1975-11-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise to propose a motion in a case of special and urgent circumstances relating to hundreds of Chileans who were allowed into Canada under special ministerial permits and who have held, and continue to hold, meetings, illegal in terms of the permits. Because of the fact that the New Democratic Party of Quebec has organized a fund raising campaign from their headquarters in Montreal, and that certain Cuban diplomats in Toronto, one of whom has been charged with obstructing police, are all working for the movement of the revolutionary left, the armed resistance movement seeking to overthrow the present Chilean government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees):
That the government be instructed to undertake an investigation into the misuse of the special ministerial permits as well as the allegations that foreign sources are using Canadian soil as a platform to carry on international subversive political activities.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for that motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The Falconbridge Nickel Company of Canada did not give prior notice to either the manpower department or the Department of Labour of its intended two phase lay-off of
1,000	workers at its Sudbury basin operations, and in view of the Provisions of the Canada Labour Code, section 60, division V2 with regard to group termination, which state
that if a company is laying off employees it is required to notify the manpower department and the Department of Labour in advance and the length of time is determined by the number of workers laid off: 50 workers, 4 weeks; 100 workers, 8 weeks; 300 workers, 12 weeks; 300 plus workers, 16 weeks, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House condemns the Falconbridge Nickel Company's action and calls on the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to inform Falconbridge that it ought to withdraw its lay-off notice to its employees or at least to conform to the Canada Labour Code.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the seriously continuing and even increasing problems facing the Canadian footwear industry, whose share of the domestic market has dropped to less than 46 per cent and whose labour force has dwindled alarmingly, since the flooding of the Canadian market by shoes from low cost-price countries in the last few years is having disastrous consequences, and since the Canadian customs tariff policy needs immediate reviewing because the whole economic situation has changed since the measures adopted by the federal government for the footwear industry in 1973, when the Canadian production was increasing, which is no longer the case, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the House be allowed to discuss immediately the problem of the Canadian footwear industry by assessing the results of the government policy announced in December 1973 and, since it seems that the sector strategy can be efficient only provided there is a Canadian footwear market, that the House consider seriously the four point program proposed by the Shoe Manufacturers' Association of Canada whose aim is to support that sector strategy, in particular through action in the field of duty and quotas on imports.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.

Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion therefore cannot be put.


TABLING OF EIGHTEENTH REPORT OF CLERK OF PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the eighteenth report of the Clerk of Petitions presented by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standings Orders as to form.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising out of the tabling yesterday of supplementary estimates in the order of about $194 billion. In view of the additional spending and the further supplementary estimates that we will probably receive in due course, will the minister tell the House now what his estimate is of the budgetary deficit for the current fiscal year? I ask him whether he will tell the House because I know he must have that information?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the best judgment we have at this time is that it will be between $5 billion and $6 billion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What a government!


FORECAST OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, since my hon. friend the President of the Treasury Board has got into this I should like to put a question to him. In view of the forecast of expenditures for the current year, which was made in June by the previous Minister of Finance of approximately $29 billion, and in view of the supplementary estimates yesterday which bring the total estimates we have received to date to about $30 billion, a billion more than was forecast by the former minister of finance in June, is the minister still forecasting total expenditures for this year at that same level?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, when I tabled the blue book in February this year I said that the total expenditures this year would be less than 16 per cent above the total expenditures of last year. It is going to be as predicted because those supplementary estimates are quite substantial. There will be another set tabled before the end of the year but all that will be within the forecast we made in February.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. That kind of penalty killing and skating around may be acceptable in some quarters. It is the kind of evasion that has destroyed the credibility of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of these evasions and the figures that have been quoted, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board if he would agree that what he said on October 30 in this House, that we are sticking by the budget predictions of June, should be changed to say that it is really the Canadian people who are getting stuck?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES-RESTRAINT OF EXPENDITURES WITHIN AMOUNT OF INCREASE IN GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister advise this House if in fact there will be one or two further sets of supplementary estimates filed with respect to this fiscal year? Can he indicate the magnitude of the amount covered by these two estimates?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I just told the Leader of the Opposition that before the end of the fiscal year there would be another set of supplementary estimates. I do not expect to have two more sets before the end of the fiscal year.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question. These advocates of fiscal kleptomania who sit across from us have now come to the situation where they are exceeding the 15 per cent referred to by my head-shaking friend over there, the President of the Treasury Board. As the gross national product this year will not increase more than 11 per cent, will the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Finance-I am impartial as to which minister answers- indicate to this House when they intend to restrain their expenditures within the limits of the increase of the gross national product?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I notice that as much as half, if not more, of the expenditures involved in the supplementary estimates tabled yesterday were for the oil price subsidy, medicare and the defence budget. I take it the hon. gentleman's opposition also extends to those programs, and I am happy to note it on the record.


Gerald William Baldwin: Answer the question; we are not running the government, but we ought to be.
November 13, 1975


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Finance concerns, in the opinion of many, the lack of effective control imposed on professional incomes under the government's control program and the Prime Minister's attempt yesterday to shift responsibility to the provinces. Has the government obtained agreement from the provinces concerning the procedures for controlling professional incomes and, specifically, has the federal government proposed to them the levying of a special surtax as a means of achieving this end?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. gentleman that the finance ministers agreed at their meeting that decisions with regard to professional incomes should be joint responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments. In that sense, it would be a mistake to describe this as a shift in responsibility. A working party of federal and provincial officials has prepared proposals about professional incomes. This question will be discussed at the meeting next week and we hope that either at that meeting or at a subsequent meeting of ministers of finance, these proposals will receive final confirmation.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since it will be totally impossible for any one, two or three provinces on their own to control professional incomes, as professional people in the absence of a national program would simply move from one province to another, will the minister assure the House that any province's failure to institute a serious program for controlling professional incomes will result in the federal government's imposing such a program on the province which has neglected to do so; and, specifically, will the government put teeth into such proposal by levying a special 100 per cent tax to tax away increases in income beyond the $2,400 ceiling imposed on other Canadians?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is the effect of the over-all program. Without question, professional incomes, like other incomes, are subject to the guidelines and the ceiling to which the hon. gentleman referred. The principal question for discussion is the most effective means of monitoring this. We have proposed to establish, with the provincial governments and professional associations, a standard form of billing which will be reviewed for the purpose of seeing if there has been any violation of the guidelines. We also propose that it shall be mandatory for professionals to file with the Anti-Inflation Board a statement of their professional income, so that it can be seen if in an individual case there has been an excess beyond the guidelines, to which the provisions of Bill C-73 will apply.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister having acknowledged before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on November 7 that what he just said will not apply to professionals if their additional income is earned
Oral Questions
from "additional effort", or, I would add, if they change the mix of the kind of services they provide and increase income by that method, and as either of these loopholes is open to virtually all professionals, which, as the experience of other countries shows, will make professional income controls totally ineffective, will the minister answer my question, yes, or no. Will the government impose a special surtax on professional incomes, that is, on the total income in excess of the $2,400 ceiling?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. Under Bill C-73 that exact regime applies. With regard to any professional person found to have exceeded the guidelines, that is the regime that would apply. The hon. member refers to it as being a loophole, that professional people should not be entitled to get a further return for more effort. I would point out that this is the same provision for blue collar workers on piece rate and for people working overtime. The same exemption exists throughout the work force.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
According to the latest news, the new Canadian ambassador to France, Mr. Gerard Pelletier, had not yet presented his credentials to the French authorities while at the same time France simply ignored Canada for the important economic summit in Rambouillet scheduled for the weekend. Considering that this is an important issue, can the minister take stock of this matter and indicate whether Canada intentionally delayed the presentation of these credentials because of the attitude of France concerning the economic conference, to show the French government that Canada and the United States are not the same country but that Canada has its own social, cultural and economic identity?


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to ^Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of such innuendo but I shall refer the question to the minister for checking.


DELAY BY AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE IN PRESENTING CREDENTIALS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. In that case, can the minister tell the House if he knows why Canada has not been invited to Rambouillet? Has not the ambassador, immediately upon assuming his functions, presented his credentials to ensure the presence and the very existence of Canada in France?

Oral Questions


Monique Bégin: I do not know how the presentation of Credentials is scheduled in France, Mr. Speaker, but I shall refer the supplementary question to the minister for his own consideration.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance or, in the alternative, to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the Prime Minister's statements and those contained in the white paper as to government restraint on expenditures, will either of the two ministers inform the House whether there were any restrictions or cutbacks from the estimates as published last February or were there any actual restrictions on the estimates contained in the supplementary estimates tabled last week so that restraint becomes a word for this year and not merely some sort of slogan for next year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, at the presentation of the June budget, we established a program to cut expenditures by $967 million in fiscal year 1975-76. Such cuts were made where projects had been presented after July. We did not announce other measures on October 13. We are now preparing the estimates for next year and we hope to apply this policy further and perhaps make it more efficient for next year's estimates.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Can the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that any restraint or published figures of restraint with regard to the 1976-77 estimates will not be merely cutbacks on inflated figures that are brought in so that beautiful, healthy cuts can appear to have been made?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that it is impossible to indicate at this time what cuts we are going to make. That will be made clear when the estimates are tabled in the House in early February next year.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As this country does 70 per cent of its export and import business with the United States, and as during the third quarter of this year the United States

increased its productivity by no less than 9!4 per cent while we continued our steady decline, is the minister planning to introduce in the near future productivity incentives to be paid in direct proportion to increases in productivity so that we do not continue to lose a steadily increasing proportion of the Canadian and export market to better priced American goods?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: It is an interesting proposition. I don't think I can give a short answer to it; I am not sure whether the hon. member is talking about worker productivity or general productivity within a company. If he is speaking of the latter, this has been a subject I have been discussing with industry as recently as half an hour ago when I met with the Canadian Chemical Association. I agree with the fundamental premise of the question, namely, that productivity has to be improved, and we shall certainly use every means we can to do this.


George Harris Hees: I can assure the minister that I am talking about industrial productivity as he assumed. I hope he will make better progress than his predecessors did, because they have been telling me the same sort of thing year after year.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It has to do with a despicable practice, a practice which, I believe, Canadians do not want, do not believe in, and, I might add, cannot afford. Iii the light of the fact that the Attorney General for Ontario wants to crack down on hate messages by having amendments made to the Criminal Code, can the minister assure the House that he is receptive to this very necessary move and that he will introduce very shortly amendments to the Criminal Code in order to prevent this hateful discriminatory practice to which I have referred?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: The Attorney General of Ontario raised this matter with me at a recent meeting of attorneys general in Halifax and I was sympathetic to the representations he made. It is still not clear to me why charges could not be laid under section 231(2) of the Criminal Code as it now reads, but this is a matter which my officials and the officials of the Crown office in Ontario are presently examining. With regard to any prospective amendments, I am awaiting written representations and explanations from the Attorney General of Ontario and I intend to discuss them at a federal-provincial meeting we are holding in Ottawa on December 11 and 12.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I want to thank the minister for that answer. I am sure he is aware that this is an extremely important subject and I hope, with all due respect, that he will show some leadership in this connection; we cannot

afford to have this thing going on as it has been in the past to the detriment of so many Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HUMAN RIGHTS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Turning now to another matter, Bill C-72, which I believe lies within his jurisdiction, may I ask the Minister of Justice when the proposed legislation on human rights is likely to be introduced to parliament for second reading? Various circumstances, including the presentation of the report on immigration, require that this matter be dealt with expeditiously. Can the hon. gentleman give me an assurance that he, together with the House leader, can bring this bill forward for second reading as soon as possible?


Stanley Ronald Basford: With regard to the earlier question, may I say I fully share the hon. member's concern about the harassment by telephone of certain groups that is going on in Toronto. I share the seriousness with which he regards it. As to the second question, House business is, of course, a matter to be negotiated between the various House leaders. Our program has been held up because of the anti-inflation measure; also, the federal-provincial meeting to which I referred earlier is being held to deal with Bill C-72, the human rights bill, and I think it would not be useful to bring the measure forward for second reading until that meeting has been held.


MANPOWER
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the minister's answer yesterday that he would check with his department regarding whether Falcon-bridge Nickel Company had contacted his department with respect to advance notice of the company's two-phase layoff, is he now prepared to tell the House whether or not his department was contacted? If not, in the light of the federal Labour Code which requires 16 weeks notification if more than 300 are being laid off, is he prepared to order Falconbridge to conform to this particular statute?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I initiated the request for information on this matter but I did not have it at the time when I came to the House for the question period this afternoon. On the second point, without getting too much into the area of legal matters, it is my understanding that the Canada Labour Code refers in these opinions to firms under federal jurisdiction. It would probably be more apt to have the matter raised in the provincial house of
Oral Questions
Ontario, where I think more action could be taken regarding Falconbridge itself. However, I am certainly keenly interested and I will be letting the hon. member know what voluntary methods we can support in order to get some action.


FINANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will address to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that Falconbridge is implementing production cutbacks in Canada while at the same time maintaining increased production at its overseas plants-so obviously the workers of Ontario are subsidizing the overseas operations of Falconbridge-is the government now prepared to withdraw the tax concessions granted to Falconbridge for its operations in Namibia?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to examine that more deeply.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Considering the negative decision regarding the $100,000 federal share in the dredging program to combat weed growth in Okanagan lake, can the minister now say what decision has been made regarding signing the general implementation program for weed control in the Okanagan water basin with the provincial government?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the plan to contribute $100,000 toward the removal of weeds in the Okanagan lakes was subject to treasury board approval, which was not obtained due to the restraint program. However, the implementation agreement on the Okanagan basin is now before us. It will be signed in the very near future and hopefully out of that agreement some long term program for the treatment of these weeds in these very valuable lakes will flow.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. When the minister appeared before the standing committee in connection with the examination of Bill C-73 he indicated in reply to a question that he had no idea how the AntiInflation Board would respond to or control food price

November 13, 1975
Oral Questions
increases. When the minister appeared a few days ago before the Liberal convention in Ottawa, he told the assembly that they would be rolling back food price increases. My question is this: Has the minister had an opportunity in the interim to meet with the Anti-Inflation Board and, if so, can he tell the House exactly how the board proposes to roll back any food price increases?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. gentleman to questions asked in the House regarding a Loblaws subsidiary; it was to that particular incident that I had reference. It seems to me that with the bill before the committee it would be appropriate to discuss this further when I reappear before the committee, I believe next week.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fisheries). In my question to him yesterday about bilateral discussions with France on fisheries matters as they related to St. Pierre and Miquelon, he indicated that the fisheries relationships with France were complicated. Would the minister elaborate on that or make a statement on motions listing the complications that exist between the two countries?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the word "complicated" was not the right one, but I will stay with it. I am sure to the eternal gratitude of many Newfoundlanders, the fact that St. Pierre and Miquelon is not 200 miles away obviously makes extending the jurisdiction more complicated, and it was very much to this that I was referring. I am also grateful that St. Pierre and Miquelon are closer than 200 miles.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the sensitivity that now exists between Canada and France, and in view of the fact that St. Pierre and Miquelon could be a stumbling block with regard to Canada's position of eventually extending the limit to 200 miles, has the minister anything to advise the House about the discussions from that point of view?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I should remind the hon. member that we are still very much in a state of preliminary negotiations regarding these matters. We must recognize a geographical fact which will have to be taken into account, but I am sure the problems can be overcome.


OIL-METHOD OF MAKING UP REDUCTION IN TAX REVENUES CAUSED BY REDUCTION OF EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. According to press reports the minister has informed the United States government, though not this House, that Canada's exports of crude oil will be reduced to 500,000 barrels a day. Since this would reduce export tax revenues that are needed for the import subsidy program by approximately $120 million, would the minister inform the House how these funds will be made up? Does he anticipate a rise in the Canadian price of crude oil, is he simply going to add to an already overwhelming deficit, or is he going to make spending cuts in other areas?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have received the report of the National Energy Board and it is presently under discussion with my colleagues. I hope to be able to table it within the House within the next two weeks. As for the question concerning how we will be able to finance what is quite clearly a steadily decreasing export effort, I would remind him that efforts were made last year in this regard. The 10 cent excise tax should provide in the order of $350 million this year, and in the next calendar year over $500 million.


Harvie Andre: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Without accepting the minister's figures and contention that that looks after the total deficit, may I ask him a question regarding the supplementary estimates, which include an increase in the budget of the energy supplies allocation board of $385 million. The recent 10 per cent increase in oil prices by the OPEC countries accounts for $130 million maximum, leaving a difference of at least $250 million. Since the amount of exports are totally predictable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member is aware that under our procedures he will have an appropriate opportunity to question the minister in detail when the estimates are before the standing committee to which they were referred yesterday. This is not the forum for that kind of question.


HARBOURS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Since to my knowledge the government has not yet finally determined its policy for the development of port facilities in the country, especially in Quebec, can the minister tell the House whether he plans the early introduction of a bill to that effect?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my predecessor indicated that legislation would be
November 13, 1975

forthcoming, and that certain work was in the hands of a task force to determine the exact form of port structures in Canada. This is still the case.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for multiculturalism. In view of the fact that approximately one-third of the positions on the National Consultative Multicultural Council became vacant as of last May, can the minister explain why reappointments have not been made to this council?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that there has been some considerable thinking going on within the council as to whether a council composed of 101 members is not a little unwieldy. The feeling is that this number should be reduced gradually, and under that principle more appointments will be made within the number to which the hon. member just referred, hopefully very soon.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that in 1973, when the first national conference on multiculturalism was held, the government took the position that a conference should be held every two years, which means that there should be have been one in October 1975, can the minister indicate what the reasons were for not having held this conference as originally planned? Was it shortage of money, lack of interest, or a change in government policy on this subject?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will realize that there have been many more meetings than usual, both regionally and nationally, of the 101 members going into the annual report. We are now coming to grips with some revisions to policy, so we thought it would be best to have a conference some time in February, and that is the plan now.


OIL AND NATURAL GAS-TIMETABLE FOR PHASING OUT EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicate to this House when the government plans to phase out exports of gas and oil to the United States, or does he go to Washington to make these statements before advising this Chamber? What is the government's long or short-range planning?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, that is a very general question. As to the first part of it in respect of oil, I have already answered that by indicating I will be tabling in the House
Oral Questions
the report of the National Energy Board on oil. As to the second part of the question on natural gas exports, the National Energy Board produced a report in May or June of this year in which it made clear that we were running into an increasing supply-demand situation and that there was a possibility we might have to reduce our natural gas exports to the United States, not over this winter but the following winter.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, the minister has committed himself by making a statement in Washington without advising this Chamber, and I think that is wrong.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Considering the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on control measures and taking into account Bill C-73 which is in the public interest, I would like to ask the minister whether the amount of $2,400 is viewed by the government as an average increase or as the maximum increase for all groups of workers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is the maximum for all wage earners.


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary question.
Since the Pepin-Plumptre Board announced yesterday the creation of a flying squad to check the increases we have experienced since the government's announcement, will the minister, in view of the provisions of Bill C-73, provide for the setting of a mechanism regarding those increases with respect to the implementation of a bill to be known in a few weeks? Besides will the government have the power to roll back prices that have already been upped in view of the contents of the bill?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the bill has provisions that allow changing the level of compensation in cases where an increase exceeds the guidelines. As I said to the leader of the New Democratic Party, we are discussing with the provinces the matter of controlling the income of professionals. The program guidelines will apply to all wage earners depending, of course, on their jobs.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of the Environment relates to the Syncrude project and the widespread concern about sulphur dioxide pollution from that project. In view of the minister's statement in July 1974 that the environmental impact study done by the Syncrude companies was unreal-

November 13, 1975
Oral Questions
istic and inadequate, and the recommendation of the minister at that time was in respect of 40 long tons emission, and in view of the fact that the Alberta government has now issued permission in respect of 287 long tons for the Syncrude project, will the minister advise the House whether she continues to oppose anything beyond the 40 long tons emission standard by the Syncrude project, and indicate whether she has advised the government representative on the management committee to take a position opposing higher emissions from those stacks?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the accepted levels of emission for the Syncrude project have been established by the province of Alberta. This is mainly a problem for Alberta and, therefore, we do not have national guidelines or standards relating to that specific type of industry. The standards have been established by the province of Alberta and this is very much the responsibility of the government of that province. However, the hon. member is right in saying that we are far from satisfied with the environmental study which has been made by Syncrude. We have asked for supplementary data and information concerning the industrial process. We are engaged with the government of Alberta in a very wide study on the effects on the environment of the development of the tar sands. As the hon. member knows, we have signed an agreement with the government of Alberta involving an amount of $40 million to be spent over a period of 10 years, and under which the federal and Alberta governments will share in the expenses.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's expressed concern over the emission standards, and bearing in mind the problem regarding a conflict of interest in that the minister's own government is involved in the development of the tar sands, would she advise when she will have clean air standards under the federal Clean Air Act so we can have some orderly leadership in terms of environmental impact from the sulphur dioxide emission at that plant?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that we do not feel we have a conflict of interest. Quite to the contrary, it is precisely because we have some involvement in that project that any activity at that site falls within government policy, under which environmental impact studies must be produced to the satisfaction of the Department of the Environment. Any such activity should thus fall well within the standards established by the Department of the Environment.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the recently reported philosophy the Minister of Transport is attempting to instil in the Department of Transport, can the minister give the House and the country some idea whether the government is prepared to continue with the STOL experiment, and that this does not necessarily mean

the government will be spending an additional $16 million in Montreal to improve the downtown airport?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the current state of the STOL experiment, but have taken no decision about its exact extent. We are certainly satisfied that it has proven the value of this form of service between pairs of cities.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, it has proven the value, but has it proven economic feasibility?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it was not anticipated that the Montreal-Ottawa run with Twin Otters would in fact be economically feasible. The point of the study was to prepare the way for other short takeoff and landing craft such as the DASH 7 which may soon be available.


TRANSPORT
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, did the Minister of Transport receive a telegram from B.C. Tree Fruits on November 5 asking when he was going to answer the telegram sent on October 3, concerning disparity in freight rates for fresh fruit from the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia to eastern Canada as compared to rail rates to the same markets from Washington state? Did he receive that telegram and how does he intend to reply?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the second telegram which refers to the first, which I have not seen. I will be looking into the matter to see whether I might add any comment regarding the normal legal situation in relation to freight rates in Canada.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the October 23 statement of the Minister of Agriculture that the support price on beef was approximately $1.50 per hundred weight lower than the previous year because of "lower feeder cattle prices", which violates Bill C-50 in spirit, I would ask the Minister of Justice to scrutinize the statement in question in order to ascertain whether it is in fact a violation of the provisions of the bill by overlooking the clause "to reflect the estimated production cost of the commodity", in this case being the cost of production of the animal, either as a calf or a feeder, until it enters the feed lot?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would bow to my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, in
November 13, 1975

respect of expertise in this matter, but I will scrutinize the statement referred to in the hon. member's request.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Several remote communities in northern Manitoba are serviced by air only. In July, five airstrips were closed to class III operations, which has restricted the movement of patients to hospital. At present, patients are being moved by charter only. Because of the high cost factor, patients are having to wait long periods to receive medical attention. Will the minister consider the opening of these five airstrips to class III operations for the winter months?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have been looking at the thorny question of certain airstrips in Manitoba which are substandard for certain types of operations and have not been able at this point to arrive at a conclusion which would allow that kind of operation within the ordinary bounds of safety. We will go on looking at the question, although I think the prime responsibility for bringing those airstrips up to standard should be mainly that of the builder, which is the government of Manitoba.


