Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):

Mr. Speaker, the broadcasting Bill before us today gives us an opportunity to look at the state of broadcasting in Canada. Broadcasting is very important to Canadian culture. Watching television is a major form of recreation for Canadians from coast to coast as, of course, is listening to radio. People spend many hours a day watching television and it is said that children spend more hours before the television set than they do at school. Therefore, the type of material which is sent out to Canadians on our public airwaves is extremely significant.

Unfortunately, the Bill before us today is a step backward in the evolution of our broadcasting system. It is a great disappointment. There are some good things in the Bill but it is a severely flawed Bill. My list of congratulations is comparatively short and my disappointments comparatively long and relate to the most significant items.

We do not legislate in the area of broadcasting very often, only about every 20 years. Therefore, the fact that the Minister has missed the opportunity to bring in a good Bill is doubly disappointing. It is even more so since the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture gave a great deal of attention to the issue of broadcasting. We had an excellent

task force report. The Caplan-Sauvageau report was thorough, comprehensive, detailed and exciting. That task force held hearings all across the country. It listened to Canadians and came up with a dynamic report.

Our committee studied that report and held hearings again to listen to Canadian consumers of broadcasting as participants, directors, performers, and broadcasters, private and public. All sectors of the system spoke to us and we listened carefully. Our report on changes in broadcasting contains some very good items, many of which did not make it into legislation.

Moreover, the Minister has tried to give the impression that this is a step forward and will result in more Canadianization. That, however, is not the case. There will be less. The standards required for Canadianization are going down. It is of what we do not see in the Bill and the slight changes in wording that we have to be most careful because that is how this deceptive act has been performed. They are small changes in terms of the number of words but critical changes in terms of the standards we set for the use of the public airwaves.

For both the private and public sectors in broadcasting there has been a diminution. We are not aiming as high as we could. Standards previously set, although not reached, are not even being set. One of the jokes that went along with the Caplan-Sauvageau report was that rather than making recommendations for a new Broadcasting Act the committee should recommend the re-legislation of the old Broadcasting Act with the added clause, "This time we mean it". Well, the Minister did not take that advice and this time she is not aiming even as high as the 1968 Broadcasting Act.

With regard to the requirements for Canadianization, Clause 3.(1 )(d) says:

-each element of the Canadian broadcasting system shall contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming, making maximum use of Canadian creative and other resources;

We know that in the case of private broadcasting "making maximum use" has been paltry indeed. They are making enormous profits yet not contributing their fair share. Our committee said that in no uncertain terms and pointed out, as had the Caplan-Sauvageau report, the extensive profits and the availability which existed for Canadian programming. The Minister does not require that at all. Consistent with the financial and other resources available to private networks and programming undertakings they are supposed to, as indicated in Clause 3.(l)(p)(i):

-contribute significantly to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming-

How much is "significantly"? They will tell you that it does not have to be very much at all because Canadians do not like Canadian programming. They do not have to be predominantly Canadian as was the requirement under the old Act. The 1968 Act said that the CBC should be predominantly Canadian, and private broadcasters at least had to be predominantly Canadian in their creative and other resources. The CRTC

July 25, 1988

interpreted that to mean at least above 50 per cent. The Act of 1958 said it should be predominantly Canadian for all, public and private, in content and character.

We see this watering down. In 1988 the content and character requirement is gone for the whole system, with the CBC the only one which has to be predominantly and distinctively Canadian. That is a real disappointment. I believe that our committee showed very adequately that the resources were available to the private sector to enable them to be really Canadian in their content and character. We know that the artistic resources are there. We have excellent performers, writers, producers, directors and so forth.

The CBC has also had a diminution in its role. Taking out only one word from the aims of the CBC results in a change of direction which is extremely important. The word "enlightenment" has been taken out. It used to be information, entertainment and enlightenment.

Information is, of course, news and public affairs programming. We all know what entertainment is. The CBC previously had a requirement to provide programming for enlightenment. This was a very important role. The CBC was the only source of this kind of programming for many people in Canada. By dropping this one term as a requirement for the CBC the Minister is telling us that the CBC does not have to fulfil this goal. Information, entertainment, and enlightenment remain a goal for the whole system, but the programming which will provide this enlightenment could be relegated to only the alternative broadcasting sources. We do not know very much about what will be provided. We do not know when they will be on stream or what they will do.

