1975-05-08

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance with regard to the consensus program following the reply from the representatives of the CLC. Can the minister indicate to the House what stage the process is in now, having said on Tuesday, the sixth, that it appeared there was a possibility of getting to the final stage by the end of the week. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether it is still in the middle stage or whether we will get to the final stage at the commencement of next week.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the government will be seeking further clarification from the Canadian Labour Congress on its statement. Indeed, I intend to canvass the views and reactions of the provinces and the business community as well. We will be issuing an invitation to meet the executive of the Canadian Labour Congress early next week.


INFLATION-KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER OF WORKING PAPERS PRESENTED TO CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS SEEKING CONSENSUS ON RESTRAINT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the minister will not indicate at what stage we are. Yesterday, the Acting Prime Minister indicated that the working papers on this subject that were revealed to the press on Monday were in fact before the CLC and others. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether this was done without his knowledge since on Tuesday last he indicated in response to questions that these papers published in the press on Monday must have been earlier working papers. Were there in fact papers presented to the CLC and others by the Acting Prime Minister without the knowledge of the Minister of Finance?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. The working papers and discussions have been continually evolving. The reports I read seemed to concentrate primarily on the wage and salary side. The papers which have been in circulation were based on the assumption that every sector of the economy was entitled to bear
its burden in the moderation for which we were seeking agreement, and particularly on the wage and salary side there was an assumption there would be sufficient flexibility for catch-up for those areas of the working force that had fallen furthest behind. Also there was a legitimate bias in favour of the lower paid men and women in the work force. It was for this reason I felt the report did not fairly reflect the amplitude or totality of the propositions or proposals in discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition on a final supplementary.


INFLATION-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF WORKING PAPERS SUBMITTED TO CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, at least it is clear today that these were not earlier papers as the Minister of Finance seemed to suggest at the first of this week. Now that the Minister of Finance and the Acting Prime Minister have conceded that certain papers have in fact been circulated to the CLC and others, and particularly since the CLC has commented or made a response on these papers, is it not appropriate that the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister should make public these papers, together with any covering letter, so that those of us who are mere members of parliament at least would have some accurate idea concerning what the CLC is commenting on, particularly since the Minister of Finance and others in the government keep telling us their position has been misrepresented.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think that in the interest of public policy, because of the events in the last few days, it would be in the interest of the House to have these working papers, such as they exist at the moment, tabled in the House, and I am prepared to do so.


INFLATION-INQUIRY WHETHER GUIDELINES ON RESTRAINT HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR ALL SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, we do not know just what papers the Minister of Finance wishes to submit. On Tuesday, the minister stated that the program should be comprehensive and should embrace the total economy. Since the working papers which we know about to date do not express such a resolution, can the minister advise whether new documents have been prepared that make specific proposals on guidelines and mechanisms for all sectors of the economy and, if so, will they be mailed, and to whom and when?

May 8, 1975
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: I have just said that there will be meetings next week with the Canadian Labour Congress and representatives of the business community to assess the situation subsequent to the statement made yesterday by the CLC. At that time perhaps we will be working on the basis of further discussion documents, but I am not yet prepared to say whether or not we will be operating merely on the terms of reference suggested by the CLC in its own statement.


INFLATION-POSSIBILITY OF MONITORING BOARDS WITH POWER TO ENFORCE GUIDELINES
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I understand that yesterday the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs expressed some concern about this entire matter and said he is almost ready to introduce his price justification legislation. In order to find out whether he is coming to the rescue or is just throwing out a red herring in the matter, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether the government has changed its earlier position expressed in the April 10 statement and is now proposing monitoring boards that would have powers within the consensus program to enforce certain guidelines?


John Napier Turner: I am
sorry, Mr. Speaker, when I heard my colleague's name mentioned, I focussed on these papers before me. I apologize. Would the hon. member repeat his question?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It has been reported that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is almost ready to introduce his price justification legislation because he is concerned with the progress made by the government at this time. In order to determine whether the minister is coming to the rescue or just throwing out a red herring in this regard, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether he can advise us if the government has changed its earlier position expressed in the April 10 statement and is now proposing monitoring boards that would have powers within the consensus program to enforce certain guidelines?


John Napier Turner: Within the consensus program, the papers-that I hope you will allow me to table, Mr. Speaker-provide for a series of alternative suggestions as to whether a board or boards should be constituted. Those boards, as I said in reply to the hon. member's leader, would have a monitoring power but no power of enforcement except, of course, the scrutiny of parliament and of public opinion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Finance has asked for leave to table certain documents. Is that agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


INFLATION-APPLICABILITY OF RESTRAINT PROGRAM TO CORPORATE DIVIDENDS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the finance minister's statement a few moments ago that the income restraint program should be borne equally by all segments of the economy, I

want to ask him what restraints will be placed on corporation dividends in view of the fact that the proposal which the minister has sent out definitely excludes corporation dividends on the ground that "the disposition of profits is better left to the companies so that they may feel freer to determine how best to raise their capital". In view of the fact that they may not entirely divert their profit to capital but pay it to their shareholders, how does the minister propose to apply restraint measures, or is this restraint program to be applied solely to the workers and wage and salary earners of this country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no. Business is being called upon within those discussions and working papers to limit price increases to increases in cost. With respect to dividends it was recognized in all quarters that there would have to be some equilibrium between a moderation in the payment to shareholders and the necessity for the private sector and for companies to remain attractive enough to attract investment, that being badly needed to sustain the momentum of the economy. There are no clear answers to that, but that certainly is a subject which is open for discussion.


INFLATION-METHOD OF ENFORCING INCOME CEILING FOR PROFESSIONALS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that multinational corporations can manipulate their costs by paying larger amounts to their parent companies, it seems to me that that is no answer. How does the minister propose to make effective the $2,400 ceiling of income increases for professional people? If a doctor, lawyer or real estate promoter makes an additional $10,000 instead of $2,400, what restraint on that individual is there, or is this merely a piece of window dressing to make the wage restraint more attractive to the person who signs a collective bargaining agreement.


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman is, of course, referring to some of the items set forth yesterday in the statement by the Canadian Labour Congress. A good many of those items reflect the current thrust of government policy. A good many of the items, however, as in the case of professional fees and rents and probably in certain respects, land speculation, fall under provincial jurisdiction and could only be enforced either by firm provincial commitment, or as the paper seems to imply, by the federal government using mandatory power under the peace, order and good government clause. That is a subject, of course, which needs firm provincial commitment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
minister certainly answered my question and demonstrated that the proposed restraints on professional groups is pure window dressing. In view of the fact that the wages and salaries of workers in organized trade unions will be binding by virtue of collective bargaining agreements which they signed, am I to take it from the minister's reply that the only groups in the country upon whom there will be any binding restraints are those who sign collective bargaining agreements, and that really any
May 8, 1975

other restraints upon either corporation profits or upon the income of professional groups are simply wishful thinking on the part of the minister?


John Napier Turner: No, sir, I deny that categorically.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue, and I think it will be of interest to all parties in the House.
Yesterday I called the minister on the phone to inform him of an incident that took place yesterday morning at our office in Rimouski. An official of his department broke in and seized all papers in our possession concerning our operations which are legal under the present elections act. Did the minister authorize such a search and, if so, under what section of the act?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, those records were obtained under a director's requirement, and ministerial seizure was made, so I would have to confirm under which precise section of the act.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Could the minister say whether, for instance, certain provisions of the act authorize such investigations here at the present time, and whether similar action is being taken with regard to the Liberal, Progressive Conservative and New Democratic Parties, in order to get hold of their records concerning their respective electoral funds?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there is authority in the act to examine the affairs of any taxpayer and to make seizures relative to inquiries about taxpayers, so the answer is yes.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
The minister says that civil servants are authorized under the act to check the data of ordinary taxpayers. But since when are electoral funds subject to the Income Tax Act? I wish to point out to the minister that yesterday morning we authorized his official to investigate in our offices but not to seize the papers and bring them to Quebec City. That is what I object to, and I ask the minister whether he is prepared to give instructions to his department to have our records returned immediately.
Oral Questions


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member telephoned me yesterday I have been endeavouring to get a report from my department so that the inquiry could be conducted in the offices that the hon. member speaks of, and so that the operation of his political party would in no way be interfered with.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: I am glad to afford the right hon. gentleman an opportunity to be welcomed by his colleagues and the rest of us.


John Napier Turner: What about the House?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I said the rest of us. The Minister of Finance is sensitive.


An hon. Member:: Maybe he has good reason to be.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: He didn't
get a welcome.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Perhaps Mr. Speaker would like me to proceed with the question. In light of reports and documents which indicate that the total amount of funds involved in CIDA's arrangements with Cuba will be about $20 million rather than the previously disclosed $10 million, will the Prime Minister state that the amount in fact is $20 million that Cuba is expected to receive?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I didn't welcome you back!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I was going to explain that the same question was raised yesterday on a question of privilege. I have had some investigations made and I can answer very briefly that the amounts disclosed by CIDA were the amounts authorized. There was no concealed amount. I think it would be better if this question could be pursued where an adequate explanation could be given, however.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: A supplementary question. Did the intervention by the Minister of Finance into the Cuban proposals causing the loan to be changed from an interest free one to one bearing 3 per cent interest force CIDA into a tactic of attempting to mislead the public on this whole issue?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
5580

May 8, 1975
Oral Questions


ALLEGATION FOOD AID NOT REACHING THOSE IN NEED-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister is a supplementary in the area of developing countries. Is the Prime Minister aware that of the total amount of food donated by Canada last year to developing nations, 80 per cent was sold to local people and only 20 per cent given, which means in effect that Canadians are subsidizing people who can afford to buy food and is not reaching those we most want to reach, the destitute?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Roche: A supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to stop this misrepresentation to the Canadian people who are under the impression that food donated by Canada is given, not sold, to local peoples? Also, will he assure the House that the one million tons of food pledged by Canada at the World Food Conference for the next three years will be given to the people of developing countries and not sold.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will try to ascertain whether in fact there was misinterpretation or misrepresentation, and who made it.


COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, first, I want most sincerely to welcome to this House again, after an absence that was deeply felt, the Prime Minister. I say that in all sincerity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Having some knowledge of Commonwealth prime ministers' conferences, I ask the Prime Minister whether he, on behalf of the government, intends to bring before the House for implementation any of the recommendations that were made, as contained in the communique. I realize, of course, that there is nothing binding that requires them to be produced here, and that the recommendations are just that, recommendations? I am wondering whether as a result of this conference, important as it was, any particular phase of activity or change, organizational or otherwise, will be brought before this House for implementation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for welcoming me back. He, having attended these conferences himself as Prime Minister, understands well the comradeship which prevails at these meetings. I am glad to be welcomed by my comrade, the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do intend to table the communique, Mr. Speaker, and would have done it today, but the French translation was not quite finished. I intend to table it tomorrow, so that the House will be able to take official notice of what was transacted there. As the right hon. gentleman suggested in his question, the Commonwealth is not a decision-making body and I would have difficulty stating that every aspect of the communique will be before the House by way of some decision which the government will implement. Certainly, the policies which flow from the Canadian position at the Jamaica conference will result either in policy statements or legislative action, or in executive action which I am sure the House will have the opportunity to examine and criticize, if necessary.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that comradeship which has always characterized relationships between members of parliament. I ask the Prime Minister whether he would mention specifically one or two matters which will require implementation? I have read the communique and wonder if it is composed of generalities which are not to be implemented in any way by legislative enactment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would gladly answer a question on the specifics the right hon. gentleman has in mind, but I am not quite sure to which few areas he is referring.


John George Diefenbaker: There are six matters.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs? Has our government been in touch with the United States, to indicate our displeasure at proposed plans of American Buffalo border stations to jam their own signals and prevent their reception either in Hamilton or Toronto? These stations plan to do this if the Canadian government goes ahead with its policy requiring the deletion and substitution of commercial spaces in American programming received by Canadian cable companies in Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. gentleman, I have heard reports of this kind. We have had no occasion, of course, to protest or take action of any kind, even if we thought this was desirable, because nothing has as yet happened.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the impasse to which present procedures have led, does the cabinet approve CRTC policy which requires Canadian cable casters to strip or delete commercials from American programs received in Canada? Is this strictly the policy of the CRTC or is it something of which the
May 8, 1975

cabinet has approved? Perhaps the Prime Minister might reply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question on behalf of the Minister of Communications. I must say I was not aware of this subject of jamming to which the hon. member refers.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that Northern Electric's decision to shut down Microsystems semiconductor operations will cost the Canadian taxpayer something in the neighbourhood of $30 million to $31 million, and since there are people in the semiconductor field who disagree with Northern Electric's reasons for shutting Microsystems down, will the minister tell the House whether or not he sought independent advice on that matter or did he accept the company's opinion only? If he did seek independent advice, will he indicate from where that advice came?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we did not shut down Microsystems.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be ignoring the question I am putting to him. While it is true that the government did not shut down Microsystems directly by any statement on the part of the government, by standing aside and letting Northern Electric do as it pleases, it effectively shut it down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE IN METHOD OF EVALUATING PROSPECTS OF COMPANIES RECEIVING GRANTS
Max Saltsman: I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of the unhappy experience with Microsystems, which the government did not shut down on its own, is the government working out new ways of evaluating the prospects of companies to which loans or grants are given and, if so, what changes are taking place?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of continuous evaluation. There are many different programs and projects which my department is supporting. They are under constant evaluation.


Max Saltsman: While there are many evaluations, none of which seem to have worked, can the minister indicate whether he has come up with one single evaluation in which we can have some confidence?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As labour in the form of the Canadian Labour Congress has indicated very clearly that it rejects the propositions of the government for consensus unless very strict controls are placed on the operation of capital and management, has the government submitted to those who speak for the capital and management side of the economy working papers to examine on this very important proposition, such as organized labour were given? If so, when and when is an answer expected from the capital and management side on this important matter?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the discussion papers were also distributed on the management side during the past two weeks in the course of discussions with the technical groups that we set up, to which I referred earlier in the week in response to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


George Harris Hees: Can the minister indicate very briefly who those representatives of business are the government considers speak for business and capital in this matter?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is a representative list. Obviously, no one comes with a particular mandate for the business community generally, neither to a certain degree does the Canadian Chamber of Commerce or the Canadian Manufacturers' Association on the other side. The Canadian Labour Congress has only persuasive power over its constituent unions.


George Harris Hees: Can the minister indicate very briefly from whom he is awaiting a reply on the management side?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board on one of my favourite subjects, federal nurses. Was it the decision of the Treasury Board to send home ten nurses from the National Defence Medical Centre this morning, which nurses had been on strike yesterday, as a means of breaking the strike?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board does not give such instructions. We do not administer hospitals, but the Department of National Health and Welfare does. Nothing has been reported to me that seems abnormal.
29561-101/2

May 8, 1975
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I did not get the tail end of the reply from the translator. The minister might reassure the House by saying that these nurses will be taken back on strength and the impression will not be left that it was a strike breaking move on the part of Mr. Fothergill. When giving that assurance, perhaps he might inform the House that something is being done with regard to federal hospitals at Camp Hill in Halifax, Camsell in Edmonton and throughout the Yukon with regard to bringing the wages of nurses in these jurisdictions under the federal employ up to parity.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said in this House yesterday that a conciliation board has submitted an unanimous report. The union representative, the government representative and the conciliator have reached the same conclusion. The basis of the agreement was that parity should be given up to the amount paid to people in the provinces; this is exactly what the conciliation board tried to do.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the minister overlooked the portion of my question asking for assurance that the ten nurses who were told to go home this morning from the National Defence Medical Centre will be taken back.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as far as I understand what happened, a number of patients had to be turned away yesterday. There was no work for the nurses this morning. When the patients are back, the nurses can go back to work, of course.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State (Fisheries). As has happened in the past few years, ice conditions persist in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and there has been a delay in the opening of the lobster season. Is the minister prepared to take the necessary action to move up the lobster season from April 20 to May 5, as is the wish of the majority of fishermen?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to look into this matter. Wherever possible I will be as flexible as the regulations permit. I would say to the hon. member the problem is that in those ports that are ice free, the men want to go fishing. There was a recent problem in New Brunswick where there were conflicting views among fishermen in the same district. However, I am quite willing to be flexible.


Jack Marshall: While the minister is looking into that problem, will he also look into the fact that ice damage reports from 1974 indicate that the federal-provincial committee were lax in their duty in declaring the zones which

would be eligible for compensation. Will the minister look at those reports and consider the decision made last year in order that those zones that were excluded may be given consideration for inclusion?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will look into this. If there is anything I can do to remedy obvious unfairness, I will do it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the period for assistance to hog producers is over, as announced last year by the minister, can he advise whether there will be any payment to producers because they have had substantial losses during that time?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the average price that hog producers received for that period exceeded the support price by approximately $5.96 per hundred. Therefore, there will be no payment.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Is the minister prepared to admit that the basing of feed costs on the last five year average almost guaranteed there would be no payment because feed costs in the last two years alone almost doubled? Is the minister now prepared to do a re-assessment of this program for the past year, basing it on average feed costs for the past two years?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the current legislation presently before the Standing Committee on Agriculture will allow us to do that very thing. It will allow us to use current costs.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Considering that the Department of Finance Review for 1974 notes that labour costs per unit of output are rising more rapidly in Canada than in the United States, and this has in practical terms become painfully apparent and has already seriously affected the lumber and pulp commodity groups as well as other industries, did the minister discuss the need to maintain Canada's competitive trade position in his consensus talks with business and labour, and were the spokesmen he talked to willing to concede the importance of Canada's competitive position?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I said to both labour and business representa-
May 8, 1975

tives during the course of the last two months that I felt time was running out-that our competitive position was continuing, and does continue, to deteriorate and that the situation must be reversed unless we are to suffer a massive loss of jobs in this country. I said the government was committed to bringing prices and production costs into a competitive posture-into a range within which we can compete in world markets and defend our own markets. This view was shared by leaders of both labour and business.


Frank Oberle: Is the minister prepared to endorse the downward float of the Canadian dollar as a mechanism to compensate for high Canadian labour costs per unit of output?


John Napier Turner: That would be a short term palliative indeed because it would expose us to higher import costs; we would be going down a steadily declining slope.


ARAB BOYCOTT OF COMPANIES TRADING WITH ISRAEL- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John Roberts (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Having regard to reports that 150 Canadian companies have been placed on a boycott list by the Arab boycott office in Damascus because they have Jewish directors or because they trade with Israel, will the Prime Minister assure the House that the imposition of trading restrictions on the basis of racial, religious or ethnic factors is repugnant to Canada and that Canada will look with disfavour on countries and companies which implement trade discrimination on this basis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can say that the government is opposed to any such kind of discrimination, particularly the kind mentioned by the hon. member. I have not had time to look into the facts upon which the allegation is based; perhaps some other minister has. If not, I will look further into the matter and discuss it further with the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: On April 28, the Acting Prime Minister stated in the House that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce had instructed the Export Development Corporation to review the Arab boycott clause as it applies to both insurance and direct lending operations. I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he has issued any such policy directive to his department and to the Export Development Corporation with regard to government
Oral Questions
involvement with export companies which agreed to boycott Israel and, if so, what is the nature of that directive?


Alastair William Gillespie: I think government spokesmen have made it clear to the business community, to countries abroad and to the EDC itself that the government does not support or condone discriminatory measures of this kind.


Peter Colwell Bawden: But no directive has been issued?


Alastair William Gillespie: I have asked the president, and the board of directors, which will be meeting next week, to consider their practices in the light of this policy.


Peter Colwell Bawden: A supplementary to the Prime Minister. Has the cabinet considered and drafted a directive covering all agencies and departments of the government concerning this important matter and, if not, is one now being prepared?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I think it is sufficient to say that this type of practice is alien to everything the government stands for and, indeed, to what in general, Canadian ethics stand for, and I would hope that no specific directive is necessary. Action of the type referred to by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is, of course, warranted when special rumours attach to any particular agency.


COMBINES
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
As a result of the appointment of Mr. Pierre Nadeau as one of the three members of the inquiry commission on corporations, and as Mr. Nadeau is, among other things, president of Petrofina Canada Ltd., a multinational company, does the Prime Minister not fear that there may be a very serious conflict of interest that would make the commissions's objectivity questionable?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 
HARBOURS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct to the hon. Minister of Transport a question con-

May 8, 1975
Oral Questions
cerning the famous construction project of a port at Gros Cacouna.
Can the Minister advise the House of the progress of the negotiations with the province of Quebec, and whether an analysis has been made by him on the very special role such a project would have at Gros Cacouna?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there have been no negotiations on that matter with the Province of Quebec, only discussions. With the Cabinet's permission, I hope to make public in the near future a global policy for ports in Canada. This will not deal only with Gros Cacouna, but also with Halifax, St. John's, Sept lies, Port Cartier, Quebec City, Trois-Rivieres, Montreal and so on. We shall try to find the perfect balance, so that the cost for shipping our goods will be satisfactory and that ports will not strangle each other.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of a report that scores of patients were released from the National Defence Medical Centre yesterday due to a nurses' strike, may I ask what arrangements have been made for the accommodation of those patients who were discharged and who had come from far away points in Canada?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: My information is that the Medical Centre was adequately staffed by the nurses who are part of the regular armed forces-some 70 of them-and that there was no shortage of nurses.


William C. Scott: Do I gather from the minister's statement that no patients were discharged?


James Armstrong Richardson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, other than those who were able to be discharged because they were well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HISTORIC SITES
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr
Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? In view of the fact that the slight adjustments the minister made in admission fees to Lower Fort Garry struck the people of Manitoba as something of an insult, will he reconsider this matter with a sense of history to the end that admission to Lower Fort Garry might be at a very low fee or none at all?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: This is a subject which the hon. member has raised before. We did go part way down the road by making Lower Fort Garry available on a more equitable basis to family visitors, which seemed to be the primary concern. I really do not think we can go any further.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, concerns entrance fees to national parks and I wish to direct it to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since increases in entrance fees to the national parks announced by the minister responsible for that department amount to anywhere from 500 per cent to 1,000 per cent, will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs investigate these huge increases and take action against the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development just as he would against any private firm that attempted to impose increases of this size?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I take this question as notice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not raise that at ten o'clock, too?


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the growing interest in multicultural-ism in Canada I should like to ask the Prime Minister to indicate to the House when this government intends to appoint a minister whose sole responsibility is multiculturalism?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have the Minister of Labour who is entrusted with this special aspect of policy in Canada. I think the hon. member should not be pressing the government to set up a ministry for every special interest group in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We would have a great deal many more members of Cabinet


An hon. Member:: Keep on.

May 8, 1975

Oral Questions ENERGY


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will keep on if you will shut up. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, that was not directed to Your Worship.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that more than one-third of Canada's population is composed of people who are not members of the two dominant groups in Canada, does the Prime Minister not consider the needs of this rather large group as being important enough to warrant their own minister and their own ministry?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I should like to direct this question to the Prime Minister. In view of testimony given by officials of the Immigration Appeal Board to the standing committee today that despite rejections by investigative officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration of applications, which would indicate that a certain number of people should not be granted landed immigrant status but that deportations should be issued, and despite the fact that the Immigration Appeal Board by its record is now reversing eight of every nine cases it hears, will the Prime Minister indicate what safeguards are being considered or being put into place in order that this practice will stop, giving the immigration officers the confidence they deserve?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to have a look at these statements made before the committee. Of course, the Immigration Appeal Board has specific powers and terms of reference which were given to it by this parliament, and as far as I know it has been acting within those terms of reference, and acting on a certain discretion which I think members of parliament generally consider to be very valuable, indeed.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the papers tabled today, since they hopefully envisage the co-operation of the provinces, carried the approval of the provincial governments before they were sent out?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, these papers are also the basis for current discussions with the provinces.


NATURAL GAS-POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCES ON USE OF REVENUE FROM INCREASED PRICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to statements earlier this week about the increases in the prices of export gas and
oil.	I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether in the talks or agreements with the provinces there were any effective conditions laid down or agreed upon as to the use by the producing provinces of the revenues to be derived directly or indirectly from the higher price of natural gas?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Sir, except that the arrangements made in January with the government of British Columbia concerning the deemed price provisions of the recently passed income tax bill would make some provision for the taxation of the production industry in British Columbia.


NATURAL GAS-REASON FOR DELAY IN ANNOUNCING PRICE INCREASE-ASSURANCE INCREASED REVENUE USED FOR EXPLORATION
Donald W. Munro: Having specific regard to the case of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, since the formula for distributing the revenues was made public about two weeks earlier than the announcement in this House, and since no part of the funds under that formula is to be devoted to the search for new sources of natural gas, why was the announcement of the new gas price delayed in this House until this week, and what means does the government now have for ensuring that at least some of those additional revenues shall be devoted to the search for new sources of gas?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in hearing that from the hon. gentleman since he and his colleagues spoke at tiresome length over the last six months on why a province should make its own decisions with regard to its own resources. It is because of our respect for the constitution that we have not imposed those conditions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the substantial damage that has already been done at the St. Lawrence River ports in Quebec, not to mention the damage to the reputation of parliament and the principle of the rule of law and by the failure of the Prime Minister and his colleagues to enforce the law as passed by this parliament, I would ask the Minister of

May 8, 1975
Oral Questions
Labour when we can expect the longshoremen of these Quebec St. Lawrence River ports to obey this law passed by this parliament more than two weeks ago?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, without belittling the problem in terms of parliament, and I do not do that, I would remind the hon. member that when he refers to the rule of law, the rule of law apply to every citizen's right to take the matter to court, and this matter is before the courts today.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am not denying in any way the right of the stevedores to the due process of law, but I ask the minister why he has not invoked those sections of the bill which allow the government to place charges against those people where it appears in the minister's view there is prima facie evidence? I submit there is prima facie evidence, and my question is why the minister has not invoked those provisions?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member was in the House yesterday when the right hon. member for Prince Albert asked precisely the same question, which I answered indicating the action the justice officials were taking, but that is the situation as of today. If the hon. member wishes further elaboration, I think it would be appropriate to direct his question to the Minister of Justice.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Justice why Section 17(3) of the act concerning evidence of failure to obey the act has not been invoked, since I submit there is clearly prima facie evidence of the law being disobeyed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Labour indicated to this House, and as has been indicated before by me, action is being prepared, and today there is a proceeding in the courts in Montreal in connection with an application for an order under Section 16. Other material is being obtained in connection with evidence of personal offences, and charges will be laid as soon as that evidence is obtained. It may come as a surprise to hon. members that what may seem completely and absolutely obvious to them still requires evidence before the law.