Cecil Morris Smith: My supplementary question is also to the Minister of Transport. The airstrips which are closed are now serving Indian reserves in northern Manitoba and Indian reserves are the responsibility of the federal government. I would ask the minister to consider that, the airstrips were closed for summer operations and that the winter operation of airstrips is quite different in the remote frozen north.


Otto Emil Lang: I am quite aware of that. I am also aware of the fact that emergency circumstances may make landings necessary which ordinarily would not be considered safe. I think, therefore, that is taken care of, but that will not allow for regular operations.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, but first I should like to thank the minister for his written reply to my October 27 question confirming that the official Banaim list of consultants is correct in showing the Ministry of Transport as the only agency responsible for the design of airways, aprons and taxiways at the Mirabel airport. I wish to ask the minister whether he can explain why the answer to order paper question No. 2945 shows $9,770,175.06 being
Oral Questions
spent on outside consultants for the design of runways, aprons and taxiways at Mirabel airport.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look at what the hon. member suggested.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs and it follows his discussion with the Nova Scotia minister of health. Has any decision been made regarding the date for a tender call for the reconstruction of Camp Hill hospital in Halifax and, if not, which government next has to make some decision before progress can take place?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I say in answer to the hon. member's question that the proposed Camp Hill hospital is at present in the hands of the government of Nova Scotia. They are looking over the project and we are awaiting their answer.


DAMAGE IN GREAT LAKES REGION-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Roger Young (Niagara Falls):: My question is directed to the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Speaker. In view of the serious storms which struck the Great Lakes last Monday evening and in view of the serious wind and water damage which was left in its wake, has any consideration been given or will any be given to making federal emergency assistance or disaster relief available to the communities and individuals which were so hard hit?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a fairly well accepted policy that where there is damage caused by natural disaster relief is primarily under provincial jurisdiction. However, in the event that circumstances are beyond the resources of the province-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -the federal government has indicated on a [DOT] formula basis its willingness to assist.


Some hon. Members:: Cheap!

November 13, 1975
9018_____________________________
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


PORTUGUESE REFUGEES FROM ANGOLA-GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO ASSIST-SUGGESTION MINISTER ATTEND MEETING OF PORTUGUESE PEOPLE IN TORONTO
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the serious suffering many Portuguese citizens have undergone as a result of their ouster from Angola, what steps have the minister's officials taken to assist these people and what facilities are available for many of them to come to Canada as refugees?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in response to representations from my colleague, the hon. member for Spadina, as well as other hon. members we have looked into this and we are following the situation very closely. As the hon. member knows, people from Angola are also Portuguese citizens, even after November 11 which I believe was Angola's independence day. We have issued instructions to expedite any applications of Angolans who have relatives here in Canada. We have asked our people in Lisbon and in other offices nearby to treat those applications with the greatest consideration. I must say that we have not had a great volume of people as yet applying from within Canada for that consideration, but we are watching very closely.


John Gilbert: I wonder if the minister or his officials would attend the meeting of Portuguese people in Toronto next Tuesday to explain the position of the government in this important matter.


Robert Knight Andras: There was a meeting in Ottawa with representatives of the Portuguese community led by the hon. member for Spadina about a month or two ago. The information I have just given to the House a minute ago was conveyed to the Portuguese community in Toronto. I personally met with Portuguese people in Winnipeg about a month ago and told them the same thing. One of the problems is that people in Angola are not refugees under the definition of the UN convention, but we are doing our best to watch the situation and I will be glad to meet with them or have somebody meet them to elaborate our position, but we have already informed them of our position on this matter.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In answering some questions regarding Bill C-73 he said the gross income of professional people will be regulated to a maximum of $2,400. If the gross income of professional people is to be regulated, what will stop professionals in Canada from raising their fees to their clientele and working for, say, nine months out of twelve?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, I think that is the kind of question that should be put to the minister in committee.


PERFORMING ARTS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Representatives of the National Film Board are now asking independent producers, when bidding on a project, to include the cost as well as the method of distribution of the film. Is it the policy of the minister's department that producers now also become distributors of films, and does he not agree that such a policy would seriously prejudice, if not kill, many small independent producers, and that such a policy is designed to funnel business to the government corporation which already has its own distribution facilities?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I fully understand the question. Let me examine it before I answer the hon. member.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a week or so ago I asked the Minister of Justice whether or not, in view of the very widespread increase in gun toting criminals, he would be prepared to give consideration to accepting the private bill that I have introduced which provides for a minimum of five years for gun toting criminals, hoods and their like, without there being any reduction by parole, and he said he would look into it and let the House know.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, if that were solely the effect of the right hon. gentleman's bill, I would share his concern. I am preparing a number of amendments to the Criminal Code and I am taking that into account. But the effect of the right hon. gentleman's bill, as I understand it, would be to provide a minimum sentence of five years for the commission of any indictable offence while carrying a firearm, which could have the effect that a hunter, for example, charged with drunken driving while carrying a firearm in the back of his truck-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: -could end up with a five year minimum sentence. The gentleman opposite do not like it, but that is the advice I have as to the effect of the bill. That is why I am not prepared to suggest to the House leader that we deal with that private member's bill, but the sentiment of the bill in terms of the desire to control the use of firearms and increase the standard of care for firearms is very much
November 13, 1975

in my mind, and it will be introduced in the House in due course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask the government House leader how he has plotted the time of the House for the rest of this week and next week. I use the word "plotted" in its best sense, of course.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I try to plot as much as possible in consultation whith my hon. friend and with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It is the intention of the government to proceed immediately with Bill C-58. When the debate on that bill is concluded, I have two bills in mind: Bill C-20 and, if possible, the government annuities bill which I hope will be on the order paper for debate by Monday. Those are the items which are immediately before the House.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister makes it unnecessary for me to ask one of my two weekly questions, in that he has now made it clear that we will be dealing with the government annuities bill very soon. Can the minister now tell us when we will deal with the bill implementing the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs with respect to Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war?


Mitchell William Sharp: I regret that I am not in a position to answei that question as yet.


TIME ALLOCATION MOTION WITH RESPECT TO BILL C-58
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as appears in Votes and Proceedings, I gave notice of my intention to proceed under Standing Order 75C to propose an allocation of time on Bill C-58. I therefore move, in accordance with Standing Order 75C:
That, in relation to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, five hours shall be allotted to the further consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and
That, at the expiry of the fifth such hour, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt any proceeding before the House, if required for the purpose of this order, and shall forthwith put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I propose this motion with reluctance-
Order Paper Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and other hon. members are well aware that, pursuant to the provisions of the Standing Order, a two-hour debate is to follow the presentation of the motion. I hope all hon. members will have ample opportunity to describe their reluctance during that two-hour period, rather than at this moment. I believe the Standing Order requires that we put the motion forthwith, followed by a two-hour debate. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Any remarks at this moment by the President of the Privy Council would, of course, initiate the two-hour debate. I wonder whether it is the disposition of hon. members to conclude the remaining routine proceedings before commencing the debate. If that is agreed, I could call the remaining routine proceedings and then we could begin with the remarks of the President of the Privy Council. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,942, 3,110, 3,132, 3,248 and 3,265.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What was the amount of government assistance of all forms of price support, subsidy, etc. in the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 for (a) beef (b) meat other than beef (c) eggs (d) dairy products (e) grains (f) fruit (g) vegetables (h) other forms of assistance to farmers such as fertilizers or pest controls?
2.	(a) Have estimates been prepared of the costs in the above categories for the year 1975-76 and, if so, what are they (b) alternatively, what are the estimated commitments to date?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as Agriculture Canada is concerned: 1.			
(a)	1973-74 $ Nil	1974-75 $ 46,470,824(b)	66,778	1,914(c)	Nil	Nil(d)	118,580,572	manufactured milk	229,662,71351,473,766	and cream Consumer milk and	74,620,777(e)	22,273,304	powder	21,425,938(f)	Nil	Nil(g)	35,927	636(h)	1,038,000	1,752,356
November 13, 1975
Order Paper Questions
2. Estimates have been prepared, but in the area of price support it is not possible to outline all levels of expenditure in advance, since		under the Agricultural Stabilization	
Act expenditures are	not required every	year for eachcategory	of product.	With the foregoing	qualification,estimated expenditures in 1975-76 will be as follows:	(a)	(b)Estimated	Paid1975-76	To Date$	$(a)	20,500,000	3,002,824(b)	Nil	Nil(c)	Nil	Nil(d)	266,000,000	Manufactured milk	146,879,500and cream	16,320,000	Consumer milk and	6,108,260powder	(e)	21,000,000	9,116,515(f)	500,000	Nil(g)	13,600,000	13,218,591(h)	3,375,000	Nil
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: The amount of government assistance in the form of a price support or subsidy is: 1. (e) 1973-74, $69,385,925; 1974-75, $81,230,325.
2.	1975-76, $200,000,000. The above payments are made, under the two price wheat program, to the Canadian Wheat Board, the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board and directly to wheat producers in Quebec and the Maritimes. These payments reduce the price of flour and are a consumer subsidy.
it to a list of known species and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, for what reason has that system not been applied in Canada?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. (a) Some permits are issued to agencies such as the National Museum of Natural Sciences, Provincial Museums, some universities and Provincial Wildlife agencies without species restrictions except for those species native to Canada which are rare and endangered or are under provincial jurisdiction, (i) Yes; (ii) yes (b) Not all species listed in the IUCN Red Data Book are really rare by Canadian definition. In these cases there is no biological reason not to do so.
2.	The criteria are listed in Section 19 of the Migratory Bird Regulations-P.C. 1975-1689. THey include, where applicable, a review of the research proposal, reputation of the applicant, including letters of support from recognized scientists, the species and area where collecting is intended.
3.	(a) Letters of testimony from reputable scientists on behalf of new applicants as required by the Migratory Birds Regulations: (b) Personal knowledge of issuing officer as to whether an institution is bona fide; (c) Each research proposal is viewed on its merits, consequently it is not possible to have a single set of criteria. Some permits are issued to facilitate monitoring of toxic chemicals in the environment or the salvage of birds killed accidentally.
4.	(a) No particular protection is given to stragglers not known to breed in a province, except restraint exercised by responsible scientists; (b) No particular protection is given to stragglers not known to breed in Canada; (c) Birds that are rare elsewhere in the world are not likely to be found in Canada and if found outside their normal range are likely to perish in any event.
5.	Yes, it was considered; (b) This practice was rejected because of the less advanced state of knowledge of the distribution of migratory birds in Canada.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Is it the policy of the Canadian Wildlife Service to issue a permit for the killing of a bird which is considered to be the first of its species to appear in a particular province if (a) a specimen of that bird is already in a collection in (i) Canada (ii) elsewhere in North America (b) that bird is of a species listed in the Red Data Book of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources as a rare species?
2.	What specific criteria are applied by the Canadian Wildlife Service to determine whether an applicant for a permit to kill a bird for collection purposes should be granted the permit?
3.	For the purpose of issuing permits to kill birds for collection purposes, what specific criteria are employed by the Canadian Wildlife Service to define an eligible (a) applicant (b) institution (c) scientific inquiry or experiment?
4.	What safeguards are enforced by the Canadian Wildlife Service to ensure that permits issued by them do not contribute to the depletion of bird species which are rare in (a) a province or region (b) Canada (c) the world?
5.	Has the Canadian Wildlife Service considered the application in Canada of the practice in Great Britain of absolutely prohibiting the killing of a bird where the sole purpose is to verify its identity or to add


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How many wheeled vehicles, by type, were issued to the Armed Forces between January 1,1975 and September 1,1975?
2.	Have any contracts for armoured cars been let during the period January 1, 1975 to September 1,1975?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Wheeled vehicles issued to armed forces between January 1-September 1, 1975:
Type of Vehicle	Numbers
Passenger Vehicles	
Sedan, 4 door, standard	52
Sedan, 4 door, compact	101
Station Wagon, 4 door, standard	96
Station Wagon, 4 door, intermediate	10
Carryall xh ton, 4x2	56
Bus, 35 and 44 passenger capacity	9
Ambulances, 1 ton, 4x4	38
Miscellaneous passenger vehicles	10 Sub Total 372

Cargo Carrying Vehicles
Truck, stake, 3 ton	100
Truck Cargo, 1 ton, 4x2	125
(with extended cab)
Truck Cargo, 1 ton, 4x4	22
(with extended cab)
Truck Cargo, 1 ton, 4x4	200
Miscellaneous Cargo carrying vehicles and trailers, Vi ton to 5 ton	110
(excluding the above vehicle types)
Sub Total 557
Specialized wheeled vehicles such as cranes, tankers, aircraft servicing vehicles and fire trucks	70
Engineer, construction and maintenance vehicles (including tractors, loaders scoop type, dump trucks, snow removal vehicles and graders)	77
Wheeled powered materials handling vehicles including forklifts, pallet trucks, warehouse tractors and cranes	79
Grand Total 1,155
2. No.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence sign a contract with Air Canada for passenger reservation services on the Air Canada computer at a cost of $1,866,662?
2.	Was the average in 1974, 25 percent on a number of available seats and, if so, what government action has been undertaken to optimize possible dollar savings?
3.	Does the Department of National Defence book passenger reservations on an individual basis and, if not, would it be more economically efficient to do so?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Yes.
2.	As stated in reply to Question No. 1,951 (Hansard 110, page 4767, dated March 14, 1975) approximately 23 per cent of the total available seats were not used. The contract with Air Canada will enable the Department to significantly improve seat utilization with consequent dollar savings.
3.	Yes.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the government in 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: 1 and 2. See Question No. 3,096 of July 30, 1975.
Time Allocation Motion


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp:
That, in relation to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, five hours shall be allotted to the further consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and
That, at the expiry of the fifth such hour, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt any proceeding before the House, if required for the purpose of this order, and shall forthwith put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of the bill.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I propose this motion with reluctance because it had been my hope that the parties would agree to allocate time for the conclusion of the second reading debate on Bill C-58. I approached the House leader of the official opposition with this in mind and he advised me that he could not agree, on behalf of his party, to a time allocation of any kind. A motion under Standing Order 75A therefore became impossible. I thereupon approached the House leader of the New Democratic Party, who informed me that he would have been ready to participate with all the other parties in a motion under Standing Order 75A, but he was not authorized to join with the government in a motion under Standing Order 75B.
Because of the pressure of other legislation and the long period during which Bill C-58 had been discussed at second reading, the government felt that it should take the responsibility for bringing the second reading motion to a vote within a reasonable time. I remind the House that already there have been 47 speakers on Bill C-58 and they have expended a total of six days in their speeches. This motion allocates another five hours of debate, equivalent to at least another full sitting day. This will enable another seven or eight speakers to participate if they wish to speak for the maximum period of 40 minutes each, and a good many more if the speakers are content to limit their speeches to a shorter period, say 20 minutes. I doubt, therefore, if anyone could accuse the government of having unduly limited the expression of opinion by hon. members on this piece of legislation at the second reading stage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Indeed, the government may be open to the charge of having let the debate drift on too long before taking its responsibility and bringing second reading to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
9022

Time Allocation Motion


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: A number of other charges, too.


Mitchell William Sharp: Moreover, it is only when the bill gets into committee and at the report stage that amendments can be proposed and debated. The House will recall that because of the desire of various outside groups to make representations, there was unanimous agreement to refer Bill C-58 to the standing committee rather than to the committee of the whole House which is the usual route for bills relating to taxes. It was the universal desire of the House that this bill should get into committee where the various groups pro and con could make their representations.
Standing Orders 75A, 75B and 75C have been used infrequently-75C very sparingly indeed. 1 am inclined to think that in the future more use should be made of the principle of allocation of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Or, if I were to use a phrase which might commend itself more to members of the opposition, if we were to use the principle of management of time, which I think is useful to all parties of the House, I would think-


An hon. Member:: You mean manipulation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: -that something of this kind would be regarded with some favour. Moreover, I believe that the weight of debate should be shifted forward-I know this view is shared by many people in the House, including at least some of the House leaders-away from second reading, which tends to be repetitious and discursive, and toward the more focused debates which take place in committee, at report stage and on third reading.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: It is my intention to bring proposals like this before the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization within a short time. Meanwhile, since we have to work with the instruments that are at our disposal, I feel the government is fully justified and the people would expect us to bring this issue to a vote at the present time so that the public can make its representations to members of this House and we can reach a decision on this very important bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly obvious that a government which cannot manage the economy certainly cannot manage this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: It is rather ironic that this motion for closure, or allocation of time, is brought under Standing Order 75C and the godfather of that rule now sits in this House occupied with other business, and the rule itself was imposed upon this House by closure. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) would say: It's a long, long lane that has no ash cans.
(Mr. Sharp.]
It is amazing for me to see hon. gentlemen opposite, those who formed the Liberal opposition of 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963, sitting in this House now and behaving as they are, having seen the kind of organized resistance there was at that time. Not too many of them are here now. I think the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) was here, and I believe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) was here in 1963. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) was probably behind the firing line, fashioning the bullets-most of them duds. In those days, the Liberal opposition facing the government under my friend the right hon. member for Prince Albert, took 65 days, 70 days, 75 days, 80 days, and a one time 88 days to consider supply: 88 days to put supply through this House because of the organized opposition and filibuster of the Liberal opposition of that time!


An hon. Member:: Where is that government now?


Gerald William Baldwin: Those practitioners of the open mouth have become advocates of the muzzle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who does not fear the use of closure. I have always said in this House and outside that if members of the House, whether of the opposition parties or on the government side, took up time that should not be taken in a fruitless and useless filibuster, the government had a responsibility to intervene.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I have never argued otherwise. But they have to be very careful and sensitive with respect to the issue. Members of the House on all sides-I even include those silent members of the phalanx of the sphinx who sit over there saying nothing, breathing loudly and sometimes making speeches-when there is a case to be taken to the people of Canada, as we in this party felt there was after careful reflection of the principle involved in this bill, have the duty-not only the right, but the duty-particularly members of the opposition, to say that we will debate the measure to the extent necessary so that the people of Canada may be aware of what the government is trying to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Bill C-58 is not a long bill but it is rather intricate. It was not apparent to the people of Canada exactly what the government was trying to do. I see the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) shaking his head. He knows better. I only wish we had a freedom of information bill, because I would love to examine his files and see the letters that were sent to him opposing this measure. Hon. members on this side received a deluge of mail up to the time the measure was debated before the recess. We were doing what was our responsibility, laying the facts before the people on this issue.
The speeches have not been long. Yesterday there were nine speakers including the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). All in all, it was a short day. In my judgment, if the President of the Privy Council had restrained his impetuosity and stayed in line, this bill
November 13, 1975

might have been completed today or on Monday. But, as I have said, the speeches were not long. It is the right, the duty and the responsibility of members of the opposition, on an issue of this kind where principle is involved, to say what they have to say on behalf of their constituents and the people of Canada generally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Having said that, I do not need to go any further than to say we intend to oppose this most improper and monstrous motion. Before concluding I would respond to the invitation of the President of the Privy Council with regard to abuse of the time of this House. I suggest to the hon. gentleman, as I have told him privately and in correspondence, that when we can restore to members of this House, on all sides, some capacity to challenge the government in an adequate way to deal with supply in the House-at least to the extent that some departments can be brought into the House and examined adequately-when private members have an opportunity to raise issues which can be debated, and that includes members on the government side, when there are supply days which are meaningful, when the opposition has some right to select the time when controversial matters of current interest can be debated, the President of the Privy Council should consider taking this blunt and useless weapon which was rammed down the throat of this House by the present Minister of Finance-the closure rules-and modify them so they can be used on appropriate occasions.
Speaking for myself, I would have no compunction about that kind of rule being placed on the rule book of this House. But there must be a quid pro quo. We must restore to this House the rights which have been filched from it over the last three or four years. This democratic process can only operate on the basis of a partnership between the government and the House of Commons. That partnership does not now exist.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if instead of being limited to ten minutes I were limited to one word with which to describe this motion, that word would be "stupid".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I say that the government's action in presenting this motion is stupid for two reasons. One of the reasons is that in my view there are better ways to deal with the management of the time of this House-and I shall say something about that in a moment. The other reason is that I am convinced that the effect of this motion will be that second reading of Bill C-58 will be attained in this House later than would otherwise have been the case.
If this motion carries and there are to be five more hours of debate, that takes it beyond tonight and over to Monday, so Bill C-58 will come to its second reading vote some time this coming Monday evening. I am satisfied that otherwise the debate would have petered out today.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is not the message we received.


An hon. Member:: You sent the wrong messenger.
Time Allocation Motion


Mitchell William Sharp: You cannot have it both ways.


An hon. Member:: There is no agreement.


Mr. Lawrence:: We do not have to agree with you. The debate would have been over at five o'clock. This is stupid.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Although the time for the debate is limited, many hon. members can speak their minds. I hope that in the meantime hon. members will allow the Chair to hear the hon. member who has the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I realize the the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) said that he had been told by members of the official opposition that they could not agree to time allocation and had a long list of speakers. According to my information-* after all, we talk to our friends behind the curtains and we know what is happening-debate would have petered out this afternoon, or tonight at the latest.
The other reason for my thinking this method stupid is that there are much better ways of concluding a debate. I still believe in collective bargaining, in arguing things out until there is agreement. I know tnat in collective bargaining matters this government does not always stay at the table as long as it should, and the minister felt that in this instance he had stayed long enough. Let me remind him of two recent instances. I pick my words carefully, as I know one does not disclose secrets which are discussed at meetings of House leaders. Even so, I can remind the President of the Privy Council and my other fellow House leaders that when we met as a group on Thursday, October 23, we planned a program of business for the rest of that week and the next week until Friday, October 31. We got through that program of business, plus one more bill. We met again on Thursday, October 30, to consider a program of business from that day until Friday, November 7. What happened? Again, we got through all the items in that program, plus one more which we had not planned.
There are times when debate bogs down. What is wrong with that? This is the place of debate. There are times when members feel strongly about an issue and debate is extended. But I still think that the best way to sort things out is by sitting down and talking them through until there is agreement. In this case, I think that either agreement could have been reached or the debate would have died a natural death. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a stupid method to apply to this issue. It is unfortunate, as well, because of the negative effect it has on efforts to arrive at some basis for managing the time of this House.
I make no bones about it: I have been involved in some pretty vigorous battles around here to do with closure. I was not here when Sir Robert Borden's Conservative party was in power in 1913-


An hon. Member:: Are you sure, Stanley?


Mr. Dick:: Check the record.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: He came the next year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) mentioned that Standing Order 75C, which we are now considering, was
29956-19%

November 13, 1975
Time Allocation Motion
forced through under closure. He did not point out that the closure motion that was used for this purpose was rule 33, a Sir Robert Borden creation back in 1913. Not only have I been involved in some battles against the imposition of closure; I have contended, in speeches and in written articles, that if this place is to survive we must find ways to better manage and allocate our time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to hear the support from the government side. But managing and allocating our time does not mean having the government side do this unilaterally or dictatorially. Both sides of this House were elected properly and officially. Both sides ought to have their say. I believe that we can work out rules on the basis of all-


Gerald William Baldwin: You had your chance in 1972, and you blew it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was in 1972 that the twenty-ninth parliament was elected, and thank heaven, we got lots of things through in that parliament before this government went completely reactionary.
I point out that we have been willing at any time to agree to an all-party arrangement to bring this debate to an end. We have kept our speeches to the minimum. Yesterday, only one of our members spoke-our leader. He talked no longer than 15 or 20 minutes. Today, only the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) is to speak, and he is always brief and to the point. We have said in our speeches that we are not as scandalized at Bill C-58 as are our friends in the Progressive Conservative party. Hence, I make the point that I am not speaking against the use of Standing Order 75C as one who wants to block the vote on Bill C-58. We think it should come to a vote, and have said so a number of times. We also know that the vote on second reading will not be the end of the bill. It must go to standing committee, remain there for goodness knows how long, return for the report stage, and be read the third time. So if the decision to close this stage of the debate is taken, it is not the end of democracy. But I still think it is a stupid way to go about it.


