1975-05-26

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance arising from the reported statement of the Prime Minister during his tour of Ontario that no further consensus talks are scheduled between the ministry and the groups involved in the earlier discussions. Would the minister indicate to the House why this is so, particularly now that the budget has been delayed almost a month beyond what he had originally hoped?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is true that in a formal sense there will be no further talks until after the budget, in view of the fact that we now have to review options, but there have been technical discussions held since my last meetings, and as I said to some members of the press, it may be that I will want to have further meetings with some leaders of the business and labour communities.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It rather looks as though the consensus program is in the same condition as some of the animals delivered for human consumption in Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Without any such talks between the minister and the groups he had been meeting before, could the minister tell us what other input he will be seeking before making his final assessment on the prospect of a voluntary restraint program? When will the minister enter his final assessment stage, and will he make a final assessment before the budget?


John Napier Turner: I think that might be one of the matters I will want to deal with on budget night.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Speaking about budget night, in view of the delays, confusion and deception, which I hope has not been intentional, I must ask the minister whether he is prepared to stake his continuance in his present office on his ability to present a budget no later than June 23.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there are enough risks in this office already.


INFLATION-DATE OF DELIVERY OF WORKING PAPERS ON RESTRAINT GUIDELINES SUBMITTED TO CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Notwithstanding the minister's desire to remain silent about future developments-or the lack of them-in the consensus program, would he at least clarify a few points about what has been done up to this time. In view of the fact that Mr. Joe Morris of the Canadian Labour Congress has stated publicly that the first time he saw the federal government working paper on consensus was when he read it in the May 5 edition of the Toronto Star, could the minister tell the House when a copy of the working paper, as now tabled in the House, was delivered to the CLC and to Mr. Morris?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think they were delivered to the CLC before the documents were made public, and certainly before the executive meeting of the Canadian Labour Congress and the meeting of the council of the Canadian Labour Congress. I believe Mr. Morris had not had a chance to review the paper personally because he had been out of the country on official business.


INFLATION-SOURCE OF LEAK OF WORKING PAPER ON RESTRAINT GUIDELINES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. As the leak of the consensus paper apparently contributed to the hardening of positions and an atmosphere of confrontation, judging from the comments made by Mr. Morris, can the minister tell the House whether he has investigated where the leak occurred? If it occurred in his department what remedial action has been taken?


John Napier Turner: We have not found the source, Mr. Speaker.


INFLATION-POSSIBILITY OF MINISTER MEETING CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS TO DISCUSS COUNTER PROPOSALS TO RESTRAINT PROGRAM
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary. Considering that the minister, as of May 23 had not met with Mr. Morris to discuss the CLC nine point counter proposal, can the minister indicate whether or not he is prepared to meet with Mr. Morris to at least discuss the CLC proposals?

May 26, 1975
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is badly informed. I have met once with Mr. Morris, privately and once with his executive to discuss their nine point proposal.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the serious state of confrontation that seems to be developing between the Postmaster General and the postal employees, would the Prime Minister consider asking the Minister of Labour to make the services of his department available in a third party situation so that this problem might be resolved?


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. If the Prime Minister will not ask the Minister of Labour to make his services available, I wonder if the minister would offer those services himself?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Unfortunately I did not hear the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question was based on the serious state of confrontation developing between the Postmaster General and the post office employees. I asked whether the services of the Department of Labour, as a third party, could be made available?


John Carr Munro: I think the matter is already in competent hands, Mr. Speaker.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO DEAL WITH EMPLOYEES WHO CLAIM THAT THEY ARE SICK
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General.
Can the minister tell the House how many cities and employees are now affected by the epidemic which has struck postal employees, and what steps he intends to take in this regard?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I believe all postal employees in Montreal are sick today. As usual, we do not want sick employees to work while they are sick. Doubtless, when they come back to work tomorrow, they will bring proof that they are in good health.


THE BUDGET
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance arising out of the questions asked by my leader. Is the minister sufficiently aware of the likely content of the new budget to be able to indicate if legislation will arise out of it? If so, will that legislation be commenced before the summer recess? In particular is the minister aware of the kind of tax increases the Prime Minister promised when he spoke at Belleville?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the hon. gentleman's assumptions I do not know whether he would consider me sufficiently aware or not, but I think I know what I am doing.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As it has been indicated that during his trip to NATO, on which he leaves tomorrow, the Prime Minister will continue to pursue the elusive contractual link, has he reason to believe that his pursuit on this occasion will be more fruitful than it has been in the past and does he expect to be able to make an important announcement about this when he comes back?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for wishing me well on my NATO trip. The purpose of my trip to Brussels is not the pursuit of a consensus. My trip to Brussels is concerned with NATO rather than with the consensus. I will be speaking to the Prime Minister of Denmark and the Prime Minister of Luxembourg about the-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Missing link?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -contractual link. The hon. member is saying that it seems to be elusive. Perhaps he has not seen rather extensive reports which have been carried in the press to the effect that the commissioners' recommendation has been made to the commission, and the commission will be asking the council of ministers to authorize the beginning of negotiations with Canada. This, it seems to me, is very good progress indeed. Perhaps the hon. member does not understand it. I will try to explain it to him.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do understand it very well and I am sure all members of parliament do. As it has been indicated a number of times in the past that representations will be made to the commission to make possible the contractual link with Canada and nothing has happened so far, has the Prime Minister reason to believe that more concrete results will be obtained this time than were obtained in the past?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not expect to be able to show concrete results at the end of this week. As I have explained to the hon. member, it is now up to the council of ministers to agree to the recommendation put to them by the commissioners. I point this out to the hon. member: on the one hand, we have talked to the commissioners, both at the official and ministerial level and at my own level, and they are now making this type of recommendation to the council of ministers. On the other hand, while I tell the hon. member that I have been speaking to all the heads of government of the nine, the only two which remain are the ones I will be seeing this week. Therefore it will be up to them to decide whether they want to give this authority to the commission. I will not be able to make an announcement at the end of the week, as I believe the commission will be submitting this matter to the council of ministers some time in July.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I say sincerely that I think all members of parliament wish the Prime Minister well on his important mission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: We sincerely hope things work out the way he desires.


NATO-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASING OR ALTERING FORM OF CANADIAN COMMITMENT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister and relates to his forthcoming visit to Europe and his participation in the NATO meeting. Will the Prime Minister be accompanied by the Minister of National Defence on that trip, and will he and the Minister of National Defence bear in mind the criticism made by the United States Secretary of Defence, that several NATO allies are reducing their military budgets at a time when Russia is increasing its military budget. Will he and the minister be proposing increases in Canada's commitment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question, the ministers of national defence of the NATO countries will not be at the NATO meeting. They are meeting now, as the hon. member knows, and their meeting is preparatory to the meeting which will be held later this week between heads of government, plus their foreign ministers. Therefore our Minister of National Defence will not be present; neither will the other defence ministers be present.
To answer the second part of the question, let me remind the House that in this year's budget, over last year's, defence expenditures have been increased by some 12 per cent, give or take a fraction. This increase is the highest of any NATO country's, bar one. Therefore I think we are in a good position to say that we are permitting our defence establishment to keep up with inflation in real terms, whereas no other NATO country, with the exception of one, is. We think that this is a very genuine indication of Canada's concern and its determination to ensure that its participation in NATO is indeed up to standard. I hope that members opposite will not be asking us to exercise restraint in that area again.
Oral Questions


Donald W. Munro: Will the Prime Minister be indicating that Canada is planning to alter the form and nature of its commitment to NATO by withdrawing its land forces, which are short of modern tanks in any event, and perhaps beefing up its air commitment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That, I suppose, is a representation made by the member opposite. The Canadian government has, of course, reserved its right to make sure that its participation is the most effective possible. However, the overall commitment remains as has been stated by the minister and myself, namely that we will maintain our commitment to NATO and maintain it up to present standards. The question of whether one type of armament will be replaced by another is a question that is being reviewed at the present time.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. It relates to some of the Prime Minister's philosophic comments to students in Montreal about social unrest which coincided with the interesting speech by the Chief Justice in Vancouver about disrespect for the law. In view of a publication by Statistics Canada which indicates that murders have increased by 11.8 per cent in a year, does the Prime Minister feel it is conducive to unrest and/or respect for the law for the government to not apply the law presently on the statute books, namely the capital punishment law that is there until changed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think it important to remind the hon. member that the government has been acting entirely within the law. He seems to forget a very important part which is that the prerogative of mercy is part of our legal structure. It has been for many centuries. I hope the hon. member is not arguing for the abolition of that prerogative.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In view of the interesting comment in the press that hanging will be suspended until parliament considers new legislation, which will be sometime before December 1977, does the Prime Minister have any firm date in mind? If violent crime is increasing, does the Prime Minister not think measures to reduce it should be introduced now, if there are such measures, separate and apart from the emotional debate that capital punishment will invoke?
Mb'. Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is making the point I myself made a few times in the past. I think it is a very fundamental one. The government will want to make sure that citizens are reassured that our laws are being applied and being respected and that severe measures will be taken to ensure that criminals, either through the parole system or the conditional release system, are not put in a position where they can endanger

May 26, 1975
Oral Questions
the security of law abiding citizens. I repeat, I have made that point a few times. It is very basic to the government's approach to this whole problem.


GOVERNMENT VIEW OF EFFECT OF DELAY IN INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION RESPECTING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which is along the same lines. I have read his remarks in the national press and have listened to his answers today. Am I to understand that capital murder sentences will be postponed sine die until a new abolition bill is introduced in the House? When will that bill be brought forward? The publication indicated it was anticipated about 1977. Whatever position one might take on this subject, does the Prime Minister not think that is probably the most inhumane position one could take at this time, since there are eight people who have been convicted of capital murder?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it would be inhumane. However, it is not the government's intention to proceed in that way.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like a clear answer. Is it the Prime Minister's answer that, with the increase in crime as set out by the Chief Justice and himself over the weekend, the government proposes a postponement, not a commutation, of all capital murder sentences, leaving the whole matter in a vacuum and legal inhumanity?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the government's intention. I remind the hon. member that what was being asked was a specific question about the postponement of the execution of one man, Mr. Vaillancourt. I was not asked a general question, nor did I indicate that legislation would take that into account in the determination of its date.


DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION RESPECTING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps the Prime Minister could indicate to the House what the intentions of the government are with regard to legislation. Is it, for example, the intention to introduce legislation this fall? Could the Prime Minister be a little more precise as to what the government's intentions are?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I expect the Solicitor General will be making an announcement on these subjects in the fairly near future.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It concerns the detention and interrogation

at Toronto Airport of a most distinguished Arab scholar and statesman, Dr. Fayez Sayegh, who came to Canada last Sunday as guest of honour of the Canadian Arab Federation of which many Canadian citizens are members. Considering that this gentleman, as well as carrying his UN documents, was travelling on a diplomatic passport from the Government of Kuwait, will the minister investigate this regrettable discourtesy to a respected personage and a friendly state?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The facts, as stated, with regard to the inquiry in Toronto are generally correct. The gentleman in question admitted to membership in the Palestinian Liberal-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Liberal?


Robert Knight Andras: -Palestinian Liberation Organization. This, under Canadian law, makes him a member of a prohibited class. Consequently, he was told that he was a member of a prohibited class, but under the Nicholson doctrine which was stated in this House some years ago with regard to temporary entry, he was given a minister's permit for the express purpose of his visit to Toronto and for a limited time only.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Is the minister indicating that all members of the PLO, whether they be priests, clergymen, pacifists, or what, are, in the view of the government, not admissible to this country?


Robert Knight Andras: The advice given by the Department of Justice is that the PLO is an organization, the members of which are prohibited entry except upon special permit.


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO PALESTINIAN LIBERATION ORGANIZATION MEMBERS ATTENDING CONFERENCE IN TORONTO
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, that is a most interesting answer. What does the hon. gentleman intend to do about the United Nations Congress on Crime which is to take place in Toronto in September and at which the PLO has the status of an official observer?


Robert Knight Andras: The action I described in response to the question by the hon. member for Hillsborough set out the policy in existence at present. That policy is being examined at this moment.


REASON FOR ALLOWING ENTRY OF LIEUTENANT-GENERAL DANG VAN QUANG FROM VIET NAM
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same minister, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that a United States State Department official has been quoted as saying that Lieutenant-General Dang Van Quang, presently residing in a luxurious home in Montreal, has always been No. 1 on the list of venal personalities who must be gotten rid of if Viet Nam were to be saved, and in view of the fact that another high-ranking United States official stated that Quang was perhaps the epitome of everything that was
May 26, 1975

wrong in South Viet Nam, can the Minister of Immigration explain just how this gangster was allowed to enter Canada and just how long it will take the department to eject him in the interest of maintaining at least a semblance of fair play in our Immigration Department?


Robert Knight Andras: General Quang, his wife and three children are in Montreal; I cannot attest to whether or not they are in luxurious surroundings. The three children were admitted as visitors from April 19 to July 19, having been issued visitors visas in Saigon on April 15. The General was admitted on May 15 under a minister's permit, valid until May 13 of next year. He has applied to remain permanently. We will be examining that application. He applied under the refugee program, of which hon. members are aware. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment further until we have gathered all the information and attested to the validity or otherwise of the allegations, some of which the hon. member made. Our decision will be made at a later date.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister to what extent RCMP and immigration officials investigated this man's background, the amount of money that he was going to bring into the country, how much he in fact brought in and so on? How many of these facts were assembled before the minister granted a permit to this man to enter?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, he came in as a refugee. He had proceeded from Fort Chaffee in the United States and entered the country, but he is under a minister's permit which does not make any permanent commitment by the government to his residence here. All of the information that the hon. member is suggesting be gathered is now being gathered by the agencies to which he referred.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister tell the House what safeguards his department is taking or what investigation he is causing to be made to ensure that there is no interprovincial trade in meat designated unfit for human consumption?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have jurisdiction over all meat that is traded interprovincially. It is supposed to carry an inspection stamp; it is supposed to be inspected as fit for human consumption. Any meat used for pet food does not come under our jurisdiction.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister what steps he is taking to ensure that meat unfit for human consumption or meat that has not been inspected by his department is not getting into other provinces, in view of the revelations now taking place in Quebec?
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, under the British North America Act we have authority to inspect plants within our jurisdiction. I have received a complete report which will take several minutes or even longer to read, but I should be glad to put something together or table it if that is what the hon. member wants.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO INCREASE FEDERAL INSPECTION OF MEAT IN QUEBEC
James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister might agree to table the report, but in the meantime could he tell the House what initiatives he is taking with the government of Quebec to increase federal inspection jurisdiction in the province, in view of the fact that more than 85 per cent of all Ontario meat is now federally inspected?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have offered the same services to any province of Canada. We are prepared to offer co-operation and provide our inspection services, etc. I understand that some talks have taken place between federal and provincial officials concerning provision of this inspection service, but we cannot force upon them our inspection services.