We question why that enlightenment function should be in the alternative sector rather than in the main thrust of the CBC, our public broadcasting system. It is a dereliction of duty and shows the sneaky way in which the role of the CBC is being diminished. It will be forced into a greater role of simply news, public affairs and entertainment programs. It will not have to perform nor be funded to perform the role it has played in the past.

Another significant failure of the Bill is in the area of human rights. The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture was very clear in what it recommended. The important issue for women across the country is that they have been absent or badly represented in many news and public affairs programming, and shown in idiotic roles in much other programming. There have been task forces, committees, resolutions, there have been policies and programs to change this. Visible minorities have been asking for more fair treatment in the media, on the airwaves as well as in the boardrooms that govern them.

Our committee said that the programming carried by the system should provide a balanced representation of Canadian society, reflecting its multicultural and bilingual realities, its

Broadcasting Act

aboriginal peoples and the composition of its population with regard to sex, age, national ethnic origin, colour, religion and mental or physical handicap. There must be fair representation in order for broadcasting to be fair and realistic in reflecting Canadian society.

Women make up roughly half the population of the country. They ought to be well represented and not just appear as an occasional minority group on television. The legislation states nothing along the lines we recommended. Instead, Clause 3(1 )(c)(iii) states that the broadcasting policy should:

strive, through its operations and programming, to reflect the circumstances and aspirations of Canadian men and women, including the linguistic duality and multicultural nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society,

That is very weak and far from what was recommended. Its intention is unclear.

Women have been dealt with unjustly and unfairly for many years. The long struggle to correct that has been totally ignored by the Government. Visible minorities who have taken courage by women's organizations are demanding better treatment. Their needs have been similarly ignored.

Sex is not even mentioned as one of the objects in Clause 3(l)(g)(i), which states that the Canadian broadcasting system should:

be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of different ages, interests and tastes,

Sex is not even mentioned.

The discrimination against half our population has been the subject of major lobbying efforts, yet research and task force reports are not even mentioned in the Government's agenda. That is wrong. Canadian women expect better. Women represent half of Canadian society and the airwaves belong to the public.

I am also disappointed with the Government's approach to the right to service. We were very clear that it was wrong that Canadians did not get full broadcasting services, particularly in the public sector, because they have paid for those services with their tax dollars. While people will get some kind of CBC service in many parts of the country, be it radio, television or something of each, they will not get all of the services. FM radio is not available in many places, even though it could be provided at not too significant a cost. We heard that many areas get English but not French, and people feel left out because they are not getting the services for which they have paid and which other people in the country are receiving.

Our recommendation 26 was very clear about what we believe should be the case. The Bill should reaffirm that all Canadians are entitled to Canadian broadcasting services in French and English, with this right being implemented if necessary by means of concerted action by the public sector.

If it takes some special measures through public funds to see that people get these services, then that ought to be done.

July 25, 1988

Broadcasting Act

Instead, the Government has done very little. The Government states in Clause 3(h) that:

a range of broadcasting services in English and French should be extended to all Canadians as resources become available;

That is not very specific. It states that these services should be available, rather than making clear there is an entitlement to them, as a matter of right. Obviously these services must be provided as resources become available, but I thought there would be some urgency on that issue. It is very vague with respect to the regions.

The clause states that the CBC should reflect Canadians to the nation and the regions to themselves. It has also been relegated as a minor function for the alternative service, to reflect Canada, the regions and its multicultural nature.

The committee was clear that the regions ought to be in the system for the nation as a whole as well as reflecting the region to itself so that people would get the full services in their areas as well as the programming from their own area.

What is the reason for this disappointing situation? The rumour is that the Government had better legislation and would have gone further with the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, but the draft measures were sent to the trade negotiation office and were vetoed by the American Government. That is the rumour I heard. I would like to see what clauses landed on the cutting room floor and for the Minister to show us what she had planned. While we have come a long way in developing our culture, we have not stopped developing in terms of our artistic qualities, our character and the contribution Canadians can make to the world. We need all of the resources at our disposal to see that our talents and our contribution is developed.