An hon. Member:: Do you spell that with a double "o"?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear my hon. friend asking if I spell "stupid" the usual way, "or s-t-o-o-p-i-d." At any rate, this is a stupid way to deal with the management of the time of this House, and we shall vote against this motion. I am sorry this method is being used, not only because I think it is the wrong way to bring this debate to a close but because it is a setback to efforts for arriving at a reasonable and rational arrangement for the effective use of the time of this House.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues of the Social Credit Party of Canada, I want to express our very deep concern over the position taken by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) who has to resort to Standing Order 75C, which is, in effect, taking away the privilege acquired through our electors, the opposition's right to speak. As far as we are

concerned in respect of this bill, we did not abuse the time of this House, something we never did.
I would state at this point that Progressive Conservative members appear to be more directly involved than we are in the legislation, possibly because they have a larger representation of constituents against and receive more correspondence opposing the bill. First I must commen that party for having spoken so often. I believe in a democracy one can speak when one feels, and when one must do so in this House.
When he introduced his motion, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) suggested his view was shared by a number of members in this House. I submit that point of view, on the motion introduced under rule 75C this afternoon, is not at all shared. I believe this is unilateral action. We in the Social Credit Party and all the House leaders here, both opposition and government, feel there are far fewer interventions, far fewer changes in time allocations for the various bills, as the hon. member said before me, when there is a consensus between the four House leaders. I believe the procedure is much more successful thereafter, and there is much better opportunity to prepare for a smoother and shorter debate, and a better chance of being heard.
I believe rule 75C has no place here this afternoon and would create a very dangerous precedent, because rule 75C is used to deal as swiftly as possible with Bill C-58 within five hours, after two hours' discussion on the motion for rule 75C which makes seven hours in all. The bill will not be voted this week yet. The business on Bill C-58 is further delayed by two or three days.
I suggest that with this move, the President of the Privy Council demonstrated he simply will not talk with House leaders. That I regret very much, and I hope it will not happen too often.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the motion to limit debate under Standing Order 75C. In the past two days I have heard many comments by opposition members about this motion and Bill C-58. The term "censorship" has constantly been used. They say the government is censoring Time and Reader's Digest and bringing censorship into this House in terms of this motion. I will later speak about Time and Reader's Digest to show how ridiculous it is to say that we are invoking censorship in this case. I wish to deal with the motion and the history of this bill. This bill has been in the House for 5'A days. There have been 34 opposition speakers-31 Progressive Conservative and 3 NDP. The opposition has spoken for 14 hours and this side for 3'/2 hours, for a total of 17 VS hours. We are proposing an additional 5 hours, which will make a total of 22'A hours.
Since this parliament began in September, 1974, five bills have taken up the bulk of the allotted time. The budget bills took days and days, and the competition bill took weeks. There were a couple of bills in which I was involved, one of which was Bill C-32, the Petroleum Administration Act. It was introduced into the House on October 25, 1974, and given third reading on April 30, 1975.
November 13, 1975

In that period of about seven months there were 36 Conservative speakers and NDP. Second reading took 15 days. I might also mention that the petroleum administration bill was introduced during the twenty-ninth parliament and there was a long debate at that time. Bill C-8, the Petro-Can bill, was given first reading on October 3, 1974, and finally passed on July 23, 1975. Second reading took a total of 11 days. With regard to this bill, there were 12 meetings in committee when only clause 2 was dealt with.
If we are going to allocate time intelligently in this House, we have to do something about these prolonged debates. In at least one instance there was a real filibuster in this House. That was with regard to the petroleum bill. The business of the House cannot continue unless we get rid of this kind of prolonged debate where the attempt is not just to debate the issue but to prevent a bill receiving second reading. Yesterday, a number of members said that this bill should not have been brought forward at this time because there are far more important things to debate, such as inflation, the restraint guidelines, and so on. However, 34 Conservative members spoke on that bill for 14 hours.
In the British House of Commons I understand they have a way of allocating time. Second reading of a bill usually involves no more than one full sitting. A sitting may be extended to the next day, but normally it is one sitting. The place to debate this bill is in committee. A number of opposition members have stated that they want the bill moved to committee so they can suggest amendments and receive briefs. That is where the bill should be considered in detail. Therefore, I think it is right that we complete this debate in the next five hours and get the bill to committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to cover the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, but his attitude indicates that he does not know as much about parliament as he should.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The trouble is that some members sitting opposite, regardless of the length of time they have been here, have displayed the same lack of knowledge of this institution that the member who just spoke evidenced to such high degree. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) is not here at the moment, but it is of interest to note that the motion was moved by him-a motion of guillotine, of closure-and seconded by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury), both of whom were long-time civil servants of high degree. Today, they will espouse the philosophy that they held and which is generally held by those in the higher echelons of the civil service, namely, that the House of Commons is of no consequence, they have the answers to all the problems and all we have to do is rubber-stamp whatever they bring before parliament.
I listened to the President of the Privy Council and I had never seen him perform better. It was an outstanding performance of piety and regard for parliament. As I listened to him I was reminded of Sir Winston Churchill's observation concerning a minister who had served in his cabinet during the days of war, Sir Stafford Cripps: he
Time Allocation Motion
said, "Mr. Speaker, God Almighty never made a man as honest as he can look on occasion."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: There he was, today, displaying that love for parliament embalmed only in words. I would suggest, having regard to the philosophy which he enunciated, that he should get in touch with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) who, in the course of an answer to me this afternoon, said that House business is a matter to be negotiated between House leaders. I have never known a better answer. I suggest that these ministers who would trample on the rights of parliament should get in touch with the Minister of Justice who in the few short months he has occupied that portfolio has shown an appreciation of parliament.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) summed up what is being done in one word- stupid. I find myself in disagreement with him. This is not stupidity; it is Liberal government arrogance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the same thing.


John George Diefenbaker: This is the kind of thing we saw in such abundant measure in the House of Commons during the days of the pipeline debate. I recall, too, that when the Liberal party was in power they brought about a flag for Canada by closure, knowing that they could not achieve it otherwise.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member is just on the outskirts of greatness as a parliamentary secretary, and all I can say is that his applause indicates his lack of knowledge of the subject. I say that with great respect to him.
What are they afraid of over there? The President of the Privy Council says this issue has been before parliament since April. The notice of ways and means was concurred in on April 18 and the bill was given first reading on that date. The bill was debated on May 8, 16, 20 and 26, and then there was a hiatus between May 26 and June 4. Then it was brought in again. Who is responsible for that? A government which does not know how to carry on government!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The minister who is responsible for this bill surprises me greatly, trying to push through a measure which is widely opposed across Canada, and denying members of parliament the right to express themselves clearly and succinctly on a proposal which is dangerous to freedom of speech in this country and which constitutes a type of censorship. I am not here-I mention this only because we shall be arguing the case later-as a proponent of Time or Reader's Digest. As far as the latter is concerned, I can see no reason for this legislation. As far as Time is concerned, when I see the line-up on the part of those who want to bring about this change, when I see the owners of Maclean's magazine which has taken such a

November 13, 1975
Time Allocation Motion
strong stand in this regard, I think it is worth pointing out that the company owning Maclean's was in receipt of revenues last year totalling $132 million, that it is the largest publisher of national periodicals in Canada and that it publishes periodicals in the United States, Great Britain, France, South Africa, Germany and Austria.
What is going to happen? The party opposite has a majority in numbers-though they are not representative of the people of Canada-and they intend to force this bill through by closure. They are going to deny discussion. If the bill is passed, what will happen? A monopoly of the thinking of Canada will be assumed by Mr. Peter Newman, the editor of Mac lean's. That is what will happen. Hon. gentlemen opposite smile. The castigation he gave the former leader of the Liberal party, Mr. Pearson, was a disgrace. He is a man with no idea of the democratic system at all; a man who believes in power. All his writings have to do with power. Yet he will be in a position, as editor of a magazine with a million circulation, to dominate the thinking of Canadians to an extend no one has yet been able to achieve. I am opposed to monopolies, either in general or in particular, when they have to do with the thinking of Canadians. Yet this area is to be controlled and dominated by a person who has no regard for the parliamentary system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The President of the Privy Council will recall the pipeline debates. He smiles; he bows his head in acknowledgment. I smile, too, when I think of the reaction of the Liberals at the time of that debate. They trampled on the rights of parliament as the government is endeavouring to do now, and they reaped their reward when Canadians had their first opportunity to speak. All I can say is this: You can apply the muzzle. You can let fall the guillotine. But this legislation in its present form constitutes such an interference with the freedom of thought and freedom of the press in Canada as to constitute a dereliction in the constitutional rights of parliament to interfere with freedom of speech.
First, there is the control over thinking with Peter Newman. Second, there is the denial of the alternative regarding Canada being shown or revealed by any magazine which could compete with Maclean's. Third, there is the attitude on the part of the government that because they have an arithmetical majority they can trample on the rights of the Canadian people. It is not stupid; it is even worse than that: it is further evidence of the fact that the Liberal party today is in keeping with what happened in 1956 when the rights of parliament were trampled upon. That is happening now, because you have a group of individuals who, regardless of what is brought before parliament by the government, have to toe the line and support the administration, irrespective of the dangers and difficulties which will ensue for parliament itself.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to make one point in addition to those which have been made, and I think it is exceedingly pertinent. My understanding is that since the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) announced the guidelines which would constitute the background of this bill- perhaps they are not so much guidelines as the very foun-

dation upon which the administration will be based-we had a debate yesterday and we are having five hours more debate. I would simply make the point that it is not correct to seek to give the impression in the House or in the country that there have been 5 Vi hours or 6 hours of debate on the issue which is now before us. The issue was only put before the House precisely when the Minister of National Revenue stated his position. Prior to that time there had been grave doubt as to the basis upon which this bill would be administered.
I suggest that for a government to impose what is, in effect, closure upon a discussion after 3 hours or 3Vi hours of debate-that is what it is, 3 Vi hours of debate-on an issue clearly before the House, because prior to that time we were debating in the midst of fog without any clear idea how some of these things would be interpreted without any idea as to the basis of administration, is to impose closure after only 3V2 hours of debate on the actual issue.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I thought we were discussing Bill C-58. Can one rise now to talk about Bill 58?


An hon. Member:: We are discussing Standing Order
75C!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. The House is debating a motion on time allocation for Bill C-58.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the official opposition, I know of no more difficult task than to follow the speech just made by our leader and the very enthusiastic speech made by the former prime minister of Canada, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).

I will now address the government. I am surprised that the government faces us today with a guillotine motion. I am surprised, because for quite some time already they have had a majority which enables them to manage the country in the democratic way we all know. But in spite of that majority, they have chosen today to muzzle and tie up the official opposition, to accelerate the passing of this bill. I am surprised, but maybe not because we read during the weekend that those people, at a Liberal convention, had voted almost unanimously against capital punishment, and we realize now how easily they dare impose closure, how easily they resort to guillotine, and let the blade fall on the heads of democratic forces in the House.
But on the other hand, one or two contradictions more do not really matter. What surprises me also, Mr. Speaker, is that on many occasions this government was depicted as cynical, machiavelical, disrespectful of popular will, and recently-


An hon. Member:: By whom?


Claude Wagner: A government member, who was at the same time the joint chairman of the convention, asks by whom. The hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux Montagnes
November 13, 1975

(Mr. Fox) should know that at the Liberal convention Mr. Trudeau's leadership was unofficially questioned by 19.8 per cent of delegates, but not officially of course, Mr. Speaker.
If we wanted to know the true figures and if all of Canada had been truly represented at that convention, the figure expressing resentment against the Trudeau administration would probably have been 35 per cent.
In view of this resentment of the Canadian people and these rising protests, I am therefore not surprised that the government is showing once again its old arrogance and saying to the official opposition: A few hours more would be detrimental to Canadian politics and we must therefore muzzle you.
Mr. Speaker, may I say that the members opposite seem to be afraid of history, but history is back to haunt them today. We can already see the ghosts of C. D. Howe and St. Laurent. Those were historical times. Closure had been invoked at that time and we know what historical results it had for that government.
Today maybe on a less significant level, I admit it, the principle is still valid. Today this same government is using the muzzling procedure to impose closure. The judgment of the opposition will also be the judgment of the whole Canadian people concerning the Trudeau administration, which has already been judged in 1972, which was judged recently in Hochelaga and which will continue to be judged as a government which does not care about democratic principles, and uses its omnipotent majority to try to muzzle the official opposition. It will not succeed! You may be happy today and you may still be happy next week, but when the next election is called, this government will see that Canadians have a long memory. Action of this type is not likely to give the people a better idea of the democratic process.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I take part in debates dealing with House procedure, but I think this is an important debate and I have a few things to say about it. I was astounded by the comment of the leader of the government in this House, that parliamentary business should be a matter between House leaders. Surely that is not the way parliament is to be conducted. I can only say it is another example of the very blatant use of government power and arrogance.
I think much of this bill represents a feeling of frustration, a feeling that the opposition in this House cannot make itself heard effectively. I trace this to the 1968 change in the rules whereby the business of supply was taken out of the House. Well over one-half to two-thirds of all the business in this House has a financial component. By taking away the business of supply, whereby the government had to justify its expenditures to the House as a whole and a minister could not get his estimates through until approved by the House as a whole, the government has become much less responsible to the House and to its members. Therefore, I think this debate can be traced in large measure to the failure of parliament since the rules changes of 1968 to have any adequate control over public expenditures. The government has replied that we can have opposition days and move a motion directed at a
Time Allocation Motion
particular government department. But all that the government has to do is to sit out the criticisms until ten o'clock; the day will then be over and the government will have won its position without disclosing it or being made accountable.
The important thing to note about this bill is that it is a form of censorship, which is essentially dangerous in any free society. One person in the communications field who was talking to me about the CRTC and the CBC-I might add that he is a supporter of the party across the way-said to me, "You don't really criticize the government too hard because you don't always quite know how governing bodies will view any criticism of the government". So that criticism of the government, while it may exist privately, is evident in the, communications world in Canada; but there is a very marked reluctance to criticize the government of the day too severely. It cannot be said any better than it was said by my seatmate, the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), when quoting from the Calgary Herald of October 27 in reference to this bill, as follows:
That is a very dangerous precedent, even if the aim-to make fully Canadian magazines more viable-is praiseworthy. The regulations are not, strictly speaking, censorship. However, they tend to legitimize a mechanism for government interference in the decisions of a publisher. They also tend to create a climate which discourages vigorous criticism of the federal government-a disturbingly authoritarian government, at times. Donald Macdonald's decision to withhold federal advertising from a Montreal separatist newspaper is significant in retrospect. When a government begins to take measures against publications whose editorial position it dislikes, the habit can quickly become ingrained.
The government's s action against Time and Reader's Digest, admittedly, is not intended to silence voices of dissent. The hope is that stifling these two magazines will enable Maclean's, Saturday Night and the like to breathe more freely, commercially speaking. But no matter how noble its purpose, a government that sets out to destroy or financially cripple a magazine bears watching. It might develop a taste for blood.
I think this is the important aspect of this bill and the aspect with which the debate has generally been concerned. It was said by the government House leader that more speeches should take place on third reading and at the report stage. I am one of those who believes that in practice, unless we speak on second reading, what we might say at third reading and at the report stage will be of little value in explaining to the public at large what we think about a particular piece of legislation. I am one who supports strongly the suggestion that debate in this House at second reading is the most valuable way in which issues can be put before the Canadian public.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this motion, I think there are a few facts of which I should like to remind the House. The subject of Bill C-58 has been a matter of public debate for at least two decades. The government announced its intention to move on this matter on January 23, 1975, in a statement in the House by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner). Three of the respondents for the opposition, the hon. members for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), expressed basic support for the policy announced in January. In this regard one need only check Hansard of January 23, pages 2527 to 2529. If one does check the

November 13, 1975
Time Allocation Motion
exchange of hon. members, one will see that all three hon. members indicated they had been impatiently awaiting that announcement. The hon. member for York-Simcoe began by saying:
-I would first like to say, on behalf of the official opposition, that we are pleased the government has clarified this matter at long last.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie and the hon. member for Lotbiniere echoed this comment. We can see that the policy to be implemented under Bill C-58 was announced almost ten full months ago and on April 17, almost seven months ago, notice of the ways and means motion on which the bill was based was laid before the House. The next day, April 18, the bill was given first reading. This bill has been debated at second reading stage for six days, May 8, 16, 20 and 26, June 4 and November 12, for a total of 19 hours. Some 47 members have spoken-12 Liberals, 30 Conservatives, 3 members of the NDP and 2 Social Credit members.
While this extensive debate has been going on for hours, spread over seven months-ten, if you deal with policy- we have been exposed, as well, both publicly and privately to the views of persons and corporations directly affected. We have heard from Time, Reader's Digest, the American broadcasters, Maclean's and other interested Canadians both within and outside the media. We have heard claims and counterclaims; we have heard rumours and counterrumours but all we have come up with thus far in the House of Commons is talk.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hugh Alan Anderson: We do not need much more talk now.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing? Where have you been?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hugh Alan Anderson: We have had 19 hours of talk, and the government proposes another five hours. After that, in order to be in a position to make decisions the House of Commons will need facts; and the place to get the facts is in committee, not at second reading. The Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts can call witnesses. Interested parties and representatives of Time and Reader's Digest can appear at that time to put their case to the committee. Then the committee can make a decision based on the facts. Eventually, so will the House be in a position to make its decision based on facts and not, as has been the case on occasion in the past when there has not been too much fact, perhaps on posturing and other things outside the realm of actual fact.
The time has come for the bill to go to the committee. Those who have been so concerned with this matter have the right to make their case in public. The government has no desire to unduly restrict debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where have you been?


Hugh Alan Anderson: The government has no desire to unduly restrict debate, especially on a measure that concerns the media. However, one cannot but conclude that all points of

view will be expressed more than adequately after 24 hours of debate. The time has come for the bill to go to the committee. If I may use the words of the hon. member for York-Simcoe, the time has come for the bill to go to the committee "at long last". Amen!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, from the speech of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) it is obvious to most of us that he just came in and has missed the speeches of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


An hon. Member:: He was just lucky, I guess.


Walter David Baker: The point of those speeches, particularly the speech by the Leader of the Opposition, was to the effect that the guidelines relating to how this bill is to be applied have only been the subject of debate, in terms of time, for 3 Vi hours. I think the hon. member missed the point completely. No one will deny, in so far as second reading is concerned, that there have been a great number of speakers. I wish there had been more speakers from the government side, rather than those members sitting there like the trained seals they are, backing up everything this government does, good or bad. I am glad there are a few in this House who are prepared to stand and say that this government is wrong. There are very few on that side of the House who are prepared to do that-and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is not one of them. The whole point of the speech by the Leader of the Opposition was that these guidelines and how they are to be applied-which is really the guts of the bill-has only been the subject matter of debate in this House for 3% hours.
Someone has asked what parliament is all about. Parliament is a place to discuss these issues. I have listened to the arguments and I have read the statement of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) in respect of the length of time of debate. The only thing that statement has done is indicate just how inadequate the President of the Privy Council has been in respect of the management of the business of this House. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) called him stupid. Well, I have not been here long enough to say that.


Mr. MacFarlane:: He did not say that; he is too honourable.


Walter David Baker: But I have been here long enough, Mr. Speaker, and I have had enough to do with the management of the business of this House in the short time that I have been here to realize that the management of this place has been stupid. There are members from all sides of the House who are interested in reforming the rules. I have on the order paper a private bill regarding the order of business, and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) issued a very detailed and long statement on how he would like to see the business of the House organized. But one thing none of them has said is that the business of the House should be organized in such a way that the members of the House, whether they sit on the
November 13, 1975

government side or the opposition side, should be muzzled when we talk about a matter of significant public interest.
There can be no doubt about the interest of the public on this issue. I do not know of any issue, whether it be capital punishment, abortion or bilingualism, about which I have received so much mail-not form letters such as we get on some issues, but letters from people who felt so strongly with respect to the matter that they decided to pick up a pen and write a letter in their own way. Some say that that has been induced by a campaign, but nonetheless those are sentiments expressed by Canadians whom the closure rule should not muzzle.
In so far as the management of the business of the House is concerned, let me just say that if there had been reasonable communication between the government House leader and the opposition House leader with respect to the length of time, we would have found, perhaps, that the debate would have finished much sooner than it will finish now. The hon. lady opposite-I am reluctant to call her that, because we will have a question of privilege-is shaking her head to say no. I happen to know that that is so.
I do not know who the messenger boy was that was sent over from the government side to determine how long this debate would last. If it was the whip of the government, then I can understand how the mistake was made. But if the government House leader had come across and spoken to his counterpart, as he calls him, concerning the number of speakers in the debate, I think he would have ascertained the length of the list of speakers. But more important than that is how this House can stand such stupidity. We have been standing stupidities as long as I can remember since 1972. As long as I have had to look at the government opposite, we have been standing inadequacies in management. But the one thing we should not do, and it is very important when an issue has had so little time for the type of real debate that counts-only 3H hours, as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield)-is to cut off the backbenchers of the House, members of the House who are not members of the government, members who represent people of varying opinions. In that respect this government is wrong and the House leader is wrong, and anyone who supports the government or its House leader is wrong: hon. members know that.
Some hon. members, as I look across the chamber, appear to feel somewhat badly about what has happened because they know how important this bill is and how strong the feelings are, but many of those members should have had some influence on the government House leader. What was so important that it could not, by natural attrition, have waited until Monday night-two debating days?


Paul Edmund McRae: What is so great about Monday night?


Walter David Baker: The hon. member, as usual, does not know what he is talking about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. The hon. member should address the Chair.


Walter David Baker: May I say, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member does not know what he is talking about, as usual. The proof of that was in the speech he made a little while ago.
Time Allocation Motion


An hon. Member:: Are you speaking ex cathedra?


Walter David Baker: I heard something from the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFar-lane). I expected something of greater significance. I think there is an extremely important aspect of the bill which should not be forgotten by members of the House when they rise to vote on this measure, and that is the matter referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, namely, the clarification of these guidelines at long last. How these rules were going to be applied was only clarified to the extent of the debate of the House, and we have had only 3V2 hours of debate.


An hon. Member:: And eight speakers.