WHEAT-GOVERNMENT POLICY ON COLLECTION OF OVER-PAYMENTS-REASON FOR ALLEGED DELAY IN SENDING REQUESTS FOR PAYMENT
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that prior to the last election many over-payments were made to farmers under the two-price wheat special permits payment program, has it been the policy of the government since the election and is it still the policy to collect all these over-payments from the farmers?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is. As soon as the computer error which allowed these over-payments was discovered, letters requesting repayment were issued and a very high percentage of the amounts have now been refunded; but action is continuing in relation to the balance.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate whether any punitive action is contemplated or does the government intend to take to court farmers who are not in a financial position to repay these over-payments?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the usual collection procedures are in play, which means that if somebody intending to make a repayment wishes an arrangement over time, we will naturally take that into consideration, but not as a means of escaping payment. Legal action is instituted if a person refuses to make a payment.
6092

May 26, 1975
Oral Questions


Paul Yewchuk: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the error was discovered approximately on June 21 and letters were written and dated at that time, can the minister say why they were not sent to the farmers until after the election was held?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is not accurate. Many farmers received letters before the election was held.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. What assistance is the minister giving to aid school boards across the country to integrate immigrant children into the Canadian system and help ensure that racism will not be allowed to raise its ugly head in our Canadian cities?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the question of the education of children, whether immigrant or not, is primarily one of provincial jurisdiction and responsibility. However, in certain areas of the country there have been discussions with provincial authorities as to what assistance might be possible through the various range of federal programs, but no definite commitment to a program has been made as yet.


MULTICULTURALISM
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of multiculturalism. On March 3, 1975 the minister stated that the report by the Canadian Consultative Council on multiculturalism would be released in the near future. Would the minister indicate to the House when the report will be published and whether he intends to table it in the House?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the report is at the printers now. I am hoping it will be ready the latter part of June or mid-June and at that time I will be pleased to table it.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Would the minister say whether the government of

Canada is utilizing private mail delivery services in this country and, if so, why and at what cost?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the services being used are in any way competitive with the postal service. I am sure that such is not the case, but I shall surely inquire into the matter and submit an answer to the hon. member.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Peter Colwell Bawden: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I will direct to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the Post Office is still in a shambles, would the minister say why he is not fulfilling his responsibilities to the Canadian people by preventing further misleading advertising that assures Canadians of next day delivery, which is not true and does not work?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has some direct complaint about publicity seen or heard by him yesterday, he could submit such a complaint to me and I shall be glad to study it. But, in my opinion, he has not witnessed such publicity in recent days.


Peter Colwell Bawden: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister knows very well that the mail service in this country is not meeting the statements contained in advertising being presented right across Canada. I should like to know why the minister is not taking steps to do something about it, and why he has one set of rules for the government of Canada and another set of rules for business and other Canadians?


André Ouellet: For two reasons, Mr. Speaker. First, I fully trust the present Postmaster General, who will surely find a way to settle the conflict. Second, I have not witnessed such publicity in the past few days and I challenge the hon. member to submit to me such publicity if he has witnessed it recently.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the Minister of Manpower and Immigration took as notice a question that I asked him in regard to allegations by some police forces in the
May 26, 1975

Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
United States of improper conduct on the part of the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit, a police co-operative. Can the minister now report to the House?
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we have an annual membership in this particular group for which we pay $30. As the hon. member knows, our immigration policy is global in scope and we do subject people who are seeking permanent residence in Canada to character and background checks. We have been members of this organization but I am not familiar with its style of operation. It is rarely used and we are examining continuation of membership in it at the present time.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A supplementary question. The question I asked the minister last week was whether or not he could assure the House that allegations made by some United States police forces of improper activity on the part of the LEIU were in fact incorrect. Secondly, may I ask the minister why his department feels it is necessary to belong to a police co-operative to gain information of possible criminal activities by individuals as opposed to relying on the policing ability of the RCMP to supply that information?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we do not conduct surveillance in other countries, but we do rely on the exchange with friendly nations of information of a police nature. As for the particular organization to which the hon. member referred, I indicated that we are taking a look at it. I was not aware of these allegations until I heard them the other day. I am not even sure whether they are true. Our examination of the matter will involve checking the validity of the allegations or otherwise.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question for the Solicitor General. If the services provided by the LEIU in terms of providing police information on individuals who might be involved in crimes is as important as appears to be the case as far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned, why does the RCMP not belong to the organization instead of relying upon the Department of Manpower and Immigration to supply information generated by the LEIU for the RCMP when that information originates with police forces across North America?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this organization provides the information in the manner described by the hon. member, but the RCMP obtains its information with regard to criminal activities from police forces in other countries and not from private organizations.


Henry Perrin Beatty: One of the officials said they did.


ALLEGED ILLEGAL DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS BY CHAIRMAN OF CANADIAN LIVESTOCK FEED BOARD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, in Belleville the right hon. Prime Minister was reported as agreeing that Dr. Morgentaler was a fine humanitarian, and quoted as follows:
I have known him for 20 years. The point is that he deliberately broke the law. When a man deliberately does this he can't complain about being put in jail.
If this reporting is correct, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the same logic and justice should not apply to the minister responsible and the Chairman of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board who were examined under paragraph 38 of the Auditor General's report and found to have deliberately disbursed $822,000 from their funds after being advised they had no legal authority to do so?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I fail to see, first of all, that the Prime Minister could be expected to have that information at his fingertips and, even if he did, how he could give that information without expressing a legal opinion on a matter outside his jurisdiction.


OIL-PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL FLOOR PRICE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the International Energy Agency is meeting tomorrow and one of the items on the agenda for discussion is a floor price for world oil, could the Prime Minister indicate what position Canada is taking? Are we supporting the proposition that there should be an international floor price for oil established?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think we would like to see such a price established, but we are not very hopeful about the possibility. The minister at the meeting will be trying to respond to other governments' positions and come back to this government with a reference to see if we want to take any steps in Canada. I would just remind the hon. member that we have, of course, had an administered price in Canada now for a year and a half, and in that sense it is not contrary to government thinking to have a certain price for oil, but whether this is the kind of result we can get in Paris is something I cannot predict.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I would again ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the minister in Paris is putting forward any specific figure as being the price that Canada thinks might be acceptable as the floor price for oil on the international market?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have talked about figures in Cabinet but the minister will not put any binding
29561-42>/2

May 26, 1975
Oral Questions
commitment of the government to that meeting. He will explore the positions of other governments.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance regarding the advice he is getting. In light of the fact that the financial and economic police program of the Department of Finance has a budget in excess of $16 million and employs almost 700 people, will the minister explain why his department cannot provide him with sufficient advice and data for an earlier budget, and why he has to wait for the GNP figures at the end of the month?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I did not give as a reason for delaying the budget the fact of having to wait for GNP figures. I spelled out xne reasons in full for the hon. member for York-Simcoe on Friday.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain why the budget is being delayed to that date, because this does not give the country much time to consider its implications, and does not give parliament very much time for a budget debate?


An hon. Member:: You have all summer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My distinct impression is that the Minister of Finance just said he has already given an answer to the question as to why the budget will be coming down on June 23. If the hon. member has another supplementary question he might want to put it now.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance now in a position to present some information for which I asked him regarding wage increases in certain industries and their effect on our competitive position and productivity? He said he would table that information at the appropriate time. In view of the delayed budget and the relatively short period of time there will be to examine it, it would be very useful if the minister could present that information at an early date. Has he collected this information in respect of industrial wages, productivity and how this affects our competitive position, and will he make it available immediately?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check my response to the hon. gentleman, as I do not think I gave him an undertaking to table that information. I will look at exactly what I did say. I think I said I would take his request under consideration, and I will still do that.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not able to give the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion notice of this question. Recently the financial support which was given jointly by the provincial and federal governments to the Rural Development Council of Prince Edward Island was removed. Was this done with the prior knowledge of the minister or at his request?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I can say quite specifically that it certainly was not with any prior personal knowledge. Whether there were any discussions with any of my officials I am not sure. I received two wires and a letter today making representations in this regard. They were on my desk when I arrived. I have asked that there be a thorough examination to let me know what the background is.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board, or, in his absence, to the acting and I hope activated minister. It arises by reason of the fact that negotiations and conciliation proceedings have broken off between the board and the ship bargaining unit for Esquimau and Halifax, as noted by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich last Thursday. Since the strike vote will be taken June 3, and since the price spread is $1.05 per hour, will the acting minister or the minister try to hold at least that line for Atlantic workers who are very restive in respect of equal pay? I might indicate that the conciliator, Mr. O'Connor, agrees with me.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, while the views of the conciliator are not binding, the views of Mr. O'Connor are always taken into account.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, with the publication of the December and January list of accepted DREE offers, a check of which indicates none from British Columbia, would the Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion indicate the state of negotiations with the provincial government toward enlarging the areas in that province that are to be designated?
May 26, 1975


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered this question in part on a previous occasion. There are three or four areas of negotiation at the present time. One, as I recall, has to do with the infrastructure of Fort Nelson, and another has to do, not necessarily with a geographic designation but the designation of a particular industry or aspect of it, namely the forest industry in that part of the country. There are one or two others the government is putting forward, but I cannot give the hon. member a specific report on the status of these negotiations at the present time, other than that I have been told progress is being made.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, in view of the apparent non-acceptance of applications from that province, could the minister indicate whether, during the negotiations with British Columbia, more stringent criteria have been set for acceptance than for those agreements signed with other provinces?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot really give the hon. member an answer on that today because I do not know just how far the talks have progressed at the official level in terms of what the British Columbia government wishes to put into the agreement, but I will make inquiries and hopefully will be able to give a progress report within a short time.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development arising from his most welcome illustration in an Ottawa address on Saturday night that the government has finally decided to accept certain representations from my constituency. I should like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to confirm to the House that $30 million will be spent on expanding and improving the St. Lawrence Islands National Park located primarily in the constituency of Leeds and partly in Kingston and the Islands.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and may I tell him that it has nothing to do with the picture of him that was published in the Prince George Citizen. In light of the minister's statement in the House of Commons on May 14 to the
Oral Questions
effect that that he is prepared to close and phase out the offices and services of his department in areas where native leaders and their people consider it in their interest to do so, can the minister inform the House how he is responding to demands from the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs for immediate action on the cutoff land question and land claims and their determination not to accept any further services from his department's offices in British Columbia?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, basically we have supported for some time now the position of the Indian people of British Columbia and, more particularly, the position of the Union of B.C. Chiefs vis-a-vis cut-off lands. We feel that so far as this matter is concerned the ball is in the court of the provincial government in Victoria.


Frank Oberle: In light of that, is the minister prepared to phase out the many offices and costly services in British Columbia which the native people there consider to be the major hurdle standing in their way to settling their land claims and to self-determination in areas of cultural, social and economic development?


J. Judd Buchanan: We are certainly prepared to discuss this aspect. I do not accept the suggestion that there is a high correlation between that and the settlement of either cut-off lands or the broader land claims question. I think these are two clearly separate items.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. However, in his absence perhaps I may direct it to the acting minister or to the parliamentary secretary. Since it has been revealed by Professor Myron Gordon of the University of Toronto in the recent CTC hearings that Air Canada's operation is significantly less efficient than that of CP Air, in spite of the restrictions imposed upon CP Air's transportation policy, can the acting minister say if the government is giving any consideration to reviewing the existing national transcontinental policy which restricts the air capacity of CP Air to 25 per cent of the traffic, so that the beneficiaries in this case might be the passengers who might get a more equitable air fare structure?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, of course the minister may be considering this matter within the department, but to the best of my knowledge no change has been made or is contemplated with regard to the transcontinental policy. I have not seen the statements of the professor to whom the hon. member referred, but perhaps it is because the CP structure is less complex than that of Air Canada that he was able to reach the conclusion he did.

May 26, 1975
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In light of the fact that the evidence that has been documented by Professor Gordon cites a number of inefficiencies-evidence that has been well documented-and that, as he points out, there is no evidence that Air Canada is being saddled with uneconomic routes or low fares, can the minister advise the House whether this matter will be taken into consideration during the total review of the transportation policy, in this case the national air transportation policy?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that that is the case. Indeed, some such general discussions have already taken place at the cabinet committee level of one kind or another and in various official groups.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the 1976 Olympics is an event of enormous national interest and importance, and in view of the fact that my constituents must travel 800 miles to Vancouver and back to place their orders and subsequently travel another 800 miles to pick up their tickets, will the minister assure the House that this asinine situation will be sensibly resolved, or are the people of Kootenay West second class citizens?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are any more second class citizens in the hon. member's constituency than in others. If he wants to ask the question to my colleague the President of the Treasury Board or to the Postmaster General, I am sure one or the other will take it as notice and will see with the Olympics authorities what can be done to correct the deficiency mentioned by the hon. member.


Robert Hylton Brisco: My supplementary question is directed to the Postmaster General. Can he advise the House whether or not any re-examination is presently being conducted of the system, according to which citizens of Canada can obtain tickets to the Olympics in 1976 without driving some 400 to 800 miles, whatever the case may be? Right now the situation is completely ridiculous and out of hand.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am responsible for coins and stamps. Nevertheless, I will contact COJO today and try to get a more detailed explanation of precisely how people in that situation should obtain their tickets without suffering the inconvenience described by the hon. member.