There are measures in Bill C-136 that reflect the free trade agreement. It is one of the first casualties of the free trade agreement. The Government is stating through this Bill that it does not have confidence in Canadians to move forward. Not only will we stay still, we may even move back in some respects. That shows a lack of confidence in Canadians that I do not share.

Our culture has made enormous strides. Different sections have developed at a different pace. It is wrong that we will not even have the tools to develop in the future. As Simon Reisman said, only those measures that are consistent with the free trade deal will go ahead to help develop Canadian culture. He was confident that there were many measures consistent with the free trade deal that could be taken. But the point is that we should not be asking permission to implement our own measures. We should not have a piece of legislation that ties our hands. Instead of making decisions about what is good for Canada, Canada's regions or Canada's cultural community, we first have to ask if this legislation is consistent with the deal we tied ourselves into in 1988. That is a shameful situation to be in, and I think that the far better approach would be to say that we will keep our ability to make decisions.

Let us have confidence in our artists, broadcasters, writers and performers. Let us see to it that the public's airwaves are used for this dynamic expression of Canadian culture. Let us keep all the legislative tools we need to develop policies to protect and promote Canadian culture in broadcasting and in all of the other sectors we would want to protect and enhance in the future.

If the film distribution Bill was the first cultural casualty of the free trade agreement, this broadcasting Bill is the second cultural casualty of the free trade agreement. There will be others in other areas of life as well. I think this is extremely unfortunate, particularly when our culture is booming. We have an enormous amount of talent and we should be supporting and enhancing that talent at this stage. We should not be looking back, freezing the situation where it is now. We should have confidence and we should look toward the future.

I am extremely disappointed about having to talk about this Bill on second reading stage, approval in principle. I have worked on this subject for years. I participated in the hearings held across Canada by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, a committee that did listen to Canadians. The Bill reflects a Minister who did not listen to Canadians. It reflects the influence of the trade negotiations office which has certainly not listened to Canadians.

If we were listening to Canadians, we would be having an election right now on all of these issues. I look forward to that election. In the meantime, I am very disappointed that now, in the middle of summer, the Government is pushing forward such a broadcasting Bill. This is one of the few opportunities we have every couple of decades to look seriously at broadcasting and to plan for the future. The Government is missing that opportunity. Instead, it is tying Canadians' hands for the future because it would rather pursue Ronald Reagan's vision of a North American market. It would rather deny the opportunity for us Canadians to develop our own culture as a part of our very exciting Canadian society.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Questions or comments? Debate.

Mr. Roger Clinch (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I would like to enter into this debate. The new broadcast Bill, Bill C-136, will ensure the continued strength of the broadcasting system and the continued presence of competitive Canadian programming. Accordingly, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill.

We would have the impression from the Hon. Member who just spoke that this Bill has been greeted with only negative reactions. I think Hon. Members would be very interested to know that there have been some very positive reactions. If you would permit me to do so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the words of some of the more recognized newspapers and groups in Canada which have been very pleased by the Minister's new broadcast Bill.

July 25, 1988

The Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, June 25, had this to say: "The federal Government's long awaited broadcast policy looks solid and impressive". The Globe and Mail of the same day said: "It passes the immediate test of increasing the variety and volume of Canadian programming".

... Instead of burying the Caplan-Sauvageau Report, this Bill embodies its spirit and follows its main policy thrusts.

"A small, well-stuffed goody bag that gives Canadian television viewers their first real hope of an all-Canadian CBC and pledges a second publicly supported network within two years," said The Ottawa Citizen.

... Miss MacDonald's Broadcasting Bill at first glance is very promising for improvement in the quality and quantity of French-language programs.

Daniel Lemay, La Presse, Saturday, June 25:

... For the first time, the Canadian Broadcasting Act will recognize the distinct character of the French radio and television industry and market.

Manon Cornellier, Le Devoir, Saturday, June 25:

The Globe and Mail of Monday, June 27, said: "It is a major accomplishment for Miss MacDonald to come out with a package which not only reaffirms the central role of public broadcasting, and backs it up with some more money, but also takes a swipe at the private television broadcasters for their miserable contribution to Canadian programming". There are several other quotes.