Walter David Baker: Whether there were eight, nine or ten speakers, there were only 3'A hours of debate, and I think this is a travesty of the rules. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, it has set back the business of consultation perhaps by a session with respect to the rationalization of the rules of this House. A shameful act has been committed today and this government, as well as those who support it, should be ashamed of themselves.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I will try to avoid responding in kind to the type of argument or lack of argument advanced by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I will try to resist the temptation of discussing the merits or demerits of whips and other personalities in the House. In fact, I will try as best I can to stick to the procedures and methods of debate which have characterized this House for some time.
First of all, I would like to relate very briefly the history of the bill. I gave notice of the government's intention to introduce the bill on January 23-11 months ago. A ways and means motion was put before the House by the then minister of finance on April 17. Second reading started on May 8. The subject matter of the bill has been before the House and the people of this country, at least formally, for 11 months. Today, we are on the seventh day of debate. We have had 47 speeches. All that the motion before the House today does is to move this bill forward from second reading to committee stage.
I find it rather hollow to hear the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton talk about what was said or was not said in the discussions between House leaders, and I find it rather hollow to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) talk about there being a better way. The fact is that there were discussions. This government made it absolutely clear that our preferred route was Standing Order 75A-an agreement amongst all members of the House. In fact, we did not get that agreement, and this is what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) said. We then went to Standing Order 75B, and we could not get agreement on that either. I find it rather hypocritical for members of the official opposition to talk about the debate ending on Monday or about five o'clock this afternoon, or about some mythical date for which at no point yesterday was there any support and of which there was no mention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
9030

November 13, 1975
Time Allocation Motion


James Hugh Faulkner: I also find it hollow in the extreme to hear hon. members such as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton talk about the rights of parliament as though somehow that sanctimonious individual was any more concerned about these rights than are members on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: In fact, if the government had not tried to use the Standing Orders of this House-and they are not rules for the government; they are Standing Orders approved by the House and they are available to the House-and had not moved after all this time, given the range of other pieces of legislation before the House and pending legislation dealing with housing, government annuities and a range of other questions, I would say we would have stood, if not condemned then at least criticized for an irresponsible waste of parliamentary time.


Walter David Baker: You are condemned now.


James Hugh Faulkner: This bill is simple. It has been around since at least 1961-since at least the royal commission. I find this extraordinary. Here I am, a rather new member of parliament, implementing the recommendations of the O'Leary commission. He is a well known Tory and a distinguished defender of civil rights and the right to free speech-and I am accused of censorship by the Tories.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: The debate has been long and repetitive. We heard hon. members like the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) quoting editorials from Belleville or Sudbury papers. I am not sure of the names and I apologize, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has never read those papers before, but yesterday they were the cornerstone of his debate and suddenly oracles of truth. These papers are relatively unknown; he certainly never reads them.
The principle behind Standing Order 75C, the issue before this House today and the vote which will take place in a few minutes, is whether an important public bill can be killed by debate rather than by a vote. That is the issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: Hon. members opposite know perfectly well that no responsible government could go on forever debating Bill C-58.


Walter David Baker: Who says it is a responsible government?


James Hugh Faulkner: They understood that, and their tactic was not to let it come to a vote, which is essentially what this chamber is all about; their tactic was to kill the bill by talking it out. That is what the issue is all about.


Paul Edmund McRae: Filibuster.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: What makes it all the more puzzling and what makes the position of the official opposition all the more difficult to take seriously is when one recalls that the spokesman for the official opposition, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), stood in the House and asked me this question on October 8, 1974:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State. In view of the financial difficulties of Saturday Night and several other Canadian publications, when does the government intend to keep its promises and remove tax exemption from Time and Reader's Digest?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: We thought you would bring in a sensible bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: What were you saying about controls at the same time?


James Hugh Faulkner: That was not just a fly-by-night, sort of sporadic happening by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, because he was representing the official opposition, speaking on behalf of them and declared by his leader to be the official spokesman for the party on matters pertaining to the Secretary of State. So like any good spokesman, he came back to the issue on October 22. He was not satisfied with the answer he received from the Secretary of State, so he asked the then minister of finance the following:
Has it been brought to the attention of the minister that if these privileges for Time were ended sufficient advertising dollars would be available to enable a Canadian magazine to go on the market immediately on a weekly basis? Has the hon. gentleman been in touch with the Secretary of State with regard to studying the question of tax privileges for Time magazine?
Then we came into 1975 when there was the announcement in January. What was the official position of the official spokesman of the official opposition in response to my proposal that we remove the exemptions? Let me quote from page 2527 of Hansard for January 23. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), who is noticeably absent today, said:
-in responding to the statement just made I would first like to say, on behalf of the official opposition, that we are pleased the government has clarified this matter at long last. We believe that the move to eliminate the income tax advantage shared mainly by two magazines, Time and Reader's Digest, is a good one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: A year later we are accused of invoking closure, arrogance and denying the right to free speech on a bill which they themselves over the period of a year'have supported. Mr. Speaker, you will understand it if from time to time we on this side of the House have difficulty taking the official opposition seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: The final point I wish to make is this. This issue does not just affect hon. members of this House; it affects a whole range of people outside who are advertisers, publishers and owners of television stations. I submit that they have a right to know where parliament stands on Bill C-58, they have a right to a decision from this House, and all we are asking today is that this bill be moved into committee where those who have interests involved and those who have ideas on this subject can meet before the
November 13, 1975

parliamentary committee and make their views known. This does not seem to be such an unreasonable request. This seems to be totally consistent with the very best practices and traditions of this House, and I suggest that to follow the route proposed by the official opposition would be tantamount to a callous indifference of the rights of people outside this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat discouraged and saddened to be rising at this time.


An hon. Member:: So are we.


An hon. Member:: Then sit down.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I was going to support, and perhaps will support, the government in this proposed legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: I noticed last night, when reading all the speeches to date and before deciding to partake on this, the fifth complete day, that of the 11 speakers on the government side fully one-third of them disagreed with the policy of the government. I wonder whether the government is imposing closure today in fear of losing more of its backbenchers than it can afford, and therefore losing the measure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: I have listened to the sanctimonious Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) who, with great oratorical prowess-or he thought it was-tried to say that the Conservative party had always stated it was supporting his proposal. He tried to say many things, but in fact he forgot to tell the people that he was supporting a royal commission which advocated the following:
-in an area as vital and sensitive as that of the press, whatever is done should be positive rather than negative, with the goal the promotion of the Canadian periodical, not the suppression of the foreign.
He did not quote that, but he should have. It is my judgment that the bill is headed in the right direction, one in which I happen to believe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: I hope my hon. friends on the government side will be as quick to applaud when I point out that there are many errors and omissions in this bill. If they had the courage of their convictions and the courage of good government and would listen to other people, they might introduce measures to strengthen the bill, such as the Canadian-owned distribution system recommended by the Davey committee and the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). They might also consider a review of the postal rate structure as it affects small Canadian magazines. This cannot be done in committee. The only thing this bill deals with is the Income Tax Act; if the hon. member who is interjecting would read the bill, he would
Time Allocation Motion
know that. It has nothing to do with distribution and postal rates. Read the damm bill!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: That's rude.


Paul Wyatt Dick: It is not rude when the stupid member happens to say he can amend it in committee. If he can tell me how that can be amended in committee, he can stand up and I will sit down.
The Secretary of State should not have tried to speak to the present motion on this bill he was putting through the House. It would probably have been better had he let the thing run its course. I am afraid the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) has inflamed emotions in this country. We will now have more editorials than ever, and I dare say this subject has caused more editorials in the last 12 months than anything other than prices and income controls.
I believe members of this House have received more correspondence on this subject in the last 24 months than on any other topic. My own mail on it runs twice as much as on capital punishment. Yet we will deal with capital punishment in 15 or 20 days. If abortion were brought in, we might deal with that in 15 or 20 days. We always have ten days for a budget, and we will go on for a long time on prices and income controls. A lot of people feel that this bill is a type of censorship and that there is control of or interference with a free press. They are writing letters to that effect. Why not let this House have full discussion of the subject, rather than closing it down?
I abhor this procedure. I think it is unfounded and unnecessary. If the President of the Privy Council had his wits about him and knew what was going on in this House, he would know there are maybe six people still to speak from this side. I want to say that I abhor the use of closure on a bill dealing with civil liberties and an area of the Bill of Rights. A lot of people perceive it as such, and that is good enough for me. This bill cannot be amended effectively in committee, and I think it is a mistake to bring in closure.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, when a motion such as this one is under consideration, we must not forget a quite important concept of our parliamentary system.
When some provisions are practically never enforced and are at a given moment, one wonders why a debate is unilaterally restricted. And when we look for the reasons prompting the government to restrict the debates at a given moment, we find that it is always due to the evident unpopularity of a bill or still an excessive haste to enforce a bill to which Parliament sees no urgency.
Mr. Speaker, this is a consequence of an inconsistent system and the basic reason of that inconsistency is the following: we are not free to vote and this fact must be mentioned. The vote is not free. This is so true that from time to time a motion is moved to indicate that the vote will be free, which means that at other times, it is not.
When time came to vote on maintaining capital punishment or against the abolition of capital punishment, we
29956-20V^

November 13, 1975
Time Allocation Motion
were told that the vote was going to be a free vote. This means that, usually, a vote is not free. There is nothing more stupid in our parliamentary system than this lack of freedom about votes, since it is known in advance that the voting machine will be started on the other side of the House, that it will say yes because the government said so, regardless of the consequences in every electoral district represented by the members on the government benches.
Mr. Speaker, there is no use denying it, it is a fact, that is how it happens here, that is what I have seen for the last eight years. When you are stuck with such a system, the only thing left to do is to try, even then, to force the government to find measures that people will approve, and only those which promote emancipation and development of the whole of the country.
We have no other solution to force the government to change certain things we consider inappropriate or improper; all we can do is talk about it, insist upon it and repeat it so that at some point the government may change because we contend that it must be changed. Striking, the last resource, is the only way workers have in the present system to try to solve their problems.
The parliamentary system forces us to that. That could be remedied however if Parliament were changed. Evidently, each member would first have to recover the basic freedom we fundamentally need if we are to respect and reflect the opinion of those we pride ourselves on representing. But, Mr. Speaker, that would require at least that every vote be a free one. All we need do is get rid of established precedents and traditions whereby no government bill may be defeated. That is why our hon. colleagues on the government side make a point of voting always against their opinions, sometimes against their conscience and against their own constituents. If we were to establish the balance sheet of all these contradictions, we could end up with surprising results.
A free vote, therefore, would be the initial step to take if we want to do away with debates which last unduly. Only then could we be sure that at the time of the question, the result would reflect the opinion of the majority, while we know now that the number of votes in favour of this bill will be that of hon. members of the Liberal party present 'in the House. The result will not depend on the value of the bill, but on the number of members in the House. That is a question of party strength and not of opinion, which is quite unfortunate. This could be remedied by a free vote. Then, it could be easier to limit the debates if we had what our party has been advocating for a long time, fixed sessions; when we know when the session is beginning and when it is going to end, it is a lot easier to determine within this time frame how long it will take to discuss the government's legislation. In those circumstances, we, from the opposition, would not object to the government setting a well established schedule enumerating the pieces of legislation the government would put before the House. Then, we would know exactly when a legislation would be put before us and we would be a lot less inclined to discuss it at long length, whereas presently we never know what will be put before us the following week, the following day and even the following hour.
Now, all those ambiguous and equivocal situations bring us, that is the government, to try and play tricks on us by

rapidly passing controversial bills, and so on. We play hide-and-seek instead of being serious and discussing objectively the intrinsic value of a bill. This is not really serious when we see that it is the way it goes. So, I take advantage of this motion to ask all members of the House to stop some time and set up to change what is wrong in the parliamentary system and sometimes brings the government to use unilaterally what it is agreed to call coerci-tive means to pass a bill. This is not normal. And being serious people, we could remedy this.
To conclude with, I repeat my suggestions: first, we should have a really free vote from each hon. member in this House; second, we should have sessions at a determined date so that the debates are not unduly extended; and third, we should have in advance a determined agenda of the government's intentions with the order they want to follow for the study of the different bills during the session. So we would not need this Standing Order 75C any more which whether we like it or not cannot be accepted by people who are really serious.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the debate is starting to turn and transform itself into a general debate on our Standing Orders, the procedure, the rights of the members to speak about democracy, and finally all our institutions. To my mind, those who are endeavouring to steer the debate in that direction are merely trying to create a smokescreen to hide the real issue. And that is, that 47 speakers have already spoken for 19 hours on a two-clause bill. Which brings up this question: Is it not enough that 47 hon. members spent 19 hours speaking on two clauses? My answer is this: That is quite enough. And that is the first reason that led the government to have recourse, for the first time, I believe, to Standing Order 75C.
The other reason is that no other agreement was reached between the parties of the opposition and the government. A while ago we heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) say that we could have come to an agreement. But that is crying over spilt milk. Although it has been impossible to come to an agreement for at least two weeks, we know that House leaders are meeting to discuss this topic after systematically refusing to give at least summary indications to the government House leader as to whether or not it would be possible to come to an agreement.
Having precluded all possibility to come to an understanding, they now come to the House to say: "If only the government were not so rigid and did not demand the implementation of Standing Order 75C! They even go so far as to say: If the government had not been so stupid, we could have reached an agreement. If this could have been done, it would have been before, but that did not come to pass. Now clause Standing Order 75C is being implemented and it seems to me that it is very useful. I contend that hon. members of the opposition who are against it and who are trying to put democracy on trial should conduct opinion polls in their constituencies just as we do on the government side of the House, they would then realize that the people have had debates which drag on and on in the House of Commons, and that they, the taxpayers deem inefficient.
November 13, 1975

I have been told so in the course of the seven years that I have been a member. Never has a week gone by without a voter telling me, especially now that we are a majority government: I wonder how you, the majority government, cannot pass such and such measures? Then, Mr. Speaker, we have to spend minutes and hours explaining the Standing Orders of the House of Commons to these persons, trying to convince them that the government does not control Parliament, but that in fact the members do, and that the opposition often decides when such measure will be passed, because of the number of members it wishes to have heard. The truth is that we use Standing Order 75C because it is about time, because enough is enough and because we have to reach a decision.
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, I wanted to be heard, because I wished to give some details. Canadians are looking forward to see this bill go further and I am in a good position to know it, as chairman of the committee.
And I can tell you that there are 22 witnesses, I have the list here, who are waiting to appear before the committee and who have been calling me for months every week to ask what is happening in this House or how come we cannot stop those interminable palavers. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we will indeed do it through Standing Order 75C. I should like all members to note that those who rose on the other side against the motion are not members of the opposition who sit on the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts because these members are also asking me when the bill will be referred to the committee.
And yet hon, members of the opposition who sit on the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts are certainly most interested to see that this bill receive fair treatment but they are the first to understand that after 47 speakers and 19 hours of debate it is time to refer the bill to the committee. They are eager to see the witnesses appear before them. The people who are most interested, those who are affected by this bill and who wish to appear before the committee, the members of the opposition, the members of the Committee on Broadcasting, Film4 and Assistance to the Arts ask me if they will have the opportunity to meet those people and talk to them in person. Let us stop making this seem like a debate on democracy, let us be honest and realize that some filibusters must stop and that time has come to put an end to this one.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-Housing-Request for
Time Allocation Motion
assurance no interference with installation of infrastructure to service development in southwest part of city; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Communications-Alleged deterioration of telephone communications systems-Suggested denial of rate increases pending improvement.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp:
That, in relation to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, five hours shall be allotted to the further consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and
That, at the expiry of the fifth such hour, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt any proceeding before the House, if required for the purpose of this order, and shall forthwith put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of the bill.
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), the chairman of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, suggested that this legislation will affect most directly the witnesses who are to appear before the committee. It is obvious that he has missed the mark completely. It is the people of Canada who will be the most affected by this legislation. It is they who will suffer or benefit from it.
The May 9 committee minutes which the hon. member mentioned record the comments of a government member who coined a phrase when addressing those comments to the minister, "culture paranoia." That is a good term; it is descriptive; it describes perfectly the government's mental health, not only about culture but also about open debate. The government cannot stomach sustained 3'/2-hour opposition. It cannot stand open debate which examines and displays to the public view the inadequacies and fallacies of this legislation.
The minister made some very specious and fatuous comments about the procedure of the House and his respect for that procedure. What has not been pointed out is that it is his lack of respect for procedure in the House that has brought us to this pass. The minister has mentioned outside the House that the deadline for this legislation is January 1. The effect will then be felt by the Canadian people. That is why the government has to impose closure. If the government is going to save face for the minister and for itself, it will have to see this debate through, and through in a hurry. Otherwise, the minister will have to backtrack-and that is some thing he cannot do; at least, he does not enjoy it.
Two weeks ago the minister was interviewed over CBC radio. He was asked whether there was a lot of opposition

Time Allocation Motion
to this bill. His answer was something like this, "Oh, no; just a few insignificant members." That quotation may not be quite accurate, but it is the essence of what the minister said.


James Hugh Faulkner: It is not even close to accurate. It is a distortion. Let us see the transcript.


Benno Friesen: I have been wondering ever since if some of those "insignificant members" are on the government backbenches. That is an indication of the minister's respect for parliament and the parliamentary process.
This is an issue we cannot avoid. It is censorship not only in the legislation but now in the process by which we come to this legislation. I am waiting to meet the 22 witnesses who will come before the committee. I trust there will be a lot more who will be added to the list. I am thinking of some who I am sure are not on the list. I hope the government is open enough to accept suggestions and will include witnesses who may not yet be on the list. I hope it will extend the courtesy of open debate and examine this legislation in that light and spirit so that we will have the best possible legislation for the people of Canada.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) to muzzle this House and bring in closure, notice of which he gave yesterday just prior to Your Honour recognizing me to speak on Bill C-58, one or two points have again to be drawn to the attention of this House. Members of the House have a responsibility to present the views of their constituents. This might be regarded as insignificant by some. However, I am surprised at the number of people who have written to me, and I understand other members have had similar responses, to specifically express their viewpoint on Bill C-58. The viewpoint they have expressed overwhelmingly is that they do not favour government interference in the existence of Reader's Digest or Time Canada.
The government says that all this closure motion will do is to take Bill C-58 from second reading in the House of Commons to the committee stage for examination. I must point out that the only way we can get the government to react is to keep on hammering in the House on a specific issue. When a matter comes to committee, the majority that the government enjoys is used in the same way as it is used in the House of Commons: they do not necessarily look at amendments to improve legislation but view them as a mad means by which the opposition is trying to embarrass the government into substantially changing legislation.
The government reminds me of the story of the farmer and his mule. One day he loaned the mule to his neighbour. The neighbour could not get the mule to work. The owner said there was no problem. He picked up a fence post which was lying nearby, hit the mule over the head, and it immediately started to work. When the neighbour asked why he did that, the farmer replied, "First you have to get his attention". That is how we have to handle this government. It seems we must make speeches for days and days before we can get their attention. Thousands of letters from ordinary citizens must be sent to this government before it will respond, if it responds at all. The way it is

responding in this case is to muzzle parliament by bringing in closure.
We have questioned the government about the manner in which Reader's Digest and Time must become sufficiently Canadian in order to survive in this country. The government did not give us the details until just a short while ago when the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) tabled them in the House. We have had 3V4 hours of debate. The real reason this legislation is now before us is that the President of the Privy Council and the government whip cannot guarantee how many government members will abstain because they would like to vote against Bill C-58. I know they have been receiving the same correspondence as members on this side. Therefore, the muzzle is not only on parliament as such; it has been placed on members of the government.
As my colleague pointed out, of those members on the government side who spoke, one-third spoke against the bill. What about the minister? He says it is 11 months since the bill was given first reading and, therefore, placed before the people of Canada. It almost seems that he believes if a bill is on the order paper long enough, even though it is not debated, it should be passed simply for that reason. That is the conclusion that can be drawn from that statement.
The real issue is that almost everything the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has touched has gone bad. Consider the criticism we hear today about the CRTC and Canadian content and the meddling of the CRTC not only on Canadian content on television but on the cable question. The minister has touched on all those areas.
The same thing with the CBC. The minister, again, has made many Canadians take notice of what is happening in the CBC. But I am sure what has really happened is that the minister has come on hands and knees, grovelling to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and saying; Let's bring back Bill C-58 because my personal reputation is at stake." That is why he had to get the use of closure, to show that he is tough, that he has clout within the cabinet when in fact he is just a lightweight. Maybe he is also one of the nobodies the Prime Minister described us as being some time ago. That is why he wants to have closure brought in. That is why he wants to show Canadians that the cabinet must now support him. Because it was my understanding about two weeks ago that it was very likely Bill C-58 would not be brought back to the House, that there was a lot of cabinet opposition to the bill and the cabinet would just as gladly like to see it die and not see the light of day any more.
However, that would have brought into question the reputation of the minister and it would have brought into question the guarantees he has given to various Canadian associations, not least of which are Maclean's magazine and the Canadian Periodical Publishers Association. So he had to come to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and he had to go to the Prime Minister and literally beg for his political life. That is why closure is upon the House.
There are issues which are important, and this is one of them. When Canadians speak, I believe parliament should listen, and the government has not listened. They have
November 13, 1975

muzzled us. It is not as important that they have muzzled us as they have muzzled those people who have responded to the issue of Bill C-58. It is a sad day and what I said yesterday I repeat today: I hope members of the government party, the backbenchers who are opposed to the bill, and especially those who are opposed to the methodology by which it is being rammed through the House, will get up and speak not only in the House of Commons by their vote but also in the inner councils of their party and say to the members in the front row that the method used is wrong and more freedom should be granted in the expression of the Canadian will, which I believe the government at this time is not doing.


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise and speak for this motion with respect to Standing Order 75C, although I think the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) in his speech this afternoon has more than justified any reason for the use of that Standing Order. However, I am astonished at the tone of this debate. Having spent six days on this subject, and in particular yesterday, to say that little has been said by the opposition is quite true. The statement of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) has been publicized for at least two weeks, but nothing-or very little-was said about it yesterday. In fact, it was a repetitive session of listening to editorials which we have all received from the people who sent them to the official opposition. Again, I think it has not been clarified here that Standing Order 75C is not closure; it is a motion to allocate time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Coline M. Campbell: We have already heard one hon. member saying where closure comes from; it came from the Rt. Hon. Sir Bobert Borden sometime in the past.


An hon. Member:: A rather obscure Tory.


Coline M. Campbell: Actually, section 75C has two conditions to its use; one is in section 75A where unanimous consent to allocate time is not arrived at, and section 75B where a majority decision is not arrived at to allocate time. It has been well said here this afternoon by members opposite that there was no going around to find about allocating time. I know this for myself, I checked with each party as to how many speakers there would be, as parliamentary secretary to the minister concerned with Bill C-58, and was told there would be many. There was never any indication as to when debate would be ended.
Limitation on debate is something many members have been asking the government to impose in the past. Certainly it is being used effectively under the British system and no one cries "Closure". In fact, it can only lead to better debate within the time allotted and better use of the time of the House. There are no individual rights involved respecting members being cut off, because most members of the official opposition have spoken or have had an opportunity to speak on the bill. I feel, therefore, it is time the House began to use some of its Standing Orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order. It being 5.08 p.m., the two hours allotted for consideration of the motion before the House under the provi-
Time Allocation Motion
sions of Standing Order 75C have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. It being 50 minutes from the time arranged by special order to be the expiry of private members' hour, I assume the House will now proceed to private members' hour and will begin debate on the order of business we have been dealing with at eight o'clock this evening.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I put in a good word for that distinguished member of the House, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), whose motion will be before the House in private members' hour dealing with an attempt by the government not to produce certain documents?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: In order that it be granted full time, I suggest it would be in order for the government to consider the continuation of the debate on this motion next Thursday so that the motion can remain at the top of the list.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that understood and agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the business of the House for tomorrow. A motion has been put down by this party, tomorrow being our allotted day, under Standing Order 58(9), which means that it will come to a vote. However, there have been discussions among the House leaders and it has been agreed that the vote, instead of being taken tomorrow evening at five o'clock, will be deferred until 9.45 p.m. on Monday. In other words, the debate will continue until five o'clock tomorrow and the vote taken as I have indicated.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)).]