CANADIAN WARPLANE HERITAGE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and it concerns the Canadian Warplane Heritage Association. Is the department sincere in its desire to ask this benevolent association to purchase a very aged hangar at Mount Hope or to negotiate some other kind of deal?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as to the sincerity of the department, I can only reiterate the general understanding. Whether one can negotiate a special deal for this particular group, I think really this is still an open question.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Can he announce at this time or give any indication as to whom he will be appointing as the next lieutenant governor of Manitoba?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Last Wednesday, in response to a question on guidelines by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, the minister indicated he would arrange for consultation between senior officials from his office and the presidents and band chiefs in Nova Scotia. In view of the fact that the Saskatchewan Federation of Indians has expressed similar concern about the guidelines respecting local autonomy, will the minister give the same assurance to the native people of Saskatchewan and will he meet with the native leaders of that province?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there have been offers of similar meetings made to the Indian people of Saskatchewan. At the most recent one, although they were reluctant to meet with the acting director in that province-this creates problems. But I understand that discussions have been going on with some of the people at the band level. Of course, personally I have met them on several occasions, not on the guidelines but on other matters, and I am always happy to meet with the representatives of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians.
May 26, 1975


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE BAND FUNDING NOT CONDITIONAL ON ACCEPTANCE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES
Douglas Charles Neil: Since the minister indicated previously that the guidelines are of an interim nature, will he assure the House that until such time as consultation has taken place there will be no interruption in band funding, and will he also assure the House that band funding during this period will not be conditional upon the acceptance of guidelines?


J. Judd Buchanan: We have indicated that the guidelines which have been proclaimed will be going into force, but we are prepared, prior to the beginning of the next fiscal year, to discuss them and alter them if that seems the prudent course. We have indicated they are in effect. As to the other ones which have not yet been put in place, we are prepared to hear representations on them before they come into effect.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
MR STEVENS; MR. KAPLAN-PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN STANDING COMMITTEE-RULING BY MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On Friday, May 16, 1975, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) raised a question of privilege questioning the actions of hon. members in leaving one of the standing committees, and in turn questioning the action of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in allowing a minister to speak on the subject, during which time hon. members left the meeting, and thereafter refusing to put a question because of lack of quorum.
I indicated at the time of hearing the hon. member for York-Simcoe that my preliminary inclination was to reemphasize that the Chair would not sit in appeal of decisions which have taken place in a standing committee. However, because of the raising of this very interesting point I undertook to re-examine the precedents. I have done so and I cannot find any ground which should cause me to change my mind or to recommend to the House a change in that practice.
I might say, secondly, that the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), who was at the time of the hon. member's complaint the chairman of that committee and still is, but who has declined to act for an interim period pending the resolution of these matters, on the following day raised a question of privilege which took exception to the language of the hon. member for York-Simcoe in describing the actions of the chairman as being part of an obstruction of the work of the committee.
In respect of the word "obstruction", several meanings have been ascribed to it. One does not have to examine the precedents. It is not an infrequent occurrence in this
Privilege-Mr. Stevens; Mr. Kaplan House that one side refers to the actions of the other side as being an obstruction of one kind or another, so much so that on one occasion where precedent does provide some assistance the use of the word "obstruction" in respect of an individual and specific member was found to be not out of order-and I cite page 419 of May's eighteenth edition.
There cannot be much doubt, however, that the role of a chairman is considerably different in some respects, and because of the special connotation where the work of a chairman of a standing committee is involved, and because of the acceptable principle of refraining from commenting on the actions of the chairman, it may well be that that particular term if examined carefully could be an impropriety in respect of a description of the actions of a chairman. The traditional means, of course, for examining that conduct would be, first of all, by appealing the ruling of the chairman or his conduct to the committee as a whole, by requesting that the committee make a report on the incident, or raise a debate on a motion of censure by any member. Perhaps fortunately for the Chair, I do not feel a case has been put which causes me to decide that, because when the hon. member for York Centre raised that complaint originally, he sought at the conclusion of his alleged point of privilege a remedy when he said as follows:
That the question of my chairmanship ruling as to a quorum in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, as referred to by the hon. member for York-Simcoe in Hansard on May 20, 1975, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
In other words, the remedy sought by the hon. member for York Centre in raising his question of privilege initially was that his decision or handling of the matter be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-not the allegation of an hon. member in the committee. It may seem a technical point, but I hope it is not taken that way. The fact of the matter is that it seems to me the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for York-Simcoe is invalid from a procedural point of view because, once again, it relates to proceedings in a standing committee.
The subsequent question of privilege raised by the hon. member for York Centre is equally invalid because although the problem may have had some validity I will not decide that at the moment-it seems to me that a different remedy ought to apply than to the question raised by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. In that case, both hon. members made subsequent representations in the House and it would appear that both recognized the inherent difficulty in his own case and endeavoured to remedy it with a subsequent representation each in his own way:	the hon. member for York-Simcoe by
endeavouring the following day to accomplish by consent that which in my opinion could not be accomplished by his original point; and the hon. member for York Centre, on Friday, by seeking to attach to his original complaint the remedy which might have been more appropriate to it in the first instance.
In any case, I can only reiterate-I think I ought to observe this in setting aside both alleged questions of privilege-that by permitting the hon. member for York-Simcoe to proceed, as I have on several occasions already in this session, by permitting a member to go on initially with an alleged question of privilege concerning events in

May 26, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Stevens; Mr. Kaplan a standing committee, we are only inviting difficulty. It is a well established practice of this House-and one which recommends itself, upon reflection-that events which take place in a standing committee cannot only be questioned there in the manner in which I have cited, but also in other ways, and that this Chair ought not to sit as a court of appeal in respect of the proceedings in standing committees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore simply indicate that, this difficulty having arisen on both sides by first permitting the hon. member for York-Simcoe to establish this question of non-privilege and to speak for some time provoked responses from the other side, and in fairness it seemed to be desirable that in that situation the Chair should allow equal comment from both sides notwithstanding the fact that the Chair is firmly of the opinion that no question of privilege exists.
Accordingly, it seems to be the proper course in the future to insist that when questions of privilege are to be raised concerning events in standing committees, the notice must contain some singular feature which takes it out of the general area of the proceedings in standing committees, otherwise the Chair ought not to allow the member to raise his question in the House at all.
Finally, I will make two other observations. First, both members at one time or another suggested that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections ought to have these questions referred to it, which to me would seem to establish a precedent and initiate or encourage a practice whereby the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections would become some kind of court of appeal on the proceedings of other standing committees. It seems to me that nothing could be more unacceptable as a practice and should be more directly discouraged.
I will conclude simply by saying that if either hon. member feels that the grievance he has put forward, and which I feel compelled to set aside is still of sufficient strength that it ought to be dealt with further, the remedy of a substantive motion of censure by either member still remains, although it certainly seems to the Chair at this moment that the matter has had a pretty full airing.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because the Minister of Agriculture is about to leave the House and during the course of the question period he agreed to table certain documents with regard to the question I directed to him. I rise now to alert the minister to the fact that he will have an opportunity on the next order, or after that when tabling of documents is called, and I hope he will table these documents.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I did not say when I would table them. I will put them in proper order and proper perspective. Some of them are in the form of notes. I will put them in proper form and I hope to table them tomorrow.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
Sixth and seventh reports of Standing Committee on Agriculture, in both official languages-Mr. Smith (Saint-Jean).
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Otto Emil Lang: for leave to introduce Bill C-61, to provide a maritime code for Canada, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential or related provisions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[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: 1,227, 1,832, 1,921, 1,987, 2,080, 2,092, 2,119, 2,176, 2,226, 2,235, 2,236, 2,260, 2,263, 2,272 and 2,283.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,162 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2,443?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the purchase from public funds of a second armoured Cadillac automobile for the Prime Minister and to the Prime Minister's subsequent statement that the purchase was made at RCMP insistance (a) what are the names and positions of any and all members of the RCMP who played any part whatsoever in such insistance (b) on what date and by whom in the RCMP was the final decision made to insist on such a purchase (c) on what date and by whom was such insistance conveyed to the Prime Minister (d) what part, if any, did the Solicitor General have in this entire process (e) on what date and by whom were instructions given to the Department of Supply and Services to proceed with the purchase of the car?
2.	If the RCMP did not insist on such a purchase, for what reason did the Prime Minister state otherwise?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General
|Mr. Speaker.!

(Royal Canadian Mounted Police) and the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices as follows: The purchase of the 1974 vehicle was part of the original plan to have one vehicle for the protection of the Prime Minister and the second to be available for backup purposes when the first car is being serviced or repaired, and also for security of V.I.P.'s during state visits. When he was made aware of the plan, the Prime Minister insisted that the second vehicle not be bought until the matter be reconsidered by the R.C.M.P. and a written recommendation be made by the R.C.M.P. Such a recommendation was made by memorandum referred to below. In this light, the word "insist-ance" has been interpreted to mean "strong recommendation", and part 1 of the question has been answered in this vein. 1. (a) It is contrary to constitutional principles to identify individual public servants in matters of this kind. There were five officers of the R.C.M.P., involving the then commissioner, involved, (b) Following financial approval by Treasury Board, the then commissioner approved the purchase on May 4, 1974. (c) Privy Council was advised by the Director of Protective Policing in a memorandum dated November 7, 1973. (d) The Royal Canadian Mounted Police's recommendation to approve in principle the purchase of a second armoured limousine to provide security to the Prime Minister and visiting heads of state was approved by the Solicitor General and subNumber of
Order Paper Questions
mitted to Treasury Board for financial approval on March 8, 1973. (e) The officer in charge, Material Management Branch, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, advised the Department of Supply and Services by memorandum dated July 23, 1973.
2.	See reply to part 1.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	How many immigrant recruitment offices are there in (a) England (b) Germany (c) France (d) Italy (e) Greece (f) India (g) Hong Kong (h) Chad (i) the countries of South America (j) Haiti (k) Martinique?
2.	In each such country, what was the cost of operating the offices in the years (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974?
3.	In each such country, what is the approximate cost per immigrant for the operation of the offices?
4.	Ot those immigrants coming from West Africa, Martinique, and Haiti, how many applicants chose as their point of destination (a) British Columbia (b) Alberta (c) Saskatchewan (d) Manitoba (e) Ontario (f) Quebec (g) New Brunswick (h) Nova Scotia (i) Prince Edward Island (j) Newfoundland (k) the Yukon (1) the Northwest Territories?


Robert Knight Andras: (1) Country	Canada Manpower and
England	Immigration Offices 3
Germany	4
France	3
Italy	2
Greece	1
India	1
Hong Kong	1
Chad	0
South America	3
Haiti	1
Martinique	0
(2) Cost of Operating Offices (a)
1970-71	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74	1974-75(e)*749,500	*528,000	*481,500	*364,500	*438,000443,000	313,000	260,000	201,500	200,000364,000	360,500	279,500	226,000	204,500469,500	235,500	213,500	154,000	113,500147,500	108,500	111,500	93,000	91,000166,000	94,500	121,500	85,000	104,500370,500	199,500	237,000	183,000	191,000N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/AN/A	13,000	32,000	116,000	110,500N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	23,500N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
(a) Costs include only those chargeable to Immigration Vote 15. Costs paid by Department of External Affairs such as locally engaged staff (since 1971-72) and accommodation, etc., (since 1972-73) are not known.
(3) Approximate Cost Per Immigrant*
1970-71	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74	1974-75(e)* 35.67	* 52.69	* 39.24	* 16.44	* 12.6987.41	140.29	134.78	74.68	46.21138.13	155.25	117.73	62.39	31.8057.49	47.77	53.91	26.27	15.3631.98	35.65	41.29	24.34	25.9931.70	29.43	37.88	15.66	10.1461.06	39.41	37.68	14.59	17.27N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/AN/A	N/A	37.42	65.38	36.37N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	8.55N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
(e) Estimate
*Approximate cost per immigrant visa issued
(4) Country of last permanent residence Nfld. P.E.I.
*West Africa	10	-Martinique	-	-Haiti	-	-*West Africa	2	-Martinique	-	-Haiti	-	-*West Africa	4	-Martinique	-	-Haiti	-	-*West Africa	2	-Martinique	-	-Haiti	-	-1974	(first 9 months)*West Africa	8	-Martinique	-	-Haiti	-	-
stated destination.
N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.12	9	68	136	20-	-	14	1	--	2	794	32	610	3	55	164	15-	-	11	1	1	6	936	40	27	3	74	141	9-	-	11	1	--	6	884	41	216	5	99	492	25-	-	22	1	1-	4	2,109	56	77	6	407	873	43-	-	18	-	--	10	3,458	87	1
Y. and
Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	N.W.T.	Total5	20	20	-	286-	-	-	-	151	3	-	8382	11	18	280-	-	-	-	124	-	-	9898	32	11	289-	-	-	-	121	1	1	-	93610	60	52	761-1-	-	-	-	242	-	-	2,1788	54	180	1,586-	-	-	-	18-	8	3	-	3,567
*West Africa includes the following countries; Spanish Sahara, Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea-Portuguese, Guinea, Sierra-Leone, Liberia Ivory Coast, Ghana, Togo, Dahomey, Nigeria, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Congo (Republic of) Gambia, Angola, Zaire, Central
Airman Koniinli/* I hod Mnw>* T- T7_lx____________i ir l[DOT]

May 26, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date was Mr. Charles Guagliano of Hamilton, Ontario appointed to the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee and what were all his qualifications for this position?
2.	Was the appointment announced in a press release dated April 27, 1972 by the Minister of National Health and Welfare at the time?
3.	What fees and expense allowances are paid to members of the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee?
4.	(a) Was Mr. Guagliano's term of office to expire in October 1975 (b) did he resign on or about December 19, 1974 and, if so (i) was his resignation requested (ii) by whom (iii) for what reason (c) what were the reasons for his resignation?
5.	Is the government aware of any charges against Mr. Guagliano under the Criminal Code of Canada, and, if so (a) what are such charges (b) on what date were they laid?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Mr. Charles Guagliano of Hamilton, Ontario was appointed to the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee on April 13, 1972. The Canada Pension Plan statute directs that the advisory committee is to be composed of members who represent "employees, employers, selfemployed persons and the public". Mr. Guagliano's longstanding association with the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners was regarded as appropriate background for him to speak as an "employees" representative.
2.	Yes.
3.	A member of the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee is entitled to a per diem allowance of $100 a day for each day that he attends a committee meeting, and is also entitled to be re-imbursed for the reasonable travelling and living expenses incurred in the course of committee duties.
4.	(a) Yes. (b) Yes. (i) Mr. Guagliano resigned on his own initiative, (ii) Not applicable, (iii) Not applicable, (c) No reasons were given.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded April 2, 1974 for a quantity of spare parts from Litton Systems Ltd., Rexdale, Ontario for a total dollar amount of $595,154?
2.	On which department's behalf was the contract awarded?
3.	For what computer system are the spare parts used?
4.	How old is the computer system?
5.	What is the expected length of time the computer is to be used in terms of years?
6.	Have any of the spare parts been used?
7.	Is it the policy of departments such as the Department of Supply and Services to always have spare parts in inventory for their computer systems?
8.	Would it be more economically sound to order parts when their necessity is visible?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Supply and Services and National Defence as follows: 1. Yes, however the contract was dated March 8, 1974; the news release of the award of contract was dated April 2, 1974.
2.	Department of National Defence.
3.	AN/USQ 501 (v) installed on DND ships.
[Mr. Andras.J
4.	The first system was installed aboard a ship in 1972.
5.	Approximately 20 to 25 years.
6.	Yes.
7.	The Department of Supply and Services does not stock spare parts in its inventory to support computer system bought on behalf of other departments and agencies. It is the policy of the Department of National Defence to acquire some spare parts to ensure the operation of its equipment.
8.	Not in some cases. The computer is essential to the operation of the ship and the ordering of some essential parts only after a failure had occurred could seriously affect operational ability.