John George Diefenbaker: You have all the evidence you need but you won't enforce it.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the serious and fragile condition of the economy and the alleged need for a national consensus, will the Prime Minister and his government consider an all-party consideration and negotiation of all matters on which

consensus, so-called, is required on an impartial, non-partisan and non-political basis with co-operation and understanding to help restore some stability and confidence in the economy as well as in this parliament immediately before a deep-seated depression results?


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because of the answer the Minister of Agriculture gave to a question I asked earlier. I asked whether he would give consideration to assisting last year's hog program by using the two-year average feed cost rather than the five. In his answer he said that is what the bill presently before the committee would do, presumably referring to stabilization Bill C-50. My recollection of that bill is that this will be based on the average five-year price previous to stabilization, and 90 per cent of that price.
It seems to me that if there is any assistance coming to the hog producers in this country, this bill should provide for it for the simple reason that the highly touted program of last year did not provide any assistance, even to the producers who had losses. If I am incorrect in that assumption perhaps the minister would so advise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely, this is the type of discussion which should be held before the committee when the bill is being discussed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader if he could confirm the business of the House for the latter part of this week and into next week.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, today we will have the opening of the debate on second reading of the bill to be dealt with by my colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), concerning amendments to the Income Tax Act to cover Time magazine, Reader's Digest, and so on. As I indicated yesterday, tomorrow will be an allotted day. Perhaps I should take advantage of the occasion to say that Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week will also be allotted days.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked especially that my starred question No. 2,284 receive urgent attention. It involves a political colleague of the Philippines who is on a hunger strike and has received the last rites of his church. I hope we can get an early and positive reply before he dies.
May 8, 1975


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 636, 1,676, 1,732, 1,954, 2,035, 2,036, 2,146, 2,175, 2,204, 2,205, 2,255, 2,290, 2,297 and 2,337.
If questions No. 1,373 to 1,440 inclusive, 1,877 and 2,106 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Stevens: To assist in the marketing and distribution of Olympic Coins, have marketing executives been hired by the government to act in the following three capacities (a) Chief of Operations and Distribution (b) Marketing Director for Canada (c) a World Traveller and, if so, who are the three executives, what is each of their salaries and expense allowances and what is their past experience, particularly in the financial field?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: (a) The Director of Products and Logistics, Mr. Derek W. Dawson, now receives a salary of $35,190 per annum. Expense allowances are in accordance with the Public Service Travel Regulations. Mr. Dawson has a diversity of experience in retail distribution, marketing and sales, market development and personnel work. He has no formal experience in the financial field nor is such experience required. He was employed in the Marketing Branch of the Canada Post Office prior to his appointment to the Olympic Coin Program, (b) The Director General, Marketing/Canada, Mr. Gerald D. Edge, now receives a salary of $35,190 per annum. Expense allowances are in accordance with the Public Service Travel Regulations. Mr. Edge has a diversity of experience in the organization and planning of national marketing and sales strategies. He also has a diversity of experience in data processing and personnel work. He was employed in the Marketing Branch of the Canada Post Office prior to his appointment to the Olympic Coin Program, (c) The Chief Executive Officer of the program has been employed under the title of Managing Director. The services of the Managing Director, Mr. Austin P. Page, have been obtained under contract with a firm of which he is a partner. The current fees for his services are $66,000 per annum. Expense allowances are in accordance with the Public Service Travel Regulations. Mr. Page has 20 years of diversified experience in commercial financing, corporate planning, business systems, personnel management, government organization, and banking.
Order Paper Questions RCMP SERVING IN NEW BRUNSWICK


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many members of the RCMP are serving in the Province of New Brunswick and, of these, how many are (a) unilingual English (b) unilingual French (c) bilingual?
2.	(a) How many of those who are bilingual or unilingual have been posted to New Brunswick from outside that Province (b) from what province do they originate?
3.	(a) How many RCMP officers in the Province of New Brunswick (i) are taking (ii) have taken language courses (b) how many have been given the opportunity of taking language courses (c) how many have refused (d) how many have been refused promotions because of language?
4.	How many (a) unilingual English (b) unilingual French (c) bilingual officers were posted to the Province of New Brunswick for each of the past five years?
5.	How many (a) unilingual English (b) unilingual French (c) bilingual officers were transferred or posted out of the Province of New Brunswick for each of the past five years?
6.	How many (a) unilingual French (b) unilingual English (c) bilingual officers were promoted for each of the past five years?
7.	What are the rules for posting and promotions for RCMP officers for the Province of New Brunswick?
8.	What was the percentage of English and French RCMP officers posted to New Brunswick during each of the past five years?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. 487. (a) 325; (b) 30; (c) 132.
2.	(a) 417;
(b)	Bilingual	UnilingualAlberta	2	2British Columbia	2	2Manitoba	4	5Nova Scotia	9	131Newfoundland	2	53Ontario	21	46Prince Edward Island	1	16Quebec	64	43Saskatchewan	3	9Foreign	1	1109	3083.	(a) (i) None, (ii) 31 (1970/71 to 1973/74 inclusive), (b) Language courses are available to all members, (c) None, (d) None.1970	1971	1972	1973	1974(a)	26	56	38	47	64(b)	1	3	7	7	9(c)	26	22	18	30	501970	1971	1972	1973	1974(a)	25	23	28	39	13(b)	1	2	-	-	2(c)	16	23	25	6	61970	1971	1972	1973	1974(a)	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil(b)	19	28	10	25	28(c)	2	1	5	4	8
May 8, 1975
Order Paper Questions
7. The criteria for determining postings and promotions of Royal Canadian Mounted Police members stationed in the province of New Brunswick are the same as for members stationed anywhere in Canada, i.e. to ensure the best qualified available member is selected, bearing in mind the particular requirements of the position to be filled. Experience, qualifications, length of service and general standards of performance are considered.
1970	1971	1972	1973	1974Unilingual English	48.67	69.14	60.32	55.96	52.03Unilingual French	2.66	3.70	11.11	8.33	7.31Bilingual	48.67	27.16	28.57	35.71	40.65
Note: Those shown as unilingual French are members whose mother tongue is French and includes those who have not taken the language knowledge examination as well as those who have failed.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What are the names and positions of the members of the Management Committee established for the purpose of overseeing implementation of those projects specified in Section 3 of the Canada-Newfound-land Subsidiary Agreement "Gros Morne Park Area Development"?
2.	Under project description II, "Community infrastructure", of the Canada-Newfoundland Subsidiary Agreement "Gros Morne Park Area Development", what is the status of the following projects (a) Rocky Harbour water and sewer systems, $3,630,000 (b) Rocky Harbour residential lots (50 serviced lots), $198,000 (c) Norris Point/Neddy's Harbour water and sewer system, $1,760,000 (d) Norris Point residential lots (25 serviced lots), $110,000 (e) Cow Head/St. Paul's water and sewer systems, $1,320,000 (f) Cow Head residential lots (20 serviced lots), $77,000 (g) Trout River water and sewer system, $880,000 (h) Woody Point water extension and sewer system, $440,000 (i) solid waste disposal study and construction (all enclaves), $253,000?
3.	Under Section III, Road Construction, of the Canada-Newfoundland Subsidiary Agreement "Gros Morne Park Area Development", what is the status of the following projects (a) access road from Highway 73 to Rocky Harbour and Norris Point (2 miles), $495,000 (b) Highway 73 reconstruction, 8 miles from St. Paul's to Shallow Bay, $2,090,000 (c) Route 44, upgrading 0.7 miles Woody Point to Park boundary, $121,000 (d) Route 44, upgrading 1.2 miles from Park boundary to Trout River, $220,000 (e) road construction, 10 miles Norris Point to Neddy's Harbour, $2,530,000 (f) bridges (Glenburnie to Woody Point), $385,000?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The
answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Management Committee members: (a) Mr. J. R. Baker (Federal Co-Chairman), Manager, Program Implementation DREE, St. John's, Newfoundland;
(b)	Mr. D. Peckham (Provincial Co-Chairman) Coordinator, Gros Morne Park Authority, Department of Forestry and Agriculture, St. John's, Newfoundland; (c) Mr. H. Clarke, Director of Government Services Policy, Planning and Priorities Secretariat, Executive Council, St. John's, Newfoundland (d) Mr. J. Vollmershausen, Superintendent, Gros Morne National Park, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Rocky Harbour, Bonne Bay, Newfoundland.
2.	Under project description II, "Community Infrastructure" of the Canada/Newfoundland Subsidiary Agreement "Gros Morne Park Area Development", the present status of each of the projects is as follows: (a) Rocky Harbour water and sewer systems: Contract awarded in the amount of $3,105,014. Amount spent to date is $912,499. (b) Rocky Harbour residential lots: design completed, (c) Norris Point/Neddy's Harbour water and sewer system; Contract awarded, $2,140,601. Amount spent: $1,299,568. (d) Norris Point residential lots: design completed, (e) Cow Head/St. Paul's water and sewer system: Contract awarded, $755,139; Amount spent to date is $731,725. (f) Cow Head residential lots: design completed, (g) Trout River water and sewer systems: design work almost completed, (h) Woody Point water extension and sewer system: design work in progress, (i) Solid Waste disposal study and construction: engineering work in progress. Rocky Har-bour/Norris Point area under construction.
3.	Under section III, Road Construction of the Canada/ Newfoundland Subsidiary Agreement "Gros Morne Park Area Development", the status of each project is as follows: (a) Access roads from Highway 73 to Rocky Harbour and Norris Point: Completed, (b) Highway 73 Reconstruction: Contract awarded, $1,074,249. Amount spent, $250,000.
(c)	Route 44 upgrading: not started, (d) Route 44 upgrading: not started, (e) Road reconstruction: completed, (f) Bridges: material purchased.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded to John Misener Marine Equipment Ltd. of Port Colborne, Ontario for bridge erection boats costing $151,874?
2.	What is the intended use of such boats?
3.	(a) What are the long-term plans for such vessels (b) what is the necessity of the purchase?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Yes.
2.	To assist in the construction of military floating bridges and to propel rafts of all types.
3.	(a) The vessels will be used as bridge erection boats by military engineers in several locations throughout Canada, (b) The purchases were necessitated by the need to replace obsolete equipment.


Mr. Marshall: Is the need for support of economic development in (a) Corner Brook (b) Stephenville (c) St. George's harbour developments under study and, if so, what are the terms of reference?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The
Department of Regional Economic Expansion, in co-operation with other federal departments and agencies, and

May 8, 1975

with provincial governments, carries out a continuing analysis of economic circumstances and opportunities in each province for the purpose of identifying developmental possibilities wherever they may be found in a province. In addition to this continuing analysis, specific studies of various kinds are undertaken from time to time. One that is currently underway is the "Corner Brook Harbour Development Study". The objectives of this study are to: (i) establish the short-term needs and the long term potential for the development of the Corner Brook Harbour area; (ii) identify the development potential of both the private and public sectors; (iii) present a staged master development plan with economic justification, and with firm recommendations for decision making. There are no specific studies currently underway relating to Stephenville or to St. George's harbour.


Mr. Marshall: With reference to the General Development Agreement between the federal government and the Government of Newfoundland, what studies are being done with regard to the future needs of the following provincial districts in (a) Humber East (b) Humber West (c) St. George's (d) Port au Port (e) St. Barbe South (f) St. Barbe North?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The
Department of Regional Economic Expansion, in co-operation with other federal departments and agencies, and with provincial governments, carries out a continuing analysis of economic circumstances and opportunities in each province for the purpose of identifying developmental possibilities wherever they may be found in a province. In addition to this continuing analysis, specific studies of various kinds are undertaken from time to time. Specific studies now underway are: (i) Corner Brook Harbour Development Study; (ii) Tourist development in the St. Barbe South area; (iii) Regional planning and land use (Deer Lake to park boundary); (iv) Development for inshore sports fishing. The latter three specific studies are being carried out as part of the Gros Morne Park Area Development Subsidiary Agreement. There are no specific studies currently underway relating to St. George's or Port au Port.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Was consideration given to increasing the funds for research programmes in agricultural and veterinary faculties in Canada as part of the programme to assist the underdeveloped countries to improve their production and management of food products?
2.	How many foreign students are presently enrolled in Canada in agricultural and veterinary faculties?
3.	What action is being considered to enable the faculties to plan long-range research?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by Agriculture Canada, the Canadian Inter-
Order Paper Questions
national Development Agency and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. Since 1971, including fiscal 1975/76 CIDA has channelled $1.5 million through the IBRD/UNDP/FAO sponsored Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research for research identified by the group sponsored centers and done in Canadian universities.
2.	There are at present 192 students sponsored by CIDA for study in Canada in agricultural and veterinary faculties. In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned, the number of all foreign students in Canada is recorded by academic institution rather than by faculty. A response to this question is therefore not possible.
3.	A proposal is under study by CIDA. In so far as Agriculture Canada is concerned, consideration is being given to the expansion of the grants program and to the expansion of contract research, with significant portion going to universities.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government giving consideration to reducing the multiplicity of forms and paper work that must be filled out by small businesses for various departments and agencies?


Mitchell William Sharp: There is a constant review of forms throughout the government.


Mr. Benjamin: Have coaxial cables been placed for cable television service at CFB, Moose Jaw, either in the administration area or private married quarters and (a) if so (i) on what date (ii) at what cost (iii) who did the installation (b) if not, have discussions taken place for the installation of such cable?


James Armstrong Richardson: No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Discussions are taking place between the municipality and the province, but the Department of National Defence is not involved.


Mr. Howie: In each fiscal year commencing April 1, 1970 (a) how many persons in the Province of (i) Ontario (ii) Quebec (iii) Newfoundland (iv) Nova Scotia (v) New Brunswick (vi) Prince Edward Island were hired by the Director of Dependents Education, Department of National Defence, as teachers for children of Armed Forces personnel in Department of National Defence schools (b) how many applications were received from teachers in each such Province?


James Armstrong Richardson: (a) 1, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, and (b). Only teachers for employment at Department of National Defence dependents schools in Europe are selected and hired by the Director of Dependents Education. The information requested is contained below.

May 8, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Selection of Teachers for DND Schools in Europe 1970-1975
1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Number	Number	Number	Number	Number	NumberNumber	of	Number	of	Number	of	Number	of	Number	of	Number	ofof	teachers	of	teachers	of	teachers	of	teachers	of	teachers	of	teachersapplicants	selected	applicants	selected	applicants	selected	applicants	selected	applicants	selected	applicants	selectedOntario	(Figures	40	301	61	413	29	389	45	485	31	676	(Figuresnot	notavailable)	yetavailable)Quebec	21	122	7	240	19	169	19	181	26	320	Newfoundland	0	3	0	23	0	5	0	16	1	15	Nova Scotia	4	18	3	57	0	20	0	31	2	73	New Brunswick	0	18	1	33	1	11	1	36	1	32	Prince Edward Island	2	0	0	3	0	4	0	6	0	2


Mr. Howie: Is it the intention of the government to assist provinces in financing studies or taking other measures to prevent flooding in areas subject to repeated and frequent flooding?


Mr. Leri Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: The
government has approved a national flood risk mapping program to be carried out jointly with the provinces. Accords will be developed with each province to share the cost of this mapping, and to develop appropriate strategies to reduce potential flood damage in flood-sensitive locations. Once the flood risk is clearly identified the federal and provincial governments will implement a program to discourage further development in the threatened areas. The government will continue to participate in traditional flood control programs and studies, such as those conducted under the Canada Water Act Agreements, Agricultural and Rural Development Act programs, and Special Agreements. Since 1965 the federal government has committed more than $84 million in structural flood protection works, in cost-shared programs with the provinces. Steps are also being taken to improve flood forecasting, flood warning and emergency measures in cooperation with provincial authorities.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): How many persons employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are paid an annual salary (a) over $50,000 (b) from $45,000 to $50,000 (c) from $40,000 to $45,000 (d) from $35,000 to $40,000 (e) from $30,000 to $35,000 (f) from $25,000 to $30,000 (g) from $20,000 to $25,000 (h) from $15,000 to $20,000 (i) from $10,000 to $15,000 (j) under $10,000?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) None; (b) None; (c) Four; (d) Two; (e) 35; (f) 161; (g) 462; (h) 1,329; (i) 2,928; (j) 4,228.


Mr. Jones: 1.	What firm has the contract for janitor service at Moncton Airport?

2.	Who are the owners, directors, officers and shareholders of the firm?
3.	What wages are paid to its employees in Moncton?
4.	What is the statutory minimum wage for such work?


Jean Marchand: 1. Jet
Janitor Services Ltd. are the present cleaning contractors at Moncton Airport.
2.	This firm's officers are: President, Leo Bruce; Secretary, Henrietta Bruce; Director, John Bruce; Incorporated as a private firm under the Provincial Companies' Act.
3.	The wage rate paid to their Moncton Airport emplo-yess is $2.20 per hour (in addition a monthly travel allowance of $25 is paid to one employee and $75 to another employee).
4.	The present statutory minimum wage rate for this work is $2.20 per hour (federal) and $2.15 per hour (provincial).


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	What plans have been made, or are being made, by the Department of Transport to provide assistance in connection with the Olympic Games in Montreal in 1976?
2.	Will personnel in addition to the normal numbers now employed in the locations where the Olympic events will be staged, be used and, if so, in each case (a) how many persons will assist (b) what positions will such persons hold (c) what services will they perform (d) what salaries will be paid (e) will such persons be seconded from other locations where they are on staff (f) will additional staff be hired?
3.	What additional transportation plans are being made to handle travel of (a) athletes (b) visitors to and from event location sites and, in each case, what (i) is the nature of such transportation (ii) the projected cost?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
Ministry of Transport is planning to provide coast guard cutter support, channel buoys and advice on regulatory requirements for the yacht races which will be held near Kingston, Ontario. No special plans to provide assistance in Montreal have been made, or are envisaged by the Ministry of Transport.
2.	No additional Ministry of Transport personnel will be employed in the locations where the Olympic events will be staged.
3.	This is the responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the XXIst Olympic Games (COJO).
May 8, 1975



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	For each CP delivery point (a) Musidora (b) Morecarabe (c) Beauvallon (d) Myrnam (e) Slawa (f) Derwent (g) Clandonald (h) Rusylvia (i) Dewberry (j) Hazeldine (k) Marwayne (1) Streamstown (m) Staplehurst (n) Lloydminster how many (i) elevators (ii) elevator operators are there?
2.	What is the total elevator capacity at each point?
3.	For each year 1970 to 1974 and for each delivery point, how many (a) bushels of wheat, barley, oats, rapeseed, flaxseed including durum, were shipped (b) carloads does this represent?
4.	For the same years and delivery point, how many (a) tons of freight by classification, excluding grain, were shipped in and out (b) carloads does this represent?
5. For the same years and delivery point, what was the (a) total revenue (b) average revenue per ton mile (c) average per ton mile revenue, excluding tons shipped under statutory rates?
Return tabled.



ENGLISH LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

Mr. Cossitt: What are the names, addresses and occupations of all persons who have received English language instruction at public expense since January 1, 1972?
Return tabled.
[Editor's Note: For answers to questions Nos. 1,373 to 1,440 inclusive, see Appendix A.]


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Steve Eugene Paproski: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. These questions are so important to many people in Canada that I would appreciate having the unanimous consent of the House to have them printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been suggested that the questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary on which returns have been made be considered as though the answers had been read, and appended to Hansard. I am holding them now. I wonder whether the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) realizes the gravity of the problem.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I did not realize there were so many, and I withdraw my request.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the parliamentary secretary. I was not in the House yesterday at the time the question was answered, and I thank him for the answer.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise in respect of questions Nos. 2,315 and 2,316. These questions ask for information in respect of the free passes of Air Canada, and whether the members of families of cabinet ministers have such passes. These two questions have only been on the order paper since April 17, but in essence they are somewhat like a question I had on the order paper for about four months, the answer to which really was not an answer. Although
Order Paper Questions
these two questions have been on the order paper only since April 17, those concerned have had sufficient notice of them and I think I am due an answer. If there are those who are freeloading on the taxpayers of Canada in respect of Air Canada, I believe we have a right to know this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw attention to starred question No. 2215 which has been on the order paper since April 7, a little longer than a month. It deals with expensive odysseys by members of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and we would like an answer as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker. While we are dealing with the matter of starred questions, I am wondering if we may have a reply to my questions Nos. 1,738 and 1,739 dealing with the expenditures of the political staff of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras). The parliamentary secretary has taken cognizance of the fact that these are important questions, and surely we should be entitled to an answer within a reasonable period of time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I, too, rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you showed me that large volume of papers I was a little disturbed about its size, but it really is not that much. There would seem to be about 25 pages concerning CIDAS's financial contributions to many of the world's third countries, and I believe many people will want to know what this is all about. I would appreciate it if we could receive unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether it is the wish of the House to give unanimous consent to our appending to Hansard, as though it had been read into the record, the information contained in the answers to which the hon. member has referred.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For answers referred to above, see Appendix A.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mitchell William Sharp: moved that Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be

May 8, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in introducing Bill C-58 at second reading I should like to sketch in some of the background to this legislation. It seems to me it is a fact that in any free society, magazines significantly influence the development of the culture, the national sensibility, the free play of ideas and exchange of views and the critical faculties of its citizens. One might say that the part magazines play in this process is perhaps not as directly influential as television or films, but that may be largely a matter of taste and circumstances. Certainly, if one can judge by the views expressed by hundreds of persons who have written to me during the past few months about possible changes in the income tax law affecting advertising in periodicals, magazines are a very important factor indeed in terms of developing and nurturing a distinctly Canadian culture and identity.
During the past quarter-century, several royal commissions and special committees, charged by the Canadian government with looking into matters relating to the survival of a Canadian culture, have held in common the belief that the capacity and capability of Canadian periodicals to support the writing and exchange of ideas was of great importance and ought to be strengthened and supported by government assistance and intervention where and when appropriate. In the words of the Massey commission report:
The periodical press of Canada ... does undoubtedly make a conscious, and it seems to us, a successful appeal to the country as a whole ... We do have ... a periodical press which ... insists on remaining resolutely Canadian.
The report, in 1961, of the royal commission headed by a distinguished Canadian, Grattan O'Leary, stated that the role of the periodical press in building Canadian unity cannot be ignored. It said:
Periodicals educate, inform, entertain, and amuse. They provide the forum for debate and discussion which is essential to the democratic process.
It added that the problems besetting the Canadian periodical press affect its ability to add to "the richness and variety of Canadian life." To attain self-sufficiency, the O'Leary report stated, Canadian periodicals required adequate advertising revenue, and it concluded:
A nation's domestic advertising expenditure should be devoted to the support of its own media of communications, and ... a genuinely Canadian periodical press can only exist if it has access to a fair share of advertising revenue.
More recently, the Davey committee suggested that "in terms of cultural survival, magazines could potentially be as important as railroads, airlines, national broadcasting networks and national hockey leagues." It recommended that the benefits enjoyed by such foreign-owned periodicals as Time and Reader's Digest under the special exemption provision in section 19 of the Income Tax Act be withdrawn. Now, some years later, this government is asking parliament to give effect to the views and recommendations of this trio of learned and significant reports.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill and an important debate. Our discussion in the House will focus attention upon and enhance public understanding of a very significant section of our society, the Canadian periodical industry, and could affect significantly the future role, direction and prosperity of that industry. The difficulties facing that industry have for some time been a matter of concern to my department and to me; for some months now we have been engaged, in co-operation with the industry, in the development of a plan of action aimed at finding solutions to certain of its problems. I regard the amendment proposed in this bill as an important element of that plan and one that is essential to its success.
The government's intention to seek an amendment to section 19 of the Income Tax Act respecting foreign-owned periodicals has been termed by some critics a negative decision. I submit that it is not a negative decision if its succeeds in eliminating a situation which for years has had a negative effect on a very large part of the Canadian-owned periodical press in this country. It is not a negative decision if it leads to positive results; when it is seen as a stage in the development of a program of effective government assistance to Canadian periodicals about which I shall be speaking a little later.
It is probably trite to say that the government did not arrive easily at this decision. Throughout the course of our deliberations my colleagues and I have been conscious of the implications of the proposed measure for those magazines affected. But the arguments, as we saw them, outweighed those other considerations, arguments that took into account the inequities of the situation preserved by the existing legislation, and the intangible but no less real factors of cultural integrity and the preservation and growth of an indispensable medium of expression of Canadian ideas, sentiments and values.


Mr. Woolliams:: What about censorship?


James Hugh Faulkner: This bill has nothing to do with censorship.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This sounds like censorship.


