboratory operations area, operating revenues in this sector increased by $11.9 million despite the drop in the number of films from170 to 162. Its revenues reach $286.7 million. The level of full and part time employment has increased steadily in the film laboratory and post-production services industry since 1987-88. In 1991-92 it was up by 33 per cent. These statistics cannot be denied. This industry is thriving and is indeed a vibrant one.

On the share of film distribution revenues it is interesting that the overall foreign controlled market share remained fairly stable between 1991 and 1992 levels at 57 per cent. Right now we have a great deal of involvement from outside our country.

Bill C-31 will entrench the strongest players in the market. It will allow the strong companies access to more loans in order that they may even get stronger. This is a concern certainly for those smaller production companies. This will choke off new players in the market.

What is the rationale here? How will it create jobs? I challenge the government to come up with a program without grants,

without subsidies and without loan guarantees that will treat all players equally. We cannot be passing legislation that will help companies that do not need help.

In closing, I am going to comment on an experience I had in Calgary. I guess it is in response to the Bloc member who suggested earlier that we have put too much importance on the subsidization of overprivileged commercial enterprises and not on the artistic community.

In Calgary this spring there was an arts award luncheon that was fully and totally funded between the private sector and the arts community. The city of Calgary, through its mayor and council working with the arts community, the business sector, the private sector and the patrons of Calgary, developed bridge funding for the arts community to continue to thrive through the Banff School of Management. That model is an excellent one. It is an outstanding one that others in the country could use and not have to come rushing to the government for a handout.

The industry does not need that kind of financial support. It is thriving quite well on its own. Once again I can only say that we cannot pass legislation to help companies that do not need help.

[Discrimination, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Minister of Canadian Heritage that this supplemental is not a hypothetical question.

Reformers believe that all Canadians ought to be treated equally before the law. We oppose discrimination for any reason.

The president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women has said that men are refused membership in its organization on the basis of gender.

On this basis will the minister withdraw all federal funding for the National Action Committee on the Status of Women?

[Discrimination, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Last Wednesday the minister said that he is profoundly against discrimination as a principle. As a result of this principle the minister withdrew funding for the "Writing Thru Race" conference because it discriminated on the basis of race. I applaud the minister for this decision and for standing firm on his principles.

Is the minister also prepared to withhold public funding from organizations or events which discriminate on the basis of gender?

[Canada Council, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a different topic and graver note, a homosexual group funded by the federal government is guilty of gross intolerance toward a Toronto Sun columnist.

Last December Christina Blizzard of the Sun wrote a story questioning whether public funding should be going to Buddies in Bad Times Theatre in Toronto, a group which advertises live sex acts and violent sado-masochistic seminars.

The actors reacted by encouraging members to spit on Ms. Blizzard. They tried to storm the Sun Building to present her with a mock award depicting a bloody mallet. In her own neighbourhood they erected wanted posters of her filled with lies and allegations.

They directed a violent play against Ms. Blizzard entitled "Dinner with Christina" which suggested that what she and other people like her they really needed was to be raped late at night in an alley. This disgusting behaviour by Buddies in Bad Times was made possible by $60,000 a year in Canada Council grants.

I urge the minister not to hide behind the arms length principle and immediately initiate an evaluation of the organizations currently funded by the Canada Council.

[Writing Thru Race Conference, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister is so profoundly disturbed by discriminatory practices as evidenced by this conference I find that funding it is a very strange way of addressing what he has just stated.

Further to this, two departments in the ministry have been approached for funding but neither of those departments has made a decision at this point regarding its financial support.

Expecting that the minister will do the right thing, will he also direct the organizations in his ministry not to fund the racist and discriminatory conference that will take place in Vancouver at the end of this month?