Mr. Speaker:: The house has heard the terms of that motion. Is it agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-30, an Act to incorporate Continental Bank of Canada, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

I understand that we are able to dispense with the calling of all the motions on the order paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of correspondence and agreements between Sunset Crest Ltd., now a subsidiary of the Barbados Shipping and Trading Co., and any employee of Air Canada or its subsidiaries.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I must say that it is of utmost significance that this motion should follow the debate which just took place this afternoon, the debate on closure, which I believe illustrates that the government not only wishes to muzzle members of parliament and deny them the right to speak in this House on important issues, but here we have a motion which clearly illustrates the refusal of the government to provide information on a very important issue, an issue which is very timely, and the House is entitled to be provided with this information.
The reply to motion No. 36 was given by the former parliamentary secretary to the former minister of transport. This reply is similar in nature to many replies we receive from time to time on motions of this nature. The former parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Bat-tleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac), pointed out the following:
The requested documents are of a proprietary nature and Air Canada believes this information should not be made public for competitive reasons. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
That is recorded at page 4650 of Hansard for April 9, 1975. That is the standard stock answer which is peddled by this government every time we attempt to elicit information on this most favoured, pampered pet of the government, namely, Air Canada.
Air Canada has become a corporate disgrace. The former parliamentary secretary at page 4650 indicated that information was withheld for competitive reasons. This answer
November 13, 1975

is similar in nature to the one provided to me by the former parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) on February 19 at page 3362 of Hansard when I requested copies of all Air Canada documents relating to an Air Canada contract. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River at that time pointed out the following:
The Air Canada contract contains considerable confidential information relating to the organization, operation and maintenance of the Air Canada lines. Air Canada's competitors are not obliged to provide such information or expose their contractual arrangements to similar scrutiny. To place Air Canada in such a disadvantageous position would not be in the public interest.
The fact of the matter is that upon further investigation this contract was found to be available at the public archives, and when we proceeded with the debate, the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley agreed to table the documents, having regard to the fact that I had already procured a major portion of them. However, I think it is of significance to note some extracts of his speech because I think the feeling he has expressed is shared by many hon. members that the parliamentary secretary does exercise good judgment, and I am sure many hon. members will agree with the statement he made in response to my request for this documentation. At page 5606 of Hansard he stated, and I quote:
I do not mind telling the hon. member that I agree in a general way with the spirit of his remarks. Some of the problem and perhaps misunderstanding with regard to Air Canada and other Crown corporations could be prevented if there were more agreements to the kind of request made by the hon. member. There is no reason, in my mind, why there should be any tremendous security surrounding Crown corporations such as Air Canada.
I could not agree with that statement more. It would be very interesting to know then how the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River could justify making the remarks he did. The sort of approach the government takes is all part of a formality. It seems to be a form of stereotyped ploy to shroud Air Canada in a cloak of secrecy.
There have been many other motions of this nature. I will not take the time of the House to go into them, but they have been of a similar nature asking for pertinent and important information regarding the operations of this Crown corporation, its management, and some of its dealings, which have been somewhat suspicious, but in every case the government has treated hon. members in the same cavalier manner.
The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley, in response to my request for this information stated, and I quote: "Air Canada believes this information should not be made public for competitive reasons." I ask, Mr. Speaker, competition with whom? We all know that Air Canada is in a monopoly position in providing Air Transportation services in this country. We all know that there is no price competition per se between Air Canada and CP Air. We know that from the hearings which took place at the CTC here just a few months ago, so what is all this ballyhoo about competition? Even if it was a matter of competition, should the public interest not prevail in a matter which is so important and where there is a shroud of suspicion involving some very questionable dealings? Surely when suspicions and suggestions of wrongdoing, such as have been advanced in this particular transaction, are brought into the fore it is mandatory that the government exercise
Air Canada
its responsibility and encourage and, indeed, persuade this Crown corporation to provide the information to which we as members of parliament and the public are rightly entitled. We know that Air Canada's position is such that it refuses to give the information because it considers it to be proprietary and not in the interests of the airline, but what is the position of the government? It obviously must agree with the position that this kind of information should be suppressed.
When the parliamentary secretary rises to respond, I hope he will tell us why the government sees fit to concur with this position. Surely under the provisions of the Financial Administration Act the government is ultimately responsible for the conduct of its Crown corporations? Surely the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is also responsible for accounting to the country through parliament. If the government is a party to this suppression of information, who is it trying to protect? Parliament is justified in demanding to know what is going on inside this corporation. We are entitled to know the details of some of the Mickey Mouse transactions which have been taking place within Air Canada, if we are to make a valid assessment and judgment of the operations of the upper echelons of its management.
This particular transaction raises many questions. The central figure involved in this transaction is a gentleman by the name of Mr. Yves Menard, who was the vice president of marketing. Mr. Menard has resigned. We do not know whether that was for personal reasons or whether it was because of a blatant conflict of interest. We do not know whether it was because he overstepped the bounds of his authority. We do not know whether he was the victim of other instances of mismanagement or whether it was simply sloppy administration on the part of the gang at the top. It is interesting to note that the chief executive officer of the airline, Mr. Yves Pratte, said that he regretted the circumstances surrounding Mr. Menard's departure and indicated that he would be sorely missed.
We are all aware of what transpired thereafter. The Estey inquiry was set up, but to date we have had no report although we suspect it is in the minister's hands. We do not know why we have not heard about it and I hope the parliamentary secretary can offer us some explanation. Surely a matter as important as this should receive immediate attention. It cannot simply be a matter of the translation because the government had no difficulty with the translation of the documents relating to the anti-inflationary program. The Minister of Transport has offered us nothing but excuses in this regard.
We now find Mr. Menard's name linked with the Sky Shops affair. This is another issue which was brought to the surface by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). We are getting the run-around. Who is in control of this corporation? Who is ultimately responsible for carrying out the operations of this major airline? Whoever it is has failed to exercise their mandate in a proper and orderly fashion.
Let us look at the background of the issue, Mr. Speaker. On February 28, 1975. Mr. Yves Menard, Air Canada's vice president of marketing, resigned from his position upon

November 13, 1975
Air Canada
learning that two very astute investigative journalists, Mr. Kendall Windeyer and Mr. Bill Fox of the Montreal Gazette were going to publish details of his purchase of a Barbados villa and his subsequent signing, 11 months later, of a $1 million air line rental contract with the same company that built his villa, Sunset Crest Limited.
In May, 1973, Menard had signed a purchase agreement on the villa with Sunset Crest Limited. The original sales agreement had stipulated that all moneys were to have been paid within 15 days of completion of the villa and approval of the Barbados planning board.
By November 28, 1973, the latter two items had been completed, but as of March 1, 1975, Menard had not made a mortgage payment on his $43,000 villa.
Eleven months after signing the purchase agreement with Sunset Crest, Air Canada negotiated a leasing agreement with the same company at the suggestion of Mr. Menard. Air Canada eventually leased 104 condominium apartments, 25 privately owned villas, and 72 other apartments for its Sun Living package tours to the Barbados. The lease agreements cost Air Canada approximately $1 million per year. The actual Sun Living package tours to the Barbados lost an estimated $100,000 per year.
The former minister of transport, reacting to the story, refused to have a public inquiry into this matter. Instead there was an internal inquiry which came to the conclusion that there was no wrongdoing, a not too surprising verdict considering who was conducting the inquiry.
On July 1, 1975, Air Canada announced that it was severing all relationships with Sunset Crest. According to an Air Canada communique, it was done because "it was not to the economic advantage of the company to continue leasing these properties."
It was not until the Estey commission hearings were held that a few more shreds of information concerning this deal became public. Mr. Vaughan, president of Air Canada, testified that he gave permission to go ahead with the leasing deal prior to approval by Air Canada's board of directors. He also added that he did not know of Menard's villa at the time.
In March, 1973, Menard proposed that Air Canada make a leasing agreement with Sunset Crest. Mr. Vaughan agreed, although Air Canada had never been involved in the leasing of rooms in the Caribbean. The board of directors was not consulted. The agreement was only sent to the board for approval one month after it had already been consummated. In effect the board was presented with a fait accompli.
Furthermore, the agreement was between Sunset Crest and Venturex, a subsidiary of Air Canada. The Venturex board of directors were not consulted until May 10, 1973, when they were asked to transfer the already signed leases to Air Canada's marketing division. It has been suggested, even this afternoon, that the Estey inquiry has explored this particular issue. We do not know that at the present time because the report has not yet been made public.
The Estey commission was set up primarily to investigate the McGregor travel deal, although it did touch upon the Sunset Crest deal. However, it failed to bring out the reasons why Menard felt compelled to resign since, according to him, he was innocent of all allegations. The Air

Canada-Sunset Crest correspondence, documents, and agreements were not presented. Instead, Menard was asked many questions of fact and interpretation about the events and reasonings behind this deal. This questioning brought forth such enlightening answers as "I- don't know", and "I can't remember". Therefore, considering the circumstances under which Menard resigned, considering the limited nature of the Air Canada and Estey inquiries, and considering Menard's evasive answers to the Estey commission's questions, I would think it mandatory that all documents relating to the Air Canada-Sunset Crest deal be revealed in order to determine the amount of Menard's influence in the consummation of this deal.
This is not the first time that members of parliament have been denied information which I believe they are entitled to receive. It seems there has been a constant effort to inhibit members from obtaining information which is important not only to the future of the air lin? but is important to this House. This is a Crown corporation and is ultimately responsible to the government and to parliament. Surely in a case where there are so many loopholes, gaps, and questions, it is important that we have all the facts before us. I would earnestly solicit the support of all members for this motion, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the mood of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) in attempting to get to the bottom of some of the problems he sees in Air Canada. I think many of these requests should be granted as time goes on. There is always a great danger of secrecy overcoming governments when there is really very little to be secret about.
At this point, however, we do have a board of inquiry which met under Mr. Justice Estey, and I think it would be as well to wait until the report of that board is produced.
In the three years that I have been in this House, and in most of the discussions in committee concerning transport, I have noticed that the Conservative opposition has a strong tendency to speak out against Air Canada and CNR and to be protective with respect to their main competitors, CPR and CP Air.
I should like, in the few minutes I have, to make some points on behalf of Air Canada, to defend Air Canada, because I know it as one of the finest air lines in the world. Canadians have every right to be proud of Air Canada, and when the Estey commission reports I think- we shall see that all is well with Air Canada.
Forty years ago the air line began life as Trans-Canada Air Lines, the air carrier which was to move freight, people, and mail in this country. It is most difficult to establish a transport system in this country as distances are vast and populations thinly spread out. Air Canada has provided air service to many parts of the country. It serves not merely Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver; it serves all kinds of smaller communities. CP Air serves Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec city, Halifax, and one or two other large centres. Air Canada serves these centres as well. It also serves smaller centres like Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, Timmins,
November 13, 1975

Sudbury, Fredericton, St. John's and other similar communities which, but for Air Canada, would not enjoy national air service. My own community would not enjoy national air service if it were not served by Air Canada. These are facts we must recognize.
Let us consider Air Canada's economic structure. The average stage of Air Canada flights is about 600 miles.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret interrupting the hon. member. I have listened carefully. I think we ought to confine debate to a fairly narrow subject. With the greatest of respect to the hon. member, who is my friend, I suggest that he should confine his remarks to the motion before the House. Surely we ought to be considering the government's refusal to provide information relating to an agreement between Air Canada and Sunset Crest Ltd. That has nothing to do with the Air Canada rate structure, or service to Fort William, Regina, or any other place. I am sure the government has a legitimate reason for not complying with my request. If it has, I want to hear it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member's point is well taken, and I hope the hon. member who has the floor will pay closer heed to the motion now before the House.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, from my reading of the motion it implies some wrongdoing on the part of Air Canada. I am trying to show that Air Canada, as a company, is basically above such kinds of wrongdoing. For that reason I think it is relevant to paint a true picture of Air Canada. We must consider routes and distances, because they have a strong bearing on the air line's cost and mode of operation. Surely we cannot debate this matter properly if we are to confine our remarks simply to the motion for the production of papers.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely that is the essence of this matter. We are considering a narrow point. The question is: will the government produce the documents requested, or not? The motion has nothing to do with the length of routes or anything else. I think hon. members of the House would appreciate the hon. member's addressing himself to the motion before the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Although I do not necessarily agree with what the hon. member just said, as I think the hon. member himself might at times object if the Chair were to give a ruling to limit debate in the way he suggests, I think we must allow hon. members fair play in developing the subject matter of the motion. I will listen to the hon. member for a few minutes and note the drift of his remarks.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to show why Air Canada functions in its present way and why it is not as profitable as CP Air. I think this is very much the question. This has been the debate in committee.
I am talking about distances in this country, about an air line that has an average flight of 600 miles, the cost of taking off and landing and so on under these circumstances. Compare that to CP where we are talking about
Air Canada
average flights of 1,100 miles. I do not see members opposite questioning whether or not the rates of CP are correct. That is the reason why I have raised this question. It has been said that Air Canada is not competitive and is not a good air line. This is at the back of the question raised in this motion.
Let us look at Air Canada service for a moment. This too is part of the question that has been raised. One measure of service is how often an airline is on time. For years Air Canada was tops in this field, one of the top ten in North America. It slipped a bit in the early seventies when it went to flexible timetabling. It has now regained its position and is in the top three in this area.
I enjoy my Air Canada flights. The meals are excellent. I defy anyone to show me that any other airline feeds its passengers better than Air Canada. With regard to baggage, many people say that every time you take a flight you lose a piece of baggage. In the past three years I have taken off and landed about 400 times. I have only lost baggage three times, and this I got back within a day or two. In my opinion in this area Air Canada is very good.
In terms of employee relationship with the public, and I am not talking about the relationship with management because there are some bad relations there, I believe that Air Canada employees are as fine as can be found anywhere. I have always been treated well and I believe that is the general situation.
At the present time, it appears as though the future for all air lines is rather grim. Air Canada will and is having difficulties. It showed a profit in ten of the past 12 years. Last year it did not, nor did many air lines in North America.
There are some serious problems that air lines will have to face. Like other air lines Air Canada will have to cut schedules. In fact it has already done some cutting. It is important that the short-haul hops be cut because these involve very high cost. It takes a lot of energy to get a plane to 20,000, 25,000 or 30,000 feet and, once there, the air is rare.


An hon. Member:: It's rare in here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edmund McRae: The cost per mile is much less on long routes. On a mileage basis it is much less costly to move passengers from Toronto to Vancouver than from Toronto to Montreal. What this amounts to is a need to develop alternative means of transportation, and if this is done there may be no need for a second airport in the neighbourhood of Toronto. Indeed, I maintain we do not need one.
The answer is to move traffic by rail, to develop an alternate type of transportation for short haul traffic. I would prefer to spend $1.5 billion of $2 billion, the amount it would cost in the long run to build another airport near Toronto, on short haul rail services in the corridor between Toronto and Quebec City.
These are some of the problems the air line will face. I also believe, that when the Estey report is brought in it will show that Air Canada is a very sound operation, that

November 13, 1975
Air Canada
it is one of the world's best air lines. We shall await that report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you for or
against the motion?


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support the very logical request of my hon. friend from Vegreville for documents which, as usual, the government has refused to produce. The government invariably goes into a defensive crouch when asked to produce anything which is relevant, or controversial, or in the nature of an accounting to the country.
We have a new Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). I hoped he would be a little more liberal than his predecessor in terms of providing information. This goes to the very credibility of the government and of Air Canada. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) opened up many interesting areas in the course of his remarks and I hope I will be allowed a similar latitude in di scussing the motion.
Air Canada has in the past been the victim of the government's transport policy, or rather lack of it. This is true with regard to the production of documents and otherwise. Only a few days ago the new minister was quoted as saying in the course of a newspaper interview that no one really expected the Liberals to make good immediately their proposals to improve rapid transit and commuter service in major urban areas. He went on to say that many of the election promises would only be carried out over 15 years or more. So once more we are reminded how much credence one can attach to policy promises made by the government particularly during a campaign. This is also very true when it comes to the production of documents.
Air Canada, of course, suffers along with the rest of the minister's portfolio from the secrecy syndrome. One might well ask whether Air Canada is really a unique, peculiar corporation, a proprietary Crown corporation as opposed to a departmental one, or agency one, as set out in the Financial Administration Act, which attempts to describe the various types of Crown corporations? Or is it a mutant in its present form, because of the way in which it has been allowed to develop under a management which cannot control it, to a point at which it may defy classification at all?
The lack of frankness in connection with Air Canada's operations as exhibited by the government's refusal to comply with my colleague's request is obviously a cover-up as is its reluctance to bring forth the Estey report-I will mention that in a few minutes.
Air Canada's performance, or lack of it, can be attributed not only to its management but to the vagaries of politics. Again, because of the government's lack of frankness, as well illustrated again today, I am sure, in denying my colleague's motion, we must speculate on the reasons for certain decisions. For example, the decision to purchase the Lockheed L-1011 jet instead of the rival Douglas DC-10 is said to have been heavily influenced by political pressure. It seems that Air Canada took options on the DC-10 and the L-1011 in the late sixties when both aircraft were in the pre-production stage and quoted substantially the same characteristics and price.

In 1971, when Lockheed was on the brink of bankruptcy because of the L-1011, Air Canada announced it would reconsider the matter because aside from the uncertainty about the future of the L-1011 the DC-10 was proving itself a better aircraft in Air Canada's analysis. It had better range, was compatible with Air Canada's largely Douglas fleet, and had become cheaper. We have never been told why the priorities developed as they did.
The air lines executive committee pondered the selection for months while Lockheed worried and other air lines watched, but finally the decision was made to stick with the L-1011. Again we have never been told why, in the same way as we have been told today why in the government's eyes these documents are so vital that they cannot be produced in accordance with the hon. member's request.
As stated in the Ottawa Citizen May 23, 1975, issue:
It is widely assumed in the industry that the influence of another department (External Affairs) was one of the main reasons for the decision.
So that is likely why they took the L-1011 instead of the DC-10.
As the hon. member for Fort William said, Air Canada does have problems that are not of its own making, but it has a lot of problems that are strictly attributable to its own management.
The more types of aircraft an air line owns, the larger the spare parts inventory it must keep, and the greater the number of machinists it must hire to maintain the different engines. Until 1969 Air Canada had an almost entirely Douglas fleet with many parts interchangeable from aircraft to aircraft. It now flies Douglas, Boeing, and Lockheed equipment, and certainly this has contributed to rising costs to which the hon. member has referred. We can only wonder how and why this policy was followed.
As I said earlier, we have a new Minister of Transport. Has he shown any initiatives, any "new broom" tendencies? Not as far as we can see so far. He has not even brought in the Estey report because he claims it is not yet translated. One wonders why this was not done when it was written or a few days thereafter, by dividing it among several translators, as any good newspaper would have done.
Our Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications has not been made operative since parliament resumed after the recess. We have not had a look at Air Canada in committee since November, 1973, and at that time we were considering the 1972 annual report in the context of the CN financing bill. There is still no word from the Chairman of Air Canada concerning his oft-repeated statement that if Air Canada did not perform he would go. The only word I have heard, and my sources are pretty good, is that he has stated he will not resign in any case, and if they want to get rid of him they will have to carry him out kicking and screaming.
If the Minister of Transport wants co-operation from this side of the House he ought to consider bringing the Estey report forward quickly and acting on it. We must make changes to restructure Air Canada, refer its annual report to our standing committee and tell Mr. Pratte that, kicking or screaming or whatever, he has had his opportunity to run Air Canada and now it is time for someone else.
November 13, 1975

It must be as obvious to the Minister of Transport as it is to the country, and in particular the knowledgeable people in the air line industry, that by practically every standard or test by which an executive is measured, the chairman and chief executive officer of Air Canada has struck out, and if the chairman remains it will be even more obvious than it is now that he is remaining only because of his relationship as a sycophant of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau); he is willing to be exactly that in return for whatever personal prestige he imagines there may be in his present position as head of Air Canada while it heads for a second deficit.
The government's attitude through failing to comply with information requests underscores the fact that this air line has become a convenient refuge for would-be entrepreneurs who can attempt to wheel and deal in wine, or sugar, or what have you, while still having the security of our national air line to fall back on for their pay cheques.
Let us consider Air Canada's experience with Mr. Alfredo Laforet of Sunset Crest Villa in Barbados, which is right on target, you will no doubt be glad to hear, Mr. Speaker, with the topic with which the motion of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) deals. Mr. Laforet is a man about whom a good book could be written. He really took Yves Menard and Air Canada to the cleaners in a most direct and casual manner, leaving the Barbados shipping and trading company with a large debt, doing the same with Air Canada and its subsidiary, but doing very well for himself. The details will be most interesting to the people of the country if Air Canada is honest enough to bring them forward for analysis.
Let us consider the firm of Caribbean Sales and Leasing Incorporated which, by the way, has the same postal address as the solicitor for Sunset Crest Limited but has no permanent staff or offices.-Rather strange! This company, which attempted to engineer a $100 million sugar deal at a time when our country was experiencing real shortages of this vital commodity, has as its principals several Air Canada executives, including Mr. Ray Lindsay.
The traces of Air Canada's ineptitude in extracurricular activities manifest themselves in particular ways. For example, they linger on. If one were to call Air Canada asking to be booked into Southern Palms Hotel outside Bridgetown, their computer will indicate that this is a substandard hotel, which is very ironic since Air Canada once tried to buy it. The owner, you see, is the recipient of this type of classification for this hotel because of a grudge carried over from dealing with Air Canada and Yves Menard. The computer had been adjusted accordingly.
I hoped that the Minister of Transport when he assumed the portfolio would be a reformer, a man who would have the courage to clean house and make decisions. If he does this then I can certainly pledge my support in this House and in committee for his efforts to rationalize our transportation policies and, in the case of Air Canada, clean out the Augean stables which exist in its structure. As a beginning, Mr. Speaker, let us have the documents requested by the hon. member for Vegreville. Let us have some action to improve Air Canada immediately before it suffers
Air Canada
irreparable harm under present policies and under the present management.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak at this time, first to reply to the motion requesting copies of correspondence and agreements between Sunset Crest Ltd., now a subsidiary of Barbados Shipping and Trading Company, and any employee of Air Canada or its subsidiaries; and secondly, to reply to some of the criticism that has been directed to Air Canada.
On April 7, 1975, the minister replied to the following questions:
1.	What are the details of the various contracts entered into by Air Canada with Sunset Crest Ltd. of Barbados?
2.	Who approved the contracts and what is the length of each?
The minister said that the management of Air Canada had advised him as follows:
The information requested is of a proprietary nature and Air Canada believes it should not be made public for competitive reasons.
The advice of Air Canada's management in respect of the notice of motion for the production of papers requiring copies of correspondence and agreements between Sunset Crest Ltd. and any employee of Air Canada or its subsidiaries is that in the interest of staff relations and for competitive reasons such information should not be made public.
I believe there is an inherent danger every time a government exempts certain papers or documents from production. The danger is that there will be an increase in public skepticism of government, a skepticism which has been growing in the past few years in most western democracies. When a document is exempt from production, regardless of the validity of reasons given for its exemption, the government leaves itself open to charges that it is trying to hide something which may be politically embarrassing or damaging.
In most cases the only defence against these kinds of charges is the production of the papers and, conversely, the only means to substantiate the charges is the actual publication of the documents in question. As a result, without being able to see the information which has been requested, we are left in a sort of daisy-plucking situation in regard to the government's motives; are they based on the expected criteria for the exemption of the production of papers or documents required for the effective functioning of government, or are they using the criteria merely to avoid political embarrassment?
I believe this kind of situation in the long run undermines the trust on which our democratic and parliamentary system is based. There are many arguments for greater accessibility to information, not the least being simply that both members of parliament and the public require as much information as possible if they are to make a meaningful contribution to the decision-making process.
Still, I feel the most complete argument is that publication of the papers requested eliminates that situation which I have described, where the motives of the government are questioned, and the harmful consequences that brings with it.