James Hugh Faulkner: It may sound like it, but I suggest the hon. member read the bill. The approval which my statement in the House on January 23 received from all parties, and the public approval as evidenced by press commentary and by the volume of favourable messages I have received, leave no doubt that in the minds of the majority of Canadians the government's decision was well taken.
In taking the decision, the government-and I dare say this parliament-is declaring what it is we do not want. First, we do not want the continuance of a special case provision in the Income Tax Act the justification for which, whatever it might have been when it was introduced ten years ago, no longer exists and which is inconsistent with the intent of section 19; a provision which not only discriminates in favour of a handful of Canadian-based, foreign-owned magazines against a very large number of foreign magazines circulating in Canada but, much more seriously, gives a very inequitable advantage to those few magazines over Canadian-owned periodicals.
May 8, 1975

Second, we do not want the continuance of an arrangement whereby two very large, foreign-owned periodicals- one with a weekly circulation of 1.4 million-together drew off $19 million of the $39 million of advertising revenue earned in 1974 by the 13 largest consumer magazines in Canada.
Third, we do not want the continuance of a situation wherein the world view of Canadian readers is being influenced by American periodicals the operations of which in Canada are facilitated by a tax deduction provision primarily intended to assist Canadian publications.
Fourth, we do not want the continuance of a practice whereby the stories and articles reproduced in the French language Canadian edition of Reader's Digest are usually translated outside Canada.
Fifth, we do not want the continuance of an arrangement whereby the editorial content of these foreign-owned magazines is imported from parent houses in the United States, which have already paid for it from large advertising and circulation revenues in that country, at a cost that is negligible by comparison with what it costs Canadian-owned magazines to produce their editorial content.
Sixth, we do not want the continuance, on the part of two foreign-owned magazines, of editorial policies that can hardly be said to be making a real contribution to Canadian cultural development and expression.
Seventh, we do not want the continuance of a situation wherein foreign-owned magazines claim the right to be called Canadian while taking their editorial direction and most of their editorial content from their parent houses abroad.
Eighth, we do not want the continuance of a Canadiani-zation progress record which, after thirty years, finds Time in Canada still owned and controlled entirely by Time Inc. in the United States and publishing perhaps 10 per cent Canadian content; and Reader's Digest only 30 per cent Canadian-owned and carrying in its English language edition about 25 per cent and, in its French language edition, about 15 per cent Canadian content.
What we do want is: first, the continuance of a situation wherein there is no interference with the freedom of Canadians to read Time and Reader's Digest, the foreign editions of which, should the owners choose to cease publishing in Canada, would still be able to enter and circulate freely in Canada in the same way as a multitude of other periodicals of foreign origin. In this respect, whatever may be the decision of the owners regarding publishing editions in Canada, we would expect that it would continue to be seen as being to their advantage to have their magazines printed in this country and distributed by the Canadian postal service.
Second, we want the diversion of a proportion of the advertising revenue now earned by Time and Reader's Digest to Canadian-owned consumer magazines.
Third we want the emergence of a Canadian weekly news magazine, or magazines, designed to meet the needs and tastes of Canadians in both official languages.
Fourth, encouraged by improved competitive conditions in the market, we want an increase in the size, number
Non-Canadian Publications
and saleability of Canadian magazines and resultant enlarged opportunities for Canadian writers and readers.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the main things we would like to see come about as a result of this proposed legislation. I, personally, am confident we shall see them. In the Speech from the Throne on September 30, 1974, this government said it would be taking further steps to enchance Canada's independence and sense of identity, among other ways, by promoting the sale of Canadian books and magazines. The bill now before hon. members proposes a considerable measure of assistance in that respect where Canadian magazines are concerned. At Trent University last January, in an address to the conference on the state of English language publishing in Canada, I outlined a series of other measures the government intends to take to enhance the capability of Canadian magazines to develop and prosper and to compete successfully in the home market. I talked of a program of assistance, not through hand-outs but by financial contributions aimed at enabling magazine publishers to help themselves.
I emphasized the government's willingness to support co-operative and collective self-help projects of Canadian magazine publishers, especially the class of smaller, paid circulation magazines which speak to and for Canadians about Canada and Canadian issues and interests and which survive because of their combined appeal to both readers and advertisers but only with great difficulty in the face of tough competition from imported publications.
I announced that beginning in fiscal year 1975-76, the Canada Council would be extending its already substantial assistance to literary and arts magazines and to other magazines of a more varied nature to help them with co-operative endeavours to strengthen their competitive capability. I said that I saw additional resources being directed by Canada Council to finance projects proposed by the publishers through their representative associations and aimed at improving the promotion, distribution and marketing of Canadian periodicals as well as in achieving a higher level of management skill. The Canada Council now has this program in hand.
I spoke of the government's willingness to give financial assistance to the development of a common national distribution service designed to get Canadian periodicals into outlets in communities where they are rarely, if ever, accessible to Canadian readers at the present time, I am glad to report that proposals for such a service have been developed by groups representative of the periodical industry and these proposals will soon be ready for discussion with my department and other government agencies. I said that we are consulting with other federal departments concerned with a view to providing greater display space for Canadian periodicals on newsstands and book-stalls operating on federal government facilities such as airports and railway stations. We are considering schemes for using federal government buildings in towns and cities across the country for displaying and promoting Canadian publications.
We are examining the possibility of increasing the amount of space purchased by government departments and agencies in Canadian periodicals, to increase the

May 8, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
awareness of Canadians with regard to programs and activities of those departments and agencies. Interdepartmental consultations at the official level are now going on with that end in view.
These are some of the plans we have for extending assistance to the periodical industry. The magazine associations have recommended additional courses of action and we have them under careful consideration. The measure before us today will help to ensure that these proposals for support to Canadian magazine publishers achieve the desired results by creating an environment that is more conducive to competition on fairer terms than now prevail.
No government, and certainly not this one, is interested in underwriting mediocrity. It has no intention of using taxpayers' dollars to help create an environment wherein a magazine is able to keep on publishing, shielded from the rigours of the marketplace, simply because it is Canadian, a container of Canadian culture and a reflector of Canadian identity in one or other of the many forms in which those concepts tend to be manifest. We are not concerned with making the marketplace safe for Canadian magazines. We are prepared to do what we can to make it fair and to help those Canadian magazines which have shown by their performance that they are deserving of a fighting chance.
It will be up to Canadian readers to decide whether a particular Canadian magazine shall survive, because it is their newsstand purchasers and their subscriptions which alone will decide what amount of available advertising dollars will be attracted to it. As with any product, quality and customer acceptance are the essential ingredients for success. Where they are present in a magazine, the assistance it will need from government will be minimal. Magazine publishers know this to be the government's stand in respect of financial support, and most of them endorse it.
I said at Trent University and earlier in my remarks today that I was hopeful that one of the results of the proposed changes in the income tax law would be the emergence of a Canadian magazine. Canadian readers are entitled to a news magazine which will report both national and international events in a manner which makes them relevant and significant to Canada and Canadians. A "window on the world through American-tinted glass", as Senator Keith Davey aptly put it recently, is not a satisfactory function of a news magazine where Canadians are concerned, regardless of how clearly and colourfully those events may be presented.
I have reason to believe that more than one Canadian publisher is interested in starting a weekly magazine, and indeed one at least is on record as saying it will start one if the changes in the Income Tax Act are made. It will be our hope that such a magazine, besides informing its readers on major events and issues on the international scene would, while dealing with current topics of national concern, give special and adequate attention to matters of regional significance and interest.
A leading Canadian advertising agency stated recently that there is no guarantee that the so-called expulsion of the domestic editions of Time and Reader's Digest will allow the introduction of a new Canadian news magazine. I agree with this statement; there is no such guarantee. All

this government can expect from the proposed changes in the tax law is a situation to be brought about wherein a Canadian news magazine, as well as other consumer magazines, will have a better chance to get started and to keep going once they are under way.
Concern has been expressed in some quarters over what is expected of publishers in terms of the amount of so-called Canadian content a periodical must contain in order to be classified as a Canadian periodical for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. I should like to make it quite clear that there is no intention of introducing, in connection with the proposed amendments, a new Canadian content rule or a new formula for measuring how substantially a magazine published in Canada must be different from another published abroad in order to qualify for the benefits of section 19 of the Income Tax Act. Such a criterion has been part of the taxation law since 1965; it is not new and it is not unique. All periodicals published in Canada are bound by the "not substantially the same" clause in section 19 and have been for nearly ten years.
What is new is that for the first time certain periodicals being published in Canada and which are now foreign owned, if they decide to become Canadianized through transfer of ownership and control will, at the same time, like their fellow Canadian magazines, have to abide by the "not substantially the same" clause if they expect to benefit from the provisions of section 19. It is as simple as that. It may not seem simple from the standpoint of the publishers of those magazines, but the requirement is clear and has been clearly stated in the law since 1965. Nothing would be changed except the extent of its application.
There need be no mystery or uncertainty as to how this clause is to be interpreted and administered. Administrators of the Income Tax Act are called upon daily for such interpretations and administrative decisions in respect of many sections of the act, and in the case of dissatisfaction on the part of a taxpayer with an interpretation or decision, there is a well established process of appeal to the courts. In the case of uncertainty in the mind of any publisher contemplating the publication in Canada of a periodical with a certain format and editiorial content, it is possible, I am assured by my colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford), to obtain an advance ruling from his department on the eligibility of that periodical for the benefits under section 19.
What some persons are calling the new Canadian content requirement has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship, about which the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) seems to be confused, or with government control over what Canadians may read. It in no way implies government interference with the editorial policy of periodical publishers. It has to do with the application of those provisions of the existing law which define what makes a periodical a Canadian periodical and thereby entitled to the benefits of certain fiscal provisions, benefits intended for Canadian periodicals.
Contrary to the view expressed in a recent editorial in one of our leading financial journals, a periodical, to be counted for tax purposes as a Canadian publication, does not have to have a certain minimum percentage of Canadi-
May 8, 1975

an content. It should be understood by everyone that to be "not substantially the same" as a periodical printed, edited or published outside Canada does not mean that a magazine's contents have to be Canadian in whole or in part. They simply have to be such as to make that magazine, for the most part, different from a foreign counterpart. It is conceivable that a periodical published in Canada and which satisfied all the requirements of section 19 could be ruled to be a Canadian periodical even if it contained not a single article or story by a Canadian writer or about a Canadian subject. I say "conceivable" but, I am bound to say-and I am sure hon. members will agree-not desirable.
Section 19 of the Income Tax Act is not aimed directly or primarily at encouraging Canadian authorship, although one might reasonably expect it to have that effect. Its purpose, in particular the "not substantially the same" provision, is essentially to help Canadian periodical publishers to counterbalance undue foreign competition caused by the dumping of editorial material prepared outside our country and reproduced virtually unchanged in so-called Canadian editions. This is editorial material the cost of which is already amortized abroad before it is supplied to so-called Canadian editions at a fraction of what it would cost a Canadian-owned magazine to prepare and publish comparable material. The editorial I have referred to went on to ask:
What gives Ottawa the idea that it has the right to determine what shall and what shall not be printed in Canadian publications?


An hon. Member:: I wonder.


James Hugh Faulkner: The simple answer, and one which the hon. member will easily grasp, is that this government- that that is what the writer means by "Ottawa"-is asserting or claiming no such right. It is saying simply that the law of this country requires that a periodical published in this country, in order to profit from the benefits provided by section 19 of the Income Tax Act must, among other requirements, be "not substantially the same" as another periodical published outside Canada. It is saying the law in this respect as well as others must now be the same for all magazines published in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Did you write that?


James Hugh Faulkner: As I have suggested, Mr. Speaker, it is anticipated, and with justification, that Canadian authors-


An hon. Member:: I thought Peter Newman wrote it.


James Hugh Faulkner: I thought the distinctive style would have come through, even to hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) will have his turn, and I will listen with a great deal of attention and even some silence when he speaks.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is the red crayon that tipped us off; we know it is your own.
Non-Canadian Publications


James Hugh Faulkner: As I suggested, Mr. Speaker, it is anticipated, and with justification, I submit, that Canadian authors, journalists and commentators will benefit from this amendment. We believe that Canadian periodicals now in print, as well as others that we hope will emerge in time, will attract a growing number of Canadian staff writers and contributors. We look for the appearance of new Canadian periodicals that will address themselves to subject matters of major interest to Canadian readers and will give expression to the Canadian point of view. But it is precisely because this government and this House believe in the freedom of Canadians to choose what they wish to read that neither is about to direct publishers of magazines, or of any other kind of publication, how they should discharge their responsibility to serve the Canadian community and the Canadian purpose, culturally or in any other way.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there is in addition the question of producing or publishing a periodical in Canada under licence from someone abroad. But this is largely a matter of the facts of the contractual agreement that exists between the two parties and should not be a cause for uncertainty in the mind of a publisher. Again, I would expect that Revenue Canada officials can be helpful in advising a publisher of his position as regards that aspect of the act. The provision on licensing has been law since 1965.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier of the importance the government attaches to this measure. It is important because the growth and prosperity of a periodical industry are important to any country that wishes to preserve and reinforce its identity and the special character of its society and culture. It is a natural and laudable desire for a country to favour its own publications to the fullest possible extent but within reason and with equity. Canadian magazine publishers have been forced to exist for too long in an economic and psychological climate that has not been conducive to growth or new ventures. We want to see that climate changed, and the measures now before this House is, in our judgment, designed to help that change take place. We want to see a better economic environment for magazines edited by and for Canadians, with a Canadian point of view. Whether they make the grade with Canadian readers will depend upon the free choice of Canadians. Influencing that choice in their favour remains the task and the challenge of Canadian magazine publishers.
If, as I said at the beginning, periodicals significantly influence the development and expression of a country's culture and identity, it seems to follow that if this influence emanates in very large part from periodicals of foreign origin or under foreign control, such development and expressions are unlikely to take a form or direction that is desirable from the point of view of most Canadians. In so far as the outlook of Canadians is shaped largely by what they find in American magazines, this is not to be critical of what may be called the American world-view; it is simply to point out that it is not ours and should not be. Many Canadians are often better informed on United States politics and affairs than on those of their own country.

May 8, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
The contribution of Canadian magazines to the enhancement of Canadian cultural expression, to the articulation of Canadian issues and to the knowledge and understanding of Canadians of their own country and their fellow Canadians is overshadowed by that of American publications. Surely, ways have to be found to redress the balance, and by that I do not mean ways that entail interference with the free flow into Canada of periodicals published abroad. The erection of cultural barriers or hidden tariffs has no part in what we are trying to achieve through measures to assist Canadian magazine publishing.
If Canadian readership patterns are to be changed in respect of magazines, so that Canadian magazines have a fairer chance to influence Canadian cultural growth and the expression and diffusion of Canadian ideas and creativity, Canadian magazines must come to be of such quality and so varied in content as to offer Canadians acceptable substitutes for the numerous choices of foreign-owned publications now available throughout the country. This transformation-and it can hardly be called less than a transformation-has got to be the absolutely top priority for magazine publishers in this country in the years to come if there is to continue to be any validity in the claim that Canadian periodicals are important to our culture.
As the minister responsible for federal government policy and programs aimed at the betterment of cultural and artistic activity and achievement, I have an obligation to see to it that Canadian periodical publishers who address their efforts determinedly and vigorously to this priority get all the support and assistance it is practicable and appropriate for the Canadian government to extend to them.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), I would now like to refer to the various aspects of the bill which deal with broadcasting. The clauses dealing with advertizing broadcasted by foreign stations are generally similar to the above-mentioned clauses on periodicals and newspapers. The aims are the same, that is to strengthen and promote the development of Canadian media by improving their profitability.
The advertising market for Canadian viewers is operated through American border stations. There are about a dozen American television stations located close to the Canadian border whose programs are seen by a great number of Canadians either directly or through cablevi-sion. Those stations have reaped substantial advertising revenues in Canadian towns where their programs are widely seen. Indeed, the very existence of some of those stations is based on advertising made in Canada.
According to present estimates, some $20 million are paid each year out of Canada to those American stations for advertising directed to Canadian viewers. From that yearly amount of $20 million, some $9 million come from the television market in the Toronto area and some $7 million from Vancouver. Southern Manitoba loses about $1.5 million each year to American stations. The remainder comes from Ottawa, Montreal and a few other smaller markets.
Most of the American stations involved, especially those situated in Buffalo (N.Y.) in Pembina (North Dakota), in Bellingham (Washington) are actively canvassing advertising accounts with Canada companies who wish to sell their products to Canadians. It can be safely stated, Mr. Speaker, that some stations have been created for the sole purpose of tapping the Canadian market.
The economic exploitation of the Canadian advertising market has important consequences for our broadcasting system. The licensing policy of the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission is based on the ability of each local market to support with advertising revenues the Canadian stations licensed to serve it. Clearly, when revenues which would otherwise go to local Canadian stations are siphoned off to United States border stations, the CRTC's licensing policy is undermined. The Broadcasting Act passed by this House in 1968 states:
-the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians so as to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada-
One of the objectives this government has pursued in the development of communications policy is that Canadians should have access to as wide a choice of information and entertainment as possible and Canadian sources of creativity and information should be emphasized. We are confident that this measure will not in any way limit the choice of programming available to Canadians. However, uncontrolled siphoning off of advertising revenues adversely affects the financial viability of many Canadian stations. Affected, as well, is the ability of Canadian stations to assume greater and more costly policy obligations such as local program production. Moreover, the loss of revenues to United States border stations threatens to hinder the expansion of the Canadian broadcasting system by reducing the amount of money available to provide service to the smaller areas where the markets are not large enough themselves to support a private broadcasting operation.
The objective of this bill is to create a financial incentive which would encourage the repatriation of Canadian advertising dollars. By taking away the privilege of deductions against income of the costs of advertising broadcast on non-Canadian stations, the bill will effectively double the cost of advertising time on the United States stations. This will not eliminate all advertising on United States border stations, but it will become more attractive to purchase time on Canadian stations. In this way, the bill will contribute to the reversal of the outflow of Canadian advertising revenues. Not only will the viability and integrity of Canadian broadcasting stations be enhanced, but the development of the Canadian broadcasting system will also be assisted.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, while it is difficult to predict the amount of funds that will be diverted to the Canadian broadcasting system, more funds will become available to assist in extending the coverage of the Canadian broadcasting system to more Canadians, and more money will be available to assist the development of Canadian sources of creativity. To prevent the harm

May 8, 1975

which could befall Canadian advertisers if the deductions were removed before adequate alternative time was available on Canadian stations, the provisions of the bill dealing with broadcast advertising will not be implemented until adequate time is available. Of the two markets which were previously fully bought up, southern Ontario and Vancouver, the former, southern Ontario, has seen the recent licensing of both the Global television network and channel 79. Consequently, Canadian advertising time is available in that area now.
In the Vancouver area, it is expected that a third television station will be licensed in the near future by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, thus ensuring that advertisers in that area are able to buy Canadian advertising time. It is proposed that the implementation of this bill should take into account the timing of the licensing of this third Vancouver station. To that end, those parts of the bill relating to broadcasting will be put into effect by proclamation. There may, therefore, be a delay between the enactment of the bill and the proclamation of the broadcasting clause in order to allow the establishment of the third Vancouver station.

This legislation will amend the Income Tax Act so as to encourage the return of Canadian advertising revenues to the Canadian broadcasting companies just as we have done up to now and as we will keep on doing regarding the fourth estate. This amendment has been supported by the CRTC, the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, the Special Senate Committee on Mass Media and by all the representatives of the Canadian broadcasting industry. It is part and parcel of the government's endeavour to maintain in Canada a wholesome and strong broadcasting system.

Mr. Speaker, the support which the proposed legislation will provide to the Canadian periodical industry and to the Canadian broadcasting system manifests the determination of this government to encourage all areas of cultural expression. The government has the duty to ensure that the imagination and talent of Canadians be given room to develop and to grow. The measures we are proposing here today are an important step toward that goal.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, will the minister permit a question? I did not want to interrupt while he was delivering his speech. Will he clearly and unequivocably say what constitutes Canadian content, because this question concerns me?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I went to some length in trying to point out to the hon. member and the House that this bill does not deal with the concept of Canadian content. It deals with the concept of "not substantially the same," a provision which has been in the act since 1965 and concerns material edited abroad, no matter where, placed in so-called Canadian editions and passed off as Canadian. The bill does not deal with the concept of Canadian content. I went to some length in attempting to clear up that misconception. Obviously, I did not do it to the satisfaction of the hon. member, but I will do so in committee.
Non-Canadian Publications


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Royal Commission on Publications dated May, 1961, emphasized that in an area as vital and as sensitive as the press, whatever is done should be positive rather than negative, with the goal being the promotion of the Canadian periodical and not the suppression of the foreign periodical. That is the theme I want to develop this afternoon. I shall raise some points which the minister obviously overlooked.
Although the minister made a most interesting speech, the amendments he proposes to the Income Tax Act as put forward in Bill C-58 in no way constitute a periodicals policy for Canada. I think, personally, and I hope most will agree, that is wrong of a tax policy to differentiate with respect to, say, Time and Reader's Digest as this leads to all sorts of anomalies and possibly unfairness. A tax policy should apply equally. Time and Reader's Digest could easily fulfil their obligations as Canadian citizens by broadening substantially, over an agreed span of time, their Canadian ownership.
If I may draw an analogy, I suggest that both these magazines have been in Canada long enough to apply for Canadian citizenship. Perhaps application for citizenship could take the form of an increased sale of their shares to citizens of this country. Other acts, be they with respect to newspapers, banks or whatever, have demonstrated that this can be done if a reasonable length of time is permitted. I think the Bank Act provides for a period of five years, although I have not directed my mind to the exact length of time. In any event, there could be a time-frame in which publications could at the very least sell a majority of their shares to the citizens of this country.
The minister has admitted that the passage of this bill will not automatically mean the flow of revenue to Canadian magazines. As a matter of fact, an independent survey by Canadian Facts indicates that 19 to 20 per cent of the advertising revenue of Time and Reader's Digest will probably accrue to Canadian publications. When I had the privilege of meeting with the publisher and editor of the revitalized Saturday Night the other day, the question was posed to the publisher about the effect of Bill C-58. He admitted that from the point of view of policy, it would not be significant. Some of the other matters the minister mentioned, and some of the points I hope to develop, will have a much more significant effect on the future of Canadian publications.
As these magazines become Canadian citizens, it might be fair to ask that more of the decisions relative to their editorial content should be made in this country. The minister gave a somewhat lengthy exposition of the Canadian content rule. I am not convinced about this. Despite the fact that the legislation has been in place since, as the minister said, 1965, I hope the officials have made very few rulings. Perhaps the committee would be the place to learn just how many rulings have been made about content. My party and I are very nervous about this particular provision. I think that content rules, particularly as they have application to news magazines-here I am not making a plea for any magazine, but the whole concept of news magazines-are repellent to me and to this party.

May 8, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Having said that, what are the elements of a Canadian periodicals policy? I suggest that there are in this country a host of writers who without any trouble could man, if that is the word-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and several others are chastising me about that phrase. Anyway, there are enough editors of talent and writers of talent, be they men or women, to adequately provide content for any number of Canadian periodicals. That is not the problem. However, there is a very serious problem about management talent. I hope that in the development of a periodicals policy, some agency will assist. Also, I hope there will be a subsidy provision to provide for the training of managers of periodicals. Many knowledgeable people in the industry have told me that it is on the management side that the weakness lies.
There is, of course, the perennial problem of any artistic of cultural endeavour-the problem of money. I suppose, and I will develop this a little later, that the Canada Council or some organization along the lines of the Canadian Film Development Corporation could fulfil a useful function here. The last point-I am just highlighting at this stage-is that I was interested in the minister's comments about the distribution system. However, still he has done nothing more than make protestations about the need for an adequate distribution system.
When speaking at Trent University the Minister said that the strength, originality and vision of the Canadian publishing industry was not a matter of marginal interest or importance to the Liberal government but, rather, a true measure of what constitutes our national life. I like rhetoric as much as anybody else. At another time and in another place I would like to make a speech about the misuse of rhetoric, the raising of the expectations of people because of hyperbole when no firm policy follows the rhetoric.
The minister announced the government's intention to delete subsections (2) and (4) from section 19 of the Income Tax Act effective January, 1976, thereby eliminating the tax advantages currently enjoyed by the Canadian editions of Time and Reader's Digest. The minister stated, further, that the strength, originality and vision of the Canadian publishing industry was, as I said earlier, a matter of priority. I will suggest in the next few minutes that I would like to see substantially more evidence of the minister's concern. Similar sentiments about a periodical policy were expressed by the minister's predecessor in 1972. The then minister said the development of a Canadian publishing policy was a matter of top priority. Apparently "top priority" is nothing more than an empty phrase if Bill C-58 is the only evidence of the earnestness of the government in this regard.
In the minister's address to the Trent University conference on "The State of English Language Publishing in Canada", his sole commitment was to the amendment of the Income Tax Act. As I said earlier, a survey by Canadian Facts Incorporated, in January of this year, of Canadi-

an advertising executives indicated that the Canadian publishing industry will not benefit substantially from the removal of tax advantages for advertising in Time and Reader's Digest. As a matter of fact, the figure is only 19 or 20 per cent. However, there is a worrisome theme; it worried Senator Davey who headed the committee on publishing: only 19 per cent of the revenues freed by this measure will go to the publishing industry, and of that 19 per cent almost 60 per cent will go to Maclean-Hunter Publications. As a consequence, Maclean-Hunter will effectively control at least half of the advertising revenues obtained by the magazine industry. Little magazines will derive an almost insignificant amount of benefit from the legislation, despite the minister's admission that the smaller, special interest magazines constitute a real problem area, to use his words, in the publishing industry.
I began by referring to the report of the royal commission handed down in 1961 and its desire that legislation be positive. It seems to me that the legislation under debate today has been conceived along precisely opposite lines, that is to say, it would perform a negative function; it embodies a policy of negative, rather than positive assistance to an industry which, upon the hon. gentleman's own admission, is a true measure of what constitutes our national life. It would be more accurate to describe Bill C-58 as a true measure of the government's inability to meet the pressing problems of the Canadian industry and Canadian identity by not bringing forward concrete, positive policy commitments.
I intend to suggest a couple of positive commitments. The first has to do with postal rates and postal services. Because 91 per cent of Canadian magazine sales are through subscription, an efficient and economical postal service is of crucial importance to the survival of an indigenous periodical industry. Prior to 1968, the Post Office Act provided mailing rates for magazines of between 1 Vi cents and 3 cents a pound. The rate depended on circulation: periodicals with a circulation of less than
10.000	paid IV2 cents per pound; for a circulation between
10.000	and 50,000 the rate was 2 V2 cents per pound, and publications with a circulation of 50,000 or more paid 3 cents per pound.
However, the passage of Bill C-116 raised the price per pound from 3 cents to 5 cents and instituted a minimum floor rate of 2 cents per piece. Under such an arrangement, magazines with fewer pages, smaller size and consequently a lower volume of advertising are placed on the same footing as the larger, better financed periodicals. Similarly, the existence of the 2 cents per piece minimum charge has led to the establishment of independent distribution firms to distribute magazines which carry no price and which therefore concentrate heavily on advertising as a source of revenue. The growth of these controlled circulation publications has placed a serious drain on the pool of advertising revenues available in Canada.
Surely, a government which professes to be so keenly interested in encouraging the growth of the periodical industry would consider the removal of the floor charge of 2 cents, as advocated in the Davey committee report of 1970, in an attempt to restrain the controlled circulation section of the industry which it has fostered at the
May 8, 1975