Mr. Saltsman: 1.	In regard to the apparent lack of enthusiasm for athletic training for the Olympics, is the government prepared to make a full commitment to assist in preparing Canadians for participation in the Olympics?
2.	Will there be a statement from the Prime Minister pledging full Cabinet and government support of our Olympic athletes?
3.	Will there be funding for a programme of information and publicity designed to make Canadians more aware of the accomplishments of their Olympic and international athletes?
4.	Will there be (a) part-time jobs for athletes near their training sites to help them defray their expenses (b) permission for time away from their jobs to get the competition necessary to ensure peak performance at the Olympics (c) increased financial contributions to the Canadian Olympic Association's Olympic trust?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices follows: 1. As of March 19, 1973, the federal government committed itself to providing special assistance to national sport bodies who would be participating in the Winter and Summer Olympic Games in 1976. A unique partnership between the federal government, certain provincial governments, the Canadian Olympic Association and the Olympic Trust was formed in order to coordinate the public and private sector financing and planning for our international teams. This unique partnership is called the Game Plan Programme. In the first year of operation (1973-74) it spent $1.1 million, in 1974-75 it spent $1.8 million and is planning to spend close to $2.8 million in 1975-76. All of these funds are supplemental to the ongoing sport programmes these agencies support. The game plan support includes funds for national and international competitions, training camps, national coaches and other support staff, talent identification programmes, planning meetings, individual athlete support and many other items.
2.	There in none anticipated.
3.	At the meeting held on March 13 and 14, 1975, the sports coordinating committee of game plan approved a promotional programme with a budget of up to $100,000 per year as part of the Game Plan Programme. This promotion programme is being implemented co-operatively by the parties in game plan. The following information activities were proposed for 1975-76 in order to create a greater public awareness and knowledge of game plan

May 26, 1975

athletes and their accomplishments: periodic release to news media of Game Plan Programme and activity news; publication of athlete ratings; series of wire-story features on game plan athletes; publication of feature articles on game plan programmes and athletes; newsletters; brochures; COA luncheons; audio-visual materials; media athlete promotion; events promotion and coverage of preOlympic events, Pan-American Games, 1976 Winter Olympics, others, photographic distribution; coverage of eight Canadian national teams in Cuba.
4.	The primary responsibility for finding part-time jobs for Olympic or other athletes remains in the first instance with the individuals themselves, their national sport bodies and the organizers of the national team programme in the local community. However, the federal government does assist by writing to employers on behalf of the athletes. In addition, the Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch has approached other federal agencies to request assistance in finding work or in releasing its employees to participate as athletes. In 1975-76, the Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch will provide close to $500,000 of athletic scholarships to approximately 300 athletes who are the game plan classified athletes, and who will represent Canada in the Winter and Summer Olympic Games. In
Order Paper Questions
addition to this, approximately $300,000 will be provided by the federal government and the other partners of game plan to defray individual training competition and salary expenses incurred by the athletes. Support to individuals represents approximately one-third of the Game Plan Programme. A small percentage of the proceeds of coins sold in Canada is being diverted to COA-Olympic Trust for supporting some of the activities mentioned above.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	For each year 1972 to 1974, by province, what is the (a) number (b) amount of overpaid benefits paid by the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
2.	By province, how many of such benefits were (a) recovered (i) entirely (ii) partially (b) cancelled or non-recoverable?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a)
Year	Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie	Pacific1972 1973 1974	19,215 22,813 26,937	* 98,046 106,314	51,522** 85,184 84,033	13,390** 26,002 28,968	22,791 31,097 36,911(b)	Year	Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie	Pacific1972 1973 1974	$1,992,010 $2,736,453 $3,737,300	$ 8,010,658 $14,750,695 $15,947,225	$ 5,965,501** $10,492,867 $10,574,759	$1,413,393 $3,729,105 $4,707,658	$2,722,546 $3,691,107 $4,682,502
Note: Data maintained by region only. *Not available.
**Last three-quarters only.
2.	(a) (i)
Year	Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie	Pacific	Total1972 1973 1974	* $2,294,400 $2,525,400	* $11,847,500 $13,527,100	* $8,670,100 $9,148,400	* $3,214,200 $4,223,300	* $3,430,900 $3,842,100	$19,793,000 $29,457,100 $33,266,300(ii)	Not available.	(b)	Year	Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie	Pacific	Total1972 1973 1974	* $192,000 $ 99,500	* $331,000 $627,600	* $344,500 $411,400	* $104,500 $ 78,400	* $ 92,000 $143,500	$ 525,400 $1,064,000 $1,360,400
Note: Data maintained by region only. [DOT]Available in total only for 1972.

May 26, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Coates: 1.	Since 1968, how much money has been allocated by the government to the Canada Council in the form of social science grants?
2.	Of this amount, what was the total allocated to study the 1968 general election campaign?
3.	(a) How many studies are being conducted on the 1968 general election campaign (b) how many have been completed (i) by whom
(ii)	at what cost for each (c) how many have not been completed (i) by whom are they being conducted (ii) to date, what is the cost of each
(iii)	on what date are they expected to be completed?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. From 196869 to 1973-74, the Canada Council has received $163,455,000 in unconditional grants from the parliament of Canada. Of this amount, $24,221,000 have been awarded as research grants in the humanities and social sciences. (No separate statistics exist for the social sciences as distinct from the humanities).
2.	No part of this amount was allocated to the study of the 1968 federal general election campaign.
Note: A sum of $397,556 has been granted since 1968 to Mr. John Meisel under the Canada Council's Killam program to study the role of parties and elections in the Canadian political system. The Killam awards are not funded out of government money, but out of a special trust fund established by the late Mrs. Dorothy J. Killam and administered by the Canada Council.
3.	The Canada Council is not in a position to answer this question.


Mr. Saltsman: 1.	How many complaints of refusal to deal have been made to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs since the Department was formed?
2.	What is the breakdown of such complaints by year of receipt?
3.	How many such complaints were examined in detail by the Department including obtaining explanations from the party against whom the complaint was made?


André Ouellet: The information requested is not readily available in the format requested. However, for the six months period June through November, 1974 the answers are as follows: 1 and 2. Twenty-three complaints deal with refusal to supply.
3.	Ten of the complaints were examined in detail by the department and in four of these, explanations were obtained from the parties against whom the complaints were made.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare always adhere to the 120 day schedule for the review of drug submissions and, if not, for what reason?
2.	How many submissions have had the reviews delayed in the past year?


Marc Lalonde: 1. The Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare has not always been able to adhere to the 120 day time limit for the review of drug submissions. The delay in responding is due to the increasing number of submissions received, the increased volume of data with each submission and the increasing complexity of the information contained in the submissions.
2.	From April 1, 1974 to March 31, 1975, there were 485 New Drug Submissions and Supplemental New Drug Submissions on drugs for human use reviewed. Of these, 126 or 26.0 per cent exceeded the 120 day limit. While there is no statutory time limit for Investigational New Drug Submissions, a total of 342 on drugs for human use were evaluated during the same fiscal year. Of these, 63 or 18.4 per cent exceeded 120 days for a response. With regard to drugs for veterinary use, 186 New Drug Submissions and Supplemental New Drug Submissions were reviewed during the same fiscal year. Of these, 59 or 31.7 per cent exceeded the 120 day limit. While again there is no statutory time limit for Investigational New Drug Submissions of drugs for veterinary use, a total of 21 were received. Of these, four or 19.0 per cent exceeded 120 days for a response.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the period February 14 to March 26, 1975, by day, what were the (a) names of provincial political candidates (b) times used by them participating in the "Edmonton A M." programme aired by CBC in Edmonton, Alberta?
2.	For the same period, by day, what were the (a) names of provincial political candidates (b) times used by them participating in the "Radio Noon" programme aired by CBC in Edmonton, Alberta?

May 26, 1975

3.	For the same period, by day, what were the (a) names of provincial political candidates (b) times used by them participating in the "Larry Branter" programme aired by CBC in Edmonton, Alberta?
4.	For the same period, by day, what were the (a) names of provincial political candidates (b) times used by them participating in the "Today Show" aired by CBC in Edmonton, Alberta?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (Edmonton a.m.) (a) and (b) February 17, Grant Notley, New Democratic Party, approximately 6 minutes; Lou Hyndman, Progressive Conservative, approximately 6 minutes; Nick Taylor, Liberal, approximately 6 minutes; Werner Schmidt, Social Credit, approximately 6 minutes; February 26, Fred Peacock, Progressive Conservative, approximately 6 minutes; March 10, William Yurko, Progressive Conservative, approximately 6 minutes; March 17, Donald Hoyda, Liberal, approximately 6 minutes; March 18, William Yurko, Progressive Conservative, approximately 6 minutes.
2.	(Radio Noon), (a) and (b) None.
3.	(Larry Branter), (a) and (b) None.
4.	(Today Show), (a) and (b) March 20, Dave Russell, Progressive Conservative, approximately 7 minutes.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the period February 14 to March 26, 1975, by day, what were the (a) names of provincial political candidates (b) times used by them participating in the "Calgary Eye-Opener" programme aired by CBC in Calgary, Alberta?
2.	For the same period, by day, what were the (a) names of provincial political candidates (b) times used by them participating in the "Radio Noon" programme aired by CBC in Calgary, Alberta?
3.	For the same period, by day, what were the (a) names of provincial political candidates (b) times used by them participating in the "Your Forum" programme aired by CBC in Calgary, Alberta?
4.	For the same period, by day, what were the (a) names of provincial political candidates (b) times used by them participating in the "Barre-gar Calgary" aired by CBC in Calgary, Alberta?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (Calgary Eye-Opener): (a) and (b) March 4, Werner Schmidt, Social Credit, approximately 3 minutes; March 17, David Russell, Progressive Conservative, approximately 3 minutes; March 18, Bob Simpson, Social Credit, approximately 3 minutes; March 19, Paula Davies, New Democratic Party, approximately 3 minutes; March
20,	Nick Taylor, Liberal, approximately 3 minutes; March
21,	David Whitefield, Communist, approximately 3 minutes.
2. (Radio Noon): (a) and (b) February 19, 20, Nick Taylor, Liberal, approximately 8 minutes each; March 10, 11, 12, 13, Grant Notley, New Democratic Party, approximately 4 minutes each; March 21, R. Clark, Social Credit, approximately 15 minutes.
Order Paper Questions
3.	(Your Forum): (a) and (b) March 17, Ron Ghitter, Progressive Conservative, 45 minutes; March 18, Ralph Cameron and Art Dixon, Social Credit, 45 minutes; March 19, Joe Yanchula, New Democratic Party, 45 minutes; March 20, Nick Taylor, Liberal, 45 minutes; March 21, David Whitefield, Communist, 45 minutes.
4.	(David Barregar's Calgary): (a) and (b) February 22, Nick Taylor, Liberal, 10 minutes; March 7, Bob Simpson, Social Credit, 10 minutes; Dorothy Groves, Liberal, 10 minutes; March 12, Werner Schmidt, Social Credit, 10 minutes; March 14, Grant Notley, New Democratic Party, 10 minutes; March 17, Roy Farran, Progressive Conservative, 10 minutes; Joan Ryan, New Democratic Party, 10 minutes.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	During the past three years, what was the Cheddar cheese production in (a) the Albert Perron Inc. cheese factory at Saint-Prime (b) the Dolbeau Ltd. dairy and cheese factory (c) the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean Dairy Co-op Association?
2.	In what category have inspectors of the Department of Agriculture classified the Cheddar cheese produced in these factories?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by Statistics Canada and Agriculture Canada as follows: 1. Statistics Canada reports that the Information being sought concerning the cheddar cheese production in the factories of Albert Perron Ltd., Dolbeau Ltd. and Saguenay-Lac-Saint Jean Dairy Co-op Association cannot be released due to the confidentiality restrictions of the Statistics Act (Section 16).
2. The specific results of grading at each plant is considered confidential information. However, the totals for the three plants are: 1974, per cent first grade, 67.18, per cent undergrade (2nd and 3rd), 32.82; 1973, per cent first grade, 91.15, per cent undergrade (2nd and 3rd), 8.85; 1972, per cent first grade, not available, per cent undergrade (2nd and 3rd), not available.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	Did the government through the Department of Transport purchase a new 1975 Chevrolet Suburban Wagon from Robertson Chevrolet Oldsmobile with licence number D-32536 for use at the Pickering airport site and, if so (a) what was the total purchase price (b) did it include with the price paid in each case, such options as (i) a V8 engine
(ii)	a deluxe interior (iii) broadloom (iv) automatic transmission (v) two-tone special paint (vi) a radio (vii) power steering (viii) snow tires (ix) an extra spare?
2.	For what reason was it felt necessary to purchase such a luxury class truck?
3.	Have similar vehicles been purchased for use at the Pickering airport site and, if so (a) what are they (b) from whom were they purchased (c) at what price (d) for what reason?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes
(a) $7,190 list less trade-in $800 net $6,390. (b) (i), (ii),
(iii)	, (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii), Yes. (ix) No.
2. No luxury options were specified on the requisition for this vehicle. Vehicle purchased was the only suitable