The Coalition for the defence of the CBC's French services:

Miss MacDonald has met our main demands, and in terms of general principles-like journalistic independence, freedom of expression, having two presidents for the CBC and recognizing the distinct character of the French services-we are very satisfied.

And on the French CBC program, Le Point, of June 23, 1988:

... task force report, the central role of the CBC is maintained and the distinct features of French-language television are recognized . .. Many things in this report satisfy me ...

There is also a letter I would like to quote from. [Translation]

From the Coalition pour la defense des services franqais de Radio-Canada, a letter addressed to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Prime Minister,

This is to inform you that the Coalition pour la defense des services frangais de Radio-Canada supports Bill C-136, the Broadcasting Act, introduced by the Hon. Flora MacDonald.

The proposed legislation largely coincides with the position we have defended for many months and is more sensitive to the needs of our society than the present legislation. We are very pleased with your Government's proposal to recognize in the Act the distinct characteristics of the Canadian

Broadcasting Act

Broadcasting Corporation's French and English services and of the radiotelevision industries.

How did the Canadian Conference of the Arts respond to the broadcast Bill and policy? It responded by saying:

-newly elected CCA President, Paul Siren, generally welcomed the bill and policy on broadcasting, tabled yesterday in the House of Commons by Communications Minister, Flora MacDonald.

"In its wording and intent, the broadcasting bill and accompanying policy are a step in the right direction" ... "We applaud the government's objective to strengthen and increase Canadian programming, particularly in English- and French-language television drama, and welcome the new funds for the CBC.

We also had approval from Television Northern Canada which said:

Minister of Culture and Communications Titus Allooloo welcomed today's announcement by federal Minister of Communications Flora MacDonald on funding for satellite distribution of a new northern television service.

"The new public/educational television network, as put forward by Television Northern Canada (TVNC), is a major step forward in northern communications," said Mr. Allooloo.

These are but a few of the quotes of those who have responded very favourably to this Bill.

We as Canadians already have access to what is perhaps the most diverse and competitive broadcasting system in the world. This system has grown and developed at an astonishing pace over the past 20 years while the broadcast Act itself has remained unchanged.

Broadcasting is fundamentally important to our political and cultural sovereignty. That is why our Canadian broadcasting system must be an accurate reflection of who we as Canadians are, how we behave and how we view the world.

It is in fact the purpose of Bill C-136 to achieve this goal, especially with respect to French broadcasting. It must be recognized that French broadcasting and English broadcasting do not operate under the same conditions. The point of promoting Canadian programming in French Canada is to have programs that enable viewers to identify with characters that are like them. It is a matter of linguistic and cultural survival.

French broadcasters have consistently provided the requisite amount of drama programming. Thus, quality, not quantity is the issue here, because as programming costs escalate, broadcasters may be tempted to resort to foreign, less costly productions. Before this starts happening on a large scale, the Bill on broadcasting proposes a legislative solution.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time, the proposed legislation recognizes that French and English markets require different policy approaches, and these differences will have to be reflected in CRTC decisions and within the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself.

July 25, 1988

Broadcasting Act

We cannot discuss the issue of French and English broadcasting without mentioning the presence of our two official languages. In the case of broadcasting, this presence is more than a constitutional reality, it is a fact throughout our broadcasting networks.

The Bill recognizes, for the first time, this country's linguistic duality. Many Francophone Canadians outside Quebec-in Ontario and New Brunswick, for instance- receive very few signals, if any, in their own language. Clause 3 contains provisions in this respect.

To remedy the situation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will have to play a more important role. Its services must be offered in both official languages to reflect the specific situation and needs of both language communities, including official language minority groups.

The Bill also provides that the broadcasting system should safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada. The production of drama programming is essential in order to achieve this goal.

Bill C-136 will preserve and enhance the uniquely Canadian mix of private and public broadcasting while providing for even greater diversity in programming choices and encouraging continued technological advancement. It is forward-looking legislation that will guide the Canadian broadcasting system well into the 21st century.

Clause 3 of the Bill states that the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of different ages, interests and tastes. It should also provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern.