expense of Canadian periodical sales. Canadian publishers consider that no other single action which the government could take would do as much to provide immediate relief and encouragement to those involved in this difficult and discouraging business. If the government's concern is to be considered sincere, positive steps must be taken to initiate a serious inquiry into the implications of Bill C-116 for the Canadian publishing industry, with a resultant recommendation that a return to the calculation of postal rates on the basis of circulation should take place.
At the core of this submission is the need for a fair, speedy and cheap postal system. I, for one, have never felt particularly discouraged about the fact that the Post Office did not return a profit. I am much more discouraged by the almost total breakdown in delivery of second-class and third-class mail, to say nothing about the fact that the delivery of even first-class mail seems to be disrupted all too often.
The government might also examine the speed and efficiency of second-class mail service, as subscription sales are surely dependent on people getting their magazines at the time they expect them. I suppose that other than on some of the more emotional social issues, the largest volume of mail members of parliament receive comes from frustrated constituents who are upset about the inadequacy of the postal service. If we are to judge by the quality of the first-class mail service in Canada, the publishing industry is indeed in deep trouble.
The last major point I wish to make-I hope the government will accept some of these submissions-has to do with the distribution system. If I might say so, the minister made a somewhat casual reference to this sector. But there is something he could do today, by fiat, if he wanted to: he could see to it that all the leases with respect to kiosks and magazine counters in Canadian airports, for example, contain a provision requiring adequate display and distribution of Canadian periodicals.
In this area, the minister need not worry about the constitutional aspect, though undoubtedly there are constitutional aspects attached to the establishment of a more thorough-going distribution system. He could give us earnest of his intention, however, if he were to apply such a provision immediately throughout establishments controlled by the Department of Transport, the Canadian National system, Crown corporations, and so on. In this very city of Ottawa there must be enough kiosks in government buildings to enable the minister to make an excellent start in providing a better distribution system. One of the things that has bothered me for many years is the overwhelming number of United States periodicals on display at Canadian airports. If one succeeds in finding a Canadian magazine among them, it shows one is a good explorer indeed.
Thirteen of the 14 magazine distribution firms operating in this country are American-owned. It follows that Canadian newsstands are inundated with American overflow copy to the extent that only 9 per cent of Canadian magazine sales are newsstand sales. Newsstands and other agencies distributing periodicals should be required to ensure the fair treatment and exposure of Canadian magazines. I do not have the statistics, but I would guess that most of the magazines making up the 9 per cent to which I
Non-Canadian Publications
have just referred are sold in the large cities. Those of us who represent constituencies in other than the large cities find it frustrating not to be able to locate Canadian periodicals on the newsstands.
Newsstands and other agencies distributing periodicals should be required to ensure that fair treatment and exposure of Canadian magazines takes place. The government might also consider instituting an establishment of national distribution to guarantee the promotion and circulation of periodicals. As an immediate measure, the government should encourage the display and sale of Canadian magazines at federal installations and Information Canada offices. Public corporations, as I said earlier-and there are several of them-are providing a selection of our own publications for their clientele.
I mentioned earlier that another need in respect of a positive policy for Canadian periodicals is cash flow- money; capital. Consideration should be given to the establishment of a national periodicals development corporation or, if the government resists this-and I would be surprised, because this is a government with a proliferation of agencies, boards and commissions-there could be a modification or an expansion of one or other of the existing structures, for example the Canada Council, for the purpose of granting both resources of capital and assistance to the publishing industry.
If I can interpolate one small comment, I think the Canada Council system, now, of distributing books to some of the smaller libraries of Canada, is a worth-while program and one that could well be copied for Canadian periodicals, providing subscriptions to the smaller and less adequately funded libraries in our country. I might say that in my own constituency, this very year two packages of Canadian books were sent out to what might be called libraries of modest size and it was a matter of great personal satisfaction that this occurred. I have always felt it would be very helpful if the same policy were adopted with regard to some of our periodicals.
In co-operation with the provinces, such an agency might make grants available to journalists engaged in the periodicals industry to further develop and assist the talents and energies of Canadian writers. As an immediate measure, the council should expand its present book purchase program to include Canadian magazine subscriptions for public and school libraries. The government might also consider the purchase of a more substantial amount of advertising space. I think the minister alluded to this matter. I may say that the Saturday Night people, when they saw us last week, alluded to advertising space in Canadian periodicals rather strongly to counteract the possible loss in advertising revenues resulting from the present legislation.
My only caveat in respect of government advertising is that it is one of the great, unexamined pork barrels, as I understand it, in the government system. A government that prides itself on being Mister Clean seems to dibble and dabble in advertising patronage to an extravagant extent.
My theme, and I hope the minister will agree, has been one of trying to suggest to parliament ways in which the

May 8, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
periodicals industry in this country could be made much more healthy by a distribution system, an improvement in second-class mail, in cash flow, and so on. I resist very much, intellectually and in every other way, the matter of Canadian content which was so casually alluded to by the minister in his speech. I resist having officials, by some inadequately explained measure, trying to add up what is or is not content. As a matter of fact, in the minister's speech he said it might be possible for all the stories in a magazine to be written by offshore people, with no article alluding to this country, yet the magazine could get a Canadian content rating. This paradox is the very issue, and particularly when we get into the matter of news we are getting into an area that through the years-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Or opinion.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: News or opinion, as my leader has said. Then we are getting into an area that through the years has given tyrannical governments the power that free men have resisted through the ages. That, then, is the tenor of this speech. I have tried to make it positive rather than negative, and I adopt as the party position the suggestion that positive rather than negative policies will substantially increase the availability, the health and the viability of the periodicals industry in this country.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the NDP welcomes, as long overdue, this legislation to end the special status for advertising in Time and Reader's Digest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: I hear a bit of applause from the Liberal side. Maybe they should wait a few minutes. While the legislation is welcomed, I regret that this government and its predecessors have dillied and dallied so long that the Canadian periodicals industry is in the sad state it is in today. Had the government acted on the royal commission report back in the early 1960s, or even on the special Senate committee report of the early 1970s perhaps the situation would not be as desperate as it is.
All members of the House must, or should realize the importance of magazines in Canada. If we are concerned about Canadian independence and identity, we must be concerned about the health of the Canadian magazine industry. We have heard much concern expressed in debates in the House about the economic independence of Canada, and we now have on the books the foreign investments review act, which is a token gesture because it is not totally proclaimed yet, in an effort to regain control of our economy which in so many sectors is foreign owned; 60 per cent, for example, in manufacturing and 90 per cent in terms of oil resources. We seem concerned about Canadian independence and identity in the broadcasting field, in that the Canadian Radio-Television Commission has suggested 80 per cent Canadian control of the broadcasting media, cablevision and Canadian stations and has also advocated 60 per cent Canadian content in programming.
I maintain that our cultural independence and identity is just as essential as our economic independence if we are to remain a sovereign nation and a sovereign people. What is the good of achieving economic sovereignty if we lose
our identity in the process? What good is there in Canadi-anizing industry if we ourselves are Americanized through what we read?
Therefore, I suggest that magazines are special and have a vital and important role to play in promoting the Canadian identity. I would maintain that magazines are as important as our national railway was at the time of confederation, in terms of binding the nation together and helping Canadians understand one another from coast to coast.
Magazines are the only national press we have. They are the only media whereby we can have an in-depth study of Canada and Canadians. Magazines are not bound by daily deadlines or the pressures that newspapers, television and radio have to meet in order to get their message out on time. In respect of magazines, time is provided for more analysis which is sadly lacking in the news media in this country.
Through magazines, we as Canadians can become aware of the needs, problems, successes and failures of Canadians living in Newfoundland, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and all points in between. That need, to me, is very essential today because our cultural identity is being eroded by the presence of a huge country and a huge entertainment industry south of our border. We often know more about American history and politics than our own, through the medium of television. Often our heroes are Hollywood stars and others to whom we are introduced through the medium of the American movies which Canadians watch.
Many of our entertainment figures or people in the music industry are Americans, because of the penetration of American music. Also, in the news media we are subject to a heavy dependence of foreign correspondents to interpret the news of the world, not only in terms of reporting but in terms of news and film clips from CBS and other United States networks. Because we do not have too many Canadian foreign correspondents, we rely heavily on Associated Press, United Press International, and Reuters.
Through this process, Canadians get a view of the world through the eyes of other people. Indeed, it seems that our very lifestyle is more and more becoming Americanized. When I was up in the Yukon Territory I was amazed to see, in Whitehorse, a Colonel Sanders Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet; One cannot go anywhere in Canada without seeing McDonald's hamburger stands in the cities, American-produced cars, and so on. Our whole lifestyle seems to be more and more influenced by the American presence.
Our magazine industry is no exception. Magazines in Canada generally are dominated by foreign publications. For example, Playboy magazine collects about as much money in Canada as the 17 largest English-language magazines combined. We have competition from United States news magazines which have access to resources with which Canadian news magazines cannot compete. Therefore, I say it is very important that we have a healthy and expanding Canadian magazine industry because magazines have a vital role to play in countering the cultural influence the United States is having on our citizens. We

May 8, 1975

need Canadian magazines to interpret Canadianism to Canadians and to interpret the world to Canada.
As I said earlier, our magazine industry is in deep trouble; it is facing severe and unfair competition from foreign magazines. This industry-I want to underline this-is in trouble because of the procrastination, lack of concern and shortsightedness of Liberal and Conservative governments over the past 15 years. Very briefly, I should like to document that statement. I would say, for example, that as early as 1922 the Magazine Publishers Association of Canada asked for protective tariffs on foreign periodicals. The Conservative government of 1931 did levy such a tax, but the Liberal government in 1936 removed it. The result was that foreign magazines began to penetrate into Canada and the two most important foreign magazines, namely, Time and Reader's Digest, in the late 1940s and early 1950s began to capture a great deal of the advertising revenue in Canada. In fact, by 1955 those two magazines, Times and Reader's Digest, had captured one-third of the magazine advertising revenue in Canada.
In the same year, only one-fifth of all consumer magazines read in Canada were Canadian. In light of this trend of foreign domination of the magazine industry, in 1957 the Liberal government finally imposed a 20 per cent tax on advertising in Canadian editions of foreign periodicals. However, with a change in government when the Conservatives came in a year later in 1958, that legislation was repealed because of the very heavy pressure by the United States government. I think one should ask oneself why the United States government was so concerned about the status of Time and Reader's Digest in this country.
I should like to elaborate the thesis that the United States government is concerned about these two magazines, because they really are agents of United States diplomacy. In 1960 and 1961, finally, the Conservative government instituted the Royal Commission on Publications which recommended that an end be put to the right of advertisers in foreign magazines in Canada to deduct the cost of advertising for income tax purposes. It was typical of Conservative procrastination that the government refused to accept the recommendation and exempted Time Magazine and Reader's Digest. Certain political events took place, the government was defeated and no subsequent legislation was introduced. Then when the Liberals returned to power in 1965 we find that once more the United States government put very strong pressure on the Canadian government to officially, through legislation exempt Time magazine and Reader's Digest from any future legislation to end the tax advantage for advertisers in those two foreign magazines.
The minister of finance at that time, Mr. Walter Gordon, said that the government came under such pressure that the United States was threatening not to agree to the Canada-US auto pact and was threatening to reduce Canadian oil exports to the United States if these two magazines were not exempted from the foreign periodicals tax legislation. As a typical example of the Liberals bowing to the United States on this important issue, the two magazines were officially exempted. Then in 1969 the government instituted the special Senate Committee on the Mass Media which reiterated the problems of the publishing industry in this country and reached the same
Non-Canadian Publications
conclusion that had been reached by the previous royal commission. I should like to quote from the Senate committee's report:
It seems plain to us that if Time and Digest are allowed to maintain their present competitive advantage, it will become increasingly difficult for existing magazines to survive, and for new ones to be launched ... but we are satisfied that the long-term prospects for Canadian periodical industry-and probably the short-term as well- would be enhanced by removal of subsidized foreign competition.
There we have evidence through the years of the publishing industry expressing its concern, of a royal commission after exhaustive study coming out with concrete recommendations, of a Senate committee also coming out with concrete recommendations, but this government and its predecessor having refused to act until now. What happened to the Canadian magazine industry in the interim when those Liberal and Conservative governments delayed? It is interesting to look through the records and see what went on.
In the 1920s there were 96 consumer magazines in existence, and during that period 23 of them folded and died. In the 1930s, 75 magazines were started but 65 of them folded. In the 1940s, 92 magazines were started and 70 died. In the 1950s, 29 new magazines were started and a total of 50 died. By the 1960s we had 250 new magazines and 137 died. Meanwhile, especially in the 1950s and 1960s, Time and Reader's Digest were leaping forward because of their special status regarding advertisers in their magazines. The circulation of Time rose from 215,000 in 1960 to 557,000 today, and the circulation of Reader's Digest rose from 1 million in 1960 to 1.2 million today. But perhaps even more important than that, Time and Reader's Digest together have now captured 48 per cent of all magazine advertising revenue in Canada, that is to say, over $17 million.
Time and Reader's Digest, two foreign magazines with Canadian editions, unlike any other foreign magazine such as Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, have a special status so far as advertisers are concerned. They are treated as Canadian magazines for advertising, income tax purposes. Therefore, Time and Reader's Digest have an unfair advantage over any other foreign magazine circulating in Canada. Time and Reader's Digest also have the advantage of being subsidiaries of foreign publications, which prevents Canadian magazines being on an equal, competitive footing with them.
That is something on which I would like to elaborate in my speech. Neither Time nor Reader's Digest can claim to be Canadian magazines with regard to ownership, content or editorial control. The principle of fairness and equity must dictate that they be treated under the law as foreign publications, which they are. This has been the policy advocated by the NDP for years. Bill C-58 which is before us defines Time and Reader's Digest as foreign magazines for income tax purposes. It will end the special advantages they have received under section 19 of the Income Tax Act, and its aim is to free more advertising revenue for Canadian magazines by diverting such revenue away from Time and Reader's Digest.
What do we mean by a Canadian magazine? The minister gave a rather vague definition with regard to content. Earlier, other ministers spoke about a 75 per cent content

May 8, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
which had to be Canadian, but the minister said simply that the content of a Canadian magazine had to be substantially different from any non-Canadian publication. The other aspect of a Canadian magazine must be that effective editorial control is exercised in Canada, and that at least 75 per cent ownership of the magazine must be Canadian.
How do Time and Reader's Digest measure up to those criteria? For example, in no way can Time be considered a Canadian magazine. It has a mere five pages of Canadian news, which represents about 10 per cent of its content. Its editorial control resides in the United States in its parent company, and Time Canada is wholly owned by Time Incorporated of the U.S.
Reader's Digest has been making a pitch; it has been lobbying members of parliament, getting the public to write letters and trying to argue that it should have a special status, it deserves a special deal because, somehow, it is more Canadian than Time. Reader's Digest only has 24 per cent Candian content in its English edition and only 12 per cent Canadian content in its French edition. Its editorial control resides in the United States-every article published in Reader's Digest has to meet the approval of the editorial board in the U.S.-and only 32 per cent of the shares of Reader's Digest are open to Canadians for purchasing. But we should remember that not all of those shares are owned by Canadians. As the president of the company, Mr. Zimmerman, said, some of the shares have filtered back to the United States.
But even if Time or Reader's Digest were to go public and issue shares in Canada, even if they had something like 75 per cent Canadian ownership, that, to me, would be fudging the issue, because when we talk about magazines and news the key issue is not who owns the actual publication, but who controls the editorial policy and, hence, the content of that magazine. Unless that kind of control resides in the hands of Canadians, those magazines will still be promoting and interpreting Canada and the world from a foreign viewpoint. We cannot get around the fact that Time and Reader's Digest have been, and will continue to interpret America and the world through American eyes and from an American viewpoint.
I could give many examples but I think two would suffice. Can anyone in the House recall, during that sad conflict of the Viet Nam war and American involvement over a decade, any substantial criticism in either Time magazine or Reader's Digest of American policy in Viet Nam? It was only when the tide turned in the U.S. and America wanted to get out of Viet Nam because of the realization of the morass in which they found themselves, that we found these two magazines publishing critical analyses of that war. But earlier on, when other magazines in Canada and the world were publishing critical articles-and I say "critical" in a positive sense; you can have both sides of the story in the same publication-that was not true of Time and Reader's Digest.
More recently, when Canada wanted to sell locomotives to the United States through the M. L. Worthington firm, the U.S. government tried to prohibit that subsidiary from doing so, using the Trading with the Enemy Act. If you looked up that issue of Time magazine you would notice that Time was being apologetic, trying to justify the U.S.

government's imposition of the Trading with the Enemy Act. What I am saying is that basically we are not getting news from the Canadian perspective in those five pages of Time or the articles selected for Reader's Digest.
What other advantages do these two magazines have other than their special status with regard to income tax? It seems to me that they have an unfair competitive advantage for a number of reasons. First of all, they have a great economic advantage over their Canadian competitors because their editorial content is supplied by their parent company in the United States. This means that the two magazines can obtain material that is costly in terms of research, and so on, at a cut rate, at subsidized cost, from its parent company. No Canadian magazine can do that.
Another advantage is that these magazines have a tax advantage over their American competitors selling in Canada, because only these two magazines are permitted to have their advertisers deduct the cost of advertising for Canadian income tax purposes. Another great advantage these two magazines have is that they have captured almost all of the magazine advertising revenue in Canada. Therefore, on the principle of equitable treatment it would seem that we have to end the special status of Time and Reader's Digest. They should be treated on the same basis as any other foreign magazine and should not have any special privileges for advertisers.
Why else should we end the special status? It seems that by not having an advantage regarding income tax, Time and Reader's Digest advertisers will begin to divert advertising revenue to Canadian magazines and other Canadian media. I do not have any illusions that all the revenue freed from advertising in Time and Reader's Digest will go to magazines, but it may go to Canadian television and radio. At least we will be able to keep this revenue in Canada, rather than seeing the bulk of the revenue raised by advertising in Canada flow back to the parent companies in the United States. Time and Reader's Disgest have carried out a survey showing that only 19 per cent of the freed revenue would go to Canadian magazines. This would be something over $3 million. We do not know whether that survey is accurate; but even if it is, $3 million would be beneficial as cash flow for Canadian magazines.
It seems, also, that we must stop the advertising advantages of Time and Reader's Digest because of what they are doing to regional editions. Time especially has 12 regional editions; it can attract local and regional advertisers, through special rates, to advertise in the magazine for those local and regional audiences. That, therefore, inhibits local and regional magazines such as Toronto Life and Vancouver Life. Once we end the special advertising advantages for Time and Reader's Digest in their regional editions, we will help promote regional magazines which are a vital part of the Canadian industry.
It seems that the revenue raised through ending this tax advantage will be a great boon to existing Canadian magazines and it will encourage others to get into the market and expand. I would like to point out that this bill will not necessarily mean that the Canadian editions of Time and
May 8, 1975

Reader's Digest will fold; they still have a large circulation, which must be attractive to some advertisers. We should remember that the revenue of Reader's Digest does not primarily come from advertising in Canada. Three-quarters of the revenue of Reader's Digest comes from sources other than advertising revenue, that is, from book clubs and record clubs. Even if the Canadian editions of Time and Reader's Digest were to cease, Canadians would still be able to buy the American editions just as they can now buy Newsweek, Playboy or any other American magazine.
If the two magazines were to fold-and I do not think it is inevitable that they would-their staff could certainly be absorbed by the Canadian publishing industry. It seems to me that ending their special status will stimulate the Canadian weekly news magazine industry. Already, Macleans has indicated it will move to that kind of format. There are other publishers expressing similar intentions. In conclusion, I say that we have an important need for a strong and healthy Canadian periodicals industry. I would like to read from the report of the royal commission of 1960:
Only a truly Canadian printing press, one with the feel of Canada and directly responsible to Canada, can give us the critical analysis, the informed discourse and dialogue which are indispensable in a sovereign society.
Neither Time nor Reader's Digest conform to that concept of Canadian publishing. Nor, by definition of their content and editorial policy, can they ever hope to conform to that definition. I again quote from the royal commission:
A nation's domestic advertising expenditure should be devoted to the support of its own media of communications, and ... a genuinely Canadian periodical press can only exist if it has access to a fair share of domestic advertising.
For years the Liberal government has let Time and Reader's Digest capture half of that revenue through the special status given to advertisers in those magazines. Now, hopefully, this trend will be reversed. But this bill is not the be-all and end-all. We need more positive measures. We need a comprehensive periodicals policy. We need to end foreign domination of ownership of magazine distributing agencies in this country. We need to revise postal rates for magazines to end discrimination, especially against our smaller magazines. We need to take measures to discourage the overflow circulation of foreign magazines. For example, in 1961 it amounted to over $150 million per year, compared to a domestic production of only $40 million.
We should consider the example of Switzerland, which imposes a postal surcharge on foreign periodicals. Germany imposes a tax on foreign periodicals. We could use the revenues thus raised to promote a Canadian magazine industry. So far, this government has failed to move positively in those directions. We still do not have a policy for periodicals.
I would like to reiterate my faith in Canadian writers and publishers. When the CRTC demanded higher Canadian content in music, we saw how this caused our recording industry to flourish. I believe the same kind of talent exists in Canadian writers and publishers. A few Canadian magazines in Canada have achieved high audience penetration. This bill will end the unfair advantage of Time and Reader's Digest and create more equitable competitive conditions in this country for the magazine indus-
Non-Canadian Publications
try. The audience is there; so is the talent. To argue that the Canadian magazine industry cannot now grow and flourish is negative and defeatist.
The NDP welcomes Bill C-58, Mr. Speaker. Had the government accepted the royal commission recommendations in the early sixties, the industry would not be in the precarious state in which it finds itself. This bill is not a panacea, but it is an important step in the right direction and we welcome it as long overdue.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I ought to congratulate the Chair. We are happy to see a former Deputy Speaker in the Chair again.
I am somewhat suprised by the presentation of Bill C-58 which aims to remove the provisions allowing deduction of expenses for Canadians who buy advertising space in Time and Reader's Digest magazines, under the pretext that this will enable them to have magazines of equal quality in Canada.
I listened carefully to the minister's speech this afternoon. I have tried to find an argument that would convince me that the passage of Bill C-58 will enable Canadian magazines to improve their publication in such a way as to be appreciated in the same manner as Reader's Digest by the Canadian people, and particularly by the French-Canadians. The numerous letters I received on this subject endorse my view. In none of all the letters I received asked the Member of Parliament to support this bill. On the contrary, they asked that the legislation enacted by Parliament with regard to periodicals listed in the 1965 act be maintained and fully enforced.
Mr. Speaker, in the 1965 act, amended in 1971, Canadian publications are defined in such a way as to exempt Time and Reader's Digest from the legislation. As a matter of fact, it was considered at that time that Canadian publications are those which are 75 to 100 per cent Canadian owned. However, there was an exception for periodicals edited in whole or in part in Canada in 1965, and such was the situation of the two magazines involved.
I am of the opinion that the government should first of all fully apply to Time and Reader's Digest the definition given in the Income Tax Act concerning the exact nature of a Canadian periodical. It is stated in the act that such a publication must be at least 75 per cent Canadian-owned by Canadians having a right of undisturbed possession on the shares in their name.
It is also provided in the legislation that in order to be recognized as a Canadian edition, a publication has to be drafted, edited and printed in Canada.
Then, Time and Reader's Digest are already complying with these legal requirements. Well, I should like also to indicate what financial benefits these two publications are bringing to the development of the Canadian economy. First of all, their combined annual turnover amounts to $30 million, which is quite impressive, and they do spend 90 cents out of every dollar here in Canada. They have $8 million in capital investment in Canada, that is in land, buildings, machinery and equipment of all sorts. There are
5604

May 8, 1975

The Royal Assent
also 500 people earning a living in Canada as their employees.
There are also 1,000 other jobs, maybe more, which exist only because these firms are using Canadian materials. These firms could very well have done without having to use more and more Canadian products, but they have decided to take into account the fact that they are operating in Canada, that they have the chance of being published in Canada and so they seek to increase their business dealings with Canadian suppliers.
Moreover, it has not been said five out of the six members on the board of directors who administer the Reader's Digest operations in Canada are well-known Canadian personalities.
Also, as far as the Canadian culture is concerned, the selecting, reviewing and writing of the entire contents of every copy is all done in Canada, both in French and in English. The English contribution is of course larger than the French, but it remains that the bilingual character of our country is respected. According to my information, there are also some 80 writers, artists and lay-out men employed in putting the periodicals together. Moreover, there are 80 writers who are making a selection of articles out of other publications to make it a truly informative and objective periodical and to encourage Canadians to read these articles.
These periodicals also contribute Canadian articles in foreign editions of the Reader's Digest throughout the world, which represent a potential readership of 105 million people. I think that this is an excellent vehicle for promoting Canada abroad. These are things we must consider and keep in mind. I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are about to interrupt me. May I call it five o'clock?



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House Ottawa May 8, 1975
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable R. G. B. Dickson, LL.D., D.C.L., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 8th day of May, at 5.15 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant.
Andre Garneau Brigadier General Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Historic Sites-Entrance into Lower Fort Garry-Request for reconsideration; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Public Service-Suggested increase in regional pay rates in disadvantaged provinces-Government position; the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)- The Canadian Economy-Inflation-Government policy on relationship between Canadian and United States dollar.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers).