Air Canada
This government, and indeed any government, when deciding whether a particular document should be made public must carefully weigh not only the effects publication of the document will have on the effective functioning of government, but also the effect that not publishing the document will have on the public's trust of that government. Nevertheless, in the particular case we have before us there is an important consideration to be borne in mind, a consideration which I feel removes any suspicion that the government may be withholding information for political reasons.
Hon. members are no doubt aware that the Estey report was received by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) during the latter part of last month. The contents of the report are being studied by him and it will be some days yet before the minister will be able to make public comment on it.
The Hon. Mr. Justice Estey, a judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario and a member of the Court of Appeal of Ontario, was appointed commissioner under the Inquiries Act to inquire into matters pertaining to financial controls, accounting procedures, and other matters related to the fiscal management and control of Air Canada. Public hearings were conducted from April 30, 1975.
Hon. members will no doubt agree that the government took effective action in order to bring to light the true facts. A number of witnesses testified before the commissioner, and these included top executives of Air Canada. Full opportunity was given to private citizens and to Air Canada's management and other employees to state their case, and there was also opportunity for cross-examination.
The matter which the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) brings before the House is among those matters which have been the cause of the Air Canada inquiry, and no doubt the commission of inquiry must have addressed itself to the details of the transactions between Sunset Crest Ltd. and Air Canada.
The minister needs time to digest the contents of the Estey report. Printing of copies of the report will take a few more days. I am sure hon. members would wish the minister to give an explanation of whatever comment and recommendations Judge Estey might have made. I am sure that any debate on the Sunset Crest Ltd. Air Canada transactions would call for explanations of other matters in relation to financial controls in Air Canada. Frankly I do not think that we are ready to debate these issues and I feel that our time will be more usefully spent in debating this and other issues arising from the Air Canada inquiry when the Minister of Transport informs this House of his impressions of Judge Estey's report.
I would like to take the opportunity which this debate affords me to speak briefly on a point which has been of some concern to me. In general terms it is the effect which sometimes specific, well meaning criticism of a department, agency, or Crown corporation has on the vast majority of competent, hard working, and loyal public servants.
While there can be no questioning of a member of parliament's right, indeed his duty, to examine closely the performance of national institutions such as Air Canada,

care must be taken to avoid the tendency of looking only at the weakness and shortcoming of such an institution.
Air Canada is a large company employing over 20,000 persons in many categories of work. There are hundreds of managers in various levels of the hierarchy, and thousands of employees with valuable skills in many professions. Hon. members are, of course, aware that the employees of Air Canada are men and women who have worked hard over the years to build an air line that has earned its place as an important contributor to national unity and social prosperity, and one that "earns it keep" in that it has not been necessary for over two decades for public money to subsidize Air Canada. Even with biting inflation and a general depression in most parts of the world, Air Canada's performance has been good.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time appointed for the consideration of private members' hour having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 6.30 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, yesterday at this point in my remarks I was trying to indicate that in the constituency I represent there is a choice of listening to radio or watching television, and a choice between a relatively uncontrolled source in the United States versus virtually a totally controlled source in Canada. When that choice has been offered, the predominant number of people in my constituency choose to watch the material which comes from the United States. I am therefore very hesitant to give favourable consideration to any structure which further extends control oyer any portion of the media which may in any way affect the citizenship of the people of Canada. Let me give a specific example of why I say this.
There has been a multitude of programs produced by the CBC and those who work for it or supply it. There have been many new series of programs started, and as one program started I chose to watch one of the presentations.
November 13, 1975

It was a play. I enjoyed it. It was Canadian until it came to, shall I say, the epilogue, although it was not referred to as an epilogue. It was a story about the committing of a crime. The criminal had been apprehended and proven guilty.
The closing of that story came out in such a way that, after the trial was completed, society was to be ashamed of itself because a criminal had been improperly treated by society, and it was because of society that he had committed this crime. He was virtually excused of being guilty of anything, but society was guilty.
Second, these closing remarks indicated that the police work had been cumbersome, slow, and incompetent, and that young people, old people, or people of any age in Canada should really not have respect for that police force, or at least that section of it which presumably participated in the solution of the crime.
The third conclusion one would have to draw was that the crime had, been committed against a party who had been a successful individual in life, and that he was the guiltiest of all because he had been successful and had accumulated some of this world's goods, perhaps a little more than the average. The victim of the crime was guilty of success. The police were downgraded in the eyes of the public who might have been viewing, and the criminal should be excused because of that attitude of society. This is not the kind of story which is going to create a strong and law abiding Canada.
If the philosophy of some part of that producing structure, CBC, is going to be imposed in virtually every story, every play, produced by that organization, and if the total structure of our society is to be continuously under attack by people who do not approve of our present society, then I submit that control has been an extremely bad thing in the television field.
I should like to see respect for success, respect for the police, and no excuse for the criminal. That is the type of philosophy that I think we have to disseminate if we are to develop a strong, law-abiding, co-operating society in this nation. Is this what we will get if we continue to control the pen as it moves across Canada? I submit it may well be.
When you exercise control you create a structure which must use what is available to fill its books or its time slot. When you create a captive structure you become subject to those who philosophize mostly against the things for which this House stands. That has been demonstrated for many years in the structures already controlling and influencing our society.
I think it should be known, and I do not think anyone has said it in a definitive way, that in the income tax sense or corporate tax sense no special concession has been extended to Time and Reader's Digest in Canada. They pay exactly the same tax on their earnings as any other corporation in any field which functions in any form of business anywhere in this country. These two companies have been extended a privilege in the field of publication, and have acceded to the request for a percentage of Canadian content. By the guidelines set down earlier they have earned the right to publish in Canada under identically the same
Non-Canadian Publications
tax structure as any corporation operating anywhere in this nation.
I submit that the government and the minister responsible have tried to sell this proposition to Canadians on the basis that there is a special tax concession granted to Reader's Digest and Time. That is a myth, Madam Speaker. It is untrue. They pay the same rate of tax as any other corporation in Canada. Does the government deny that? They have been granted an opportunity to publish in Canada under terms not granted to publications from other foreign countries, but have not been granted a special tax concession, as the public seems to think. No matter what the company may be, they pay the same tax, so let us be honest about it from here on. Let us say that these two firms have met certain Canadian standards, which gives them permission to publish in Canada. Forget about the special tax structure.
We have heard the requirements, so-called, of the media and the magazine industry discussed in this House and outside. It seems that there are problems in respect of Canadian copyright in regard to the international scene. Canadian authors apparently do not get the protection which Canada extends to foreign authors. This not only affects their livelihood but is a disincentive for those who write.
Authorship in Canada is certainly not as attractive as in other nations. Surely the government could negotiate this firmly with other nations so that we get for our authors the same privilege we grant those from other countries. If we cannot arrange this perhaps we should cancel the copyright privileges we have extended to international authors. Our authors should not be expected to publish without pay. This is important to writers who publish at home or abroad, and surely it is important to the publishing companies. The government should be encouraging our writers to have their first publication in Canada rather than have their first publication abroad where the syndicated copyright laws would work for them.
I am concerned about the type of public affairs broadcasts on radio and television where politicians, dignitaries, church people, all sorts of people are interrogated by representatives of the media. In the United States such programs give the public an opportunity to hear the opinions of people who are outstanding on a particular subject. Usually, not always, but usually it is a straight interrogation, a fact finding or opinion finding program. The comparable programs in Canada could practically all be titled "Under Attack" because they are usually an interrogatory inquisition of an individual whose opinions do not coincide with those of the interviewer.
Is every publisher in Canada going to continue on the road he has taken in the past two years and publish his own philosophies? Is he going to screen his writers so that they will reflect his philosophies? I submit, Madam Speaker, that if a newspaper or periodical is to be acceptable to the reading public it should take note of what is happening along our border with the United States. As it is they do not care what the public thinks because the public purse will pay, regardless.
Those who have relied upon the public purse in the radio and television structure along the border are now complaining that the system south of the border is going to

November 13, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
eliminate them. Basically that is because they do not produce what the people of Canada want to watch or listen to, and there is a lesson in that for the publishers of periodicals. I think they must look inward and find out why 30 or 40 years ago Canadians read Maclean's magazine from cover to cover but now it lies on the table gathering dust while Reader's Digest becomes dog-eared. Is that because of the advertising or because of the privilege extended to Reader's Digest? Madam Speaker, I think it is because they found out what people want to read and that is what they print.
If we exercise control as it is proposed here, the publisher who wants to publish his own philosophy will have no competition. Over the years I have heard criticisms levelled at newspaper and periodical owners. Some people say that such owners only publish their opinions. On the other hand it can be said that writers who do not agree with the owner's viewpoint refuse to write for him. But a publisher is somewhat different. He cannot always employ only those who reflect his philosophy and publish material reflecting his philosophy. On the other hand, if he publishes his own opinion, his own philosophy, and Canadians do not buy it, he runs crying to the government and says, "For goodness sake, ban other publications; make it impossible for them to compete with me, so that I can publish my own philosophies." In a sense, Madam Speaker, that is what this bill is about.
Not long ago a little magazine was started not far from my home town. It attacked everything, every church, politician, political party and philosophy held dear and true by my constituents. After the magazine folded the publisher went to the Canada Council with tears in his eyes and said, "We had to fold; people would not buy our magazine." People buy only those things to which they are attracted, not those things to which they are not attracted. This holds equally true of a suit of clothes and of a periodical. No matter what hon. members opposite think, we cannot legislate what Canadians shall read. But that is precisely what we are trying to do.
Let us consider how certain regulatory structures or bodies have affected radio and television service in the little constituency of Carleton-Charlotte. Sometimes when driving about in my constituency I will turn on the radio and, sometimes but not always, I can listen to the CBC. Yet as I drive a few miles down the road from my home I no longer receive it and will not again pick up the signal in my constituency. For example, when I drive on the road connecting St. Stephen, St. George and St. Andrews, I drive out of the range of the CBC radio transmitter. Anywhere in that part of my constituency people cannot receive CBC radio. That shows the sort of service we get.
One can listen to other radio programs. For example, I like to listen to news, information, and public affairs programs, but they are not available to me from the CBC. And what happens if I want to listen to sports events? If I want to listen to how the Maple Leafs, the Expos' or Canadiens are playing, I can tune in to Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Detroit. Usually I can receive one or more of these stations. I can get New York and Boston any evening, but I cannot get Montreal, Toronto or Saint John if I drive in a particular part of my

constituency. That will show you the kind of service a regulatory body has made possible in my constituency. It is not a service, for there is no service.
Let us consider television. The first television station installed in New Brunswick was located in Saint John and served southern New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Program material proliferated and, in my area, on our screens we could get a little picture and a little snow. Many similar areas have had comparable experiences. Then they built a television station at Presque Isle the signal of which, unfortunately, I do not receive as well as I would wish. It is much better than the signal from Saint John. Later a satellite station serving Saint John was installed, which I receive very well.
As I watch these two channels within my range I see New Brunswick firms advertising in the state of Maine market, and Maine firms advertising over the New Brunswick media. Both sets of advertisers seem to satisfy their respective communities fairly well. The bulk of the advertising material comes from the Maine source. That prompts the serious question I am about to raise. If Canadian firms operating near the border cannot get coverage from CBC radio, are they to be denied the privilege of advertising on a station which is located across the border in the state of Maine? If the rates on Canadian broadcasting stations are beyond the means of small businesses, are those small businesses to be denied the right to cheaper advertising from a source near the border?
I suppose the minister will say that private enterprise will provide the service. Private enterprise tried. It wanted to install a television station to serve the town of Woodstock, but the regulatory body refused the licence. I do not know with whom the television station was to compete; at any rate the regulatory body refused to grant a licence to the television station which wanted to serve the town of Woodstock and the nearby population.
Considering what regulatory structures and bodies have done with respect to the air waves I cannot support this further regulatory encroachment into the area of the printed word. I do not think the regulatory bodies serve us well. For example, consider cablevision.
At present there is an application before this country's regulatory body for the installation of cable service, the service to extend from Grand Falls in the constituency of Madawaska-Victoria to a portion of the constituency of York-Sunbury. But the regulatory body so far has said no. I ask, why? It says that there is no second station in the area. There is not a second station, I know. The regulatory body therefore says, "You cannot have cablevision." That will show you what our regulatory bodies are doing. I assure you, Madam Speaker, if there had been demand for a second station in the area, private enterprise would have provided it. As it is, there is room for cablevision service.
Let us look at the other side of the coin and consider what happens in Maine. In that state I know of at least one community which is served by cablevision. There is no regulation there. That cablevision structure will pull in all the Canadian stations within range; it will bring in a French language station to the state of Maine, and in southern Maine it is not needed. But our regulatory body will not permit the installation of cablevision facilities in the area I mentioned. There is no service.
November 13, 1975

I bring out these fact to show what happens when you introduce certain types of regulations. In the present instance the government seeks to interfere further in what people want to read. How can you legislate people into doing what they ought to do? That is what this law seeks to do. In a sense, is that not what our criminal law is all about? Yet you cannot legislate crime out of the window. Similarly you cannot legislate what people shall read.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's lack of patience is only equalled by the lack of favourable response this legislation will receive.
We cannot legislate what people shall read. We cannot tell them to read what they do not want to read. We cannot legislate people into reading a particular Canadian magazine if it does not print material they want to read. People will not read a Canadian magazine if it does not present diversity of opinion. I do not mind listening to or reading an opinion with I do not agree, but I want the opportunity to read material with which I do agree. I submit that this new law will affect what people can read. As I say, legislation cannot force people to read something they do not want to read. Therefore we are chasing ghosts in the name of nationalism, and we cannot catch them.
We shall only encourage Canadians to read Canadian magazines if our magazines encourage writers to produce articles which reflect all shades of opinion. Publications must give equal space, or equal opportunity, for the expression of diverse opinions. That is not to be the case under this legislation. I regret very much that Maclean's is no longer the sort of magazine which my family used to read years ago.
I sincerely hope the Government of Canada will change its position with respect to this bill. It should give consideration to the story opportunities that are exploited by other areas of the world whose television programs we watch and whose magazines we read. We should undertake to use our history, tradition, and morality as the source of those stories. We should stop in a regulated CBC structure, trying to philosophize continuously against those things for which members of this House stand. We should determine what it is that Canadians want to watch. Those who are going to publish should try to determine what Canadians want to read. That is what they are going to watch, listen to on radio, and read when the opportunity presents itself.
Legislation may be introduced into this House on a daily basis, but nothing will change the desire of people to read, watch and listen to those things that appeal to them. It may be opera, football, baseball or drama. In turn they will take their choice of what is offered. However, those examples have to be presented to Canada.
I could not conduct an orchestra. I would not know one note from the other. However, I can enjoy sports properly and intelligently presented. I can enjoy some music and I can enjoy drama. However, you cannot legislate to make me watch opera because I do not have the background and knowledge to appreciate it. I am sorry that I do not because basically I enjoy music. Nor can you legislate the opera
Non-Canadian Publications
lover to want to watch baseball, and I propose you should not. What the government is trying to do here is as ridiculous as trying to legislate that everybody watch opera. In no way can it succeed.
I submit that Canadian publications may suffer more than they benefit by regulating what people want to read. People will not be able to afford to buy a foreign publication and a Canadian publication. It might just be that on the reading table, particularly in the border areas of this nation, we may find Time and Reader's Digest that were wholly published in the United States. The Canadian publications may no longer be there. That is the risk we run when we try to dabble in affairs of which we know very little and over which legislation has virtually no control.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I thought for a moment that the hon. member was never going to give us a rest from the dissertation of dismal forecasts that he prepared for us this evening. I am a Canadian who, ten years ago, was dismayed when Time and Reader's Digest were made exceptions to the income tax amendments that were passed at that time. In my view Bill C-58 is ten years overdue.
In order to encourage the Canadian magazine industry, the 1965 amendments were essentially that Canadian advertisers who advertised in foreign magazines could no longer deduct those costs as a business expense, and they excepted the two major magazines, Time and Reader's Digest. That certainly made me very unhappy. I know that it made a great many Canadians very unhappy.
Yesterday I listened to Conservative after Conservative get up and talk foolishly about censorship, legislating Time and Reader's Digest out of existence and legislating what people can read, particularly the amount of foreign news carried in Canadian newspapers. I congratulate the House leader for having taken the courageous step under Standing Order 75C to end this silly discussion and send the bill to committee.
Obviously Bill C-58 has nothing whatever to do with censorship. We are not legislating Time and Reader's Digest out of existence. Canadians are civilized people. They want to know what goes on in the world. That is why Canadian newpapers carry foreign news. That seems to be a perfectly normal activity of a Canadian newpaper. I do not think that has been made very clear to the Canadian people by the opposition.
I know that latitude must be and is allowed in the House of Commons, but does it really mean that we must have expensive day after expensive day of the Commons of Canada tied up with repetitious windbags making speeches ten times and taking the entire subject completely out of context? If ever this place has the misfortune to be televised we can expect the Canadian public to come charging through the door on my right and to hand us all out of here to the telephone poles.
I remind the Conservative members that their instructions from the Time and Reader's Digest lobby to attempt to filibuster in favour of those magazines not only costs valuable House time but also the $250,000 a day in taxpayers' money that it costs to keep this House open. Therefore I again congratulate the House leader on limiting the debate. Possibly he should do that more often.

November 13, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
According to the cover on Reader's Digest magazine, it is published in 30 countries and in 13 languages. It says on the inside that it is published by the Reader's Digest Association (Canada) Limited. According to their flyleaf, this is considered an international edition. It says that the English edition is the United States, British, Australian, South African, New Zealand, India and Asian edition. This is the so-called Canadian magazine that should in fact be exempted from the income tax laws and made a special case, this magazine that is published in 30 countries and 13 languages.
I have information that there are eight editions to Time magazine published by Time Incorporated in various parts of the world. I do not think that many people consider that Time or Reader's Digest are Canadian magazines. That would really be stretching a point. Obviously they are not and never were Canadian magazines. There has never been an attempt to pretend that they were Canadian magazines.
In 1965, in the spirit of encouraging Canadian culture, the government of the day decided to act to encourage the Canadian magazine industry. We are all aware, ten years later, of the paradox of the situation when it undertook to encourage the industry and then excluded the two most flagrant foreign magazines operating in Canada, taking I don't know what percentage of Canadian advertising revenue, though I know it was a very high one. I think it is offensive to most Canadians that of all the foreign magazines selling in Canada from Newsweek to the Model Railroader, only Time and Reader's Digest enjoy a tax advantage. Most Canadians ask why they should be excluded from the application of the law.
What has censorship got to do with those two magazines operating in Canada on an equal basis with all other publications? What makes Time different from Newsweek? Why should Newsweek have to compete in Canada and be unable to offer a tax advantage to potential advertisers while Time is able to offer a tax advantage to Canadians who advertise in it? Why should Canadian institutions, banks and so on, which advertise in the Economist of London be unable to get a tax break, though if they advertised in Time they would?
The idea that anyone is excluding Time and Reader's Digest from Canada is not true. Those publications will be selling in Canada just as long as there is a profit to be made in Canada by the parent publishing companies. They are international publishing institutions and they will be in business here just as long as they can make a profit here. This should be made clear to people who have been persuaded by fuzzy arguments that they will not be able to read Reader's Digest or Time magazine. Why should Reader's Digest be given a special tax advantage over, say, Good Housekeeping which is a very popular magazine in Canada? What makes those two publications so special?
What makes it particularly offensive to Canadians was the personal intervention of Henry Luce through the U.S. State Department-this is the understanding which was made public-when he threatened Canadian sovereignty back in 1965, a year in which Canada was presumably in a weak position with regard to some kind of trade agreement. That kind of activity and lobbying on the part of the
[Mr. Stollery.J
U.S. State Department, of the very fibre of the United States government-obviously Henry Luce at that time was a very powerful man-would make any Canadian angry when he thinks about it.
The tax advantages enjoyed by foreign periodicals, the hope for the Canadian magazine industry, all of this, when all is said and done, are part and parcel of Canada's cultural policy. This is an interesting area and topic. I think this has been expressed by members opposite in an odd sort of way, because this is a very subjective area. Culture is a very subjective subject. As William James once said, it lives by sympathy and admiration, not by dislikes and disdain. I think that is an important point. It is easy to be disdainful of culture because it is a subjective thing.
Culture has a profound value, and one that until only recently Canadians sold cheap. For one thing, our cultural geography made it pretty rough, living as we do, between the two English-speaking giants, Britain and the United States. What has often occurred to me is the unusual way in which cultural values in Canada have alternated between U.S. provincial and English provincial. We did not develop our own awareness until the sixties when an attempt was made to assist Canadian culture, of which this bill is part and parcel.
Obviously, culture is of fundamental importance to Canada. Without culture we are not a country. If we do not have it we do not exist. If we do not develop our own artists, our own writers, our own cultural vehicles-and in order to do that we must have vehicles to do the job such as magazines-it really means there is nothing here in Canada worth expressing. And I believe we do have opinions, that we do have distinct values worth expressing as Canadians.
Surely in the House of Commons of Canada I should not have to emphasize our unique Canadian experience-two founding peoples pioneering a country on the very edge of the habitable world in spite of snow and ice and everything possible against us, and succeeding in establishing Canada. Canada is a remarkable country because it should not ever have existed. You just have to look at a map of Canada to see the towns which run along the coast or around the shores of a couple of lakes or along a river. Here is a country defying history-two founding peoples, my goodness, read Francis Parkman and realize how the early French settlers lived on moss in order to survive the Canadian winter; it is not surprising they did not have time for culture; they were just trying to stay alive.
I am not a cultural nationalist. I do not believe in cultural nationalism because it is introverted and I am too much of an internationalist for that kind of approach. But I believe that we in Canada have distinct values to offer the international community, and in order to do that we must have vehicles to do the job. Canadian magazines, in spite of all the arguments against them, in spite of the lousy job they have done so far, are important vehicles which the country has to develop.


An hon. Member:: But not through legislation.