Just as important, for the first time, the new Broadcasting Act recognizes the great diversity of Canadian society and, in the spirit of the Charter of Rights, the need to ensure equitable presentation for all Canadians within the broadcasting system. The Bill also acknowledges the bilingual, multicultural and regional nature of the country and the special place of aboriginal peoples in our society.

In order to achieve policy objectives, public broadcasting has always been an important part of our broadcasting system. The Bill reaffirms the Government's commitment to a strong and independent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The CBC remains the central element of the Canadian broadcasting policy.

It is recognized, however, that the CBC cannot be the only source of Canadian programming, and that it can no longer be expected to provide all types of programming for all interests and tastes. The Bill therefore reflects the need to ensure that

all elements of the broadcasting system contribute to programming objectives and takes steps to increase Canadian choices.

To encourage more special interest in Canadian television programming the Bill provides for a new alternative programming service. This will offer the kind of programs that Canadians have said they want to see but which would otherwise not be available because of their non-commercial nature and the high cost of television production. The ultimate form and structure would be shaped by public hearings to be undertaken by the CRTC so that all Canadians will have an opportunity to express their views.

The CRTC will also have access to a wider range of tools to enforce its regulations and conditions of licence. In addition to fines and such legal recourse as mandatory orders, the CRTC is given the power to regulate more flexibly, with a licence fee tied to performance.

Recognizing the regional nature of Canada the Bill provides for decentralization and streamlining of the CRTC's decisionmaking process. Panels of commissioners holding hearings across the country will be able to make decisions quickly. They will reflect more accurately local circumstances and conditions within the context of a national regulatory framework. These and other changes to the CRTC's structure and administration will improve greatly its effectiveness as a regulator and its responsiveness to the industry and the Canadian public.

For these reasons the new Broadcasting Act as set out in Bill C-136 is legislation of major importance for all Canadians. The Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) is justly proud of this Bill. It is an outstanding document reflecting and responding to one of the most important public policy discussions undertaken by this Government.

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to join in the debate on Bill C-138 and to say to my colleague from the great Province of New Brunswick, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Clinch), that although he has spoken with his usual eloquence I must say that we are going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to the substantive parts of his remarks.

I would like to outline very briefly some of the concerns that I have with regard to this particular piece of legislation. There can be no doubt of its importance. The fact of the matter is that watching television is perhaps the number one leisure activity for many, if not all, Canadians. Canadians spend more than 24 hours each week on average in front of the television set. Each year Canadian children watch almost 1,000 hours of television compared to attending school for 800 hours. We should reflect on that fact for a moment-1,000 hours in front of the television set compared with 800 hours in school. Can anyone doubt the importance of the substantive arguments that have been made by colleagues on all sides of the House, particularly my colleague from Mount Royal, who has outlined very clearly the position of my Party about the importance that the content of television and radio plays?

July 25, 1988

Some 95 per cent of Canadians are radio listeners, spending some 18 hours per week at that particular activity. Two-thirds of Canadians say that watching television is their favourite pastime. I do not know if that goes for the proceedings of the House of Commons or not, but perhaps it is with regard to other programs on television. More than 50 per cent of Canadians say that broadcasting is their principal source of news and information. Thus when we sit back and reflect upon the contents of Bill C-136 and when we take into account those facts it is important to recognize that changes ought to have been made in line with those suggested by my colleague from Mount Royal.

The content of our system has been and remains a major problem, for while it is true that society's heavy reliance on recorded media is an important fact, what is even more important is that most of what we watch and hear is in fact not Canadian. It reflects the thoughts and attitudes, the world view and feelings of other nations, primarily our neighbour to the south, the United States of America. Those remarks with regard to the United States ought not to be interpreted by those who are somewhat perverted in their thinking to suggest that we do not like our colleagues to the south. I happen to believe that the United States is a great nation, and Americans are a great people, but there are glaring differences between Canada and the United States.

Canadians must have access to more Canadian programming. At the present time, less than 7 per cent of television drama available to us in English is Canadian, yet we spend nearly half our viewing time watching it. There are more hours of American newscasts available to us than Canadian newscasts. Hon. Members will realize the fact that American newscasts provide more information to us as Canadians about events in their country and their perspective of the global community than in fact we as Canadians do about ourselves. Most thinking Canadians, some of whom may be on the opposite side, but most of whom are on this side, would readily come to the conclusion that, because of our diversity in geography, the smallness of our population and the manner in which it is distributed throughout this country, there is an ever-increasing need for us to have more information and news about our great country, whether one happens to live in western Canada, Quebec, Ontario, or the Atlantic Provinces.