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville) moved:: That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the Air Canada contract and all additions, revisions and amendments thereto.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the government's refusal to provide the information requested by motion No. 24 in my name is a classic example of this government's perpetual desire to function under a veil of secrecy, no matter what the consequences may be, and without regard to the public's right to know and the public interest. Because of your earlier announcement, Mr. Speaker, I regret that my motion will not be debated for as long as I wish. I say, in all sincerity, that I find the government's reasoning incredible, its refusal to release information requested by motion No. 24 unbelievable, and if the scene we are witnessing were to be acted out in the National Arts Centre we should find it humorous. Unfortunately, this scene is taking place in the House of Commons and it is beyond a joke; it is downright contemptible.
On a previous occasion, the parliamentary secretary said that the Air Canada contract alluded to contain considerable confidential information relating to the organization, operation and maintenance of Air Canada lines. I ask the parliamentary secretary, or whoever is to respond, to tell us what this confidential information is. What is so confidential about it that it cannot be formally released to this House, especially as the contract I have requested is readily available from the Public Archives of Canada. I have the document here and I will be prepared to table it if the

May 8, 1975

government or the spokesman on the other side of the House is not prepared to do so.
When I raised this matter previously, the parliamentary secretary went on to say that Air Canada competitors are not obliged to provide such information or expose their contractual arrangements to similar scrutiny. He then said that to place Air Canada in such a disadvantageous position would not be in the public interest. That is utter nonsense. Air Canada is in a special position and enjoys advantages which other airlines do not enjoy. Under the provisions of section 16(7) of the Aeronautics Act, and sections 14 and 23 of the Air Canada Act, the governor in council directs the CTC to grant Air Canada permission to serve points X, Y or Z. The airline does not need to go through the regular channels, the ordeal of petitions, hearings and red tape to obtain the routes they choose. Air Canada is given preferential treatment and quite a free hand with regard to route approvals, as well as a free hand in schedules, levels and frequency of services provided thereafter. Section 5 of the Air Canada contract of 1950 reads:
The schedules, frequencies and non-stop operations on the air services herein or hereinafter designated and the service to points of call herein or hereinafter authorized shall be determined by the corporation in accordance with traffic and operational requirements, technical facilities and government regulations.
It could be argued that Air Canada tends to abuse its special privileges. For example, consider how the Sud-bury-Thunder Bay route was awarded. It is unlikely, if Air Canada refuses to provide the service it is supposed to provide until prodded by another airline, that the other airline will go through the expensive procedure of applying for the route if that route is to be ultimately taken over by Air Canada. For the parliamentary secretary to suggest that it is improper to expose the terms and conditions of Air Canada contracts is totally absurd, given that Air Canada is in a preferred position, that it functions as a quasi-monopoly and that it is owned by Canadians, for the benefit of Canadians. The airline's purpose, after all, is to provide for the speedy and efficient transportation of passengers and goods across Canada and points outside. Over and above that, the corporation must be answerable to parliament and thereby to the people of Canada.
That brings me to another point I want to make about all Crown corporations. I am referring to the whole question of disclosure relating to Crown corporations or, rather, to the absence or lack of disclosure in the interests of the public. I also draw attention to the current practice in which we engage, to do with the examination and scrutiny by committees of parliament of the operations, affairs and activities of our Crown corporations. In my view, there are far too many restrictions relating to the important and basic issue of the examination of Crown corporations, as the motion we are debating now makes evident.
Let me give some more examples of what I mean. I draw the attention of the House to motion No. 77, which I brought forward in the previous parliament, as recorded on page 5507 of Hansard for July 11, 1973. That was a request for documents and had to do with some questionable dealings concerning a change in auditors. That was a fiasco. As well, I refer the House to the request for correspondence between Sunset Crest Ltd. and Air Canada.
Air Canada
This matter is the subject of a judicial inquiry. It seems to me that the government ought to have released such information and documents as were requested concerning Air Canada. If the affairs of Air Canada could have been scrutinized diligently and thoroughly by the transport committee, the story might now be different. The committee should have the power to look into the questionable actions indulged in by some people involved with Air Canada. But we were denied information about leases, arrangements, salaries, benefits, and so on.
Under our committee system it is almost impossible to examine and scrutinize effectively the activities of our Crown corporations. Although the officials of Crown corporations in theory answer to parliament, in fact they answer to no one except the government of the day. The result is evident. Air Canada is now being subjected to a judicial inquiry. Because of its insistence of secrecy aided and abetted by the government, the national airline finds itself in a period of turbulence and trouble. I submit, again, that if there were a requirement for disclosure, if officials of the company were forced to appear before a proper investigatory committee on a regular basis and testify, if they were forced to defend their actions and answer for them, the result would be good for the airline and would engender public confidence. As it is, the affairs of Air Canada are being probed by a judicial inquiry.
On the basis of what happened the last time these people appeared before a parliamentary committee we became convinced that, given the constraints of the present committee system under the rules, and because of present procedures and terms of reference, it would be impossible to get to the bottom of what causes the malaise within this company. That malaise has grown deeper because there has not been an effective check by parliament.
I think it is time we took a leaf from British parliamentary practice. That parliament has seen fit to establish a select committee which deals with specific nationalized industries. When it meets it looks into all aspects of the operation of a nationalized corporation, and looks in depth.
This practice, if adopted here, would do two things. It would provide for greater public disclosure; also, it would serve as an effective check on the behaviour of those charged with the responsibility and administration of that particular corporation. Considering the increased proliferation of Crown corporations in this country and the obvious need for greater parliamentary control, examination, and scrutiny, I recommend that this parliament should seriously consider the establishment of such a select committee. It should be a committee composed of members of parliament, with wide powers. It should be able to engage highly expert assistants. It should consider the operation of a Crown corporation not in a retrospective way but in a prospective way.
In the United Kingdom they have a committee which requires government agency officials to provide evidence requested by it. It is up to the committee to decide whether such information should be made public or not. This system imposes more effective parliamentary control over institutions of government and provides a needed system
29561 -U'/z

May 8, 1975
Air Canada
of checks and balances. Our present committee system is too politically motivated. It functions in far too superficial a manner. The objectives of a special select committee on Crown corporations would be to review their operations experly, in a reasonable and constructive way and in the interests of the public and the welfare of the corporation.
It always appears somewhat ironic that the socialists continue to recommend nationalization. They say in that way the public will know what is going on, parliament will examine, parliament will be the final judge and the board will have to answer to parliament. That is sheer nonsense. In reality, the public has probably less access to the officers of socialized enterprises than the shareholders of capitalistic enterprises have to their officers. The more dogmatic the socialist theory becomes, the less access the people have to the operation of the socialist enterprise. If we are to have socialized enterprises established for the benefit of the people, then clearly they should be operated for the people and not for the government of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Therefore, accountability to parliament must be increased and the overriding influence of senior civil servants and government technocrats must be decreased. If Air Canada or any other Crown corporation cannot stand up to a thorough and effective scrutinization, the management should clearly be questioned. On the other hand, if they are handicapped because of undue government interference and too much pressure by the government of the day, that should be brought out into the open so that the public can judge whether their mandate is being properly carried out.
My time is almost up. The parliamentary secretary may wish to respond. I hope he will not be as hostile as the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid). I hope that on behalf of this government he will come clean, take one step forward and produce information that rightly belongs to this House and the public.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has been very persuasive in his argument. He stated that he has obtained part of the copy of the Air Canada contract dating back to 1937. Because of that, and the fact that he has made some very persuasive arguments, he has convinced me that he should have all of the contract. There are other orders in council that go with this. I propose to agree to the hon. member's motion. If I get the unanimous consent of the House, I propose to table those copies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: There is more than one order in council that makes up the current contract. I must say that I believed what I told the hon. member in my earlier answer. At that time I was not personally aware of all of the contract. 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.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: As I say, if we are going to do in this House as we did a few weeks ago with regard to rail transportation and costing, surely the same argument should apply to making available what has been requested by the hon. member in this regard. I will accept the hon. member's motion. When we have dealt with it, I will ask for unanimous consent to table two copies of the contract, in English and in French.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, even before we got the favourable word from the other side of the House, I was prepared to support the motion of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). I am delighted that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mclsaac) has indicated the government is prepared to agree to it. It does seem ridiculous that a document which is available in the public archives is one that the government for so long has been refusing to table in the House of Commons.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It will support a pension bill,
too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My good friend and neighbour, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) who represents a constituency just across the river from me, has brought in the question of pensions. I certainly hope that one of these days very soon he and I will be able to persuade the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) to talk turkey to Canadian National Railways and get something done about those pensions. I know that is not the subject, but I do not mind getting off into it. However, I can hear our very efficient occupant of the chair saying "Order".
I always enjoy these quips with my good friend from Vegreville about socialism and socialists. He either looks at us or appears to be looking at us. However, I thought there was a bit of inconsistency in his argument today. He cited the United Kingdom as a place where this sort of thing would not happen because they have a special committee to deal with nationalized industries. Does he not know that it is a Labour, or socialist government in Britain? Does he not know that in Sweden, a socialist country, they have the best arrangement in the world for making documents public? The trouble with socialized industries in this country is that they are run by Liberals.


Mr. Horner:: Socialists in a hurry; that's the only difference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I say to the
hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) that the Liberals are in a hurry only in times of minority government. When they have the kind of majority they have today, their speed is that of either a tortoise or a snail. Take your pick. At any rate, I got that off my chest. The hon. member for Vegreville and I have had the kind of exchange in public that we sometimes have in private. I join with the
May 8, 1975

rest in saying we are glad this motion is going to be carried and that the documents in question will be tabled.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take very much time in this discussion since the parliamentary secretary has swallowed his earlier words and is now prepared to table documents which he previously withheld. Because I think it is a remarkable development, I want to deal with the demonstration that is inherent in the action by the parliamentary secretary today and the absolutely arbitrary method in which documents are considered to be confidential or not confidential.
We have a situation here where an Air Canada contract was regarded as confidential yesterday. Suddenly, today, by some act of magic or some magic wand, it is deemed to be acceptable to table it in the House of Commons. Yesterday it was confidential, today we can have it. That indicates how completely arbitrary the position of this government is as to keeping public information out of the public domain. There is obviously no consistent policy on the part of this government regarding information. There is no consistent policy with regard to what is to be held back in the public interest and what is to be made available to the House of Commons in the public interest.
We have known for some time that the government has no information policy except as indicated to me by an assistant deputy minister in a senior department, that is, to stamp "Confidential" on the toilet paper or any other paper which happens to be in circulation in the offices. Surely today we have underlined the complete absence of any kind of over-all policy regarding the public right to information. It has been made absolutely clear that the decision whether a document should be published or should remain secret is an arbitrary one depending on such things as the state of the moon, or which side of the bed the minister or the parliamentary secretary got out of in the morning.
Yesterday the document was so confidential that neither parliament nor the public could be permitted to see it. Today, by some magic occurrence, it can be tabled in the House of Commons. I welcome the tabling of the document. I welcome the latter-day conversion of the parliamentary secretary. I hope he does not disappear from our midst as a result of his conversion to the point of view that parliament has a right to obtain information with which it is properly concerned.
While the decision is very welcome, it demonstrates, as nothing else can, how arbitrary is the information policy followed by the government and the complete lack of consistency regarding what will be kept secret and what will be made public. It also underlines the futility of the guidelines applied to the release of information. We now know that the only guideline is what members on the treasury benches opposite want to do. In a system which is supposed to be concerned about the informed participation of the citizenry, that is obviously not a proper viewpoint to take.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it the disposition of the House that I should put the motion?
Non-Canadian Publications


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mclsaac) wish to table documents in pursuit of the motion?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Yes, Mr. Speaker, two copies in both official languages.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General has been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-44, an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act-Chapter 44. Bill C-34, an act to amend the Farm Credit Act-Chapter 45.
Bill C-367, an act to amend the Fort-Falls Bridge Authority Act- Chapter 46.
At 5.37 p.m. the House took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Faulkner (on behalf of Mr. Turner) that Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
[Stage Direction]
May 8, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is in a very unpleasant mood that this House is dealing with a bill which, offhand, may seem of little importance but which is nevertheless very important. I wish to continue the remarks I had begun before the private members' hour.
I must say that this is the third time that this matter has been put before the House and twice the Liberal government contended that to allow the tax deductibility of advertising expenses of both magazines was beneficial for the Canadian people. How is it that it was justifiable in 1965 and in 1971 and that it should be condemnable in 1975? Was the government right in 1965 and in 1971 or is he right in 1975? Such are the questions which must be asked and about which Parliament is entitled to answers from the government. What justifies the government's new attitude on this matter which is raised today the same way it was ten years ago?
It might be interesting, Mr. Speaker, to review the reasons put forward by the government members at that time and those put forward in 1975. Why this policy reversal? As for me, as member for Bellechasse, I am wondering about that. I would like very much to get answers and very clear explanations. Why the change in attitude? Will that be really beneficial for the Canadian people? Will the Americans be the losers? In short, what will be changed? I think we are entitled to very clear answers from the minister who piloted this bill. As for me, I am ready to receive the explanations that will be provided so that we may give valid answers to our electors, since we have received many inquiries on that matter.
I imagine all hon. members are in the same situation. Many people have taken the trouble to write asking that we take such or such a stand. The majority of letters I received, as I said this afternoon, were mostly in favour of maintaining the status quo.
So can the minister tell the House whether those who advertise or those who own the magazines in question will be the losers? Who will be the losers? Who will be the winners? We need to know. In view of the large public appeal of Reader's Digest I tend to think that Canadians will continue to advertise in those magazines, even without the benefits available under the act. I am giving a pretty neutral opinion but I think that actually, with or without the benefits, in view of the large circulation of those magazines, current advertisers will continue to advertise. So, working on that assumption, I consider that Canadians will be the losers from a monetary standpoint. According to a Canadian Fact poll, even if Reader's Digest loses advertisers, that does not necessarily mean that other Canadian magazines will benefit because they do not have the same circulation; proper consideration must be given to how many people will be reached by an ad.
The same poll shows that 85 per cent of surveyed advertisers want Section 19 of the Income Tax Act to remain as it is. According to the surveys made by Canadian Fact of Digest subscribers who were asked whether they found the magazine to be a threat to our Canadian culture, 65 per cent answered no. So, to have a valid opinion, the reader must be consulted in order to find out whether subscribers
feel robbed of their culture by reading such or such an article in that magazine. Twenty-two per cent do not have an opinion or did not want to answer; 7 per cent agree to some extent that it may affect the Canadian culture, and 6 per cent fully agree and are convinced that it is likely to hurt the Canadian culture.
So one can conclude that there is a ratio of 6 per cent to 65 per cent on the cultural side. I would not want to leave the impression that I am more in favour of Americans than Canadians. There is no need to try and show that my preference certainly goes to Canadians and my country. I must analyse the situation objectively in order to be able to make a decision. I hope it will be the right one and if I happen to be wrong, I would not do any worse than those who made mistakes in 1965 and 1971.
However, if the present legislation could be enforced more strictly, I think that eventually the Canadian Reader's Digest would be owned entirely by Canadians. We would then benefit from the experience and the great value of a first rate magazine. I am not attempting to depreciate the others, but I must say that we tried to develop in Canada magazines of true merit. I recognize that we have succeeded, but it does not mean that we should no longer appreciate the fact that many Canadian readers subscribe to a magazine that reports a great number of facts, discoveries and data from other countries that could benefit Canadians.
All the same, we must be sincere and fair in our legislation. I think that each of us is striving to be in the reasons that we put forward to justify our decisions.
I for one remember that a few years ago in the province of Quebec the alarm was sounded with this slogan: Masters in our own house. I remember quite well. Thank God,
I still have some memory. Newspaper pages were not big enough to print the key of the masters in their own house, it had to be printed diagonally. Quebecers believed in that memorable phrase: Masters in our own house. However, ten years later we realize that we are not any more masters in our own house than we were before.
One after the other, the Quebec governements have kept going to New York to beg for the money needed to develop our natural resources. Then, we are not yet masters in our own house, we still depend on American financiers. If my memory serves me well, the Canadian government and all the provinces, including Manitoba, did the same thing. They are still going to the United States to ask permission to develop our natural resources. The credit of our country is based on the work of Canadians that is guaranteed by our natural resources, the processing of all kinds of products that our people can use to satisfy their needs. In 1975, we still have to ask permission to New York financiers when we could do otherwise.
We depend on American finance when our country, under the authority of Parliament, the House in which we are sitting tonight, the "salon de la race", should be the supreme authority in our country. We could proceed otherwise under existing legislation, if we decided to act, to exercise fully the authority of a sovereign Parliament and I am in favour of a sovereign Parliament. I am so today, as I was yesterday and will be tomorrow. Because I believe Parliament is the chamber of the representatives of the whole country, of all parts of Canada. According to the

May 8, 1975

Constitution, we are sent here, in a democratically-organized chamber, in order to legislate, to pass laws, to administer the country, and we do hope that we will administer the country in a sovereign Parliament.
That is why I am convinced that we have authority to act legally and, then, to have the decisions of Parliament carried out by the government which consists in the Cabinet. Ministers are there for carrying out the decisions of Parliament. This is the way I feel our democracy should be.
If we do want our ministers to administer this country efficiently, we must give them tools, it is imperative that we show to the people of Canada that we are truly responsible at any level, even at the financial level which is as was said not so many years ago, the sinews of war. Well, if finance is the sinews of war, it is also the sinews of social peace which is a must to administer a country, to be able to really be an autonomous people, a people willing to be the master of its own destiny. I am convinced that the ministers here tonight in the House realize the full significance of what I am saying, and they perfectly know that I speak with the utmost sincerity, because I am fully aware that I am a member of this House which is the supreme authority in my country, and that I am ready to cooperate with all my colleagues, so that we could offer all organizations and citizens of this country with a healthy administration.
It is not only through writings, Mr. Speaker, that culture may be threatened or improved. What is going on with films and television? Nobody can stop Canadians with a TV set from turning it on and picking up American programs. Those programs come to us, our young people watch them. I have children at home and they look at those programs. They are interested or they are not. Future will tell us to what extent they may have been impressed, to what extent our culture will have been improved or destroyed by movies coming from the United States via television.
We let ourselves be overrun, although we do have people with real talent. It is always a surprise for me, week after week, whenever I have a chance to attend events put up by teachers or welfare organizations, who have young people acting in plays as we used to say. I am always favourably impressed with the easiness and talent displayed by our young boys and girls performing in sketches from which a moral can be drawn. They may not always understand the true meaning, of what they play but later on in life they will.
I remember when I was a small boy, I acted with seven girls in a play at the village school. I was the only boy at the end of the row, and I had a role to play. At the time I did not understand it very well, but today I do, and this is why I have a better understanding of Parliament's role.
I remember very well the last sentences which ended the play. We called it the grumbler's scene. There was this teacher who was always dissatisfied with his pupils. If the door was open, he would say: Shut the door. If the door was shut, he would say: Open the door. In my role I had this to say to the teacher: "Finally, do you know exactly what you want? A door must be either shut or open. How
Non-Canadian Publications
do you want it?" And that ended the play. Well, we have the same thing here. We wish to be either a sovereign Parliament, or a dependent Parliament. How do we wish it to be? If we would have a sovereign Parliament, we will have to do what is needed. As far as I am concerned, I am aiming at the essentials, not what is accessory. The essentials I put above everything else. This is why I am against this legislation, because in my view it is not truly essential.
Other measures are vitally needed, but nothing is done about them. We did propose such measures. We are sometimes told that we, in the Social Credit Party, have it easy, because all we have to do is criticize, we have no responsibility as far as governing is concerned. I am well aware of that, but give us a chance to manage this country.


Mrs. Sauve :: Ask the voters!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: This country is in the worst situation in years.


Jeanne Sauvé: That is for the voters to decide.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: The voters do decide and I am quite happy that they do. However, we do not have the same possibility as the traditional parties of reaching the voters. Those parties influence the voters and the situation remains the same.


Jeanne Sauvé: You must organize more meetings!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Let me finish my statement and you will see that what I suggest is not so stupid.
I do not wish to make personal remarks since I have always admired my colleagues in this House. When I had the opportunity to speak, I have also respected the opinions of my colleagues. I believe this to be true. Let us be aware of the fact that our country is in an extremely difficult situation. We must fight, on one hand, against a terrible situation called inflation and, on the other hand, against an even more terrible situation which is called unemployment. This is no fun for anyone.
I am not saying that the government is responsible for this. This situation has been brought about by a whole set of circumstances. It has been caused by a system that is diseased, which sometimes opens the valve too much. Then the pressure goes up. Afterwards, the valve is closed up too tight, and the pressure goes down. So, we are never comfortable. We have often suggested to the House, as I am doing again tonight, that we make an earnest effort. We could do worse than the others who tried. We are at the bottom of the hill. The cart is stuck in the mud up to the axles. It cannot sink any further.
Let us try at least new formulas to finance our country, other formulas than those that we have applied until now, at least in the public sector. I believe that it would not be unreasonable for Canada to try to implement a new formula, and if we fail, it would not be worse than in your case: you did fail! Then, we shall say that there is no magic formula. The formula is as follows:


Mr. Bechard:: Which one?

May 8, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I thank the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine for his question. This is great! He is a good friend of mine. I know that he is responsible, reasonable. He is asking me: Which formula? Here it is:
The period from 1930 to 1940 was unproductive, a period of inflation, deflation, unemployment, that I and several other members of this House lived through. We had at our disposal some means to feed the people but we did not have any financial means. The then Prime Minister Mr. Bennett, from 1930 to 1935, tried all kinds of formulas to give work to the people. We called that, in the Quebec area, for those who went to work in Valcartier, "the 20 cents". I do not know if you remember that, but I, for one, do remember.


Jeanne Sauvé: We are too young.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: The young people went to work in Valcartier for 20 cents a day; quite a bright future on 20 cents a day! It is really possible to build a house, to build a future! In 1935, the government went to the people. They called an election and it is on that occasion that the leader of my friend, the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard), was elected prime minister.


Albert Béchard: When was that?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: In the days of Mackenzie King. He was the one who, during the election campaign, made the same remarks that I am making here tonight. On September 23, he stated in Saskatoon . ..


Albert Béchard: Were you there?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: No, I was not there, but newspapers reported what he said. And in those times, the newspapermen really gave information. Then we were told .. .


Jeanne Sauvé: They were not paid for that then.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: They were not paid or coaxed: the party fund took care of that. Mr. Mackenzie King said this: As soon as a people, a nation does not control its currency and its credit, it is useless to talk about democracy. And then he added: If I am elected, the Canadian people will witness the greatest battle between Canadians on one hand and the government and high finance on the other hand that Canada will have ever seen. Then Mackenzie King was elected. So the battle never took place, because he was on the side of those controlling currency and credit in our country. He did something that every Canadian should be proud of. He introduced a legislation establishing a Canadian bank. At that time, they gave the Bank of Canada limited powers but in 1975, we can give the Bank of Canada less restricted powers, in order to allow the government to finance the public sector without being forced to borrow continuously from foreign sources at usurious rates exceeding sense and sensibility. If we, in Canada's Parliament, really want to be responsible citizens in this country, to be a Parliament with a supreme authority, we are empowered to amend that legislation in 1975, so as to authorize the Bank to coin
credit for Canadians and to lend at interest rates not exceeding administrative costs.
We have forgotten that the monetary system of a country must be a service meant to serve instead of being exploited by private institutions, just as the postal system must serve all Canadians. The monetary system must serve all Canadians. No one should have the privilege of multiplying by 12, 15 or 16, as is the case now, the deposits of Canadians.
That is where the evil lies, and if we refuse to consider seriously the fact that those are the main tools of those who control our economy, we will never accomplish anything because money is the mainstay, the main tool in our economy. A while ago, I was asked what I intended to propose. This: that we discuss seriously and decide once and for all to amend the Bank of Canada Act in such a way that the Bank of Canada will truly be the Bank of Canadians, the bank serving Canadians. Then, we can shout, arms outstretched to the skies, that we are truly masters in our own house.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to rise tonight to speak on Bill C-58 and voice the criticisms which I intend to make this evening without being labelled anti-Canadian. I find it hard because I am as fiercely patriotic and as proud as anyone in the country. I long for the day when we, as Canadians, exercise control over many areas of our economy which are presently foreign dominated, but it is important that one remain realistic, and start from conditions as they exist and not from a position that we wish existed. On the one hand we must learn by our mistakes and not lack the courage to initiate measures which will correct those errors. On the other hand, we must face the consequences of our actions and not let our emotions control our minds.
What is this bill attempting to do? The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has authorized his special assistant, when replying to letters, to state as follows:
In the government's view, it is necessary to remove from the Income Tax Act an inconsistency in the application of the law and a provision which works to the disadvantage of Canadian periodicals.
The letter goes on to say:
Whatever may be the results of the new legislation regarding the operations in Canada of Time and Reader's Digest, they will continue to be sold in Canada and provide the kind of reading material which is enjoyed by their many readers.
Who is being inconsistent? Has anyone told the Secretary of State that advertising revenues and the number of subscribers go hand in hand? When the readers of Reader's Digest are subscribing to American rather than Canadian editions will they, as proud Canadians, start buying Maclean's?
A press release issued by the Secretary of State quotes a royal commission as follows:
A nation's domestic advertising expenditure should be devoted to the support of its own media of communications, and ... a genuinely Canadian periodical press can only exist if it has access to a fair share of domestic advertising.
Let us look at that point for a moment, Mr. Speaker. In 1973 general magazines had a 2.4 per cent share of net
|Mr. Bechard.)
May 8, 1975

advertising revenues, or $32 million of a total of $1-1/3 billion. Radio took 11 per cent of that total and television 13 per cent. Radio and television have increased their share of the market, while the share to general magazines has decreased. The real competition for advertising revenues is not foreign controlled magazines but other media. Even amongst magazines, have the Canadian magazines fared badly in comparison to American controlled competition' Miss Chatelaine, Chatelaine and Maclean's have all experienced greater growth than Reader's Digest.
The three Maclean-Hunter publications had a total advertising revenue in 1973 of over $12 million, or 42 per cent of the total advertising revenue of the publications comprising the Magazine Association of Canada. This compares with $6 million for Reader's Digest. I do not believe I am being unfair in suggesting that the motivation of Peter Newman might be profit rather than patriotism. Of course it could be argued that the two go together.
A survey conducted by Canadian Facts Limited indicated that only 7 per cent of the advertising revenues of Reader's Digest would be diverted to Canadian magazines. That is approximately $400,000.
What is the real cost to Canada? Inspection of Reader's Digest Association (Canada) Limited records indicates that five of a board of six Digest directors are Canadian. All of the officers of the company are Canadian citizens, all 500 employees are permanent residents of Canada, and the company gives work indirectly to at least 1,000 other Canadians.
The two magazines are fully edited in Canada for Canadians.
Reader's Digest employs some 80 editors, graphic and production staff on books and magazines. Both magazines have substantial Canadian content amounting to an annual average of 24 per cent English and almost 15 per cent French. Almost 80 Canadian freelance writers, researchers and artists look to Reader's Digest books and magazines as a market for their work. The company has invested $8 million in buildings and manufacturing equipment. Reader's Digest Canadian produced magazines, books, record packages, and educational materials are welcomed as suitable for all age groups.
Close to six million Canadians read and enjoy the Canadian edition of the Digest every month. Reader's Digest Canadian material is made available to, and much of it is used by other editions around the world. Some articles receive exposure to 100 million readers in 13 languages. Reader's Digest has made some 32 per cent of its common stock available to Canadians through a public issue, the only Digest company in the world to do so. Shareholders bought their stock with the understanding that the company's operations were not under any threat at the time the stock was issued. Reader's Digest had that assurance from the government.
Reader's Digest has exceeded every guideline for corporate citizenship ever declared by a government of Canada. The Digest has already outlined to the Secretary of State the economic alternatives facing it if section 19(2) is removed. The only one that would leave it in even a marginally profitable position was based on the following
Non-Canadian Publications
assumptions: ceasing publication of the French language edition, which for years has been subsidized by other profitable operations; importing all English language editorial material from the U.S., with no Canadian editing and selection of articles; dismissing English and French editorial staffs and reducing employment elsewhere in the company. Survival on these terms would mean substantial loss of employment, reduced Digest expenditures in Canada, the loss of the French edition, and the abandonment of Canadian content-in other words a complete negation of Canadianization policies built up over the last 30 years.