May 26, 1975
Order Paper Questions
vehicle which could be located at local dealers to meet the delivery date for site work during winter months.
3. No. (a), (b), (c) and (d) not applicable.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Were any supervisors at the Toronto Unemployment Insurance Commission suspended for any reason during the period January 1, 1974 to date and, if so (a) by month, how many were suspended (b) for what reason in each case?
2.	In each case, what was the length of the suspension and was it (a) with pay (b) without pay?
3.	In each case, by month, what was the amount of salary paid to those suspended?
4.	(a) At the conclusion of the suspension and in each case, were the individuals (i) returned to previous positions (ii) returned to other positions (iii) transferred from Toronto offices (iv) fired (b) did any of them receive a (i) demotion (ii) salary reduction and, if so, what was the nature of such demotion and the amount of salary reduction?
5.	Did UIC refuse to disclose information concerning such suspensions to any Member of the Provincial Legislature and, if so (a) what was the name and position of the individual refusing the information (b) by what authority was it refused?
6.	By each UIC office in Canada for the same period, were any other supervisory personnel suspended for any reasons and, if so, where were such individuals working at the time of suspension and in what capacity?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. No supervisors from the Toronto area of the Unemployment Insurance Commission were suspended for any reason during the period January 1, 1974 to date.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	Vancouver Centre Office suspended 2 Supervisory Personnel working as service unit supervisors.


Mr. Lachance: In the light of judicial decisions concerning hiring criteria in the Public Service, is there a research division in the PSC responsible for the submission of changes required in the Public Service Staff Relations Act?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: The Planning and Evaluation Directorate of the Commission's Staffing Branch has two divisions concerned with the matters raised: (1) The Personnel Psychology Division which is responsible for the development, modification and maintenance of all Selection Standards. (2) The Policies and Procedures Division which is responsible both for recommending new or revised policies and procedures and for responding to judicial decisions which may affect the Regulations or the Public Service Employment Act.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	Of the 49,215,000 pounds of butter in storage as of September 1, 1974, how much was produced in Canada?
2.	Was any of this imported and, if so (a) for what reason was the government participating in a programme of importing butter (b) was this in excess of our needs (c) what effect did this have on the income of Canadian farmers?
3.	How long can butter remain in storage and still be fit for human consumption?
4.	What are the plans for eventual disposal of the butter now in storage?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. 42,715,000 pounds.
2.	(a) Yes. Butter production in Canada was not sufficient to meet the demand, (b) No. Butter was imported only in quantities sufficient to meet the difference between domestic production and consumption, (c) None, for the reasons outlined under (a) and (b).
3.	Butter stored in Cold Storage Warehouses remains fit for human consumption indefinitely.
4.	Current stocks are being sold to meet domestic market requirements.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	For the years 1965 to 1973 inclusive, has Canada granted loans to some countries and, if so (a) to which countries (b) what was the value of such loans (c) what was the term (d) what was the prescribed interest rate?
2.	What percentage of such loans come from (a) new estimates (b) the Consolidated Revenue Fund?
Return tabled.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On April 29 I placed two starred questions on the order paper, Nos. 2,407 and 2,408, regarding a question raised by the hon. member for Calgary South about the federal government hiring private mail contractors. The government has had over four weeks to file answers to these questions. I know that Statistics Canada hires private mail contractors in Manitoba, but I want to know how many other provinces are hiring private mail contractors. It is no secret that Batterton's Mail Service handles mail for the House of Commons, and I have a question in regard to that, No. 2,411.
I also have starred question No. 2,448 regarding the new rules and regulations covering bilingual packaging and the requirements under the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act. The business community has been waiting for several months for these rules and regulations, and all we have had from the minister so far is a press release. Packaging establishments across Canada are concerned

about labelling. We would appreciate an answer as soon as possible.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I signed the answer to the question today, and I expect the hon. member will have it by Wednesday.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be taking part in this debate, for a number of reasons. One is that despite what certain newspapermen say, I have very high regard for the minister who is sponsoring the bill. That is not just because a while ago he graciously received from me a Kronberg T-shirt to mark the wonderful concert that is coming to Ottawa tomorrow, but because I think he is a well intentioned, thoughtful and, in the good sense of the word with a small "1", liberal person.
I am also pleased to be involved because I have always been a very ardent nationalist. My party, the oldest in Canada, in my opinion has always been at its best when espousing and acting upon nationalist causes. My great heroes in Canadian history are the great nationalists- people like Sir John A. Macdonald, who insisted that we be not a colony but a country; Sir Robert Borden, who insisted that we not only move on to the international scene as a full-fledged nation but that we take our responsibilities fully and proudly in the world community. He was unlike those who wanted to isolate themselves from the world and from other international organizations. He was the man who in 1916 thought that governors general of this country should be Canadian citizens. He was thought to be hopelessly ahead of his time, yet it has certainly been the case that the finest and greatest incumbents of that office have been men born in this country.
I think we are looking at ways to expand our Canadian-ism and buttress our nationalism in a very important aspect of life, namely, in publications, in the media. The communication of ideas and thoughts, of course, is the essence of any civilized society or co-ordinated community. I have always been disposed toward those organizations which help extend Canada's intellectual independence. Even with its thousands of faults, I like the CBC and when I am outside the country I miss it. I can even live with its great Toronto empire and all the emperors
Non-Canadian Publications
and praetorian guard that it has built into its headquarters. They are probably better paid than even Roman emperors paid their praetorian guards.
I think we have done more great things in this country through such organizations as the Canada council which has allowed Canadians of talent and ideas to be heard more clearly and read more widely by their fellow citizens. I might even say-despite my youthful appearance that I remember such bodies as the humanities research council and the social science research council which did great things before the Canada Council began to pick up that major responsibility and important challenge.
This has always been a problem in Canada. It is as trite as it is truthful to say that Canada has been troubled about its identity. In problems social, in problems economic we obviously, because of our location, have had to be preoccupied with the assertion of our economic individuality, our political integrity and our cultural identity. Sometimes in the past it has been a grim, crude struggle for survival; in the later stages it has been a push for identity. In crude geo-political terms, I suppose we would not want to admit that at times our country existed at the sufferance of the United States. That phase, barring a nuclear conflict, which of course would make all those considerations academic or non-existent, is now past.
I think we have reached the stage where we need no longer worry about the bare fact of our cultural survival. We are here. The Dominion of Canada is. Canadians are. At this time, in 1975, we can assess our cultural and spiritual values with more realism, less frenzy, more careful thought and less blowing of uncertain trumpets.
The question of what to do about or with Time and Reader's Digest is not new. It was very much in the public domain before I entered this chamber 18 years ago. We have had many briefs, investigations in depth and at length, numerous recommendations, as well as abortive efforts to legislate curative measures.
I know it has been said that Bill C-58 is really not a Time and Reader's Digest bill. I suppose, strictly speaking, we must accept that. The major thrust of my remarks will deal with a publication which is neither Time nor Reader's Digest but which is gravely affected by this bill. In the public mind, however, this bill is about Time and Reader's Digest. Each of us knows, of course, that if it were not for those two compendia of the printed word in Canada, there would be no Bill C-58 before the House of Commons.
I think in the main the debate has been a serious and helpful discussion of a complex and difficult matter. It is difficult because it requires us to do more than look at the formal phrasing of the statute and, heaven knows, I cannot think of anything less interesting than legal language, if I may call it that.
Before we consider the clauses of the Bill we must assess and evaluate the social goals for the advance of which this bill is a mere vehicle. Debate on this measure has attained the level of the philosophical, as is proper. Recalling the adage that all comparisons are odious, I shall be careful in selecting my words. I read the minister's speech carefully. It contains thoughtful utterances and evidence of positive thinking. Some of its aspects

May 26, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
disturb me, although his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford), disturbed me even more when making his statement several months ago.
The chief spokesman for my party, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), set the tone of this debate at a high level and rendered the proper discussion of this matter a great service. I also salute the valuable contribution made by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart). He and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Holt) merit the commendation of the House for speaking on this measure with such forthrightness and independence of thought. By saying that, I am not exuding the mean satisfaction of an opposition member because backbenchers on the government side or private members, to use the proper expression, have differed with the government. That they have differed I do not consider significant. I note that the newspapers paid them some attention, more for reasons of their deviation from the government line than for the forthrightness of their remarks and the value of their opinions.
All this underlines something serious. In this country, in this House, we are inclined to overvalue party solidarity and undervalue individual assessment, especially of measures such as the one now before the House. We must remember that neither the House of Commons nor the illustrious Senate run the country. The government runs the country. The members of the House of Commons must try to reflect the aspirations of the people they represent, and it is difficult to reflect those aspirations if on every issue they must indulge in partyism and uphold the party point of view. I have said many things for many years to which nobody listens.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: We take too many votes in this House. Too many times do we stand up and vote, even though the results of the vote are a foregone conclusion. Far too often we consider an issue on party lines. I am convinced that if in a large room a lot of people are ostensibly thinking the same thing, you have a great many people who are not thinking at all. I suggest that we could improve our system if we looked on votes of confidence as rare occasions indeed and voted mush less frequently than we now do.
A good many years ago-I do not want to sound like a patriarch-we could appeal the Speaker's rulings. I remember when the deputy chairman of the committee of the whole made a ruling. One of my colleagues from my class-he is not here now-thought Mr. Rea was right and, in the appeal, wanted to support him. He was soon told that that kind of nonsense had best be forgotten because the party was appealing Mr. Rea's ruling. In other words, a matter of procedure became a matter of party policy. No one can tell me that makes for good legislation, good representation or good parliamentary performance.
Partyism, surely, has no place in the consideration of this measure, although I recognize that partyism is an integral part of parliamentary democracy. In looking at this bill we should ask: Is this the best method or even a good method for improving the nationalistic content of our intellectual lives? Is this the best way of obtaining certain goals we have in mind? To be simplistic, is it likely to

advance a healthier Canadianism in the realm of publications? Or, as we must ask ourselves, is it likely to be an exercise in tokenism? Is this a measure which will make our nationalistic flags wave? Is it another exercise in Canadian nationalism, and is that of itself demonstrably a good thing? That gives rise to another question which one is reluctant to ask: Does it involve, perhaps ever so slightly, a slight case of anti-Americanism? One of the great luminaries of the University of Toronto, Professor Underhill-if as a McGill man I might mention that institution- used to say that Canadianism is often largely anti-Americanism. Perhaps we had best stop to think and reflect on that.
I said earlier that the part of the measure which troubles me most is that part to do with Canadian content. The minister told my colleague for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) that Canadian content has nothing to do with this bill. I see that he shakes his head affirmatively. I would love to be convinced by him but I am not, because I have treasured, cherished and held to my bosom the statements made by the Minister of National Revenue who talked about Canadian publications being 80 per cent different from the publications of United States parents. I foresee a difficult exercise in measurement. What kind of litmus paper will you use to measure that 80 per cent difference? Will the standard be eight maple leaves on every ten pages? I would be a bit leery about the imaginative conceptualism of our Canadian bureaucracy. I am told of one branch saying to a person 88 Vz years old that if he came back in 3314 years he could collect his old age pension. That was a bit ridiculous, but a bit less fatuous than measuring something as tenuous as an 80 per cent difference from a U.S. parent publication.
That little problem worries me. The present Minister of National Revenue may not be here forever, and when he is gone the difficulties might become even more horrendous-and they are pretty bad now. How do you measure Canadian content? How do you evaluate it? I have always been deeply troubled by the Canadian content provision. I do not know that Canada is made the stronger if someone rules that I ought to hear Gordon Sinclair on television instead of Alistair Cooke. I think we would do well to listen to Mr. Cooke. Since I am not a negative man, I will not dwell on the other aspect of the question. This is what the measure involves, although I know the bill does not say so. Remember, acts of parliament are passed to affect people.
I still think we must consider the question of freedom of choice. When I go to certain totalitarian countries, to their reading rooms or their railway stations or airports and read nothing but the party line, I long for the opportunity to go to a bookstore and pick up anything I like. I probably would glance through it and then put it down without buying it, being a Scot. However, I have noticed on my few occasions of travelling on aircraft that if you want to get Time magazine, you have to sit pretty close to where the stewardess starts delivering the magazines because that is the first one to go. This seems to indicate people like that magazine. I am going back to the days when Air Canada was very affluent and even gave you a magazine to read and newspapers to peruse.