In a recent newspaper advertisement the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting introduced Michelle, a typical ten-year old Canadian, who spends roughly 80 per cent of her television viewing time watching American programming. She spends as many hours each year watching American programming as she does attending school. As the ad states: "A foreign power has control of Michelle's mind". If one stops and thinks about it, Mr. Speaker, Michelle spends 800 hours in school and 1,000 hours watching television. Not only is that a difference of 200 hours, but it shows the massive increase in terms of viewing American programming, indeed foreign programming.

Broadcasting Act

As I indicated earlier in my remarks, the position of our Party on Bill C-136 has been outlined very clearly by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Fine-stone). As she stated, we recognize that the 1968 Act has served Canadians well in bringing about Canadian ownership of broadcasting systems. As a result, the Canadian broadcasting system is the envy of people in many corners of the world. However, there are some things which are missing in this piece of legislation, of which the Minister is well aware. Bill C-136 changes the CBC's mandate by removing the requirement that its programming contain a balance of information, entertainment, and enlightenment. Only information and entertainment remain. Therefore, the question is why? This will undermine the basis of such fundamentally important programs as Man Alive, The Nature of Things, and a host of other programs. Removal of enlightenment will weaken the distinctive quality of CBC programming. Members opposite may have a different view, however, that is the view I take on this particular issue.

Does the Government believe that the CBC television should be only a commercial, mass-audience network, and that all enlightenment should fall under an alternative television network? That is an important point to which I believe the Government should give careful consideration in terms of examining what can be best said and done for Canadians in this great country.

Let me turn now to the subject of regional CBC cuts and change in the CBC mandate. The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in its report entitled Broadcasting Policy for Canada, pointed out that the CBC, as a result of its parliamentary appropriation being cut, has been forced to cut by 28 per cent the resources for regional broadcasting in order to maintain network programming in recent years. If one happens to live in Toronto, Montreal, or cities of that nature, this particular fact, which I am underlining for the benefit of all Members, may not strike home to them. However, for those of us who live in the peripheral regions of the country, regional programming and the opportunities that it provides is important to us and to the people we represent.

Bill C-136 reduces the CBC's mandate to meet the distinctive needs of the various geographic regions of the country. The 1968 Act required the CBC to serve the special needs of geographic regions, and now the CBC is to reflect Canada and its regions to the national and regional audiences. Why does the Government want to reduce the CBC's role as a local and regional programmer? That is pretty fundamental. Prior Governments of different political persuasions have done many things to try to unite this great country, from a railroad to the auspices of regional economic development programs, and some time ago the introduction of the CBC. If we remove or reduce the opportunities for regional and local programming, I can only underline the difficulty that that will cause for many people in the regions of the country.

The 1968 Act required that individual broadcasters provide programming that is predominantly Canadian in character. Now Bill C-136 proposes that it be changed. As a result, the

July 25, 1988

Broadcasting Act

CRTC will be free to reduce its requirement that broadcasters maintain 50 per cent Canadian content and still be consistent with the intent of Bill C-136. The CBC's description is reduced and distinctive. These descriptions are of fundamental importance. We see the Bill as paving the way for the Canadian broadcasting system to become part of what has been known as the North American system.

I believe that the Bill has another serious flaw. There is no recognition of aboriginal services in Bill C-136. The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture recommended that a new broadcasting Act should provide for the CBC to offer service in aboriginal languages considered to be representative, where numbers warrant, and to the extent public funds permit. The Government failed to act upon the recommendation that the CBC offer service in aboriginal languages. The National Aboriginal Communications Society has expressed its dismay with the failure of the Government to act to provide this important protection.