Mr. Crouse:: Are you listening, Hugh? This chap makes
sense.


Harold Thomas Herbert: French-Canadian readers, 1.3 million of them, stand to lose an edition in their own language edited by French-Canadians. French-language editions published in France or other francophone countries are not a practical alternative for French-Canadians.
English-Canadians would lose the substantial Canadian content now in the magazine-24 per cent last year, rising to 30 per cent. They would lose the research, complete editing and article selection now performed by the Canadian editorial team, and would receive instead a magazine edited and designed for American readers. Canadian authors would lose a good market for their work. Reader's Digest Canadian edition's articles about Canada could not be financially supported, and thus would no longer circulate world-wide to an audience of 100 million readers.
Canadian magazine growth since protective legislation was introduced in 1965 has been healthy. Eighty-seven new Canadian magazines, each with a circulation of over
10,000,	have emerged since 1965. Total annual circulation of these magazines is 199 million copies. Moreover, with some exceptions, established Canadian magazines have done well. Last August, Lloyd Hodgkinson, publisher of Maclean's, was quoted in the Toronto Globe and Mail as saying, "We have just had the three most prosperous years in the last ten at Maclean's, Chatelaine and Miss Chatelaine."
Has the present Canadian publishing industry considered what would be the effect on it if other countries adopted a requirement on ownership and content similar to that detailed by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford)? Thomson Newspapers Limited, through U.S. subsidiaries, publishes some 49 daily and seven weekly newspapers in the United States. Maclean-Hunter Limited in the United Kingdom publishes business periodicals through a wholly-owned subsidiary. In the United States Maclean-Hunter Limited publishes business periodicals through a wholly-owned subsidiary. In France, Italy, Germany, Austria and Brazil, through 50 per cent affiliated companies Maclean-Hunter publishes trade and business periodicals.
Would not our Canadian industry be severely weakened if other countries, specifically the United States, retaliated against the measure we are discussing? Let us face facts. In 1973 Canadians invested more money in foreign countries than was invested by foreigners in Canada. We may not like to see so much of our economy foreign-controlled,
5612

May 8, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
but the Canadian investor does not seem to be sufficiently concerned that he wants to buy out foreign investments in his own country.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has clearly indicated government direction with the Foreign Investment Review Act, a bill which I chaired through committee and which is, I believe, a positive approach to Canadian control. The same ministry issued in 1966 a listing of a dozen guiding principles for good corporate behaviour in Canada. These were for the subsidiaries of foreign companies in Canada. The Reader s Digest Association (Canada) Limited has faithfully lived up to and exceeded those principles.
Let us look for a moment at the clause that requires that issues of a periodical must not be "substantially the same as one or more issues of a foreign periodical. Since the basis of the Digest's world-wide editorial operation is an exchange of articles of international origin and universal interest, a drastic change in the magazine's content and character would be necessary to meet such a requirement. If such a change were made the magazine would no longer be the Digest. Paradoxically, the clause would also inhibit Reader's Digest from circulating Canadian material abroad, since each time a Canadian article is used in an international edition the Canadian edition becomes more "substantially the same." No publisher, and no reader, could support such a grave restriction on magazine's editorial freedom.
I want now, Mr. Speaker, to turn to the consideration of dumping, corporate profit, and its relevance to this bill. In 1974 Reader's Digest paid $1.6 million in Canadian corporate taxes; the company had a net income of less than $1.5 million, re-invested over $500,000, distributed nearly $300,000 to its Canadian shareholders, and exported, although I do not like the term, something over $500,000 to its parent company. That is what we Canadians paid in 1974 for the foreign investment in Canadian plants and equipment and the creation of 1,500 jobs. That is about 8 per cent on investment, or $400 per job. That return, which could surely not be termed excessive, would be substantially less if the parent company charged more for the material it supplies. Thus I suggest that, thanks to the U.S. parent, Canadians are provided with good material at low cost, and benefit at the same time from the corporate taxes levied on the extra profit resulting from this policy. Far from being detrimental this, I suggest, enables us to make a double gain.
The debate on this bill, Mr. Speaker, would not be complete without reference to the cultural aspects. Is Reader's Digest American culture? Is Maclean's Canadian culture? Do we want less of the former and more of the latter? It is not that simple a choice, even if we answer yes to all three questions. We will certainly lose the Canadian content in the American Reader's Digest. Will we buy fewer copies of Newsweek and U.S. News and World Report, or fewer copies of Playboy or Paris Match because they are American-owned or foreign magazines? Incidentally, Air Canada had a full-page advertisement in the April issue of Travel and Leisure, which magazine has a large Canadian circulation. CP Air had a full-page advertisement, and CN also advertised in this same magazine. All that advertising

was paid into American companies and was presumably 100 per cent deductible as an expense.
If I may refer to a recent edition of another U.S. magazine, well over two thirds of the advertising in this magazine applied to products available in Canada. I doubt if the influence on the Canadian consumer goes without recognition.
I would like to quote a few points from articles in magazines and newspapers on this subject which I think are quite pertinent. Martin Murenbeeld, associate professor at the University of Toronto's faculty of management, writing in the Toronto Star said, and I quote:
To run the risk of error in over-simplification I submit that Saturday Night's problems were not lack of advertising revenues, but lack of consumer appeal. Its circulation is poor; business recognizes the facts for what they are and so does not rush at the opportunity to advertise in its pages. Peter Newman and others will no doubt correct me in my belief that audience appeal leads to circulation leads to advertising revenue...
Canadian culture is something that I and many others personally believe in and wish to contribute towards building. This does not, however, mean that we as consumers must be forced to consume Newman's, the Committee for an Independent Canada's, or anyone else's interpretation of what Canadian culture might be.
Mr. W. E. Belliveau, president of Wilshar Advertising Limited, stated in a letter to the Montreal Gazette, and I quote:
How many of your readers know that the Maclean-Hunter group already controls 50 per cent of the Canadian magazine publishing industry, plus radio and television stations? With the loss of Time Canada and Readers' Digest this monopoly could exceed 70 per cent. Are we to trade Time Canada for the monopolistic editorial view of world news that would be supplied by the Maclean-Hunter group?
George Radwanski, writing in the Montreal Gazette, said:
__i{ a publication could attract readers in the absence of these giants-
That is referring to Time and Reader's Digest.
-it could also do so right now. And if it can't, then the problem isn't unfair competition but reader appeal.
In a recent edition of the Ottawa Citizen, there is an editorial which begins as follows:
The regulations governing Time and Reader's Digest to qualify them as Canadian publications, announced by Revenue Minister Ron Bas-ford, are wrong in principle and should be dropped ...
The regulations amount to censorship. It is reasonable to insist on Canadian ownership for a publication to get a Canadian tax break. But it is quite wrong to control content.
In a free society, the contents of magazines and newspapers have to be left to their staffs and subscribers. There may be many publications whose contents the government views with distaste. That's too bad; but that's democracy.
In a recent article, Charles Lynch, who is not always a good friend of the government, said and I quote:
When governments enter the picture, subsidies cannot be far behind, and government subsidies in the field of publication almost invariably are bad news, never more so than when they are coupled with appeals for patriotic support of the publications in question.
My last quote is a comment in an editorial in the New York Times. I think it is of significance. I quote:
Cultural chauvinism, never an attractive feature in the affairs of modern nation states, is particularly objectionable when translated into governmental policy reinforced by economic sanctions ...
May 8, 1975

-we do not see how a democratic country such as Canada could justify in any way the proposed policy of dictating editorial content. Any prescribed quota of Canadian content would be a form of government censorship.
Ultimately, the issue is neither one of percentages nor of the quality of the material. If Canadians feel that they are badly served by foreign cultural imports, they can always respond by producing better publications at home and lending their patronage to foreign magazines more sensitive to Canadian interests. Censorship or news management by law are the wrong answers.
I have tried to outline the reasons why it is my sincere hope that when this bill gets into committee there will be amendments proposed which will rectify some of the injustices I believe are presently being done, particularly to Reader's Digest, a good corporate citizen. That company has tried hard to follow all the directions of the government, and has endeavoured to live up to all the principles that have been established by the government.
In conclusion, as a member who was elected to support this party I shall abide by the majority wishes of this party which have been clearly expressed in caucus, and I shall vote to send this bill to committee. My speech tonight is made with the sincere hope that in committee suitable amendments will be proposed so that the disastrous effects of the legislation as it is presently drafted will not mean the demise of Reader's Digest magazine.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, although I do not have a reputation for offering gratuitous bouquets to members opposite, I would be mistaken if I did not commence my remarks this evening by saying it was a pleasure to be able to sit through the speech of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). His comments were well informed, balanced and very fair. I hope his colleagues on the government side, particularly the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), were attentive to what he had to say and will be responsive to the concerns he expressed.
All of us agree with the goal of trying to give protection and incentive to the Canadian magazine publishing industry. There is no question about the validity of that goal or our desire to see it achieved. While we agree upon the goals we would like to see achieved, we differ sharply on the means of realizing them.
I am an economic nationalist. I believe it is vital that we control our own economy if we are to remain as an autonomous country. It must be obvious that, if the political independence of this country is to be meaningful, we must ensure that decisions as to the future of this country and its people are made here in Canada and not in the corporate board rooms, union head offices, or legislatures of other countries.
Since the days of Macdonald the members of this party have strongly supported the concept that there is a need for the government to act to protect our nationhood and give incentives and protection to Canadian industry to develop here in Canada. However, we have also taken the position that our nationalism must not be destructive. It must not be timid, inward looking, or xenophobic. This is something that distinguishes us most directly from our friends to the left and from some of my colleagues across the way. Very often the comments they make under the guise of nationalism seem to be anti-American or xenophobic. They show some expression of a national inferiori-
Non-Canadian Publications
ty complex. They feel we are incapable of competition on an international scale.
Let us do whatever we can to give protection to Canadian industry and Canadian culture, but let us be careful that when we provide protection for our industries and our countrymen that we do not also deprive our people of the benefits of international competition and the enrichment of our national fabric that comes from interchange with those from other countries. Let us also make sure that we do not simply enshrine mediocrity as a national goal.
Just as I am an economic nationalist, I am a cultural nationalist. There is no purpose in maintaining the mechanisms of political autonomy, or of being masters in our own house in economic affairs if, when we make decisions, we think in the same way as we would think if we belonged to another country. We are responsible for creating an environment in which Canadians are able to live their own lives, to foster dreams which are unique to this country, and to set goals which are good for Canada. It is for this reason that I think we cannot help, as a parliament, being economic nationalists and, as well, cultural nationalists.
I personally support unequivocally the government's plan to disallow advertizing write-offs for television when that advertizing is shown on American television stations and aimed at Canadians. The broadcasting industry in Canada today is threatened in large part by the myopia suffered by Canadian governments and by the ham-fistedness of those governments in dealing with the broadcasting industry. We must give whatever assistance is necessary to prevent limited advertizing dollars from being bled off into the United States, especially when we receive so little in exchange.
The provision contained in the bill before us is a position step in favour of Canadian nationalism and is not one which is designed to penalize anyone or to get at a particular corporation. It is readily defensible, because what the measure is designed to do is to give some degree of protection to the Canadian industry. I do not think the U.S. can very properly object to our desire to keep Canadian dollars from flowing out to American television stations when the products they advertize are American and contain little of Canadian content.
If the actions of the government since the minister has been Secretary of State had been positive and aggressive, if he had taken action to protect our fledgling film industry or to encourage our book-publishing industry and our Canadian magazine industry, I would not view the legislation before us with such suspicion. But that is not the case. The measure we are considering here is a punitive action more fitted to drive American-owned publications out of our country rather than building a strong and vital Canadian publishing industry. This is the one thing which to me, Mr. Speaker, distinguishes the actions of the government and of the Secretary of State. Far from creating, through aggressive positive policy, an environment in which the Canadian publishing industry can prosper and thrive, the government instead has taken merely symbolic
29561-12Vi
May 8, 1975

Non-Canadian Publications
and punitive actions against two prominent American corporations.


Walter David Baker: Merely punitive
tokenism.


Henry Perrin Beatty: As my hon. friend says-punitive tokenism. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, the passage of the bill before us will not ensure the success of the Canadian publishing industry. Speeches of members on the other side leave the impression that once the Canadian editions of Time and Readers' Digest have been killed we shall move into the golden age of the Canadian magazine industry. Such is not the case. Indeed, there is a significant possibility that the action we are contemplating may be detrimental to the future of the industry in Canada. As Canadian advertizers may well find, it is by no means certain that the remaining periodicals in Canada will give economic access to sufficiently large markets to make advertizing in Canadian periodicals a worthwhile prospect.
We might very well find that because of the absence of a package which would include Time and Readers' Digest to deliver a large market to Canadian advertizers at a very low cost, advertizers will be inclined to shift their advertizing dollars to another medium, resulting in money going from the publishing industry to some other media. Indeed we have only to look at the size of the market reached by Time and Readers' Digest to realize how important they are as part of a package to deliver a large advertizing market to Canadian advertizers.
Readers' Digest is the number one magazine in terms of readership sold in Canada. Time magazine is number four. The survey which was taken on behalf of Readers' Digest by Canadian Facts Ltd. showed, as some previous speakers have mentioned, that probably only about 19 per cent of the revenues which currently go to Time and Readers' Digest will go to Canadian periodicals instead. The government disputes this figure, as did the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) earlier. But no one has offered any evidence to the contrary. It has simply been said that the figure might be wrong, or that it was felt to be wrong. What is striking about the minister's attitude in this regard is his insistence on pushing ahead, forcing the legislation through the House before we have had an adequate opportunity to assess the impact it will have upon the Canadian periodical industry.
I think it worth saying, because it is true and because it is not stated often enough, that Canadians have not been ill-served by Time and Readers' Digest. I listened with interest to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie decrying the activities of Time magazine. But I do not think we have been ill-served by Time. Yes, that magazine does give an American perspective, but it also provides an extremely good synopsis of world events over the week. I would argue that as well as reading Time we can diversify our reading by following comparable magazines published in other countries, such as The Economists.
Even if the elitists among us-people like the Secretary of State-believe that Canadians have been ill-served and that their needs have not been satisfied by Time and Readers' Digest, I would plead with the government to listen to the voice of the Canadian public. Canadian readers do not believe they have been ill-served. It is apparent
|Mr. Beatty.)
when one considers that Readers' Digest enjoys first place in sales of magazines, and Time is number four, that these periodicals fulfil a need in Canada. The Canadians in my constituency who are regular readers of Readers' Digest and Time do not buy these magazines because they think that they are poor in quality or content; they do so because they find they have needs which are only being met by these publications at the present time.
The minister may argue that it is necessary for Canadian magazines to fill the void. I hope that Canadian magazines will do so. But I would prefer to see Canadian magazines growing up in competition with the magazines we now have available to us, rather than see those two particular magazines destroyed and merely hope that Canadian successors will be good enough to take their place.
With respect to Time magazine I would point out that the reporters working for that publication have distinguished themselves among others in their profession. Although I had some quarrel with the author of an article in which I was mentioned earlier this year, I certainly cannot disagree with the high regard in which reporters of Time are held by their peers. They have often broken stories ahead of their competitors. The Canadian section of the magazine has provided good sources of Canadian news.
I would also stress, as did the hon. member for Vau-dreuil, that Readers' Digest has consistently provided a high degree of Canadian content. Even more important though is that Readers' Digest has presented a vehicle for Canadian writers to get their work read abroad. I am very interested in having Canadian works read in Canada by Canadians. But I think that Canadian artists are first rate and that Canadian writers are first rate. Their work should be seen or read abroad, and we should find mechanisms to encourage the distribution of Canadian work abroad.
There is a great distinction in my mind between the parts of the bill which deal with television and those parts which involve publications. The part of the bill concerned with television is a measure to protect the outflow of Canadian advertising dollars into the United States where those dollars provide few jobs for Canadians and little, if any, Canadian content. The second part of the measure, that dealing with periodicals, is very different. It will cost hundreds of Canadians their jobs. It will eliminate Canadian content currently made available by the two publications affected, and it will remove substantial secondary and tertiary benefits to Canadian suppliers. This is particularly the case in Montreal where many small Canadian businessmen do work for Readers' Digest. It will soon become apparent that many small businessmen will be adversely affected by this part of the bill.
There is no significant and positive step taken under the legislation to provide incentives for Canadian publishers. What it will do is merely redistribute the same number of advertising dollars, and the suggestion is that the number of advertising dollars going to periodicals may in fact diminish.
I am sure that I am just as interested as the Secretary of State in seeing a Canadian news weekly established in this country. We should make no mistake about the reason
May 8, 1975

for the absence of such a Canadian publication at the present time. It is not because of U.S. controlled competitor has co-opted the market in Canada by publishing a Canadian news weekly. The minister stressed the fact that Time magazine is not a Canadian news weekly, and I agree with that. The content is largely American or international, and the percentage of Canadian content is in fact low.
Of course the people who read Time are not paying their 75 cents primarily for the six or seven pages of Canadian news. They are buying it because it provides a perspective on world and American affairs which they cannot get elsewhere.


An hon. Member:: They still will.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The hon. member says that they still will be able to buy it, but he misses the distinction I am trying to make. I suggest that if after the Canadian versions of Time and Reader's Digest are killed, as the minister and my friends to my left would like, there is going to be a market for a Canadian news weekly and Canadians will want to buy it then, but that need is not being met at the present time.
My friend suggests that they will be able to buy the American edition of Time even after the Canadian edition is put out of business. Indeed he is correct. This is why people are buying it at the present time. They are buying it largely for United States news. The hon. member is not addressing himself to the fact that the existence of an American news magazine concentrating on American and international content has not co-opted the field if there is a market for a Canadian magazine concentrating on Canadian affairs. Both the Secretary of State and the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie have made the point that it is the American content we are buying and not the Canadian content. If there is to be that market after this bill passes, there is that market today.
I am not satisfied with the blandishments of the minister who suggests that it is only by driving out Time and Reader's Digest that we are going to get the seed money necessary to establish a new Canadian news weekly and allow it to get going. I simply do not see any evidence for that.
Let us look at who is going to be filling the vacuum if my friends drive Time and Reader's Digest out of business. The vacuum will be very ably and very quickly filled by Maclean-Hunter, a large, wealthy and powerful Canadian publishing giant. I am intrigued to see my hon. friends to my left, who often go on at great lengths to decry large business, supporting a measure which is going to result in the lion's share of the revenue which is currently going to Time and Reader's Digest going into the hands of the corporate giant in Canada in the publishing industry. Let us make no mistake about that.
My friends have talked about the need for a Canadian publishing industry. None of us quarrel with that. Indeed the most dynamic Canadian publishers are not the fat cat corporate giant publishers who are publishing their widely read Canadian publications at the present time. The most innovative ones are the small ones who are publishing on a very marginal footing at present.
Non-Canadian Publications
The advertising revenue which is going to be taken away from Time and Reader's Digest is not going to go to the publishers operating out of church basements; it is going to find its way largely into the hands of the Maclean-Hunter group. I think that instead of talking about punitive action directed against Time and Reader's Digest we should be talking about positive action designed to create an environment in which the Canadian publishers can flourish. That does not mean handouts by the government, it means creating an environment in which they can survive on their own.
I mentioned earlier that the reason why there is not a Canadian news weekly concentrating on Canadian affairs at the present time is not that Time magazine has co-opted the field. If anybody in Canada has the resources and the entrepreneurial skills to fill the void and to satisfy those market needs the Secretary of State is talking about for a Canadian news weekly, that is Maclean-Hunter. It has the money and the entrepreneurial skills to do it at the present time.
While I do not deny that Canadian nationalism is an attractive concept in the Maclean-Hunter corporate board rooms, I also do not take lightly the dedication of that corporation to profit, and that is something that was glossed over by my friends to the left. It is clear they are the ones, and not the struggling Canadian publisher, who will be reaping the most substantial benefits from the government's action.
I personally, as a Conservative and a free enterpriser, would be the last to denounce the ability of the Canadian businessman to make profits. But I do ask that we do not delude ourselves as to who the government beneficiaries in fact will be. They will not be the small businessman, they will be the large corporations.
Another area in which I have strong concern is in the area of interpretation of "Canadian publication" and what would constitute a Canadian publication. The Minister of National Revenue would assign in effect a Canadian content quota on our magazines if they are to receive the critical designation of a Canadian publication. This provision, despite the government's anxious denials, smacks very much of censorship, and it could readily be applied to newspapers which rely substantially upon international wire services for foreign news coverage, or television programs that are taken from foreign networks for events that take place outside our country.
Having sat in parliament for some time and having watched the government perform, it certainly would not be inconceivable to me to see the extension and the invocation of this principle or doctrine against newspapers and television networks in this country that are printing or showing reports about domestic activities or domestic events which the government dislikes. Certainly the case in the United States was that the administration there used its power to intimidate the news media, and used it in a very heavy-handed way.
I believe, as a Conservative who believes in limited government, that where the potential for abuse exists we have a threat to our freedom in a democracy. However much this government protests that it does not intend to abuse its powers, I believe Canadians should regard the government's actions with considerable attention, as

May 8, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
indeed they should regard any attempt by its successors to take more power that will affect the freedom of information in a democratic society.
There is no doubt that in this majority parliament, and particularly in respect of this measure on which the government is assured of the support of their ideological cousins to my left, this legislation will in fact be passed. Before long in Canada the Canadian editions of Time and Reader's Digest will disappear, and Canadians will be able to get articles about how Adrienne Clarkson discovered Toronto, and about the Prime Minister's 10 favourite recipes for maple syrup, on a bi-weekly basis instead of on a monthly basis as is the case at the present time.
The government, once it has taken the punitive and symbolic measure it proposes at the present time, will then resume its policy of dynamic paralysis in which the minister allows Canadian culture to struggle alone against governmental indifference, and protest like crazy that somebody else is to blame.
This minister who is so anxious to push this through would have more credibility if he could convince me that the people he is supposed to be serving, the Canadian artistic community, in fact have his backing. Such is not the case. Indeed rumours abound that if the minister fails to get Reader's Digest put out of business, Canadian writers will have a market for a new article to be published in the Canadian edition of Reader's Digest on the Secretary of State, entitled "My most forgettable character".
If it wanted to, the government could move tomorrow to pump new life into our publishing industry. It could reform the operations of our costly and inefficient Post Office so Canadian publishers could get their material promptly and cheaply distributed. If it were serious the government could change the write-offs for advertising in Canadian publications to a positive and substantial tax credit which would provide a positive incentive for Canadian businesses to advertise in our publications. If the government were sincere it could improve distribution of periodicals in Canada to assure Canadians access to Canadian publications.
It has not been the federal government but the government of Ontario that has pioneered in pointing out the breakdown of our periodical distribution industry. This government has sat idly by as the periodical industry in Canada and in Ontario was taken over by a United States corporation, and as Canadian periodicals suffered at the hands of those U.S. distributors. The government would not act.
I started my remarks by mentioning our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. I shall now turn to him because his government differed from this drifting and complacent government. The difference between our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and our first Prime Minister is striking. In Macdonald's day we did not have to call conferences to decide what it means to be a Canadian. There was no opposition, except from the predecessors of today's Liberal Party, those who periodically cherish continentalist notions in the desire to preserve our Canadian nationhood. Our artists did not have to try to convince our citizens of our potential to build a society
| Mr. Beatty ]
that would be unique in the world, and an example to other countries. In Macdonald's day Canadianism was not simply a refuge from the world. Canadians defined themselves not in terms of what we were not, but in terms of our goals and dreams for this country.
Today Macdonald's vision has been lost and we are governed by an administration that is characterized by drift and default. In its resources, its geography, its idealism, and industry in respect of its people, this country can be the envy of the world. But if we are to realize our potential it will take new leadership on the treasury benches. The need for new direction in government has never been greater than now.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate on Bill C-58 it is my intention to deal with the publications issue and not with the implications with respect to the television industry. My colleagues who have more knowledge in the broadcasting fields will, I am sure, be better able to comment on that aspect.
In my remarks I should like to examine first of all the basic problem the government has sought to solve, and then I should like to deal in some detail with the adverse affects of this proposed legislation. By way of background it should be said that Reader's Digest has had a Canadian edition and a Canadian company for some 32 years, and Time Magazine, perhaps sensing government action, established its Time Canada in Montreal to produce Canadian editions in 1962. These companies have both been good corporate citizens, and we have been bad hosts. The losers, if the government goes ahead, will be the Canadian people generally. Time and Reader's Digest can pull back and go to freer political climes. Someone might ask how that could be.
In his statement on January 23, 1975, the minister, in referring to the 1965 law said that the intent of section 19, in the first place, was to support the Canadian magazine industry, then as now, weakened by the virtual domination of the market by American publications. Did Canadians want the government to support the Canadian magazine industry? We do not know. We do not have the information on which to base that conclusion. If the government thought so, why did it not just take some funds from the general revenue and give them to the industry if it wanted to support the industry? Heaven knows the government has given away money pretty freely, probably in many instances where the recipients may be less worthy.
The minister in that statement continued to say that instead of legislating against the entry of American material, which would have been an interference with the free flow of information and ideas, the framers of section 19 legislated an advantage, or incentive, for actual and potential Canadian magazines. Well, what was the result of the incentive for actual and potential Canadian magazines? Ten years afterward, in 1975, Newsweek, United States News and World Report, and hundreds of other foreign periodicals are selling well in Canada while, curiously, many Canadian publications have had severe financial problems and some have ceased publishing. Perhaps it is time to do something for the Canadian publishing business. What does the government say it will do?
May 8, 1975