I know that the people of Canada like Reader's Digest. I have had some of the most thoughtful letters from my constituents and other Canadians about Reader's Digest. I do not think it solves the story to say that it was a brilliant promotion job by Mr. Zimmerman. The letters I received indicated people had thought a good deal about this. One person wrote and said it is the only thing that is good bedtime reading. Some people have insomnia; they have the cares of the world on their shoulders and cannot get to sleep quickly. Sometimes they make the mistake of picking up a mystery and then cannot get to sleep. That is how I began reading Agatha Christie. This person who wrote to me said you can read one article in the Reader's Digest and not only remember it in the morning but go to sleep untroubled. People have a perfect right to like Reader's Digest. The same is true of Time magazine.
Another aspect is that this bill may injure publications that are of real value to Canadians. I am going to refer without hesitation or reservation to what I consider the finest newspaper in the world, the Christian Science Monitor. It has the finest international section. I am sure the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), a great newspaper man, will agree with me on this. It has topnotch articles. It has a most enlightened, highly trained cadre of journalists and reporters. It does not advertise tobacco, which is proper. It does not advertise alcohol, for which I will forgive it. In fact, it does not advertise anything it does not think is suitable and proper for the buying public.
It is noted the world over for the depth of its perception and the objectivity of its coverage. While the Christian Science movement is a very important portion of the Christian church, it does not use its newspaper to propagate its particular religious teachings. There is but one small section in each issue. They go from language to language through the issues dealing with Christian science. Under present circumstances, that paper is sold in Canada with a subsidy from the Christian Science Society. They put in about $76 a year for a paper which sells in Canada for $40 per year. Therefore, there is $36 subsidy per newspaper from the Christian Science publishing house.
Since 1966 the Christian Science Monitor has enjoyed exemption from the provisions of subsection 19(1) of the Income Tax Act by virtue of a ruling from the Department of National Revenue to the effect that it qualified for exemption under subsection 19(4). However, as we all know, subsection 19(4) is being repealed under Bill C-58. Nothing is put in its place. The exemption which was granted the Christian Science Monitor will therefore disappear. I believe that any government which cared for the enlightenment and edification of its citizens would take no step to make it difficult for the Christian Science Monitor to be read by Canadians, but would take steps which would make it easier for that splendid journal of thought and opinion to be read by the people of this country. Therefore, that aspect disturbs me.
I find a great deal of difficulty in being totally condemnatory of this bill or taking the opposite point of view. We are often faced with that in this House. One occasion is when you are presented with an omnibus bill, three items of which you think are great, two of which you do not
Non-Canadian Publications
agree with and four of which you are opposed to-and you can do nothing but vote for the whole thing. That is a real distortion of the logical process.
I think the goal is a good one. I am not suspicious of this minister's intentions. I am not sure that we have yet achieved the right conceptualization. I am always a little bit worried about something that looks like a maple leaf curtain over the forty-ninth parallel.
We maritimers are a bit leery about tariffs on economic goods because we began to get it in the neck when we were told over 100 years ago that we had to erect tariff walls to protect the infant industries of Ontario. Some of those industries have died of old age but the tariff walls are still there and we are still suffering from them.
I am a little troubled about some of the negative approaches. There is a little too much reliance on the tariff syndrome. I would also say, as was mentioned a few days ago, that part of the trouble started for our publications when the Hon. Eric Kierans was postmaster general. I may be pardoned for saying "I told you so" at the time of the severe increase in postal rates for publications. Church publications and many others have suffered from that unjust and unnecessary imposition.
My colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston), referred to Time magazine the other day and its performance in the 1963 election. I thought it was Newsweek which had done its worst on that one, but I would not say that Time magazine was alone in presenting distorted views on what goes on in the Canadian political scene. There are Canadian magazines and newspapers whose reporters and editors might just as easily be stationed in Lhasa or Ulan Bator as far as really stating what goes on. This is especially true around election time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Name some.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If I had more time I would name a great many at the invitation of my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). I could give quite a compendium. But I have been known in this House for never exhausting all my time. I will not say what I may do to my auditors, but I have never exhausted all my time. I want to keep up that tradition, if I maintain nothing else of a virtuous type here in parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I might say on this measure that the best and most sincere recommendation I can give the minister is that he take the bill under further scrutiny. It is obvious that members of his own caucus are giving a great deal of thought to the matter. They are coming up with some very excellent suggestions. The minister has been given some very good advice by members of my party, particularly the chief spokesman, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal.
I have gone over some of the points which have been raised. The suggestion that the government make greater advertising use of our own periodicals is, I think, a splendid one. I was a little surprised to hear Reader's Digest criticized for sending its articles to be translated into

Non-Canadian Publications
French outside Canada. If there are translation facilities available in Canada, I think they should be used, but I have listened a thousand times to spokesmen for the government saying that royal commission reports, for instance, could not be tabled because the translation was not ready. Both official languages enjoy equality in this House: this has been the position since 1867, though many people believe it only came about much more recently. Mr. Speaker, if we have all these translators available for use by Reader's Digest, I suggest the government should be employing them.
Finally, to the minister I would say this. Give the matter a little more thought; Think carefully about what has been recommended to you, especially by the hon. member for Cochrane, on the matter of guidelines. Have a serious talk with the Minister of National Revenue before we get into this 80 per cent question.


Mr. Basford:: How about 70 per cent?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The hon. gentleman thinks the figure is important. I think that what one is measuring is more important than the percentage. The minister is confirming what an old don used to say, that certain students had the capacity for majoring in minors. It is not the figure; it is a matter of goals and directions. I am not usually a man who suggests we slow down legislation, but on this occasion, to use a turn of phrase familiar to Prince Edward Islanders, I think we would be advised to put her back in dry dock for a while and take another look at the ship before launching her again.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising now is not to reply to the distinguished professor from Prince Edward Island who has just so knowingly spoken. But before making my own remarks on the matter before us, I would like nonetheless to reassure the hon. member who preceded me on some questions he wondered about.
First I must say that I was personally reassured by his speech. I was reluctant to take part in the debate, since departmental business kept me away from the House last week when the matter was debated. But I think the speaker who preceded me was also absent because he raised questions that had been solved even before he mentioned them or spoke.
For instance, I do not understand how he can still talk about this matter of the Canadian content when I read in the speech the minister made when he introduced the bill in the House the following remarks, quote:
Contrary to the view expressed in a recent editorial in one of our leading financial journals ...
And I should say contrary to the view expressed by our hon. colleague opposite-
... a periodical, to be counted for tax purposes as a Canadian publication, does not have to have a certain minimum percentage of Canadian 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.

I suggest that these very words should have calmed in advance the worries the hon. member has just expressed on he issue of the Canadian content.
Secondly, I should like to reassure him about the possible voting along party line by hon. members. I would like to tell my hon. friend that he will not be able to level this charge at me. As a matter of fact, I was a newsman when this problem occurred for the first time, 12 or 13 years ago.
I belonged to the occupation under discussion today and I have unequivocally expressed my objections against the exceptions made in favour of Time and Reader's Digest, which are incidentally two of the richest publications in the whole world; they are loaded with money and they do not need Canadian charity to pursue their careers.
Finally, I would like to reassure the hon. member about the unsolved questions he has just mentioned and which led him to advise the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) to put his bill in dry dock. I think this question has been in dry dock for too long. It seems to me that with his already long parliamentary experience, and in spite of his youth, the hon, member must know that the committee is the best place to solve the matters which remain unsolved, which can cause some concern to the hon. member. Instead of recommending to the minister who took this matter out of the dry dock to set it afloat again, he should let it afloat, refer it to the committee by a majority vote of the House, or even better, by consent of the House. In committee, as he perfectly knows, unsolved issues can be solved. Concerns that worry us can be cleared up. All lacking precisions can be obtained. And above all, a bill can be pushed through if, in the opinion of the great majority of the House, it should become law as soon as possible.
I come back to my point, Mr. Speaker, which prompts me to rise in this debate. It will consist, first of all, in stressing the importance of measuring the point of view of Canadian broadcasting. I do not think that aspect of the question has been very strongly questioned by any member of the House. But I would like the rationalization of the provisions of the bill on broadcasting to be included in the file of the bill. What is it all about on the broadcasting standpoint? It is a question of stations located in big American urban centres near big Canadian centres. But, often, too it is a question of broadcasting stations purposely located on the Canadian border. In both cases, the evident objective is to exploit the Canadian market through the border.
One needs only see the size of the villages and small towns where some of the stations concerned are built. The size of these villages and small towns does not justify, in many cases, the size of the stations themselves. That is the best indication that the goal is not to enrich the American broadcasting system with American funds, which is an honourable objective for our southern neighbours to pursue, but most of the time to exploit systematically the Canadian broadcasting market, which is not large enough in itself for us Canadians to decide to give up whole parts of it to foreign broadcasters.
If anybody doubted that these stations seek in many cases above all to exploit the Canadian market, he would only have to consider the kind of advertisement aired by
May 26, 1975

these stations. For example, Montrealers know very well that some American stations located near the border advertise suits sold on the Plaza Saint-Hubert in Montreal, for which Americans could certainly not care less, or restaurants located on the outskirts of Montreal, or products for which the American price would often be lower than the Canadian price.
It is therefore obvious that an intentional and exclusive operation exists in the United States with a view to exploiting Canadian radio and television stations, which is inadmissible.
It is also obvious that stations existing for other purposes in major American cities bordering on large Canadian centres-for instance, in the Niagara Peninsula-direct towards Canada, with a view to obtaining a share of the Canadian publicity market, commercials that are in no way justified by American stations interested in American publicity or businesses.
Pragmatically, such a situation is easy to evaluate. Between 20 to 30 million dollars in Canadian publicity cross the border to enrich American stations. I know that some Canadian stations, and one in particular that I shall not bother to mention, create fund transfers in the opposite direction, but such transfers are evaluated at five to seven million dollars, whereas funds for commercial publicity aired by American stations are estimated, as I have just stated, at between 20 to 30 million dollars, which makes of us overall losers.
Everything points out to standardizing a given situation. It is not a question of persecuting anyone, it is simply a question of standardizing a situation, such as we have done in 1969 when the government asked the CRTC to grant broadcasting rights only to stations that were 80 per cent Canadian-owned and that were headed by boards of directors made up totally of Canadian citizens. I am aware that at the time, some people cried out aloud. Like the previous speaker some said that we were anti-American. But all we had to do was answer them that such legislation was being applied by the Americans themselves. Have you ever accused Americans of being anti-Canadian because they did not allow Canadians to go and set themselves up in the American broadcasting system?
I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words on the debate with which I became acquainted through Hansard. While reading the report of this debate, seemingly based on a few newspaper reports which I had also read, I was astonished, I must confess, by some statements. Indeed, the former Secretary of State has been charged with failing to develop a policy on publishing and periodicals in line with the bill now under consideration. Mr. Speaker, I confess that I find that statement astonishing. I do not understand how it could have been made. No policy on publishing or periodicals, Mr. Speaker? I wonder how could he call those steps taken during the past four years by the Secretary of State. Firstly to help directly, through subsidies, the publication of Canadian books and periodicals by Canadian publishers. Secondly, the promotion in Canada and abroad of Canadian books and periodicals also through Canadian subsidies. Thirdly, the translation in Canada of Canadian works, from French into English and from English into French, so that Canadian cultural
Non-Canadian Publications
activities are not stopped on all sides, do not come up against the language barrier on both sides.
What more do they want, Mr. Speaker, when the government already helps the publishing itself, when it assures the promotion and the translation as well which, I admit, has often been a serious obstacle to the knowledge of Canadian English works among the French-speaking people or of Canadian French works among the Englishspeaking people? Often, it is well known, a writer earned less, and it is perhaps still true, with copyrights than it costs to get a translation in another language. And that does not mean that the book is valueless. The fact is that the Canadian publishing market is rather limited. And this is one of the unfortunate but inevitable results of limited markets.
As I was saying: once we have taken these steps, what more do they want? The government's part, in cultural activities, Mr. Speaker, is not to define itself the cultural values. This task is up to the citizens, to those called cultural workers, or cultural officers. It is up to the citizens, and the government's task is to help setting up conditions which allow the cultural workers to do their job in the most favourable conditions possible.
Were the state to go farther, that would be interference in cultural matters in contempt of the most basic and dearest liberties to the citizens in any real democracy. And I can hardly refrain from mentioning a very well known French example, Andre Malraux, a renowned critic, a French writer amongst the best known in the whole world, translated in some 30 languages. When he was Minister of Cultural Affairs, because he understood the nature of the cultural activity, Malraux has always contented himself with setting up the favourable conditions and never tried to run cultural affairs. He knew that, as a minister, it was not his role and that would have been an unwarranted intervention of the government in intellectual matters which are none of the state's business. On the other hand, one of his successors, whom I shall not name, a mediocre novelist, adopted a totally different attitude and presumed to say what theatre would be seen, what music would be heard in France; within a matter of five or six months he came to grief.
That is to say, then, that those who have reflected upon the matter know that the state has no direct role to play in matters of culture, of its contents, but that it behoves it to create the environment, the circumstances which allow culture to develop and flourish.
Those who say that the Secretary of State has no policy in matters of publication, what more do they want? I wonder. That we hold them by the hand? That we publish in their stead? That the state substitute itself to the initiative of the journalists in putting out their publications? Then, Mr. Speaker, one could rightly strike out against what would constitute real aggression against some of the fundamental privileges of the citizens in a democracy, those that allow those citizens to define their cultural values themselves and serve them as they see fit.
As a former journalist, for one thing, I could not allow that request, that which would have us go further than we already have gone. We could perhaps increase our assistance. Perhaps is there a question of degree. But, to say that there is no policy strikes me as obviously false to any

