Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for tourism. Tourism is of course important to Canada and particularly to the Niagara area. Each year the highest volume of tourists into Canada are from the northern U.S. states. In light of the $5 million cut in tourism advertising for next year, as shown in the Estimates, can the Minister assure this House and the tourism operators that Canada's advertising campaign in these border states will continue?

Hear, hear!

Mr. Boudria:

Yes or no?

Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to assure the Hon. Member that I share his emphasis on the northern border states. If you take a look at American tourism, they are having more trips and they are having shorter trips which makes Canada the best market for American tourists. We do not want to cut back on the possibilities in that market, so what we are going to do in the year

when the budget is cut by $5 million is elicit more joint advertising, more co-operative advertising and the result will probably be more advertising expenditure and exposure, not less.

* *

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):

My question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Between 1984 and 1994 we will have witnessed a series of cumulative cut-backs along with non-indexed CBC budgets-not to mention additional corporate taxes-which amount to an over-all budgetary reduction of close to $400 million out of approximately $915 million in parliamentary appropriations. Does the Minister not realize that he would be responsible for the utter destruction of Canadian culture and of the CBC which, as a cultural institution, is essential to Canada? Mr. Speaker, we have no Oscar to award him for that! Is he not ashamed of his policies?

Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that as Minister of Communications I am not on the lookout for Oscar or Juno awards.

The CBC has been given a wide-ranging and very important mandate for which Canadians, through their Government, contribute roughly $1 billion.

It stands to reason that with a wide-ranging mandate it will always be possible to earmark additional funds for more programs or improved performance. On the other hand, the Government's top priority is to reduce the deficit lest our cultural and social programs be curtailed even more drastically. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, the Government has urged the CBC management to support the effort made by Canadians, Crown corporations and the Government and cut their budget by an estimated 2 per cent.

Mrs. Finestone:

You know, with all that sophistry, Mr. Speaker, perhaps he is standing in line for a second nomination as an Oscar winner.

Oh, oh!

May 9, 1989

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):

Mr. Speaker, as these savage cuts to the CBC will affect services to the regions, services to English and French language minorities, service in terms of the Canadianization of our airwaves and services to ensure that the French language stations have equivalent production funds, isn't this Minister ashamed of the cuts that he has allowed to CBC? Doesn't he recognize the seriousness of the devastation to the Canadian network? Aren't you ashamed of yourself, Mr. Minister?

Hear, hear!

Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Communications I can tell my colleague that I am particularly proud to have managed to increase my department's budget for cultural endeavours, with the co-operation of the Prime Minister and my Cabinet colleagues.

Mr. Speaker:

The Hon. Member for Trinity-Spadina, a single question, please.

Mr. Dan Heap (TYinity-Spadina):

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As she knows, her officials' report shows that in the new refugee determination system a new backlog is growing. This is equal to about half the number of the 4,500 new refugee claimants who came in this year. About 1,700 have not started on their preliminary hearing and there are more than 900 others who have not finished their formal hearing. Will the Minister admit that the new system will break down if she continues with a double hearing in which 93 per cent of those who go to the first hearing are sent on to the second hearing?

Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

Mr. Speaker, no, I would not admit such a thing. There are a couple of points I would like to make in connection with this.

First, when the new system was established it took a while to make it operational. We were not fully staffed or

trained at the beginning but we certainly are now. We have put more people to work in the system. The Immigration Refugee Board and the Department of Immigration are working together to make the system as effective as possible.

Let me say as well that the first hearing is an important stage in the process. We have only had the system running for about three and a half months and I think all Members of the House should be proud of the fact that it is working well, with credibility and compassion. We will continue to ensure that there are enough resources available so the system will work well.

Mr. Speaker:

Before proceeding to Orders of the Day,

I wish to give a ruling as a consequence of argument of Thursday, April 6, by way of an application for an emergency debate under Standing Order 52. At that time, the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis) raised a point of order concerning guidelines that exist for the statement which can be made in support of such an application. For the benefit of Hon. Members, I will read Standing Orders 52(2) and 52(3). Standing Order 52(2) reads:

A Member wishing to move, "That this House do now adjourn"-

Because that is what is moved when one wants an emergency debate.

- under the provisions of this Standing Order shall give to the Speaker, at least one hour prior to raising it in the House, a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed.

Standing Order 52(3) reads:

When requesting leave to propose such a motion, the Member shall

rise in his or her place and present without argument the statement

referred to in section (2) of this Standing Order.

A strict interpretation of these two subsections could lead one to suppose that the written application was to be read to the House by the Member requesting leave for an emergency debate and that the Member would not be allowed to deviate from this prepared text. This interpretation is in general the correct one, as I said on September 30, 1987 in response to a very similar point of order raised by the then Hon. Minister of Justice. That point of order and my response to it may be found on page 9498 of the Debates. It is also interesting to note that this interpretation is supported by the annotated Standing Orders at page 175.

May 9, 1989

The Budget-Mr. Bird

[Translation\

However, on occasion there may be mitigating circumstances which I feel, as your Speaker, I should take into account in order to respect the spirit of this Standing Order as well as its most literal interpretation.

In my ruling of September 30, 1987 I said:

The Chair has allowed and may well continue to allow sufficient

comment when the application is made so that the position of the

member is clear.

Some written applications do not provide enough detail for the Speaker to know precisely what the member wants to raise and why. Others are too long and detailed and the member, rather than reading, should give only a concise summary.

As Speaker, I feel it is important to reiterate that no argument or discussion is allowed in presenting the statement.

I can certainly understand that Hon. Members care deeply about these requests and may from time to time stray beyond what the rules envision. In the interests of fairness, particularly since the Government does not have an opportunity to present any counter arguments during an application for an emergency debate, I will, of course, use this opportunity to again remind Members of the rule and will be vigilant in ensuring that Members do not stray from these guidelines.

I thank the Hon. Minister of Justice for raising this matter and thereby allowing me to bring this issue to the attention of Members. I hope that I can count upon the support of all Hon. Members in this matter.