It might be interesting for a moment to look at the words of the minister who, in November, said that section 19 will have an advantage or incentive for Canadian magazines. I have paraphrased that slightly, but the intent is there. How often have we heard recently about the special privileges granted Time and Reader's Digest? Even the Canadian Periodical Publishers' Association does not seem to have their story straight. I should like to read a short paragraph from their recent letter dated April 21 this year, in which they say:
We firmly believe that with Time 'Canada' and Reader's Digest competing with Canadian magazines on an equal basis, there will be exciting new work for more writers, designers, photographers, printers, typographers and others in the graphic arts across Canada.
But they have been on an equal basis. The government seeks to alter that by this legislation. The intent was to give special privileges to Canadian magazines, and Time and Reader's Digest for reasons we will examine later were deemed to be Canadian magazines. So, what these two were getting was not treatment that differed from that given to Canadian magazines, but rather was identical treatment.
Probably realizing the contribution of some publications to the well-being of Canada-and do not forget that section 19(2) uses the expression "being edited and printed and published in Canada"-the government decided in 1965 to treat certain non-Canadian publications as if they were Canadian. One can see the government's dilemma. It had pressure on the one hand from its friends in the publishing field in Canada, and pressure on the other hand from its friends in the foreign publishing field.
Let us step back for a moment and take a look at the real effect of Bill C-58. It really will have little effect on Canadian readers. Time and Reader's Digest will still be available to mail subscribers and at newsstands. What it really will do is discriminate against Canadian advertisers. How will it discriminate against Canadian advertisers, one may ask? It will tell the Canadian advertiser that the cost of his advertising in the periodical of his choice will double if the magazine is a non-qualified one. It should be obvious that the Canadian advertiser is unlikely to buy space, for example, in Playboy because the distribution in Canada as a market area is such a small fraction of the total distribution.
That same Canadian advertiser, however, might not want to buy space in a Canadian magazine, even at a much lower cost, because the cost index per reader is too high. But the Canadian advertiser who wants to advertise in a magazine edited, published, and printed in Canada, such as Time Canada and Reader's Digest, is told by the government that the penalty for so doing is the denial of deductibility of this expense. This is discrimination, or censorship by taxation. That is not news to us on this side. Who can not remember the retaliatory action taken by the government against resource producers in the western provinces?
What may not be fully realized by some hon. members is that the advertising that would be placed, for example, in Playboy would be deductible by the advertiser because it would not be, to quote the act, "directed primarily to a market in Canada". So, too, advertisements in Time U.S., Newsweek and other foreign publications would be allowed as a deduction in arriving at net income under the Canadi-
Non-Canadian Publications
an Income Tax Act because it could be directed to a market that was primarily Canadian.
Similarly, Canadian advertisers in say Vancouver or Montreal can deduct the cost of advertising in daily papers in Washington State or New York State. Many businessmen in real estate and other fields use this method of selling their goods or services.
Another aspect of such discrimination will come from the situation where a foreign brand name producer will be able to advertise and deduct the cost in a periodical in Canada. Although not directly involved, the Canadian dealer selling that product will have in effect deducted his share of the cost of this advertisement because it will be hidden in the cost of his product. To put it in simpler terms, a Chevrolet dealer-if we want to take that example-will benefit from advertisements by the U.S. parent company, and the cost of those advertisements will be written off by that Canadian dealer because it is hidden in the cost of his automobiles. Compare this with the Canadian producer of some product who wants to advertise in the same magazine and is refused the right to deduct the cost. Will the "Big Brother" Liberal government help him out when his sales lag or when his expenses are too high? Is this a way for our government to encourage Canadian industry?
I do not want to enter the emotional debate on the value of either Time or Reader's Digest. In fact, I seldom read either of them. May I say, however, that I have received hundreds of letters from readers in my constituency who will be very disappointed and angry if these magazines are forced to leave Canada.
In an article released in March the minister said:
Our intention is not to throw these magazines out of the country.
He glibly continued:
They can conform to the law by meeting the conditions set out in section 19 and become Canadian magazines. Or, like hundreds of other popular foreign magazines which get no special favours from the Government of Canada, they can compete for your attention and advertisers' money. Whichever alternative Time and Reader's Digest accept, Canadians will not be "deprived of the right" to read editions of these magazines.
First of all, commenting on the minister's remarks, if Time and Reader's Digest were to conform to the law by meeting the conditions in section 19, they would cease to be controlled by the present producers, and there is every likelihood that through change they would indeed cease to exist.
Picture, if you can, the Canadian issue of Time or Reader's Digest competing with the U.S. issues. After being stripped of the benefits of the parent organization, the resulting losses would probably call for more government interference to ban, perhaps altogether, foreign publications in Canada.
The minister went on in his remarks in that article to mention the hundreds of other popular foreign magazines which get no special favours from the Government of Canada. It should be pointed out that the advertisers therein are also not penalized by the Canadian government. These foreign magazines are purchased for enjoyment and probably carry little advertising for the Canadi-
May 8, 1975

Non-Canadian Publications
an market, but if they did carry some the cost would be deductible by the advertiser because it is not directed primarily to a market in Canada.
The minister says that Canadians will not be deprived of the right to read editions of these magazines. Certainly I would agree that Time and Reader's Digest will continue to be available on our newsstands and will continue to be mailed to Canadian subscribers, and that Canadians will still read them. But Canadians will be deprived of the Canadian section of Time magazine and they will be deprived of the articles in the Reader's Digest which now appear only in the Canadian edition.
Will Canadians suffer any other losses through this government action? Well, the French edition of Reader's Digest will certainly disappear. I am not sure how the government, which supports so strongly the bilingual program, feels about eliminating the French edition for French speaking Canadians. The advertising that Canadians read in these magazines will be strictly American. Who knows what sales will be lost by Canadian businesses which will have lost this great audience for their advertisements?
What will happen to Canadians presently employed in Vancouver at Evergreen Press, and in Montreal, who edit and print the Canadian editions of these magazines? I am sure that the electors in Vancouver Centre and in West-mount wonder what they were doing when they voted to send two cabinet ministers down here-not just two backbenchers-who would agree to close down these businesses in their very own ridings.
What about the editorial and support staff? Will they be thrown to the wolves as well? And what of the rights of the 550 Canadians who presently own 32 per cent of the Canadian operation of Reader's Digest? They are in a minority position, and the value of their considerable investment has been jeopardized by the actions of the government.
I have not followed the value of Reader's Digest shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange recently, but earlier in the year the stock had fallen from a high of $10.25 to $7, a loss of 30 per cent of the value for those Canadians who invested their hard earned cash in a venture in which they believed.
This Canadian company provides employment for 500 Canadians, and twice that number have supporting jobs outside the company. The Canadian company has a capital of some $8 million, and we have a government that says it wants Canadians to invest in Canada!
One other little heard comment in this argument is the effect that this legislation will have on the Post Office. I am sure the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) has thought of it, but even the Secretary of State agrees that subscribers will still be able to read their Time and Reader's Digest, even if it happens to be the U.S. edition. What is not often mentioned is that the Canadian Post Office will deliver these magazines free of charge even if they are not mailed in Canada.
At present some $3 million is gained by the Canadian Post Office for carrying these magazines from Montreal and Vancouver to subscribers' homes. If they are mailed in the U.S., the Canadian Post Office will still be called upon
|Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra) !
to deliver them, but under international post office agreements will get not one cent for its trouble. Perhaps the Postmaster General should whisper this tale of woe in the ear of the Secretary of State.
I have not dwelt at all on the content requirements which the government wants to impose. The main reason is that it is still quite unclear just what requirements the government has in mind. The Minister of National Revenue has made some reference to the percentage of Canadian content, but nothing has been said about what constitutes Canadian content. Would it be written by a Canadian in a foreign country, or would it be written about a Canadian by a foreigner, or would it be all right if it was written in Canada but by a foreigner about a foreigner?
The Secretary of State says this is not censorship, but he goes on to state what the content must not be. He says his government is not telling Canadians what to read, but it is telling magazines what they can print. I am sure readers in Canada will see this as censorship and as another step in the government's attempt to control the people of Canada.
My colleagues have explained our party's position, which has long been known by Canadians. The PC party favours Canadian ownership of business in Canada. We have long advocated incentives for individuals who are willing to invest in Canada. We are prepared to accept the facts of majority Canadian ownership, but we object most strenuously and cannot agree to government control in publishing content, and we know of no branch of the publishing industry in Canada that would be willing or able to accept this kind of censorship.


Mr. Lalonde:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). There have been consultations between the various parties in connection with third reading of Bill C-19, and I understand that there has been agreement that we proceed now to third reading of Bill C-19 before hearing another speaker on the present bill. My colleagues may want to say a word on this.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thought for a moment the minister was rising to participate in the debate and I would look forward to hearing his contribution, but there have in fact been consultations, in the usual disarming way in which these are conducted, and we have agreed that there might be third reading tonight. I understand that agreement is satisfactory to the New Democratic Party as well, although there is no one here from that party.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Walter, please!


Walter David Baker: I do apologise. There is a member of the New Democratic Party here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: It would have been my intention to recognize the hon. member for Mai-sonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) next in the debate on Bill C-58. If there is unanimous consent that that debate be
May 8, 1975

adjourned, at least temporarily, the motion for third reading of Bill C-19 may be put. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


TWO-PRICE WHEAT ACT MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENTS FOR WHEAT PRODUCED AND SOLD IN CANADA FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-19, to provide for payments in respect of wheat produced and sold in Canada for human consumption in Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


INCOME TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Faulkner (on behalf of Mr. Turner) that Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I am really anxious to take part in the debate this evening not solely as a result of the points made by some of my colleagues who spoke on the meaning of Bill C-58, but also to correct some statements reported by newspapers and media on the future activities of the Readers' Digest if Bill C-58 is passed in its present form. However, before taking up again each of those arguments, I would like to remind the House that Bill C-58 is not an isolated bill. For the past five years more particularly, the government has undertaken at the international level, to diversify considerably the traditional markets of Canada. We have noted at the international level that our economy is much too dependent on the American market and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has made considerable efforts to send missions and open offices in various countries, more especially in Latin America and the Middle East.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) stated this week during the consideration of his estimates that our trade with countries such as Venezuela had more than doubled during the past year. We have registered a large increase as far as Iran and Saudi Arabia are concerned.
On the national level, the government has set as its highest priority the passage in two steps of a legislation meant to enable the Canadian people to make a fair and complete contribution to the definition of our economic destiny. The policy presently implemented by the Foreign Investment Review Agency which has operated for the past year has shown that the need was becoming more and
Non-Canadian Publications
more urgent and that without an immediate intervention, we would very shortly be running the risk of merely becoming an extension of the neighbouring market. The second stage of this legislation aiming to control new foreign investments has been long overdue. This morning, newspapers reported that the Quebec government has revealed the guidelines of its control policy on foreign investment. It is not without reason that one of the major sectors that will be subjected to the provincial agency will be the social and cultural sector, and for obvious reasons in the case of the province of Quebec.
In the cultural field, and particularly in the field of publishing, the federal government has taken many steps over the last three years. I listened this afternoon to the opposition spokesman who read a list of suggestions that he qualified as positive ones in order to improve the publishing industry in Canada. I should like to remind him that several of his suggestions have already been implemented by the federal government. On the one hand, the federal government directed its efforts to the consideration of amendments to the Foreign Investment Review Act in such a way as to include publishing firms, and also to allow the Review Agency to consider and refuse, as the case may be, the expansion in Canada of foreign-con-trolled publishing firms. Bill C-58, therefore, is not an isolated measure. On the other hand, the Canadian publishing industry support program has been substantially increased in the last year. More than $1,500,000 have been earmarked for this program and during the year 1972-73, more than 400 books have been published and put on the Canadian market.
The hon. member of the opposition also pointed out the need to put publications on the Canadian market in federal buildings. Rules were passed under which adequate quantities of Canadian publications, books and magazines, should be made available to the public in bookshops located in federal buildings.
Finally, direct financial assistance was given owners of bookshops to enable them to open shops not only in the capitals and large centres but also in smaller towns which do not now have access to that kind of service.
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleagues who brandished the spectre of censorship when Canadian content in the field of publication was discussed. I always find an element of demagoguery in that argument, especially considering the regulations passed by the CRTC in the last few years which are intended to encourage broadcaster now operating in Canada to ensure a Canadian content of at least 60 per cent.
I cannot recall that since those regulations are enforced there have been fears of censorship or protests on the part of the Canadian public about their timeliness. In fact, from the comments I have heard, I note that the public has wondered precisely why the government did not take those steps sooner. Which does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian television, whether private or public, exercises a censorship or even an embargo against foreign artists or producers or foreign films, which is detrimental to the freedom of which our country has always been a champion.

May 8, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
Mr. Speaker, I feel that a country like Canada, whose economy rests on a relatively limited foundation, whose population is scattered over a territory as vast as that of our neighbours to the south, must take positive steps to ensure not only that it keeps its national identity, but especially that it develop in an atmosphere of freedom.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-58 is part of this general context, and I felt I should recall its outline because I am convinced it is not an isolated gesture but rather one of many elements of the total concept of a cultural policy which it is intended to be as dynamic in the publishing sector as in the film industry and the performing arts. I do not have to recall that the Income Tax Act was amended in order to enable investors who are mainly interested in the movie industry to have appropriate abatements, in order to facilitate and to induce Canadian investments into this industry which must be developed. When we think that a country like Canada is neighbour to an international monopoly at the level of movie production, we cannot help but hope that such legislation will be passed.
When we try to apply the same objectives to the publishing industry, we realize, Mr. Speaker, that one of the first things to do is precisely to define a context in which Canadian publications will be preferred by Canadians.
With Bill C-58, the government does not seek to eliminate Time or the Reader's Digest or the Selection du Reader's Digest. The government has no right to decide on the relevance of one of these magazines when they comply with the laws of public order and security, Mr. Speaker. The responsibility of the government lays more in ensuring that Canadian publications receive adequate treatment and that, if privileges are to be given, they are given first to Canadian publications.
In the course of the discussions, the spectre of the disappearance of the Reader's Digest has also been raised. Mr. Speaker, this argument does not take into account the economic basis of this firm. As a matter of fact, since 1958, this firm has been engaged in the sale of all kinds of products, because it had a very expanded list of customers, perhaps one of the longest in Canada. It engaged in the sale of records, books, publications, reference material which represent more than 58.6 percent of its aggregate turnover for 1974.
Of the $30 million turnover of Reader's Digest in 1974, more than $18 million came from the sale of articles which have nothing to do with the publishing of the Reader's Digest, the Selection du Reader's Digest. That means that from 1958 to 1968, the corporation significantly diversified its economic basis in such a way that the portion of the revenue it draws from the sale of the magazine represents only $6 million, that is 20.5 per cent of the gross revenue of the corporation.
It is therefore erroneous to say or to maintain that this corporation would inevitably go bankrupt if it had to stop publishing the magazine tomorrow. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the company made a wise decision in 1958 when it diversified its economic basis, as most dynamic entre-prises in Canada do, to protect themselves against market instability. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that even if Reader's Digest stopped being published, the company would be driven out of business on the Canadian market. Indeed, if
it stopped publishing these two magazines completely, it would only lose 13 per cent of its total gross revenues.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that to tell employees and lead them to fear that they would lose their jobs if the magazine was no longer published is to use for demagogic purposes a staff that has always served this entreprise well. And I think that since the federal government is also committed to assist printers, we must keep in mind that the Department of Supply and Services gives contracts to small printing companies for amounts five times higher than those the Reader's Digest receives for the publishing of its two magazines.
The Canadian government is aware that it must help small publishing and printing companies, and I think, Mr. Speaker, that if the government must review its policy, it is precisely in order to decentralize the granting of government contracts, much more than to force small publishers out of business in remote areas, be they in Eastern or in Western Canada.
Through Bill C-58, Mr. Speaker, the government is in fact seeking three things which are quite legitimate. First of all, the government wants a Canadian control over the content of these two periodicals. How can we allow a firm to benefit from tax privileges when it holds a permit under which it can veto the content of articles to be published for the Canadian market? What we are asking this firm is to change its charter so that the control over the content of its publications be brought back to Canada. I do not feel it is too much to ask a multinational in 1975 to surrender this control to the country where it is operating at a profit and has tax privileges.
The second condition the government imposes on Reader's Digest and Time Magazine is that of the Canadian content. Mr. Speaker, I must say that as a Francophone, I was extremely sorry to hear that the translation into French of Reader's Digest is being done in France and not in the province of Quebec. I feel that for the past five years, this government has made great efforts, with the support of the House to promote the development of bilingualism in Canada. The government has even set up a program to transfer to the provinces large amounts of money in order to ensure that services are provided in both official languages.
To leave to France the translation into French of the Reader's Digest, that is a kind of colonialism which the Canadian government has rejected several years ago. Mr. Speaker, I hope, if the Selection du Reader's Digest is to continue to be published in Canada, there will be enough qualified French speaking Quebequers to ensure the French translation of the articles.
I think it would be quite easy to define, on the basis of the CRTC experience, a content that would take into account the Canadian identity, at the level of either the author or the subject matter or through the way a foreign author could be associated with the magazine. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have set with CRTC a precedent which still leaves room for a Canadian content in that magazine.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about foreign ownership, and I will end with that point, I think the Foreign Investment Agency has shown with more necessity that to ask today a corporation to offer Canadians the ownership of its capital

May 8, 1975

is a perfectly legitimate request within the government policy. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope I will have the privilege, during the committee stage, to put these arguments forward again, so that the real elements of the problem and not only the ghost of veto or loss of jobs will be out in the open.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, during question period this afternoon I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) to take another look at the question of charging an admission fee to get into Lower Fort Garry which is located on the Red River, about 18 miles or so north of the city of Winnipeg. This afternoon, in asking my question for the seventh or eighth time, I asked the minister to look at this matter with a sense of history.
The fact is, Sir, that for many years Lower Fort Garry was privately owned and operated. It was the preserve of an elite club and the only way you could get into the fort was by belonging to the club or by being a friend of a member of that club. Some of us thought this was unfortunate, for the result was that an historic site in Manitoba was effectively closed to the general public. The day came when the federal government took it over and made it available for the public, which was to be admitted free of charge. We in Manitoba, thought this was a good idea. That regime lasted for quite a few years.
Recently the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development imposed an admission or entrance fee to Lower Fort Garry. In response to the appeals that some of us made, the minister made an adjustment, but it did not amount to much. The fee is still $2 for an adult, and 50 cents for a child. At the beginning there was a family fee of $5, but that has been reduced to $4. That is not much; actually in Manitoba it is felt to be a bit of an insult. Another adjustment was the provision for an annual family pass for $10, which really is meaningless.
I make the point that Lower Fort Garry is not a picnic ground, is not a national park like Banff, is not like Lake Louise or Cape Breton Highlands; you do not travel around in it and camp, and so on. It is an historic site, something one goes to see, not because of the beauty of the place, although it is an attractive spot, but because of an interest in history. One goes in there to see the relics of a bygone century and to feel some of the history of Manitoba, some of the history of western Canada. We, in Manito-
Adjournrnent Debate
ba, think it is most unfortunate and most unwise for the government to dampen interest in that historic site by imposing this fee.
All of us who come from the province of Manitoba know that the opposition to this fee is widespread. Organizations right across the spectrum-religious, political, economic and others-feel that this is an unfair practice on the part of the federal government. I hope that even yet the department will go back to the practice of a number of years and charge no fee at all; or, if there must be a fee, let it be a very minimal one indeed. The idea of a family pass for $10 a year or special fee for tour groups, students, and so on, really does not meet the situation. I earnestly hope that the appeal we are making will be considered.
I was interested this afternoon to note a sheer coincidence, because that is what it was. Immediately after my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development came the question of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart), which he directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), in which he asked if it was not time to prosecute the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for such an exorbitant increase in its fees. He, of course, was referring to Riding Mountain national park where the increase was 500 per cent or 1,000 per cent. Of course I am referring to a case where the increase is infinity, from zero to the figures to which I just referred.


Walter David Baker: Just like the Rideau Canal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No doubt there will be complaints about that; I hope there will be. But I make the point that the Rideau Canal is something on which one travels. One uses a boat to go on the canal. That is not the case with Lower Fort Garry. There is attached to it a kind of park with a golf course and so on. But it is not a campground, a place where you stay overnight. Nor is it a place you drive around. You go there to see the fort, the walls, gun holes, the boats and the ancient equipment in the museum.
If you start charging people to go to a place like that, what will be next? Are we going to charge people to get into any kind of library, art gallery or museum? Maybe we should start charging people to come into the galleries of this House of Commons. We might retire the national debt. Of course we might go broke.


Mr. Cullen:: There are some relics in here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member says there are some relics in here. In that connection, I trust the member opposite noticed the news report the other day about the longevity of members of parliament.
We do not charge people to get into the Peace Tower or the rotunda of this building. We want people to come here. We want them to have a sense of history. We want them to visit Lower Fort Garry. It is a foolish policy to try to pay for the operation of it by these fees. I waved goodbye to the Minister of Indian Affairs when he left at ten o'clock, for his answers have not been satisfactory. I hope his parliamentary secretary will do a lot better.

May 8, 1975
Adjournment Debate


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the hon. member is that the people of western Canada have paid for the use of parks for 40 years. Some of the people in eastern Canada are now beginning to discover the virtue of paying for parks.
Parks Canada has recently undergone a period of expansion which included increasing the number of national parks and national historic parks and sites, as well as taking over operation of historic canals in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia which are part of the newly created ARC branch, Agreements for Recreation and Conservation.
Although the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has raised the issue of entrance fees at Lower Fort Garry, I would like to note there has been a growing demand for parks facilities. I would like to lead into some of the background of the decisions about which he speaks.
Last year there were more than 21 million visitors to parks across Canada, almost double that of ten years earlier. Parks Canada has been striving to meet this demand with increased facilities. However, in many instances this expansion has been at the expense of the older, established parks in the system which have not had the general servicing they once enjoyed due to the pressing priority of funding to the newer park areas.
To meet this growing challenge, and subject to parliamentary approval, Parks Canada will undertake a $376 million development program during the next five years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At Lower Fort Garry?


Iona Campagnolo: I am getting to Lower Fort Garry. Operating and maintenance expenditures during this period are expected to be $500 million. During the previous five years, Parks Canada spent $157 million on capital and $226 million on operations and maintenance. With the vast improvement anticipated by the consequent upgrading of park facilities with this increase in funding, Parks Canada is naturally required to produce greater revenues. In the instance brought forward tonight, the capital and operating maintenance expenditures over the next five years at Lower Fort Garry are estimated at $6.5 million.
These revenues from the newly imposed fees at Lower Fort Garry are forecast at $0.9 million for that same five year period. Our revenues will therefore represent approximately 14 per cent of our total cost. The majority of Canadians, through their taxes, will therefore bear the majority of the cost, while a small percentage will be borne by the actual users.
The hon. member has stated certain charges that I would like to re-assess. Originally it was our intention to charge $2 for adults and $1 for children for the cost of admission. After extensive review, the following schedule of rates was agreed upon: For every person over 16 years of age, $2; for every person under 16 years of age, 50 cents; for a family group entering together regardless of the number of persons over or under 16 years of age, a maximum of $4-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to her has, alas, expired.


PUBLIC SERVICE-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN REGIONAL PAY RATES IN DISADVANTAGED PROVINCES
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pursue my question of April 28 concerning regional rates of pay in Canada for federal employees, a subject which is causing understandable concern and unrest among citizens who are affected.
I have tried to be reasonable in presenting the case but it is impossible for me to believe there can be any justification for the present differences in pay rates, nor can I be persuaded that the policy fits in with what are supposed to be our national goals-equality of opportunity, an end to regional disparity, and the maintenance of human decency. It is evidently the policy of the government not only to maintain the discrepancy in regional rates but to expand the present practice.
The whole basis upon which regional pay rates are established is that it costs less to live in certain parts of the country. However, in present conditions this contention is out of date, and this being the case the whole trend should be reversed. Rather than pay rates in Newfoundland, for example, being lowest and those in Vancouver being the highest, the reverse should be true at a time when the cost of living in Newfoundland is the highest in Canada. So the present policy is unfair, as well as lacking in sense. Not only is it contradictory to the objective of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which is to overcome regional disparity; it is preventing the achievement of that goal. As I have indicated, the Treasury Board is operating on the basis of discrimination against federal employees in the Atlantic region.
What the government is really saying is that federal firefighters are not as capable of protecting an aircraft if, God forbid, one burns in Newfoundland as if it burns in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg or Vancouver. It is saying that the Canadian passenger is less a Canadian after he leaves Montreal to fly east. What it is really saying is that the federal nurse who serves the veterans in Camp Hill, Halifax, or in the veterans' wing in St. John's, Newfoundland, is treating her patients with less care than that received by patients in other parts of Canada. What it is really saying is that the heavy equipment operator cannot perform his duties as a snow cleaner, for example, in Newfoundland as well as those who work in other parts of the country, or that the safety factor is of less importance.
I should like the minister to explain to me how, to give one example, a company which has contracted to manage the Deer Lake Airport can pay higher salaries to its employees than the Ministry of Transport under regional pay rates. How can I give an answer to the secretary-treasurer of a component of the Public Service Alliance when he expresses the feeling of his membership that Treasury Board is adamant in trying to destroy the national pay structure for federal firefighter as well as other groups? How can I explain to a heavy equipment operator why, after he has worked for ten years, at $3.54 an hour, he is not deserving of equality in pay rates although his son,

May 8, 1975

working between school terms, can earn as much as he earns by working as a carpenter's helper?
Something has to be wrong, and while I appreciate the difficulties experienced by government it is ridiculous that qualified personnel in the Public Service should be classified as lesser Canadians in certain parts of our country though they perform duties equal to those carried out in other parts of the nation. I hope the minister will recognize the inequity which exists, and correct it in the interest of all that is right for Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the problem which the hon. member has raised is not an easy one. It is not, of course, a question of justice or injustice. I think we have to look at two Sides of the question. The government wants to be equitable in its treatment of its employees, and pay rates comparable with those paid outside the service to those in similar occupations.
The other day I was talking with the provincial Minister of Finance for the New Brunswick government. He was complaining that some of our civil servants are too well paid and that we are raiding his civil service because he cannot pay them that much. You can appreciate the problem.
Let us take the case of a secretary, a plumber or a carpenter, or some such occupation. We want to pay these people the prevailing rate in the area. Because of our potential we could pay higher rates but we would then create a lot of pressure on the local economy. Really good regional rates will take into account the cost of living in the regions.
This is not a question of discriminating. We want to be absolutely neutral on regional rates. We want to pay our employees at the same level as the municipalities, provinces, and private sectors in the area or locality are paying. This is just fair to the various regions. If we pay the national level in a little village or a town, everyone will want the same level, and some of the local governments cannot afford this.
I have received complaints about this. Of course it depends very much on the kind of occupation involved. We are not in competition for local manpower in the various areas. Take the postal workers, for example. We are not competing with another system so we pay them at the national rate. When we are competing with the locality for local manpower we want to be fair to the local economy. This is something we are debating and negotiating with the unions in some areas.
We saw an example of this last year in regard to the firefighters working at Vancouver. Because they have a national rate they were getting $2 less than the firefighters working for the city of Vancouver. I felt it was unfair, and my predecessor was willing to give them the prevailing rate for firefighters in Vancouver. The union said no, they wanted the national rate. So the thing works both ways.
When we are in competition we have to make sure our employees are as well paid as the local people, but not too well paid in relation to them, because soon after that the local people complain that they are being raided by the
Adjournment Debate
federal civil service. They complain that we are taking away their best manpower by paying them at higher rates.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but his time has expired.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-INFLATION-GOVERNMENT POLICY ON RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES DOLLAR
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, on April 18 in reply to a question put by me concerning what steps the government was taking to ensure that the Canadian dollar would not be allowed to drift down and remain at the 96-cents to 98-cents level in terms of the United States dollar, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said:
-it is Canadian policy that the dollar respond to market forces and that any intervention by the governor of the bank would be only to assure that the float does not have any ... dirt in it.
The Prime Minister was not being candid with the Canadian people in that statement. To suggest it is Canadian policy that the dollar should respond to market forces and any intervention by the government is only to ensure that the float does not have any dirt in it, is totally misleading.
The government guides the market and, as it guides it, the government influences the exchange rate of our dollar with other currencies, in particular that of the United States. While the Prime Minister was misleading parliament with that answer he gave to my question Wood Gundy was reporting.
We expect the authorities will continue to support the dollar if need be by continuing to run down reserves. The Canadian dollar could easily fall to the 97-cent level, in terms of the U.S. dollar, in the next few months.
We have to take a look at the government's policy and what it is costing the Canadian public. The four point drop in the Canadian dollar in terms of inflation, as a result of higher import costs to Canadians, is going to add approximately 1 per cent to the level of inflation in this country.
The other factor I believe we should realize in this House is that by following a high interest level in this country the government in fact is insisting for example that those who have mortgages, will have to carry the cost of the national deficit on their backs. Translated into terms that are perhaps understandable to all of us in this House, I would point out that the government in requiring present domestic mortgage rates-and let there be no doubt that it is government policy to have a mortgage rate of 10 3A per cent in this country-is subjecting a man who has a $40,000 mortgage to an extra cost of $875 a year compared to the American level of 8 per cent for the same mortgage. If this rate is maintained for a full 25 years of amortization, the cost to a Canadian is $21,861.
The fact is that the Prime Minister knows that through the Bank of Canada he is influencing mortgage rates in this country, and in turn is causing the average home owner to pay a severe penalty for the trade deficit we are now running with the rest of the world.