Peter A. Stollery: Yes. If we have to legislate, if we have to pass laws to encourage the industry, that is definitely the way we should go about it. I differ from the hon. member

who says "not through legislation". The legislation the CRTC brought in on Canadian content vis-a-vis American programs has been very successful. We live in a country that is squashed up against the United States; we have all the pressures historically from the United Kingdom which I mentioned earlier, so I certainly believe there are times when we must legislate to assist the industry.
I think something that has been a little bit missed in all this argument-and there is reason for it because the magazine industry has been so poor-is that somehow it looks as though we are sitting here trying to sell Maclean's magazine. It is a pretty fair comment really, because at the moment I suppose it is one of the few national magazines we have.
I should like to point out to members opposite what I hope will happen with this kind of legislation. What I think would happen is that in the next five or ten years we would see magazines in Canada, particularly English Canada which has the biggest problem, that we do not have today. I have no way of forecasting what entrepreneur or what person may decide to go into the magazine business over the next decade, and I do not think anybody else has, but I think we make a mistake if we presume that Maclean's magazine is suddenly going to replace Time. It will not, because Time will still be on sale. The president of Time magazine has said as much, and presumably he knows what he is talking about.
I think we must remember that we are trying to encourage a new industry, one that we have not had before. Who would ever have thought 10 or 15 years ago that the city of Toronto would be an important producer of animated cartoons for the advertising industry, or for that matter, a recording centre for the musical industry? Many performers today come from New York City and do their recording in a Toronto recording studio. We have some of the best facilities in the world in Toronto, and it has become a very important industry. I do not think anyone foresaw this when we decided to develop the Canadian music and entertainment industry.
If there is another point to be made in all of this, Madam Speaker, I think it is this. We have the Canada Council, and we have done quite a lot for artists, painters, and those who are the backbone of our culture. We talk about a few writers and mention a few names of painters, photographers and so on, but really we have done nothing. I hear an hon. member opposite laughing; obviously he does not appreciate culture. As I said, it is a subjective thing. If he personally does not find any value in it, it is perfectly all right with me, but I think it has value.
I remember as a boy that during the war the people to whom we first looked to raise national and patriotic feelings were people of culture-writers, painters, and people like that. I do not think we do enough for them in this country. Many members of this House older than I will remember the surge of patriotism that there was during world war II and much of this was kindled by writers, painters, and other people in the cultural arena.
I was recently looking through the WPA work projects under the federal relief policy in the United States during the early thirties and at the rather unique way in which
Non-Canadian Publications
they considered artists, writers, and those kind of people to be so important that they had projects they were paid to do. This was at a time in the thirties when money was hard to get. They did an enormous number of projects under that relief program. The United States administration during the time of President Roosevelt certainly recognized the value of artists and culture. It was a war against poverty in those days, yet it was appreciated that without those people upon whom a country depends for its identity there was no way in which such a program was going to work.
As the minister mentioned in his speech this afternoon, what we are talking about today are the recommendations of the O'Leary commission made in 1961. This was a commission established by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who spoke so strongly this afternoon and gave us the balance sheet of the Maclean-Hunter Publishing Company. He conveniently, I thought, forgot to mention when he gave us those figures that Maclean's magazine as an entity has been losing money for years. I do not carry any brief for Maclean's magazine, but I found it a little contradictory that the right hon. member, who established the O'Leary commission in the first place which made the recommendations that we are acting on today, felt so strongly about Mr. Newman and Maclean's magazine.


Mr. Saltsman:: He wrote a book about him.


Peter A. Stollery: Yes, I understand that. I thought that was a little unfair because, after all, it was Senator O'Leary who first suggested that a genuine Canadian periodical press can exist only if it has access to a fair share of the advertising revenue.
I do not think any more remains to be said, Madam Speaker. Until Bill C-58 is passed, the Canadian periodical press will not have a fair share of the advertising revenue in Canada.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Madam Speaker, may I say at the outset to the hon. member for Spadlna (Mr. Stollery) that if his assessment of this entire debate is simply related to Reader's Digest and Time magazine and to the length of the debate, then I want to tell him that I will be brief. I want also to tell him that I have no intention of discussing Time and Reader's Digest; I want to discuss the more fundamental principle of concern to me and to other publications which will be affected by this legislation. They have been mentioned in the past.
I have grave concern with this legislation because of what I interpret as editorial interference, or inteference in the editorial policy of periodical publications. Unfortunately this is frequently done in the name of cultural sovereignty, Canadianism, Canadian spirit, or whatever happens to be the appropriate word on a particular day.
I listened very carefully when the minister spoke in this House on May 8. He implied, as I understand it, that there would be no government interference with the editorial policy of periodical publications, yet on that same date there was a news release from the minister's office. I should like to quote from it;
The amendments mean that if certain foreign periodicals now being published in Canada expect to continue to benefit from the provisions

November 13, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
of section 19, they will have to meet the criteria outlined in the law, which has been in existence since 1965. These criteria relate to ownership, control and content.
I should like to emphasize the word "content". The press release went on to say this:
National revenue officials, who administer the Income Tax Act, can provide an advance ruling on the eligibility of a periodical for the benefits of Section 19 in the case of uncertainty on the part of a publisher contemplating the publication in Canada of a periodical with a certain format and editorial content.
My fears were rekindled when the recently appointed Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) announced the new content regulations, indicating that Canadian editions of foreign parent publications must have more than 80 per cent difference in content or lose tax exemptions for advertisers. As I understand the government's position, to qualify as a Canadian publication a magazine would need to be 80 per cent different from a parent foreign publication and, indeed, even a Canadian-owned publication cannot be recognized as Canadian if its contents are substantially the same as printed elsewhere.
The issue in my view is not the loss of Reader's Digest, Time magazine, MD of Canada, Modern Medicine or the Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, and there are other publications which will be affected, all publications which I have personally enjoyed for several years. The issue in my view in this debate is the principle of editorial freedom, which I truly believe is being attacked and eroded by this particular legislation.
I have no difficulty in accepting that the minister and the government, whether their decision is right or wrong, and whether I agree or disagree with it, have the right to define for income tax purposes Canadian ownership of a publication. I recognize that the government has a responsibility in enforcing laws that deal with libel, obscenity, contempt, sedition, etc. However, when Canadian ownership is determined by the government then it should make it absolutely clear it will absolve itself from further interference.
Perhaps the most overworked and misunderstood word in this entire debate has been censorship. I have listened to the charges and countercharges over this particular word and this particular issue. The minister and the government in defending the bill have repeatedly stated that censorship is not being employed as part of government policy.
The government is correct in saying that the regulations in the strictest terms are not censorship, and yet it is their attitude and their response to the charge of censorship that alarms me and, frankly, should alarm all Canadian people.
The minister knows perfectly well that he is legislating a mechanism for government interference in the decisions of a publisher. Indeed the Minister of National Revenue has indicated unequivocally that the effects of the new legislation will undoubtedly destroy Time's Canadian edition, which will probably go out of business under these regulations. If the government deems it necessary to deceive the public with a play on words in this particular instance, and in particular when we are discussing the very fundamental principle of editorial freedom, I have severe reservations as to what the government's response will be in future if it is

confronted with criticism or adverse editorial comment by future Canadian publications. This situation to me smacks of authoritarianism and, of course, authoritarian government has no place in our democratic society.
As one who has trained in a science discipline I have recognized for a long time, and would defend, the importance and the necessity of the free exchange of knowledge and views. This exchange of information is not solely for the benefit of those who are involved in scientific endeavours. I should like to suggest that this scientific exchange is really to the benefit of and has a salutary effect on the larger community and citizens of Canada.
When I was thinking about this I wondered how many individuals in this Chamber had taken, or even had the opportunity to review world literature. I can assure you that I have done this on at least one occasion; it is a great experience, and underlines the importance of this type of exchange of knowledge and information. I have a permanent appreciation of this fact and it will have a lasting effect on me. I may say that it influenced my comments in this particular debate.
The major part of this debate has been concerned with Reader's Digest and Time, and I can state, as I am sure other hon. members can, that my correspondence on the subject in respect of Reader's Digest and Time has been heavy and overwhelmingly in support of their retention. I do not want to reiterate these arguments at this time as they have been well outlined by other members in the House. However, I should like to raise the issue in respect of the impact this legislation and the regulations will have on medical publications in Canada and, indeed, on other technical journals which will be confronted with a similar fate.
As I indicated sometime earlier, MD of Canada, Modern Medicine and the Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality will be affected by this legislation and I have no doubt they will disappear from the Canadian scene.
I want to take a few moments to discuss the specific publication MD of Canada. I have picked this particular journal for three reasons, recognizing that it does have a unique editorial concept. First, in many ways the problem which have been created for Md of Canada by his legislation are similar to those experienced by other medical journals and, indeed, other technical publications presently in Canada. The second reason is my personal knowledge and interest in reading this journal since its inception in Canada. Of course this does permit me to indicate that the information I have can be received as reliable and authoritative. Thirdly, I think it is important to review one of these so we can assess the impact this legislation will have on other scientific publications. I believe this will demonstrate unequivocally the seriousness of the legislation not only as it relates to MD of Canada but to other publications.
MD of Canada is dedicated to serving physicians by giving them a publication that reflects the highest ideals of the medical profession and by presenting features related to the universality of medicine and man. It was founded in January, 1960. MD of Canada is a monthly controlled circulation magazine that is sent free of charge to more than
25,000	physicians in Canada. It is published by MD Publications (Canada) Ltd., with offices in Quebec and at Oak-
November 13, 1975

ville, Ontario. It is published in two editions, one in English and one in French and English.
The editor of MD of Canada is the internationally distinguished Canadian physician William C. Gibson, M.D. and Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians. He is a professor of medical history and research professor of neuro-psychiatry at the University of British Columbia, where he was also special assistant to the president on development of the university.
I want to point out that Dr. Gibson was invited to become the editor of MD of Canada in April, 1973, following a world search for an editor after the death of the most renowned Felix Marti-Ibinez, the founder and original editor of MD of Canada. Dr. Marti-Ibinez, an international medical historian, physician and writer, was a colleague of Dr. William Gibson.
Dr. Gibson is also the international editor of MD, the medical news magazine USA, which is among the leading medical publications in the United States. In addition, he is the international editor of MD en Espagnol, which is published in Spanish for physicians throughout Latin America, and MD Pacific, which is published in Hong Kong for physicians in the Far East. Essays by Dr. Gibson appear regularly in the "Mirror of Medicine" section of MD of Canada.
MD of Canada is a staff-researched and staff-written publication, and all the articles are conceived, researched, and written for physicians. The in-depth research is intensive and broad, thus giving the articles a great deal of intellectual and literary value.
The news section is written by a professional journalist who is in the Montreal office, and among the medical news included in MD of Canada is the coverage of all major Canadian meetings of physicians.
MD of Canada's editorial content provides a unique, humanistic concept which combines the cultural and historical interests of the physician with his professional interests. This is the striking difference between MD of Canada and other medical publications to which I referred earlier. Dr. Marti-Ibinez said, "It is an integration of medicine, society, and humanity translated editorially into a magazine of medical culture and cultural medicine".
MD of Canada's editorial content is, therefore, directed to the physician who deals with mankind, which he must understand in a broad sense in order to be a good physician. It is an understanding which encourages the physician to treat patients as people rather than as impersonal disease entities.
The basic editorial concept of MD of Canada is as inherently universal as medicine itself. The unique concept conceived by Dr. Marti-Ibinez recognizes the physician not only as a professional but also as an individual member of society. To quote from one of his editorials:
As a professional he (the physician) is interested in the art and science of healing: as an individual he feels the need to increase his general cultural knowledge; as a member of society he wants to understand ... the public health problems of his community, his country and the world in general. A physician is not only a social person, he is also an historical person. The interests of the world are therefore his interests.
Non-Canadian Publications
From the above it can be said that the MD concept recognizes all physicians not only as members of their own country but also as members of a professional community which is truly international. Any other view of physicians would be too narrow to embrace this professional segment of society. Feature articles, then, if they are to reflect this concept, must be basically universal in their appeal. Please note that the expressed aim is to stimulate "medical culture" and" cultural medicine". These are not idle aims or phrases. Any issue of MD of Canada will quickly convince a reader how fully each feature article embraces this doctrine. The Report of the Royal Commission on Publications in 1961 stated:
... Cultural publications, and literary and scholarly journals, are a part of our national heritage, reflecting something else than our concern with the market place, keeping alive among us the deeper, sweeter and more spiritual things of life. In the opinion of the commission, their encouragement and preservation cannot be put aside.
Laymen find it startling to learn that a magazine designed exclusively for a medical audience devotes a major share of its editorial content to the arts, yet this is a cornerstone of the MD concept.
To any physician anywhere articles in MD of Canada are designed for consumption in this country yet they are conceived, researched, and written from a more universal point of view. The historical aspects of a subject, for example, are basically of universal interest to all physicians, yet there are often more local aspects of the subject which are of special interest only to Canadian physicians. Thus these features are in themselves exponents of "cultural medicine".
It is of fundamental importance to understand the MD concept because when it is understood one will understand why MD of Canada is no more a facsimile of MD, the medical newsmagazine USA, than MD, the medical newsmagazine USA is a facsimile of MD of Canada. Both are truly independent magazines, completely different in material and integration; each caters exclusively to physicians of its own country and shares only the basic MD concept which is founded on the universality of medicine.
The news section of Md of Canada completes the editorial picture. Most of the news contained in this section is unavailable to Canadians in any other single source. Reportage includes highlights of medical and scientific meetings in Canada, most of which are not reported in a single source to all physicians in Canada. In the MD's clinics section important new findings in the world of medicine are reported. Only in MD of Canada can our physicians get this type of news, which is so helpful to them in keeping abreast of clinical problems essential in today's fast moving field of medical advancement.
Finally, MD of Canada performs one further editorial function. Important Canadian medical news is reported in MD, the medical newsmagazine USA, and is also reported in MD en Espanol. Similarly, feature articles of wholly Canadian subject matter are originally prepared by MD of Canada and later re-researched for readers of MD the medical newsmagazine USA, and for MD en Espanol.
From its first issue, MD of Canada has been printed in Canada, on Canadian paper, from typesetting and plates manufactured in Canada. MD of Canada is mailed through the facilities of the Canada Post Office utilizing mailing

November 13, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
lists provided by a Canadian mailing house. All advertising is solicited in Canada by the sales staffs located in Montreal and Oakville, Ontario.
The free flow of medical information, regardlesss of its source, is vital to public health in this country. It is a matter separate and distinct from the problems of publications for the laity. MD of Canada has received favourable comments from thousands of physicians across the country illustrating the very real and important contribution that MD is making to the practice of medicine by presenting information of medical value to physicians throughout the world.
In summing up the position of MD of Canada I would point out that MD of Canada is a controlled circulation magazine with no subscription revenue. Paid circulation magazines might have the alternative of sending nonCanadian editions into Canada for sale to readers, but MD of Canada does not have that choice. Its only source of revenue is advertising. If MD of Canada, an important medical publication which has been sent to physicians in this country for more than 15 years, ceased to publish in Canada as a result of Bill C-58, the MD concept would be lost and could not be replaced.
MD of Canada is not a Canadian edition of a parent magazine. It is neither a split run edition nor the result of overflow circulation of a parent magazine. It is a fully integrated Canadian medical publication whose editorial content is based upon the MD concept.
MD of Canada purchases, and always has, all of its mechanical production from Canadian suppliers. These include typesetting, printing, labelling and mailing.
By definition, MD of Canada is a "magazine of medical culture and cultural medicine". MD of Canada carries a completely Canadian medical news section. MD of Canada prepares original features which, when re-researched, appear, along with Canadian medical news, in MD, the medical newsmagazine USA, in MD en Espanol and in MD Pacific. MD of Canada reworks editorial feature material prepared internationally before it appears in MD of Canada. MD of Canada publishes an English edition and a combined English and French edition.
The physician readers of MD of Canada identify strongly with this magazine for many reasons. The first of these reasons is the fact that the magazine is researched, written, and edited for physicians. Another reason is that MD of Canada is always responsive to the requests of its readers. Thousands of reprints of essays appearing in MD of Canada have been distributed to physicians who have requested them. These reprints are free and there is no charge for them to the physicians in any way whatsoever.
The contents of MD of Canada are not the same as in any of the other editions of MD, namely, the US edition, the Latin American editions, or the edition for the Far East. There is no simultaneous publication of contents in any of the four magazines. All articles that are published in MD of Canada are especially scheduled and edited for that publication.
MD of Canada plays an important role by serving a numerically small but professionally highly important segment of the population with a magazine which responds to the full range of the physician's interests.

I would hope that the contents of this brief, which has been prepared by MD of Canada, and indeed of other similar briefs, will be very carefully assessed by the standing committee at the completion of this debate on second reading, and I hope that their importance is discernible to hon. members.
In conclusion I wish to reiterate that the principal issue in this debate is editorial freedom. I would simply say that if that objective is not realized before the passage of this bill, then I have no doubt that the minister will be remembered in the annals of history for his infringement on one of the basic freedoms that we have observed in the past, namely, editorial freedom.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, in some ways I should like to begin where the previous speaker left off. I do not really see that the great issue in this bill and in the debate we are going through has anything to do with editorial freedom. I think it has to do with the question of money and how much money people will make by either having advertising as a deductible item or not having it as a deductible item. It is on that basis that I think it has to be viewed.
I am supporting this bill, but I am doing it with enormous reservations because, frankly, I do not like the kind of reasons which have brought us to this point. In some ways I think we are dealing with two different problems when we talk about Reader's Digest and Time magazine. It seems to me that this bill is really directed against Time rather than Reader's Digest because Reader's Digest, in a way, is unique, and if the government could have found a way to let it off the hook it probably would have done so. However, in the interests of consistency they have probably both been put into the same bag, because it is really a question of a news magazine rather than something like Reader's Digest.
I do not pretend to be an expert on Reader's Digest, and I will just leave it at this point because I have not been a great reader. Its endless optimism really gets to me after a while, and there are so many medical articles about rare diseases that when I read them I become sick and think that I have those rare diseases.
Let us go on to talk about Time magazine. As most people do, I realize that that magazine has an enormous advantage because of the fact that it is an international publication and can afford all kinds of things which no national magazine in any country can afford. The problem with Time magazine is that it is too good, and if we are trying to build up some kind of national magazine and to foster our own journalism and culture, we have to hobble those that are too good. That is the real problem.
I had a little experience with Time magazine. By a strange coincidence I ran a campaign pamphlet which bore a startling resemblance to Time magazine's own journal. I received a letter from Time's lawyers on election day suggesting that I cease and desist from the distribution. Of course I complied with this. However, it is a magazine which in many ways cannot be matched by any other magazine which has to rely on the resources of one nation. I am sorry that is so because in many way both Time and Reader's Digest have tried to be good citizens in this coun-
November 13, 1975

try. I do not feel that the way these magazines are being hobbled is any fault of their own, unless it is the fault of being too good in the work they do.
In many ways I have a good feeling for Time magazine because as far as I am concerned personally, and I think as far as my party is concerned, we receive as fair a treatment in Time magazine-perhaps a fairer treatment with regard to events in the House of Commons than we receive in Canadian journals and Canadian magazines, and therefore I have a great deal of regret at what is being done. I think I am not alone in this and that many people feel exactly the same way. I do not think anyone wants to do this. We have reached a point in our history where we feel that it has to be done in order to encourage the sense of nationalism which has developed in this country, and a longing for a national culture and identity.
There is an irony to this present government bringing in this legislation. I was in the House when the then minister responsible, Hon. Walter Gordon, brought in the exemption for Time and Reader's Digest. My friend and colleague, the then hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, Colin Cameron, was privately assured that under no circumstances would that great Canadian nationalist, Walter Gordon, ever grant the exemption to Time and Reader's Digest. I am sure that, if it had been the decision of Walter Gordon alone, that would not have been done. To our surprise Walter Gordon stood up and announced the exemption, and it took quite a bit of effort on my part to restrain Colin Cameron from charging across the aisle and doing physical violence to the then minister.
At that time we felt that we had been betrayed, that in fact the government of the day had sold out and knuckled under to the pressure which it had been subjected to, not only from Time magazine but also from the U.S. government. We tend to forget this. There is a kind of lesson there when we consider all the favours Time magazine has done for the Liberal Party and how in two elections it virtually acted as the advocate of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party shows no gratitude at this time, which demonstrates that parties are not reliable. After all the things Time did for the Liberal Party, look at the gratitude and reward it is reaping from the association. Perhaps it is an irony, but it is heartening that loyalties like that do not last forever; but when everyone says, "what have you done for me lately?"
It looks as though the time has come when the Liberal Party is more concerned about what the Maclean's publishing company is going to say about it than what Time magazine is going to say. Liberals know who is on the way up and who is on the way down, and there is no sense hitching your future to a falling Star. They might as well see where the rising rockets are going and tie on to them, especially if some propulsion can be added to that rocket.
As I said, I am not really proud of taking the position I am taking. I feel I must take it, and I take it with some regret because it is a sad thing for a country to do this. It is sad for a country to admit that it has failed to create its own culture, and then to blame this on someone else.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Oh, come on.


Max Saltsman: I feel that this is what in fact has happened. It has been much too easy for this country's
Non-Canadian Publications
so-called intellectual establishment to admit that the reason we cannot get ahead, and the reason we cannot produce this excellence is that we have Time magazine, Reader's Digest, or something else hobbling us.
I made a speech recently at a Commonwealth conference in which I said to some third world countries which were complaining about their present state that for a long time they could blame it on colonialism; that they could not get anywhere because they were being colonized. They got rid of the colonialists. Then they started to blame multinational corporations and got rid of them. I asked them who they would blame it on now.
One of the reasons I am supporting this measure is that I want to see whether our intellectual establishment is really going to come through, because it is going to have to come through now. It has been given every single advantage possible. In my view Time magazine will not go away. I know that the president of Time says he cannot operate, and that the president of Reader's Digest says he cannot operate under this legislation, and just recently we heard that MD of Canada magazine cannot operate under it. I have the feeling that despite the 80 per cent content and the Canadian ownership rule they will find a way of operating in Canada, because they cannot afford not to. What does it mean to them? It means that their profits will not be as fat. Their profits have been very fat in this country, but I do not think a magazine of the international stature of Time can afford to have itself pushed out of a country.
What are the other Canadian magazines going to do? They will still have to compete. I hope they do, and I wish them well. There are encouraging signs that Canadian magazines are in fact competing, but there is a problem, and once we pass this legislation let us not blame anyone else for what are essentially our own failures. From here on we must be very critical of our own intellectual establishment.
We realize that in many ways we are going against public opinion in this debate, and we must be frank about that. It is not the first time we have gone against public opinion, of course. We have done it with the CBC, with films, with cable, and with our bilingualism program.
We in this chamber have a responsibility to think about not only what is immediately popular but we have a responsibility for the development of a sense of Canadian nationalism. Even if public opinion is not entirely with us on this issue, we have to take our chance.
In many ways I regret that the government brought in closure to halt this debate. I think it was on its last legs anyway. I am not opposed to closure in principle; I voted against closure and I voted for closure, so I am inclined to view it in light of the specific circumstances.
In some ways the Liberal party has never learned to understand the role of the opposition and why the opposition opposes. Unfortunately Liberals have not spent enough time in opposition over the years to give them a sense of what an opposition tries to do. The whole point of an opposition digging in its heels on an issue-even when debates have nothing further to consider in some new and sparkling way that would get the attention of the press-is

November 13, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
to help form public opinion, to give public opinion a chance to jell.
It is unfortunate that closure was brought in at this time when the postal strike is on. Time and Reader's Digest must be operating under a dark cloud right now. The postal strike could not have come at a worse time for them. They mounted an extensive campaign among their readers asking them to write to their members of parliament, and of course they are free to do this. I am sure we would have received many more letters at the height of this debate telling us their opinions. Perhaps we would still have done as we are doing now, of course; perhaps not a single opinion would have been changed as a result of those letters. Nevertheless the public was entitled to have its views known.
Under these circumstances this was a bad time to use closure. Those who oppose this measure-and I am not one of them-have a genuine cause for grievance. The government would have been well advised and would have shown some sensitivity to have postponed this-not put it off indefinitely but to reach some agreement with the opposition and bring it back when the mail starts again. It might not be the greatest criticism in the world against the government to say this, but it shows the kind of insensitivity that exists on the government side.
Members of the opposition are no more foolish than members of the government. They know that if they talk too loud and long the public will turn against them. Debates cease in this House when the public says "Enough", and most of us are sensitive enough to listen. But the government does not have enough confidence in that kind of sensitivity between members of the opposition, members of the government and the public at large. I am not an opponent of closure and I think there are valid occasions for it, but this is not one of them.
I sometimes fear that my country is in danger of becoming an incestuous, intellectual ghetto. More and more the writers in this country seem to be talking about themselves rather than the events they are describing. I sometimes look at what is written about this country and wonder whether we see the same world. It is almost as though it is a village with a repertory company when seen through the journals and television that we have.
When we talk about providing stimulus and opportunity for people in the arts we are in fact talking about maintaining a very well kept but very small intellectual establishment. Perhaps I should not say this, but sometimes I wonder to what extent their nationalism is a self-serving way of maintaining their own positions and jobs. How many of them are living off their nationalism rather than off their talent? Politicians have many of these faults too, but they run the chance of being defeated; writers, good, bad or indifferent, go on forever. As much as anything else it seems to depend on who you know in this country rather than how good you are.
We have been very accommodating in this country to people in the arts. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) said he does not care how much money we spend. Well, we spend a hell of a lot of money on support of the arts and I have not seen much return. Maybe that is the way the arts are; maybe you have to put a lot of money in to get a little return.