May 26, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
open mind. Once the circumstances are created, then it is up to the press itself, which is in no way crippled, as far as I know, to assume its responsibilities as the government has done already, and as Parliament will have done when this bill has been passed.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, as I take part in this debate I am somewhat confused by two references. The first is that on the order paper we have Bill C-58 listed in the following way:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts of Bill C-58, and act to amend the Income Tax Act.
Then I have in my hand a news release from the office of the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) of May 8, 1975, headed "Secretary of State Faulkner gives second reading to bill to amend the Income Tax Act". It goes on to state:
The bill to amend section 19 of the Income Tax Act respecting foreign-owned periodicals received second reading in the House of Commons today by Secretary of State J. Hugh Faulkner.
It seems to me there is some confusion, and it is a little difficult to reconcile these two circumstances. First of all, I do not think the bill was given second reading; in fact, it is very evident that it was not. The other paradox is that it is stated that the Secretary of State gave second reading to it. I was always under the impression that it was parliament which decided that particular issue. I thought I would just call attention to these anomalies as we enter this debate this afternoon.
In view of the great amount of correspondence which has come to the desks of members of parliament I would be remiss in my duty if I did not participate, however briefly, in the debate on Bill C-58 which is before us. I share many of the views expressed so lucidly by members of the official opposition and some other members of the House, particularly the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart). His participation in the debate indicated quite clearly that the opposition to the bill is not opposition for the sake of opposition, but because of a mounting feeling that not only will this measure fail to achieve the goal desired by the minister in its presentation but it will seriously erode some basic principles, adversely affect many individuals whose employment will be threatened, and will have detrimental effects on the Canadian economy as a whole.
The main thesis upon which this legislation seemingly rests in open to legitimate and serious doubt, namely, that the effect of the measure will result in a significant redirection of substantial advertising revenues into the whol-ly-Canadian publishing industry. This assumption is not substantiated by various inquiries carried out. It is suggested that any redirection of advertising would amount to a very small percentage, possibly in the area of 7 per cent to 10 per cent. It would appear that past performance by certain agencies has failed to generate confidence in their ability to respond to the reading pleasure of the Canadian public, and their promises of conversion for the future are not taken too seriously at the present time. I want to come back to that particular thought a little later.
One of the questions raised is whether or not it is desirable or proper to use the tax weapon as a means of manipulating the reading habits of Canadians. The reason Canadians have become avid readers of, particularly, Reader's Digest and perhaps to a more limited degree Time magazine, is that it more fully measures up to what is desirable in reading material and provides material that has not been available in the Canadian magazine market. I tend to the belief that had the Canadian publishing industry been more responsive and more prepared to provide readers with a truly informative and less politically biased periodical, it would have won much wider support and greater financial return without waiting for assists such as are envisaged in this legislation.
It is not my intention to deal with the factors that have already been dealt with by my colleagues, but I would make reference to the unusual constituent opposition to the provisions of Bill C-58. As has been pointed out, it is true that an appeal was launched by the publishers of Reader's Digest. What is significant, however, is the fact that so many Canadians took the time and made the effort, not to sign a pre-planned ballot but to write personal letters requesting maintenance of the present status for Reader's Digest because of the nature of the periodical, its contribution to reading pleasure, the policies of the company as a good corporate citizen, and its significant contribution to the economy of this nation. One hundred and thirty-five persons have written me personally urging my opposition to the measure, and unless significant and fundamental changes are made in the bill now before the House it may be that this option will have to be followed.
In taking part in the debate, the hon. member for Cochrane pointed out the opposition of members in the government party to some aspects of the bill; the contrary views of members of the cabinet, the intransigence of the minister, and the probable absence of many ministers when this bill received cabinet support. Surely the influence of all these factors, coupled with the submissions of members of the opposition, should cause even the most determined minister to concede the possibility that more thought should be given to this proposal, and fundamental changes made before asking that second reading be given this measure. I say again that, in spite of the news release, the bill has not yet received second reading.
The background information paper about the proposed amendment to section 19 of the Income Tax Act reads as follows:
Debate specifically over Time and Reader's Digest has continued since their advent upon the Canadian market and their large gains in advertising revenue relative to the gains made by all Canadian magazines.
There appears to be an inference that the "large gains in advertising revenue" enjoyed by Time and Reader's Digest are responsible for the unsatisfactory economic position of the Canadian industry. This conjecture forms the basis of the decision to amend the present act on the assumption that this will correct the situation. I do not believe that this is so. Let me quote one or two further statements contained in this news release. The second paragraph reads:	.
"Canadian magazine publishers have been forced to exist for too long in an economic and psychological climate that has not been

May 26, 1975

conducive to growth or new ventures", Mr. Faulkner said as he outlined the government's proposed amendments.
Further in the news release it is stated:
Speaking on behalf of the Minister of Communications, Mr. Faulkner also outlined the clauses of the bill dealing with broadcasting, which will amend the Income Tax Act so as to encourage the flow of Canadian advertising revenues to Canadian broadcasting media by disallowing deductions against income of the costs of advertising broadcast on non-Canadian stations.
Tying these together, it seems that the minister is confident of the fact that by these amendments to the Income Tax Act he is going to redirect a substantial portion of revenue into the Canadian operation. I do not think that is necessarily so. First of all, let me say that the relevant success of the two periodicals mentioned, particularly Reader's Digest, is that it is, in format and content, what Canadian readers want and because it has wide public appeal it has developed an exceptionally wide market.
If Canadian publications had taken the initiative and provided what appealed to readers in the way of clean, informative and entertaining material, they would have succeeded in gaining a large section of the market and, * consequently, a much larger share of the advertising revenue. It is logical that the wisdom of the adage "you cannot build yourself up by tearing the other fellow down" might apply not only to the individual but to corporate policy as well. The passage of this amendment does not and will not ensure the diversion of advertising revenue into other periodicals. I believe this objective can and will be achieved much more effectively when Canadian publishers take the initiative and come up with something even better than Reader's Digest rather than waiting, as I have indicated before, for this parliament to pass compulsory legislation of the kind that is presently before us.
Perhaps it would be of value to state again some of the economic facts regarding this particular publication. While some have questioned the validity of some of these arguments, I believe they are basically sound and dependable. It has been pointed out that Reader's Digest is more than 30 per cent owned by Canadians. With the exception of one, its directors are Canadian. Its full-time Canadian staff numbers some 450 persons, and of course it indirectly gives work to thousands of others as well. Reader's Digest has owned its own press in Montreal since 1948. It publishes in both English and French, and it is now investing $3 million in new printing equipment. Articles about Canada-this refers more to the content-originated by Canadian editors are circulated in 26 international editions, in 13 languages, for a readership of approximately 105 million people. Those are just some of the facts that we should take into consideration as we assess the measure before us and the impact it will have, not just on the industry itself but on the total Canadian economy and community.
It seems to me that as we look at this situation and consider it from every point of view, we find that Reader's Digest has measured up in a substantial way to the qualifications required of a good corporate citizen. I do not propose to talk at great length except to point out some of the statements made by members of the government party. These have been placed on record but I would again like to
Non-Canadian Publications
call attention to one or two of them. The hon. member for Cochrane, in participating in the debate said the following:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate to express some very serious reservations about the bill which is before us.
He later made the following statement:
I have reservations about this bill simply because I feel there has not been sufficient effort made to establish guidelines to be followed for a publishing company to maintain its Canadian status. There seems to be an intransigence on the part of the minister to make any compromise on this, and on this point I do not understand the minister.
Reference was made by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) to the effect that this subject has been kicked around for quite a long time and we should be grateful for the fact that it has been brought before us in this form. We realize fully that there has been a great deal of discussion, there may have been a great deal of thought given to it, and it may have been kicked around for a long time. But it would seem to me that there has been a lack of really in-depth study and inquiry into the effects that this proposal would or would not have, because I believe there are many things still open to question and it is difficult to gauge the impact of measures such as this. I believe that a greater measure of in-depth study should be given, to try to ascertain to the optimum degree just what the impact will be in various areas.
Not only did the hon. member for Cochrane make the statements which I read, but the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) circulated a letter which I should like to quote in part. I believe it is a very thoughtful presentation. Everything that the hon. lady advances in that letter is, in my opinion, well thought-out and we should give it ample consideration. She wrote:
I have been openly opposed to this step. It is discriminatory and unjust-a threat to the life of a first-class landed (corporate) immigrant for more than 30 years. Not only has Reader's Digest provided jobs and writing opportunities to many Canadians within a small industry-magazine publishing-but more than any other magazine published in Canada, has provided features and news (mature and well-researched) each month from all parts of Canada, linking this country.
I will continue my fight against the proposed action when it comes before the House of Commons, and if it comes before the Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts Committee.
In the next to last paragraph she wrote:
X have, and will continue, to oppose any attempt to end the life and public responsibility of Reader's Digest in Canada.
The opposition being expressed is not opposition only from the official opposition or even from all opposition parties. I believe there is significant opposition within the ranks of the government itself, and I believe all these factors should be taken into consideration in the assessment of this matter. My colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), suggested that this bill should be withdrawn. I also believe that it should be withdrawn until far more consideration is given to all the factors involved-whether this action is justified in light of the sincere and effective steps taken by Reader's Digest to act as a good corporate citizen and their evident success in contributing to the Canadian economy, and whether any appreciable benefits will accrue to the Canadian , publishing industry from the passage of the legislation.

May 26, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
I urge the minister to consider these facts as he weighs the issue, and to consider whether it would be advisable, in light of all the sources from which the opposition comes, to take the step which he proposes to take; or whether it should be given further consideration before we are asked to give second reading to this legislation.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I share the views so eloquently expressed by my colleagues. I believe that in fact this bill should be withdrawn, notwithstanding all the work that has gone on throughout the years commencing with the O'Leary commission. The fact is that there is every indication, from what we are now hearing in the debate, that the bill was hastily drafted, that it is ill-conceived, and that it was presented to the House before even the minister's supporters in his own caucus had an opportunity to adequately present their views. When the O'Leary commission on publications made its report in May, 1961, it emphasized the following:
-in an era as vital and sensitive as that of the press, whatever is done should be positive rather than negative, with the goal the promotion of the Canadian periodical, not the suppression of the foreign.
That was from the report of the O'Leary commission. The bill now before us is, in my opinion, a very negative approach to this problem. No one, and I do not think anyone involved in this debate, has tried to deny or to speak against the principle of support for Canadian periodicals and publications. God knows that the Canadian publishing industry desperately needs help. I am sure that when the minister does bring forward a measure to assist the Canadian publishing industry, it will receive the support of this House.
As has already been stated, the fact is that the revenue which will be freed by taking away the tax exemption privileges of Time and Reader's Digest will not necessarily all go to the Canadian publishing industry or to Canadian magazines. I would like to quote a survey conducted by Canadian Facts Incorporated, in January of this year; it was a survey of Canadian advertising executives. It found that very little new advertising revenue will accrue to Canadian publications. As a matter of fact, that report tells us that just under 20 per cent of the bulk of the new revenues will go to one magazine company, the Maclean-Hunter Publishing Company which already accounts for 42 per cent of the total, and despite the fact that the minister has identified the smaller, special interest magazines as the real problem area we are told that a very insignificant amount of benefit in the form of new revenues will go to smaller magazines as a result of the amendments to the Income Tax Act in the bill before the House.
As the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) has said so eloquently, the smaller publications could be helped in a very positive way and in a very meaningful way by, for example, the government restoring the special postal rates those publications once enjoyed and which were removed by this government. In other words, a return to the postal rate calculated on the basis of circulation would give the smaller and specialized publications in this country a better chance to survive and flourish.

Then there is the argument that the advertising dollars will go where the maximum audience is. That is an indisputable fact. Hence, most of the advertising dollars which will be put into the Canadian market as a result of this amendment, if it passes the House, with a small exception will not go to Canadian publications and will not help the Canadian publishing industry. They will go to the maximum audience achievement which can be bought for the dollar, and in this case it will go to newspapers and to radio and television stations. I submit that it will be a very significant windfall for Canadian radio and television stations and newspapers in this country, which are already in a lucrative position.
Regardless of what new benefits accrue to Canada's major publications, and in this case I mean Maclean-Hunt-er and Maclean's magazine, I am satisfied that Time magazine, whether it will appear as the international edition, the American edition or under a new cover as a Canadian magazine which fully meets the terms of the legislation- this, I submit, could possibly happen by Time Canada selling out 75 per cent interest to Power Corporation or F. P. Publications or some other Canadian company-will have little or no impact in this country because there will still be Time magazine one way or another. It will still have a large circulation in this country because it has the worldwide capability to provide Canadians with a first-rate international magazine. But I do not think it matters a great deal. In the final analysis we will still have Time publishing in Canada in one form or another, or at least distributed in Canada from the United States.
What does matter a great deal to a significant percentage of the members of this House is Reader's Digest. I, for one, make no apology for standing in this House and saying that I firmly believe a special case can be made for this publication. A special case has already been made by hon. members on both sides of the House. My colleague who preceded me referred to the speech of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), and he quoted from a letter which has been distributed to all members of the House by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt)-both very eloquent arguments in favour of the retention of tax exemptions for Reader's Digest in Canada.
It is an indisputable and undeniable fact that Reader's Digest has striven to be a good corporate citizen of this country. I think it has succeeded in doing that. There has already been reference to the very substantial investment this company has in this country-an investment exceeding $8 million. Reader's Digest has met and exceeded every guideline for corporate behaviour laid down by Canadian governments, including the 12 guiding principles of good corporate behaviour laid down for foreign subsidiaries in 1966 by the then minister of industry, trade and commerce.
In addition, Reader's Digest meets the qualifications of the Income Tax Act in that its editions are typeset in Canada, printed in Canada and wholly edited in Canada by a company which is a good corporate citizen of Canada, which is incorporated under the laws of this country, whose presiding officer and all other officers are Canadian citizens and taxpayers and, as my hon. friend has already said, five or six directors of the company are Canadian citizens. Sir, that is good corporate citizenship.
May 26, 1975

In addition, the company has actively supported the Canadian publishing industry through contributing to advertising research, graphic arts and bookbinding technology and by providing an expanding market for writers and illustrators through its magazine and book business. This is significant, especially in the absence of any positive policies by the minister to support the Canadian publishing industry. This company, since its inception in this country in 1943, has been employing Canadians full-time and today employs 470 full-time employees, 47 of whom have more than 20 years' service with the company. Since it has gone public, it has some 600 Canadian shareholders.
Impressive though all those arguments may be, I submit that there is another argument which should carry even greater weight and perhaps it will explain why there was such a great response from the publishers of Reader's Digest and from its readers across the country. I know that every member of parliament has received many letters. I received more than 100 from my constituents. I think the reason the response was so great was that in today's permissive society there are so few magazines which you can safely lay on your coffee-table. There are very few family magazines. The minister smiles. I do not know if he has examined the racks of magazine stores lately and has seen the kind of pornography and trash that passes for Canadian and American publications. This fact alone perhaps explains why there is so much interest in this bill. Reader's Digest is unique and has become a tradition in this country. Many of us grew up with this magazine as a family publication and part of our way of life, whether it be the French edition or the English edition. I think most hon. members will support that point of view.
This uniquely family magazine has striven to be a good corporate citizen of this country. It has almost reached its own objective of 30 per cent Canadian content. Whether this magazine reflects American points of view, British points of view or French points of view, the fact is it reflects substantially the points of view of the many Canadians who contribute to it whether in book or magazine form. I believe it is a good, clean, wholesome magazine and we as members of this House have an obligation to do whatever we can to ensure its continued publication in Canada so that it can be enjoyed by the people of this country.
I hope the minister will get the message. I am sure when the bill gets to committee we will hear these arguments again and the minister will be constrained to entertain amendments which will allow this commendable publication to continue to serve the people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question? The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens).