May 8, 1975
Adjournment Debate
Speaking about the trade deficit, I think the government must answer-and I would hope it would answer at an early date in this House-for the sad unproductivity we have, so far as our unit costs in the world are concerned. The Citibank in its April 1975, bulletin suggested a comparison of labour costs in the various countries as against the United States.
It is interesting to note that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) took over in 1970 hourly compensation in Canada was 75 per cent of that in the United States. In 1974 it had gone up to 86 per cent. The output per man hour in 1970 was 88 per cent. In the past year it actually went down to 87 per cent. The staggering thing is that we have lost entirely the unit labour advantage we had in 1970. In 1970 it was 85 per cent of the American while today it is 99 per cent. That is the situation into which the Minister of Finance has got us. The Minister of Finance now suggests there is a new system called recycling. He is running around the world trying to get money to cover the trade deficit which is accruing at an alarming rate.
Let us face the facts. What he is suggesting is that through recycling he will pile debt on debt in this country. If you cycle far enough there is no surer way to put this country in a disastrous situation, and I think the Minister of Finance, instead of being candid with the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister instead of being candid with us, are not facing the facts. We have lost our competitive position in the world. We are running up, according to Industry, Trade and Commerce figures given us in committee only two nights ago, a decline of 7 per cent in current volume terms in our trade with the rest of the world. A staggering deficit is coming. I suggest it is government policy deliberately to keep domestic interest rates high in this country in order that we can attract foreign funds through this process called recycling. That is, they will try to get back some of the money that is being lost through the trade deficit with other nations at a higher interest cost.
One of the groups in this country that is going to pay dearly for this government policy is made up of the mortgage holders. As I have stated, the total cost on an annual individual basis is almost $800. I believe this warrants a proper answer from the Prime Minister. I think that the government must be more candid with the Canadian public on what exactly is its policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, when one listens to the conclusions reached by the hon. member through his convoluted reasoning, the word that comes readily to mind is claptrap.
The Canadian dollar has fallen somewhat in recent months. But I might point out that its value is still high relative to its level in recent years. Indeed, since observance of the par value of $92.5 U.S. cents was suspended on May 30, 1970, the Canadian dollar has risen by more than 5 per cent.
The advantages and disadvantages of a changing exchange rate cut both ways. While a decline in the value of the Canadian dollar adds to the cost of our imports, it also provides a competitive edge to our exporting industries. The converse is true when the dollar rises, of course. Generally, we cannot label movements in the Canadian dollar as unambiguously beneficial or harmful for our economy.
In any event, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pointed out on April 18, it is the policy of the government to let the value of the Canadian dollar be determined by market forces. Intervention by the government is confined to maintaining orderly market conditions, that is, to preventing erratic movements in the exchange rate. In fact Canada's official international reserves have fallen since May, 1974, when the Canadian dollar reached a peak of more than U.S. $1.04, by more than U.S. $400 million. This drop reflects the stabilizing role intervention has performed and does not run counter to our "clean float" policy.
Movements in the value of the Canadian dollar reflect changes in the many components of the balance of international payments. Whether the dollar goes up or down in any given period of time depends on whether the balance of changes leads to a greater or lesser net demand for Canadian dollars.
In the past year we have seen a substantial deterioration in the balance of current account, that is, in the value of goods and services we sell to non-residents less the amount we buy from them. In 1974 the deterioration amounted to almost $1.5 billion. Preliminary numbers for 1975 suggests some further decline has occurred this year. These developments in the current account reflect the weakness which prevades the economies of our major trading partners. This has kept our exports down. On the other hand, Canadian imports have been sustained in line with the relatively favourable conditions we have experienced here at home.
Whether or not such developments cause a currency to decline depends on the concomitant movements in the capital account, that is, the extent to which net borrowing from non-residents increases sufficiently to finance the current account decline. In 1974 net capital inflows into Canada increased by more than enough to finance our growing current account deficit. Nor do we anticipate any problem financing our net imports in 1975.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Claptrap versus claptrap.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
May 8, 1975


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
No. 1,373-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in each one of the Latin American countries?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in each one of these countries?
No. 1,374-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Somalia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,375-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Ethiopia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,376-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Uganda?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,377-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Malta?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,378-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Tchad?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,379-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Cyprus?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,380-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Bangladesh?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,381-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Pakistan?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,382-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in India?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,383-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Sri Lanka?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,384-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Fiji?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,385-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Hong Kong?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,386-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Korea?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,387-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Maldives?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,388-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in W. Samoa?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,389-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Kenya?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,390-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Liberia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,391-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1. What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Malaysia?
[Stage Direction]
May 8, 1975
2. What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,392-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Singapore?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,393-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Burma?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,394-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1 What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Ghana?
2. What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,395-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Gambia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,396-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Philippines?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,397-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Turkey?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,398-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Iran?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,399-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Indochina?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,400-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Thailand?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,401-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1. What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Indonesia?
2. What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,402-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Nigeria and Sierra Leone?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in these countries?
No. 1,403-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Tanzania and Mauritius?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in these countries?
No. 1,404-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Malawi?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,405-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Zambia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,406-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Namibia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,407-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Rhodesia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,408-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in British Honduras?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,409-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Jamaica?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,410-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Antigua?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
May 8, 1975
[Stage Direction]
No. 1,411-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Barbados?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,412-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Dominica?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,413-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Grenada?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,414-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in the Windward Islands?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,415-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Montserrat?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,416-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in St. Kitts?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,417-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in St. Lucia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,418-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in St. Vincent?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,419-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Guyana?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,420-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Trinidad and Tobago?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,421-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Senegal?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,422-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Mali?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,423-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Mauritania?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,424-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Guinea?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,425-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Tunisia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,426-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Madagascar?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,427-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in the Ivory Coast?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,428-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Niger?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,429-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Haute-Volta?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,430-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Togo?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
[Stage Direction]
May 8, 1975
No. 1,431-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Dahomey?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,432-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Algeria?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,433-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Morocco?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,434-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Zaire?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,435-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Rwanda?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,436-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Burundi?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,437-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Congo-Brazzaville?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,438-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Cameroon?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,439-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in the Central African Republic?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
No. 1,440-Mr. Paproski-January 30
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past two years for development assistance in Gabon?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Nos. 1373 - 1440 1. Financial Contributions ($l,000's)
[Stage Direction]
COUNTRY
[Stage Direction]
1972-73
[Stage Direction]
1973-74
[Stage Direction]
Latin America Brazil
[Stage Direction]
3,098.3
[Stage Direction]
1,133.3
[Stage Direction]
Columbia
[Stage Direction]
5,010.3
[Stage Direction]
3,707.8
[Stage Direction]
Peru
[Stage Direction]
168.8
[Stage Direction]
662.0
[Stage Direction]
Haiti
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
154.5
[Stage Direction]
Cuba
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
425.9
[Stage Direction]
El Salvador
[Stage Direction]
16.0
[Stage Direction]
88.3
[Stage Direction]
Honduras
[Stage Direction]
531.1
[Stage Direction]
305.3
[Stage Direction]
Guatemala
[Stage Direction]
129.9
[Stage Direction]
49.0
[Stage Direction]
Nicaragua
[Stage Direction]
13.4
[Stage Direction]
412.8
[Stage Direction]
Costa Rica
[Stage Direction]
1.0
[Stage Direction]
46.3
[Stage Direction]
Ecuador
[Stage Direction]
567.1
[Stage Direction]
1,072.9
[Stage Direction]
Bolivia
[Stage Direction]
4.7
[Stage Direction]
560.9
[Stage Direction]
Chile
[Stage Direction]
2,106.4
[Stage Direction]
2,154.4
[Stage Direction]
Anglophone Africa Somalia
[Stage Direction]
Ethiopia
[Stage Direction]
511.4
[Stage Direction]
1,509.6
[Stage Direction]
Uganda
[Stage Direction]
1,656.8
[Stage Direction]
1,151.2
[Stage Direction]
Malta
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
7.5
[Stage Direction]
Cyprus
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
Kenya
[Stage Direction]
2,245.8
[Stage Direction]
6,191.2
[Stage Direction]
Liberia
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
Ghana
[Stage Direction]
5,207.5
[Stage Direction]
5,664.7
[Stage Direction]
Gambia
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
Nigeria
[Stage Direction]
12,604.0
[Stage Direction]
11,983.2
[Stage Direction]
Sierra Leone
[Stage Direction]
1.0
[Stage Direction]
299.7
[Stage Direction]
Tanzania
[Stage Direction]
6,224.2
[Stage Direction]
17,667.5
[Stage Direction]
Mauritius
[Stage Direction]
79.0
[Stage Direction]
141.8
[Stage Direction]
Malawi
[Stage Direction]
1,085.8
[Stage Direction]
271.0
[Stage Direction]
Zambia
[Stage Direction]
2,098.2
[Stage Direction]
2,349.7
[Stage Direction]
Namibia
[Stage Direction]
16.6
[Stage Direction]
34.8
[Stage Direction]
Rhodesia
[Stage Direction]
81.7
[Stage Direction]
89.5
[Stage Direction]
Francophone Africa Tchad
[Stage Direction]
237.9
[Stage Direction]
224.3
[Stage Direction]
Senegal
[Stage Direction]
4,846.0
[Stage Direction]
4,743.2
[Stage Direction]
Mali
[Stage Direction]
203.2
[Stage Direction]
436.7
[Stage Direction]
Mauritania
[Stage Direction]
83.8
[Stage Direction]
289.7
[Stage Direction]
Guinea
[Stage Direction]
14.2
[Stage Direction]
20.9
[Stage Direction]
Tunisia
[Stage Direction]
16,422.1
[Stage Direction]
26,723.2
[Stage Direction]
Madagascar
[Stage Direction]
629.3
[Stage Direction]
433.2
[Stage Direction]
Ivory Coast
[Stage Direction]
6,543.0
[Stage Direction]
4,233.1
[Stage Direction]
Cameroon
[Stage Direction]
4,580.0
[Stage Direction]
3,911.4
[Stage Direction]
Niger
[Stage Direction]
7,841.0
[Stage Direction]
7,244.0
[Stage Direction]
May 8, 1975
[Stage Direction]
COUNTRY
[Stage Direction]
1972-73
[Stage Direction]
1973-74
[Stage Direction]
Central African Republic
[Stage Direction]
203.4
[Stage Direction]
160.6
[Stage Direction]
Upper Volta
[Stage Direction]
454.5
[Stage Direction]
693.7
[Stage Direction]
Gabon
[Stage Direction]
349.9
[Stage Direction]
522.0
[Stage Direction]
Togo
[Stage Direction]
2,371.7
[Stage Direction]
1,005.7
[Stage Direction]
Dahomey
[Stage Direction]
2,163.7
[Stage Direction]
1,303.1
[Stage Direction]
Algeria
[Stage Direction]
1,963.8
[Stage Direction]
2,060.1
[Stage Direction]
Morocco
[Stage Direction]
2,392.2
[Stage Direction]
2,627.1
[Stage Direction]
Zaire
[Stage Direction]
1,078.1
[Stage Direction]
3,538.5
[Stage Direction]
Rwanda
[Stage Direction]
1,662.4
[Stage Direction]
1,546.7
[Stage Direction]
Burundi
[Stage Direction]
197.6
[Stage Direction]
197.6
[Stage Direction]
Congo-B
[Stage Direction]
105.8
[Stage Direction]
487.3
[Stage Direction]
Asia
[Stage Direction]
Bangladesh
[Stage Direction]
48,300.0
[Stage Direction]
58,300.0
[Stage Direction]
Pakistan
[Stage Direction]
9,400.0
[Stage Direction]
38,500.0
[Stage Direction]
India
[Stage Direction]
78,257.0
[Stage Direction]
69,267.0
[Stage Direction]
Sri Lanka
[Stage Direction]
7,535.0
[Stage Direction]
5,649.0
[Stage Direction]
Fiji
[Stage Direction]
6.0
[Stage Direction]
33.0
[Stage Direction]
Hong Kong
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
3.0
[Stage Direction]
Korea
[Stage Direction]
23.0
[Stage Direction]
14.0
[Stage Direction]
Maldives
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
W. Samoa
[Stage Direction]
36.0
[Stage Direction]
14.0
[Stage Direction]
Malaysia
[Stage Direction]
2,840.0
[Stage Direction]
2,310.0
[Stage Direction]
Singapore
[Stage Direction]
470.0
[Stage Direction]
630.0
[Stage Direction]
Burma
[Stage Direction]
3,100.0
[Stage Direction]
1,700.0
[Stage Direction]
Philippines
[Stage Direction]
10.0
[Stage Direction]
14.0
[Stage Direction]
Turkey
[Stage Direction]
5,512.0
[Stage Direction]
332.0
[Stage Direction]
Iran
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
Indochina
[Stage Direction]
4,790.0
[Stage Direction]
5,170.0
[Stage Direction]
Thailand
[Stage Direction]
320.0
[Stage Direction]
420.0
[Stage Direction]
Indonesia
[Stage Direction]
14,470.0
[Stage Direction]
21,640.0
[Stage Direction]
Caribbean
[Stage Direction]
British Honduras
[Stage Direction]
800.3
[Stage Direction]
405.6
[Stage Direction]
Jamaica
[Stage Direction]
4,745.4
[Stage Direction]
3,243.1
[Stage Direction]
Antigua
[Stage Direction]
502.0
[Stage Direction]
139.1
[Stage Direction]
Barbados
[Stage Direction]
1,743.6
[Stage Direction]
2,929.6
[Stage Direction]
Dominica
[Stage Direction]
616.9
[Stage Direction]
606.7
[Stage Direction]
Grenada
[Stage Direction]
541.7
[Stage Direction]
345.5
[Stage Direction]
Windward Islands
[Stage Direction]
2,421.6
[Stage Direction]
1,902.2
[Stage Direction]
Montserrat
[Stage Direction]
794.0
[Stage Direction]
507.6
[Stage Direction]
St. Kitts
[Stage Direction]
405.3
[Stage Direction]
375.3
[Stage Direction]
St. Lucia
[Stage Direction]
1,353.7
[Stage Direction]
1,388.8
[Stage Direction]
St. Vincent
[Stage Direction]
526.2
[Stage Direction]
167.9
[Stage Direction]
Guyana
[Stage Direction]
1,535.8
[Stage Direction]
2,850.4
[Stage Direction]
Trinidad & Tobago
[Stage Direction]
646.7
[Stage Direction]
902.3
[Stage Direction]
2. Major long term development projects (those which are estimated to cost in excess of $5,000,000.).
Latin America Brazil:
Construction of a thermal power plant, expansion and improvement of distribution systems. Use of Canadian consultants. Total Cost: $9,320,000.
Colombia:
Construction of a hydroelectric generation plant plus transformers and transmission lines. Total Cost:$16,-
740,000.
Dominican Republic:
Extension of power services to 160 rural communities. Total Cost: $10,979,000.
Ecuador:
Heavy equipment from Canada in the initial stages of Eduadorian national electrification program. Total Cost: $8,888,000.
Anglophone Africa Kenya:
1.	Secondary and Minor Roads Gravelling: a six year program of co-operation between Kenya, Sweden and Canada to gravel 12,000 miles of rural roads up to all weather standards. Total Canadian Cost: $13,500,000.
2.	Kenya Technical Teachers College: design, construction, equipping, training and provision of technical assistance. Total Cost: $9,320,000.
Ghana:
1.	Kumasi Technical Training Institute: design, construction, equipping, training of 46 Ghanaians as teacher trainers, and provision of 18 Canadian teachers for initial 4 years. Total Cost: $6,700,000.
2.	Upper Region Water: provision of potable water to three major towns and 1,100 wells for villages in arid regions of Northern Ghana. Total Cost: $8,023,300.
3.	Highway Maintenance: design and implementation of roads maintenance plan for Ghana, plus provision of training, equipment and technical assistance. Total Cost: $6,606,000.
4.	Accra/Tema Water Supply: provision of engineering services, equipment, materials and supervisory personnel for expansion of water supply for urban and rural areas with combined population in excess of 1 million people. Total Cost: $10,302,700.
5.	Development Line of Credit: provision of $2,500,000 in Canadian goods (steel, building materials, earth-moving equipment) and $2,500,000 for priority agriculture projects (cotton, rice, maize and edible oil production).
Nigeria:
1.	Diesel Electric Locomotives: provision of 54 diesel locomotives and follow-up maintenance/training to Nigerian railways. Total Cost: $20,000,000.
2.	Programme Loan: provision of Canadian goods (road construction equipment, agricultural materials, fertilizer). Total Cost: $12,000,000.
Tanzania:
1.	Hale-Moshi Power: design and construction of transmission line. Total Cost: $6,150,000.
2.	Dar-es-Salaam Water: design and construction of urban water supply system. Total Cost: $31,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
May 8, 1975
3.	Great Ruaha Power: design and construction 180 miles of transmission line, including substations and transformers. Total Cost: $13,000,000.
4.	Topographical Mapping: topographical mapping of
142,00	square miles of west and central Tanzania. Total Cost: $7,450,000.
Zambia:
1.	Technical/Vocational Education: provision of up to 40 teaching and advisory personnel per year for up to 9 years, architectural services, equipment, and training in Canada. Total Cost: $7,960,200.
2.	Tank Cars and Rolling Stock: provision of 40 tank cars for movement of edible oils and up to 200 cars of rolling stock. Total Cost: $6,000,000.
Malawi:
Malawi Railway Development Project: to rehabilitate 56 miles of existing railway and construct 75 miles of new line to link the railroad's present northern terminus with rich agricultural lands surrounding the capital of Lilongwe. Total Cost: $22,360,000.
Francophone Africa Senegal:
Design, construction and staffing of a technical school. Tunisia
1.	Purchase of 22 diesel locomotives and maintenance equipment. Total Cost: $9,300,000.
2.	Line of Credit for purchase of goods and equipment in Canada. Total Cost: $15,000,000.
3.	Construction and design of a power transmission line. Total Cost: $11,475,000.
Ivory Coast:
1.	Design and construction of a power transmission line. Total Cost: $6,500,000.
2.	Line of credit for purchase of Canadian goods. Total Cost: $6,000,000.
Niger:
Construction of 460 Km. of road between Goure and N'Guime. Total Cost: $24,000,000.
Dahomey:
Design, construction and staffing of a technical school. Total Cost: $13,500,000.
Algeria:
1.	Design and construction of grain storage silos on 12 sites. Total Cost: $18,000,000.
2.	Line of Credit for agricultural equipment. Total Cost: $15,000,000.
Morocco:
1.	Establishment of two training centres for professors in mathematics and sciences. Total Cost: $9,265,000.
2.	Line of Credit for purchase of Canadian goods. Total Cost: $5,000,000.
Zaire:
Equipment and construction of micro-wave telecommunications network, including consultants and training. Total Cost: $37,030,000.
Rwanda:
Technical assistance, training, and equipment for National University. Total Cost: $23,292,900.
Congo:
1.	Survey and construction of railway including technical assistance and training. Total Cost: $10,000,000.
2.	Civil Aviation experts, training and provision of equipment. Total Cost: $9,000,000.
Cameroun:
1.	Polytechnic school, design, construction, equipment, staffing and training. Total Cost: $10,409,000.
2.	Road construction equipment. Total Cost: $5,500,000. Asia
Bangladesh:
1.	Tubewells for a joint World Bank irrigation project
-	$ 5,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
2.
[Stage Direction]
Railway track material
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
14,100,000.
[Stage Direction]
3.
[Stage Direction]
Commodity grant-Canadian fertilizer and raw materials
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
5,000,000
[Stage Direction]
4.
[Stage Direction]
Railway locomotives-to replace locomotives
[Stage Direction]
destroyed during the war
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
5,500,000.
[Stage Direction]
5.
[Stage Direction]
Design and construction of an Earth Satellite Station
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
8,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Pakistan:
[Stage Direction]
1.
[Stage Direction]
Seismic Equipment.
[Stage Direction]
The
[Stage Direction]
purchase
[Stage Direction]
of central data
[Stage Direction]
processing units
[Stage Direction]
for
[Stage Direction]
Oil
[Stage Direction]
and
[Stage Direction]
Gas Development Corporation
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
5,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
2.
[Stage Direction]
Construction of a 210 mile 500 KV transmission line,
[Stage Direction]
including provision of
[Stage Direction]
substation
[Stage Direction]
equipment
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
25,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
3.
[Stage Direction]
Program assistance commodities, provision of Canadian industrial raw materials such as aluminum
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
30,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
4.
[Stage Direction]
Line-of-Credit. In support
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
CIDA
[Stage Direction]
projects and of
[Stage Direction]
priority sectors. Includes mainly spare parts and equipment
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
10,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
5.
[Stage Direction]
Expansion of an hydro-electric dam project previously constructed by CIDA. Involves design manufacture and installation of two 40 MW generators
[Stage Direction]
10,000,000.
6.	Program assistance, Canadian fertilizer
-	9,200,000.
India:
1.	Idikki Hydel-Design, construction and monitoring of Idikki Hydro-Electric Project in Kerala State
-	21,150,000.
2.	Supply of components for diesel locomotives
-	6,000,000.
3.	Communications cables and microwave equipment
[Stage Direction]
to Bombay-Delhi-Calcutta Link
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
40,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
4.
[Stage Direction]
Line of Credit to the Oil and Natural Gas Commission of India
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
15,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
5.
[Stage Direction]
Line of Credit to finance general industrial goods.
[Stage Direction]
Disbursements took place this year,
[Stage Direction]
but the loan has
[Stage Direction]
now lapsed
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
16,500,000.
[Stage Direction]
6.
[Stage Direction]
Commodity/Fertilizer Loan 1972/73/74
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
50,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
7.
[Stage Direction]
Commodity/Fertilizer Loan 1973/74/75
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
50,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
8.
[Stage Direction]
Two Program Loans for Canadian fertilizer
[Stage Direction]
20,000,000.
9.	Design and equipping of a syndthetic rubber plant
-	7,500,000.
May 8, 1975
[Stage Direction]
Sri Lanka:
1. Provision of 14 diesel locomotives and spare parts to
Ceylon Government Railway	-	$ 6,100,000.
Malaysia:
1. Design and construction of electric power installations	-	46,500,000.
Philippines:
1. Establishment of an agricultural co-operative system in Cagayan Valley	-	6,800,000.
Indonesia:
1.	Design and construction of Sulawesi Bridges
8,800,000.
[Stage Direction]
2.
[Stage Direction]
Provision of Four Gas Turbines -
[Stage Direction]
12,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
3.
[Stage Direction]
Provision of 11 Twin Otters to MNA -
[Stage Direction]
8,800,000.
[Stage Direction]
4.
[Stage Direction]
Engineering Design of Jakarta Int'l Airport
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
6,650,000.
[Stage Direction]
Caribbean
Belize:
-Belize City Water Supply and Sewerage System. Design, construction of water supply and sewerage scheme. Total Cost: $6,970,000.
Barbados:
-Seawell Airport Project. The project involves the design, construction and equipping of a Passenger Terminal Complex and related works. Total Cost: $10,000,000.
Trinidad & Tobago:
-Piarco Airport Expansion. Engineering, architectural, and project management services and related procurement for the rehabilitation and expansion of
Piarco Airport facilities. Total Cost: $10,000,000.
Guyana:
-Guyana Electricity Commission. Supply and delivery to Guyana of Canadian goods for the construction of transmission lines and related distribution facilities. Total Cost: $5,150,000.
Leeward & Windward Islands:
-School Construction. The design, construction, furnishing and equipping of 14 schools in the Leeward and Windward Islands. Estimated Cost: $5,300,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 9, 1975