It seems that nobody in this country does anything unless they have a Canada Council grant in their pocket, or a LIP grant, or an opportunities for youth grant. Maybe artists should not be struggling, but it seems to me we have done a hell of a lot of pampering of our artists as a whole and it has not had much effect. We may only De raising a generation not of talents but of people who know how to fill out application forms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: We may be the most talented "application form filler-outers" in the whole world. Some people graduate through all the stages-they start with the Company of Young Canadians, go to Opportunities for Youth, then into LIP, and I presume if we wait long enough they will show up in the New Horizons program. Somewhere in between it would be nice to see them get their hands dirty. I am old fashioned enough to think that people should be working in the jobs that exist, rather than insist on creating their own jobs or otherwise they do not work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I am getting the wrong support over here. I will have to look at my notes again.
This debate will decide whether we can survive or cannot survive. From here on we do not want any more excuses about excellence in this country and about whether we can do something. I think we are entitled to be more critical of our people in the arts, and I for one intend to be more critical. We have coddled them in this country-and perhaps they needed it. It is like our manufacturing industry where we have done the same thing. We believe that you have to shelter our infant industries, but then the problem is that they never grow up. In some ways this has also been true of the arts.
We have some good writers but they are few and far between. There is a kind of self-consciousness, a kind of coyness, a kind of determination to be different amongst them. If the country wants to go one way they have to go another way. There is almost a presumption that if the majority of people in the country think one way, they have to be wrong. Some think the artist must be right and the people wrong. Often the artist does not fight on behalf of the people, but against the people. Perhaps that is the traditional role of the writer, thinker, poet, painter, and musician. All the same the people are entitled to have the intellectual establishment understand their viewpoint some of the time. People do not want to be treated contemptuously by those on the top.
The trouble is that a certain group has consciously made itself into an opposition which opposes almost everything, and thinks it must be supported. In a sense, oppositions need people to oppose them. They say, "How can we oppose you if you do not oppose us?" In a sense we must provide the opposition. We have been made too comfortable culturally, and this must stop.
I shall conclude, as I am sure others want to participate in the debate, by recalling something written by Arnold Toynbee, the historian who died recently. The one thing in
November 13, 1975

his theory of history which impressed me above all else was his theory of challenge. He explained the rise and fall of civilizations in terms of meeting a challenge or being overcome by it. Some civilizations are created in response to a challenge, but others succumb when overcome by too strong a challenge, a challenge they are not strong enough to withstand.
Recently we said that multinational corporations are challenging us too strongly, and their challenge is more than our young country can stand. We reacted by passing legislative measures which will prevent our being challenged too strongly and smothered by superior or stronger forces. But Toynbee also said that civilizations decay because they face no challenges, because they grow soft, complacent, and are over-protected. In some ways our civilization is in greater danger from the second kind of challenge than from the first. I therefore hope that after this measure is passed we shall see evidence of a more vibrant and vital approach on the part of our cultural and artistic people than they have shown in the past.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, all through the debate, strategically interrupted for a few months, the mood in the House has been changing, to say the least, and the enthusiasm expressed by the spokesmen for each party represented here, when the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) announced the long awaited amendments to sections 2 and 4 of the Income Tax Act, turned by some transmutation mysterious to me into an almost general outcry, mostly from members opposite.
Hon. members will remember what the hon. Secretary of State said on January 23, 1975:

The proposed amendment to the Income Tax Act will, as of January 1st, 1976, restore to section 19 the force and intent which its authors had in mind. 1 am confident that the enterprise and skill of the Canadian magazine industry will seize this opportunity. It is my hope and expectation that this decision of the government will result in the creation of a Canadian news magazine.

The spokesmen for the three other parties replied in perfect unison that they agreed in principle with this government undertaking. Thus the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) stated:

... in responding to the statement just made I would like first to say, on behalf of the official opposition, that we are pleased that the government has clarified this matter at long last. We believe that the move to eliminate the income tax advantage shared mainly by two magazines, Time and Reader's Digest, is a good one.

As for the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (M. Symes) he expressed the feeling of the New Democrats as follows:

The NDP welcomes, at long last, the announcement by the government to end the special tax concessions for advertisers in Time and Reader's Digest.

Finally, on behalf of the Social Credit Party, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) made the following statement:
Non-Canadian Publications
On behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada, I should like to thank the Secretary of State for his statement which has finally given birth to his long awaited policy. It would seem that a breath of cultural nationalism to protect Canada's integrity animates the minister and finally incites him, after many hesitations, to now abolish the fiscal advantages granted the magazines Reader's Digest and Time.
I wonder what may have happened over the past few months which causes the government, through its Secretary of State, to be seen as a big bad wolf which is trying to eat the three nice little pigs, namely freedom of the press, freedom of exchange of ideas and freedom of enterprise?
The answer, Mr. Speaker, can be summarized in one word: lobbying, and very strong and tenacious at that on the part of the firms directly affected, but more specifically the pressure imposed by one of them which has used every means at its disposal to postpone as long as possible, if not indefinitely, the adoption of Bill C-58.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against lobbying. This is an institution which, under some regimes, is even officially established and which sometimes provides priceless services in making the legislator aware of certain aspects of a governmental measure which could have been forgotten or underestimated. But when lobbying is unduly pressing, one has to stop and react strongly.
I have myself been submitted to Reader's Digest's lobbying, but I have tried to react and understand the real meaning of the problem, the one Reader's Digest is delibe-ratly trying to hide to delight itself in mostly accurate though overly emotive considerations without any direct relations with the object of our discussions. Unfortunately, it would seem that some members have not made the same intellectual process, and this is very regrettable since it is at the root of the imbroglio we are floundering in today.
But what is the real dimension we are all seeking, and how do we settle, in all fairness, a debate whose origins stem from some obscure fiscal concession which should never have been made and on which we must now base ourselves.
The question is not new. The debate did not spring from the sudden need to improve the Income Tax Act; nor was it suggested by some illustrious unknown in the office, on the right, on the sixth floor of the head office of the Secretariat of State who wished to play the amateur archivist and dug up a nice little scandal to seek the limelight. No. Foreign publications have been in our midst for a long time. The degree of influence they have exercised on Canadian culture is not an academic question. In fact, the debate was born when Reader's Digest appeared on the scene, in 1942; it became concrete when a royal commission of inquiry was created, on September 14, 1960, under the chairmanship of Mr. Grattan O'Leary, and given the mandate of looking into the situation of periodicals in Canada. The main conclusion of the O'Leary Commission follows, and I quote:

A nation's domestic advertising expenditure should be devoted to the support of its own media of communications, and that a genuinely Canadian periodical press can only exist if it has access to a fair share of domestic advertising.

And the recommendation was to prohibit the deduction of the advertising cost in a so-called "foreign" magazine. In
9054

November 13, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
1968, faced with the decline of the periodical industry in Canada, the government of the time established a special Senate committee-if the NDP members have no objection, the Senate is still useful sometimes. The main conclusion of this committee was a reiteration of the recommendations of the O'Leary Commission, namely the removal of the extravagant tax privileges which two foreign periodicals had and still have so that the periodical industry in Canada would have a fairer share of the revenue from advertising and of the overall advertising budget which amounted to more than $35 million in 1973.
But what is the real nature and scope of this Section 19 of the Income Tax Act? It defines in substance what should be considered as a Canadian magazine and enables announcers in these magazines to deduct their advertising cost for tax purposes. The original idea was to give a push to the periodical industry in Canada by helping them motivate the announcers which happen to be their main source of income.
But the addition of subsections (2) and (4) dilutes Section 19 to the point that it lost its incentive value. The exceptions to the general principle provide that, for legal purposes and within the general context of Section 19, some foreign periodicals are considered as Canadian periodicals and that their announcers are entitled to the tax deduction. Bill C-58 precisely aims at restoring section 19 by giving it its full force of incentive to the Canadian industry, by deleting subsections (2) and (4). The aim is praiseworthy, and as it is hard to justify an exaggerated privilege of common law for the benefit of a few individuals, I think it is far more difficult to defend and justify the retention of such a privilege, especially when it is exercised to the disadvantage of the local industry.
The main idea which the lobbyists of Reader's Digest tried to convey to us was the following: this publication, being a good Canadian citizen as an employer, an investor or a cultural vehicle, it was unthinkable that it be penalized this way because it had become practically a Canadian. I must say this first argument-retentionist, if I may say so-does not hold any water and that lately Reader's Digest also gave up that argument, thus separating from Time-by a very simple syllogism. If indeed Reader's Digest is a foreign publication-American in this case-no argument will convince me that it is a valuable and distinctive Canadian entity and, therefore, there is no reason to perpetuate an anachronism which has already done too much damage to our own interests. Therefore, the privilege involved is nothing but a fiscal loophhole that only turns to the advantage of the magazine and of the advertisers and which we must fill as soon as possible. If on the other hand, Reader's Digest is indeed a Canadian publication, it then falls under the general provisions of section 19, and needs no particular privilege to allow it to operate in accordance with the general law, to enjoy the same standing as the other Canadian magazines and to compete with them with the same weapons.
So, one way or another, rescinding the privilege is not only advantageous but necessary to the exercise of free enterprise which is so dear to my colleagues of the other side-and to me also, I do not want to try and conceal it.

I have on several occasions mentioned the magazine Reader's Digest and only this one. That is because, as far as I am concerned, it is the only entity which deserves our attention in this debate, as Time does not happen to be Canadian, is not in process of becoming Canadian and has no desire to be "Canadianized." Therefore, in the case of Time which is the second most important magazine to be affected by Bill C-58, not only is the repeal of income tax privileges desirable, it stands to reason and is undisputable morally and economically.
As for Reader's Digest, the situation is basically different, we must admit. I would like to point out some of the features which-as some hon. members have very aptly explained before me-make Reader's Digest an entity, shall I say Canadian and almost Quebecoise.
Reader's Digest has 460 employees in Quebec and provides over 1000 more indirectly with jobs; 60 per cent of the yearly income is spent in Quebec, that is about $18 million. Four out of the six administrators are from Quebec; each word printed in its two Canadian editions is read, edited or written by its copy-writers in Montreal; $8 million are invested in Quebec, and I will not linger over all the rest.
In the light of this information, what prevents Reader's Digest from meeting the requirements of section 19 of the Income Tax Act?
To solve this problem, we have to go back to the sources, namely to section 19 and consider each appreciation criterium to see if Reader's Digest comply with them or not.
We hear about control of editorial policy. In this regard, and even if we could argue for a long time and if the court alone could make a definite decision, we should, in my opinion, give the benefit of the doubt to Reader's Digest which openly declares, through its management, that it carries its whole business in Canada, be in the choice of its policies, of the publishing or of the broadcasting mechanisms.
We are also told about beneficial ownership. Reader's Digest already clearly indicated that, provided it is given a certain time to reorganize its financial structure, it could eventually meet the 75 per cent requirement. We also hear about the Canadian content and the publication under license, and this is where things go wrong, because Reader's Digest, with the best will in the world, will never be able to meet this third requirement because of the very nature of its publications.
We should stop here for a while and reassess the status of that magazine.
Let us suppose for a few minutes it is a foreign magazine. Some journalists have accused us of intending to hinder the circulation of ideas by trying to expel magazines which presently benefit from the special privilege under section 19 (b). Are they not overreacting to a certain point? Our intention is not to turf out those magazines. They can abide by the law if they meet the specifications mentioned in section 19 and become Canadian magazines. Otherwise, like hundreds of other very popular foreign publications, which in fact get no special treatment from government, through a wide circulation they can nevertheless benefit from advertising revenues and be sold in Canada, so that no Canadian will be deprived of the right
November 13, 1975

to read them. This applies to foreign magazines, for instance Time.
But is Reader's Digest truly a Canadian magazine? For reasons rapidly outlined earlier and other reasons already dealt with at length by my colleagues, I will answer through a double negation which almost amounts to an affirmation in the present case, for the rigid laws of mathematics are not always applicable in politics. Reader's Digest is not a foreign magazine, but it is not a Canadian magazine proper either, at least within the meaning of section 19. In fact, it is Canadian in soul if not in right, and to me this is sufficient justification to dig deeper and explore the avenues which would enable it to comply with legal requirements and even more. We have to make concessions if there is an element of sincerity in our wish to see the publication of Reader's Digest continue in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on July 30, 1975, I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) questions with regard to certain assurances that I wanted from him as the spokesman in this House for the National Capital Commission. The questions are set forth at page 8069 of Hansard. They had to do with the attitude of the government with respect to the crossing of federal lands by infrastructure which might serve development in various parts of the national capital region outside the green belt. I suppose the question would equally apply to areas adjacent to other federal lands.
The matter arose in the House as a result of a newspaper article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on the same day. That story attributes a number of rather startling statements to "an official NCC spokesman" who was subsequently identified to me as the commission's public relations officer.
We can take it for granted that there is a difference in view between the NCC on the one hand and the regional, municipal, and provincial authorities on the other with respect to the priorities to be given to development. I think that is a matter of which we are all well aware. This is a difficulty we shall have to resolve by consultation, I suppose, as time goes on. My respectful submission to the minister and to the NCC was that the difficulty clearly could not wait for a decision by the parliamentary committee. I suppose that in terms of the needs which have to be met, particularly with respect to housing, it will need to be
Adjournment Debate
resolved before the parliamentary committee can reach a conclusion.
Aside from all that there is a direct quotation in the story attributable to the spokesman which concerns me. The spokesman is quoted as saying that the NCC would have to "consider the use of the green belt land for trunk sewers and other facilities that would be required by private developers in South Gloucester and South Rideau". This clearly evinces the attitude of the Commission. It shows the Commission is giving serious consideration to doing exactly what the Minister of State for Urban Affairs said on the same day in the House he would not do. This conflict must be resolved by a statement which indicates that in fact when the minister was speaking in the House he was speaking for the Commission. The dates of the conflicting statements are just too close to be ignored.
The minister's answer in the House reads, in part: "I can assure the hon. member we certainly will not be obstructive in any Draconian sense". This implies to me that there could be obstruction in some sense and I would like to have this aspect cleared up by the minister.
The story in the paper contains the following statement:
The NCC spokesman did not deny that this (referring to the statement) was a thinly veiled threat that private development might be left high and dry in South Gloucester and South Rideau with their access to sanitary facilities in the capital blocked off by the NCC green belt.
Frankly this conflict, the two types of answer on the same day, one by an official of the NCC and another by the minister in the House, even the rather veiled answer which is not uncharacteristic of the minister, cannot be allowed to stand.
I raise the matter during the adjournment debate in order to give the minister the opportunity to place the position before the House, not just the position of the NCC but the position of the Government of Canada with respect to the use of the green belt and other land for the provision of the infrastructure necessary for the development of land, whether private or otherwise, in the national capital region. In conclusion I would say it is important that nothing be done or said by the government, by any member of the House or, indeed, by the National Capital Commission which could in any way interfere in what I hope will be a good relationship, a relationship of mutual trust. I am afraid that the statement which was made, coming as it did on the heels of the statement by the minister in answer to my question, did nothing to clear the waters and I would be glad to receive an assurance from the minister in a specific way.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather interested in the hon. member's concern for housing in the national capital area. I thought he was only interested in parkland which would not be used for housing. What we are looking for now is more housing, moderately-priced housing and again, in another area, not to use what could be excellent recreational land for housing purposes.
I believe the policies of the NCC and other governments in the past involving purchasing land in advance have served this region exceedingly well. Consider the great
9056

November 13, 1975
Adjournment Debate
development of the capital area as a result of these farsighted decisions. The hon. member mentioned the need to make a decision before the parliamentary committee makes its report. I would expect that the committee would be some time before it makes a final report, but if it has anything to say in an interim report that, of course, would be exceedingly helpful.
I did use the words "will not be obstructive in any Draconian sense". I have to be perfectly honest and fair; it is necessary to state what my position is. I meant Draconian in the sense of trying to force an issue in a way that is distasteful. That we would not want to do. We are looking for co-operation and for a good, on-going relationship. I have really searched my soul on this one and sought the advice of many for whom I have great regard professionally, whose integrity as far as I am concerned is beyond question.
I strongly believe that if anything is done to delay or inhibit development of the southeast part of the city we will again be in one of these ever-repetitive situations. We will continue to have urban sprawl if we do not get the planning that we want or the housing at the cost we want.
If the hon. member asks me for a specific explanation, I put it in the terms that I am not at all inclined to recommend those things that would inhibit in any way the process of improving the situation and getting the southeast city project moving as quickly as possible.


COMMUNICATIONS-ALLEGED DETERIORATION OF TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS-SUGGESTED DENIAL OF RATE INCREASES PENDING IMPROVEMENT
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, the question I am debating tonight has to do with one that I placed before the Acting Minister of Communications, and I am glad to see his very capable parliamentary secretary here tonight. Naturally, as is usual, I got the continually evasive answer that the matter would be looked into, which never is the case; so thankfully I have this avenue of approach tonight.
The problem I have presented is, to my mind, basic and reasonable. It is to request the Department of Communications-and also remind them of their responsibilities to Canadians-to provide normal, adequate telephone Communications on the premise that every Canadian, regardless of where he lives in Canada, is deserving of this normal, expected service.
The province of Newfoundland is usually the last to get any type of communications service. I could mention the neglect and utter disregard of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in fulfilling its responsibility to all Canadians who, even at this date, do not have the normal television service. And what is most disgusting to me and to the Canadians I represent is that that corporation, with all its high-priced officials, could not care less about its duty to all Canadians.
The question I am debating tonight shows that nobody cares about Canadians who live in remote and isolated areas, and who are continually being ignored by such organizations as Canadian National Telecommunications and Bell Canada. Why the government cannot see the phonyness that exists with regard to these two agencies is

beyond me; but again the Canadian Transport Commission is just as neglectful and anti-Canadian as the agencies it is supposed to direct.
As a result of the persistent postal strike it should be incumbent upon the government opposite to ensure that Canadians can use the only alternate service available, the telephone service, and the companies that have a monopoly on that service should also ensure that Canadians everywhere are able to utilize it, are able to contact not only their members of parliament, some of whom are conscientious enough to try to serve them, but also contact someone in the case of emergency.
Not only are these companies incapable of providing this service in order to cope with the breakdown of the postal service, they cannot even fulfil their normal service responsibilities to all sections of Canada. What is more depressing is that the Canadian Transport Commission continues to grant these companies increases in rates, at the same time ignoring the service that they are supposed to be providing.
These agencies should not only be condemned. It is strange and ridiculous that whatever agency is responsible to provide on Parliament Hill enough lines for members who happen to serve remote areas of Canada and want to serve their constituents cannot do so. Members must go literally through torture to make a normal phone call to those they are trying to serve because there are not enough lines available. I have gone through this cancerous situation now for far too long, and while I have tried to be reasonable in my requests it is obvious that the bureaucratic disease persists to the point of no return. I can only say it is a sorry state for Canada that this disease continues to persist while nobody cares.
I can only condemn those elements I have mentioned, and I can only hope again, that perhaps someone will take some notice of the ridiculous situation that exists with regard to all these communication agencies for which this government and parliament are responsible, and either investigate the neglect, insisting that the agencies prove their capability to cope with their responsibilities, or have the guts to deny them any increases in rates which they request until they do so.
If I had the time I could give you almost verbatim the tales of woe and excuses I will receive in reply, the excuses, and the declarations of planning to improve the service, but nothing will be done because there is no justice and no consideration for those Canadians who need the normal services these organizations are supposed to provide. I know I will be just as disgusted after the answer is given as I now am. I hope the very capable parliamentary secretary will be able to give me some responsible answers and that I will see an improvement in the services to those Canadians who seem to be denied the services they deserve.


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I only wish when the hon. member opposite mentions so many serious situations which deserve thoughtful and lengthy answers I could, within the restricted time available to me, reply to
November 13, 1975

them all, giving him some satisfaction. I am sure he appreciates it is impossible for me to cover all these areas in depth. I intend to try in the minute or two available to touch on one or two of these areas, not by way of excuse but by way of explanation.
We have a problem of divided jurisdiction, of which the hon. member is well aware. That is not to say there are not real problems that need correction within the area of Newfoundland where jurisdiction is divided between the CNT and the province itself.
As an example, only a few months ago a United States base closed down in northern Newfoundland with very little notice, and the telephone system in that area was placed in serious jeopardy. Although the Department of Communications had no specific program, with the granting money available it did find $50,000 in order to give assistance on an emergency basis, allowing continuation of service in that area.
There are programs under way to improve communications services in Newfoundland. Telephone systems are extremely expensive, however, especially when long distances are involved.
Of course I cannot answer the criticism of the hon. member concerning the Canadian Broadcasting Corpora-
Adjournment Debate
tion which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner).
I would point out that the Canadian Transport Commission only a week or so ago ordered a reduction in the rate increase application by B.C. Telephone. I personally, as one member of the House of Commons, was encouraged by that, and I am going to watch with interest to see how Bell Telephone is dealt with by the CTC in those hearings now under way.
I do know that the hon. member in trying to get through to his constituency from Ottawa has had some difficulty.
In conclusion I simply want to note that partly because of the use made of the telephone system by the government telecommunications agency, the long distance network serving the Ottawa area has been working at close to capacity in recent months. The telephone company is currently installing additional equipment to relieve this situation, and when this work is completed there will be a safety margin of excess capacity for some time to come. I sincerely hope that will be of assistance to the hon. member in communicating with his constituents.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow 11 o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.17 p.m.

Friday, November 14, 1975