Mr. Speaker, I come back to my earlier thoughts when I talked about Canadian content, about the importance in this country of looking at Canadian content-and it is a reality that we must address-and Canadians, whether they are watching television or listening to the radio, do so in great numbers. There are some individuals who will say, well, perhaps parents ought to have a more active role in the determination of what their children watch or listen to on the airwaves. That is correct. I share that sentiment. But the reality that we must face is that Canadians, in great numbers, are watching a great deal of television and of course listening in great amounts to radio. Therefore, it becomes increasingly important that the Government try to address some of the concerns that I and indeed other Members have raised. I look forward to hearing some of the responses from Members opposite, as well as my colleagues, as this debate continues.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Questions and comments. The Hon. Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald).

Miss MacDonald:

I just have a brief comment, Mr. Speaker. For the enlightenment of the Member who has just spoken, I think that it is important to note that perhaps he has not read the Bill thoroughly. What has been done in this case was to use the words that had applied only to the CBC in the previous Bill, in the 1968 Bill, words such as "enlightenment", and now move them into a position in the Bill where they apply to the entire Canadian broadcasting system, including the CBC. But what we have done is to stipulate that distributors, carriers, the private network, the public network, all of them take into consideration that word, "enlightenment".

I also want to assure him that if he will read through the Bill carefully he will see that the question of our aboriginal societies are addressed within the Bill. All of these things are introduced into the Bill. Although previously there was a very limited application of these requirements to the public

broadcasting service only, they now apply to the whole range of services that fall within the Canadian broadcasting system. Public as well as private carriers, such as cable and so on, all have these particular requirements attached to them now.

Mr. Dingwall:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's intervention. I hope that her comments achieve the objective that I have enunciated.

Miss MacDonald:

It think they do.

Mr. Dingwall:

It seems to me that the removal of "enlightenment" will in fact weaken the distinctive quality of the CBC programming. If the Minister is able to convince me over a period of time that that particular objective that she has spoken of-and that I have just spoken of-is reached in the Bill, well, fine and good. If not, in the interpretation that I and my colleagues have been able to wrestle with as it relates to this particular Bill, we believe it is a serious omission. However, I do appreciate the intervention of the Minister on this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Speaker, I want to enter this debate because I have been watching what is happening to broadcasting, both public and private, for many years, and the more I see what has happened and how little we have done and how often we have done the wrong thing, the more depressed I get. In this Bill I see very little, if anything, that will begin to change the depressing realities.

First of all, let me point out that what the Minister is proposing in this Bill and what the reality is since the Conservatives formed this Government, has been that the public sector broadcasting is underfunded. In large measure, this is the result of this Conservative Government's four-year vendetta against the CBC, which has led to a $140 million reduction in the network's allocation from Parliament.

I also want to point out that the private broadcasters are not doing their job. Twenty years ago, when I was on the parliamentary committee which dealt with this kind of question, I took the time to look through the applications of the groups or the individuals whose applications were successful, those to be given a licence to set up a TV station and to broadcast from any of the cities across Canada. I am talking not about all of the applications but about the successful applications. Every one of them had grandiose proposals about how they would provide Canadian content if their application was approved. It is not just public affairs and sports, but drama, variety and comedy. You name it, they promised it. Of course, as soon as they got the licence, they proceeded to ignore every promise that they had made.

What we have now is a private system of television stations, certainly in the major cities, that-as one commentator who has studied the question has said-have been given a licence to print money.

July 25, 1988

It has been estimated that their net profit each year, after taxes, is 50 per cent of their investment. No other field of endeavour in this country is anywhere near as profitable.

Now, let us look at what we believe is a crisis in Canadian television. We see that Canadian films represent only 3 per cent of screen time in Canada. Only 3 per cent of film profits stay in Canada, and 3 per cent of video cassette sales are Canadian. Canadian publishers own only 30 per cent of the Canadian market, and 77 per cent of magazines sold in Canada are foreign. Eighty-five per cent of records and tapes sold in Canada are foreign.

There have been a number of very successful films produced by Canadians: My American Cousin, The Kids of DeGrassi Junior High, all with public money.

Miss MacDonald:

There is more.

Mr. Orlikow:

How often are they shown on television or in Canadian movie theatres?

Miss MacDonald:

That is why we have a film distribution Bill.

Mr. Orlikow:

Very little.

Miss MacDonald:

Or on the CBC. But they are going to.

Mr. Orlikow:

The Minister said that they are going to. We have heard those promises for longer than I would like to remember.