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, as has already been mentioned in this debate, when the minister made his initial statement concerning his intentions to introduce legislation with respect to the matter before us today, I replied on behalf of our party and indicated, as has been indicated today by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and other of my col-
Non-Canadian Publications
leagues in this party, that the principle the minister referred to is acceptable. Where I personally have had great difficulty with the minister's proposals in Bill C-58 is the detail. When I commenced to read the portion of the Income Tax Act referred to in the bill, subsections 19(1), (2) and (4), and realized in what way the minister wishes to amend those subsections, I felt much had to be said before the bill is passed by this House.
While it may be very easy to accept something in principle, I would suggest that we in this House must be doubly certain at times that in attempting to achieve something that appears to be good we do not inadvertently limit freedom of the press or create hardship with respect to a publication in Canada that has been a good corporate citizen. Above all, I believe we have to satisfy ourselves that the measure proposed by the minister is going to be beneficial to Canadian publications in general.
In this respect, I was disappointed to read the address to this House by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) on May 8. He listed eight points that he regarded as "should nots" or "have nots" with respect to the concept that we have before us. He then raised four points of "shoulds" or desirable things that he hoped to achieve. In short, he touched on eight negative and four positive points in order to justify the bill. Subsequent to touching on those points, he mentioned various things that he felt the government was doing in order to encourage the Canadian magazine and periodical industry.
What has been even more of a disappointment to me since I spoke to the House on this matter on January 23 is the evidence that the government appears to be growing indifferent to the problems of the press. Many people were shocked when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) withdrew departmental advertising from Le Jour, a Montreal newspaper. He stated that federal advertising should not be placed with a newspaper whose views were incompatible with those of the federal government and with the preservation of the nation. As we know, Le Jour is a separatist publication. Subsequently, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) backed up his minister and said the question-
-is to decide if the government should help commercial enterprise.
Madam Speaker, is that really the question when you are dealing with a matter as important as freedom of the press? One would have thought that the only reason for the government to give advertising to the media would have been to inform the public about matters of national concern such as government policy, new laws or regulations. To withdraw advertising on political grounds is to deny a certain segment of the population-in this case the readers of Le Jour-their right to such information. I would suggest it is a bad precedent, and once established it will be difficult for the government to draw a fair line between acceptable news media and those that are unacceptable.
Few would support separatism; certainly I presume virtually no one in this House would support that concept. Should the government be allowed to use their economic clout as a tactic to influence the free expression of opinion in any periodical or in any newspaper in Canada, however? I relate this to the bill before us, because while it is a simple matter to suggest that the government should

May 26, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
require foreign publications in Canada to be at least a majority, or 75 per cent owned by Canadians, where we obviously get into difficulty is when the government states that for any advantage to accrue to the periodical being owned by Canadians it should have a content that in some arbitrary way meets the requirements of, say, the Department of National Revenue.
When comments along this line were being made earlier by the hon. member for Hillsborough who was challenging the concept of an 80 per cent content rule, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) shouted, "Would you sooner have 70 per cent or 60 per cent?" I would suggest that indicates that the minister is insensitive to what we are speaking about today. We are speaking about the possibility that so-called content rules could be used by the government in power to influence their decision as to who shall be treated as a Canadian magazine and who shall be treated as a non-Canadian magazine. To the extent that any government in future could use that power to thwart freedom of the press, I believe the rule must be resisted.
I have been alarmed over the past few months by the growing indifference of this government to freedom of the press. Let me refer to the response made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in April. On that occasion he gave newsmen further cause for concern when questioned on certain measures in the proposed competition bill which is now before the committee.
The Canadian Newspaper Publishers' Association had asked for changes in the bill to ensure freedom of the press. They pointed out in their brief that unless the act is modified, purchasers of advertising may agree together to prevent or lessen competition in the purchase of their advertising generally, or in relation to a particular medium of communication or in relation to a particular newspaper or radio or television station. They asked the government to put advertisers in the same position as others who would conspire in such a way; that is, they asked the government to make it illegal. Mr. Ouellet, who appeared before the committee, was entirely unsympathetic to the proposal of the newspaper publishers.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that when referring to the minister he should refer to his portfolio.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, Madam Speaker. I said in committee that, given the Le Jour incident and the government's apparently firm position not to protect the news media from advertising conspiracies, we have an indication of how fragile freedom of the press may be in this country. This view was heightened by the remarks of the minister's parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) who chose that occasion in committee to register his hostility to the press in his area, a hostility arising from treatment afforded him during political campaigns. He is reported to have said:
As soon as an election writ is issued you get a visit from ail the advertising people from each of the newspapers, and some of them

make it very clear-and some of them do it less overtly-that they would like to know what advertising you are going to give them, and the message is certainly fairly self-evident before the conversation is over that if you do not advertise with them, you will not get any coverage. I have found that the impression that that is true is usually substantiated in fact. I have found that from those with whom we do not advertise, we certainly do not get any coverage.
The hon. member, whose absence I am sorry to note, then was more specific. Referring to the Inland Publishing Group, which apparently has newspapers in his riding, he is reported to have asked witnesses appearing on behalf of the Daily Newspaper Association the following question:
What is your view about publishers who own a number of small newspapers who in fact would have exactly the same editorial go out from all of them in respect of a very sensitive subject, when in fact those local newspapers carry the banner, and create the appearance of being locally oriented newspapers, but they are really centrally controlled ... does this strike you as being responsible policy?
The witness stated that they did not agree with such policy. Then the hon. member for Ontario shouted, "What would you do about it?" and Mr. St. Clair Balfour, president of Southam Press, replied, "It would never happen in my company." Mr. John J. Robinette, Q.C., counsel for the Daily Newspaper Association, added in jest that we are "the good guys." The hon. member for Ontario concluded by saying, "We make a distinction between the good guys and the bad guys, I guess." That exchange should give cause for alarm as it indicates the attitude of the minister, the government, and of the parliamentary secretary on the question of freedom of the press. Apparently the minister and the parliamentary secretary think that if a newspaper publishes something they do not find attractive, certain repercussions should follow.
Given the present political atmosphere, the language of Bill C-58 leaves much to be desired. To the extent that we impose arbitrary rules for content and decide who is a bad guy and who is a good guy, the freedom of the press is lessened. Consider, for example, the action which the Quebec government might take to restrict the activity of the press in that province. The premier of the province has indicated that he plans to introduce a bill in the provincial legislature which will affect the concentration of press power in that province.
I think we should put on record what has been said by at least one minister of the Bourassa government about the provisions of the proposed press legislation in Quebec. Fernand Lalonde, minister without portfolio, indicated in Toronto not long ago that the Quebec government is thinking of imposing a code of ethics on the Quebec press; in other words, there are to be guidelines on what may or not be published in the newspapers. That is an alarming suggestion. That government, which has been stung by certain press comments and does not like being criticized about current scandals in the province, has suggested, through the mouth of one of its cabinet ministers, that it will introduce a code of ethics to govern newsmen and newspapers.
In light of current events, we in this House must make doubly sure that Bill C-58 does not in any way give this or any future government a weapon to use against publications in this country, a weapon which can be used in accordance with the political feelings of the government or the minister of the day. Let me make another point about the situation in Quebec. In the Montreal Star of
May 26, 1975

April 1, 1975, Dominique Clift, in an article headlined "Quebec considers press curbs," said in part:
For more than five years various committees of the national assembly have been studying the growing concentration in the ownership of communications media as well as the public's right to unbiased information. The issue is a serious one in Quebec because the French cultural and economic environment is somewhat constrained, so that it becomes relatively easy for anyone to acquire a monopoly position in this field.
The article goes on to say there has been considerable pressure for government action in this field and that the premier has promised to introduce a law which will take care of the situation, that is, the concentration of power with respect to the press. The article goes on to say:
Current plans are to introduce the legislation some time in May or June. While the bill has not yet been drafted for presentation in the national assembly, the government is leaning toward the idea of making information media fall under the definition of "public services." This would place them under the jurisdiction of the Public Services Board which would grant accreditations or permits, and implement government directives on ownership and possibly other matters as well. No matter how straightforward and innocent these controls might be, suspicions that the government is trying to muzzle the press are very quick to be aroused.
The article expresses the views of a journalist who is alarmed about the suggestion that the provincial government may try to muzzle the press in that province. In the Toronto Star of May 17 we find a similar byline story by Robert McKenzie, entitled "Bourassa may restrict the press". In this article out of Quebec City it is pointed out:
Liberal supporters are incensed at the media's role in hammering home the scandals which have hurt the party's image in recent months.
When Fernand Lalonde, a minister without portfolio and a Bourassa confidante, said in Toronto last month that the government "is envisaging" imposing a code of ethics on the Quebec press, the premier sought to defuse the remark the next day.
I could quote much more from that article. Perhaps it is sufficient if I simply indicate that there is a discernible degree of intolerance with regard to the press at the present time. Some-and I hope they are few in number- in politics are suggesting that, for the first time in Canadian history, there should be some restriction on the freedom of the press. That is why I believe we in this House of Commons have to be extremely careful that we do not amend the Income Tax Act or any other act and inadvertently give an unfair clout to somebody in government to stifle our free press.
I wish to touch on another point. I would comment at this point that I have found this debate very refreshing in the sense that we have had participation from government backbenchers, members of my caucus and the other caucuses. Many members have made an important contribution in their remarks concerning what they believe are the inadequacies of the bill. I refer, for example, to the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and the hon. member for Cochrane from the Liberal side.
I am sure the House will accept my independence on this matter if I specifically point out to the minister where I believe his eight negatives and four positives of May 8 do not apply to certain periodicals in Canada. I will mention one instance. As the act now stands, the minister is going to require newspapers in Canada to go out of business simply because he is not willing to accommodate them. I
Non-Canadian Publications
refer to the Red Deer Advocate and the group of newspapers in British Columbia that are controlled by the same group in England. While this group owns 100 per cent of the stock of these Canadian publications, they in no way direct the content of the newspapers. The staff is entirely Canadian. I would say that the Red Deer Advocate, for those who have read it, is as good a daily newspaper as you will find in any city in Canada of comparable size.
If you read the remarks of the minister at pages 5592 and 5593 of Hansard, you will find he gives a list of eight points-sitiuations which he says should not be allowed to continue in Canada. I suggest that not one of his eight points applies to the Red Deer Advocate, yet the minister makes no exception for this type of publication. My colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough, indicated that the Christian Science Monitor represents perhaps another difficulty if the amendment before us is passed. However, let me deal specifically with the Red Deer paper. For example, the minister stated as one of his negative points: -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.
What does that have to do with the Red Deer Advocate owned by British interests? Absolutely nothing. In another point he stated:
-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.
That has nothing to do with Red Deer.
-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-
Again, nothing to do with Red Deer.
-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.
That has absolutely nothing to do with any magazine in Canada other than the two foreign magazines to which he referred.
-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.
Again, nothing to do with the publication to which I am referring.
-we do not want the continuance of a Canadianization progress record which, after 30 years, finds Time in Canada still owned and controlled entirely by Time Inc. in the United States-
The minister then refers to Reader's Digest. Again, it has nothing to do with the publication to which I am referring. He then mentions, as a second negative point, that he is alarmed at the $19 million of revenue that is being taken by two foreign-owned periodicals. Presumably he is not including the group of papers I am referring to in his $19 million reference.
In particular, I am trying to indicate that the minister's stance in drafting this bill and his statement were very, very subjective. He seems to be deliberately moving to thwart two magazines, Time and Reader's Digest. The fact that, in thwarting those magazines, he is creating problems and will probably hurt other publications in Canada
6116

May 26, 1975
Committee Procedure
which have in no way contributed to the problems that he alleges exist is secondary in his mind. I want to develop this further, because the minister then states there are four good things he is trying to accomplish by this bill. He stated:
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 Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: 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 South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-External Affairs-Proposed establishment of subcommittee to investigate CIDA; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco)-Society for the study of the Heritage of Canada-Reason for payment to society to compensate for use of name "Heritage Canada"-the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston)-Regional Economic Expansion-Request for statement on negotiations with British Columbia for projects.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Motion No. 2, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Mr. Caccia:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If Your Honour will call notice of motion No. 38, I believe you will find there is agreement to deal with it this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that all notices of motion prior to No. 38 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN COMMITTEES RESPECTING HEARING OF WITNESSES
Gerald William Baldwin: That this House: Holds that it tends to a contempt of parliament and a subversion of the constitution to assert, as did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources before a standing committee of this House in a previous session, that a minister of the Crown may order a witness not to attend a committee or to withhold evidence from the committee where, in the minister's opinion, the witness has an advisory responsibility to the minister or the government:
Informs the minister and others of the government that the implementation of this pernicious doctrine by obstruction, threat, intimidation, molestation, offer of advantage, other corrupt practice, or at all, is a crime against the law and custom of parliament;
Affirms that it is the undoubted right and ancient privilege of this House that all witnesses to attend before this House or before any committee of this House have and enjoy the privilege of this House in coming, staying and returning; and
Declares that it is a breach of the privilege of this House to tamper with a witness in regard to his evidence to be given before this House or before any committee of this House, or endeavour, directly or indirectly, to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, or attempt by persuasion, solicitation or advice of any kind to induce a witness not to attend or to withhold evidence or to give false evidence, or otherwise interfere with his freedom to form and express his own opinions honestly in the light of all the facts known to him.
He said: Madam Speaker, I did not want to deprive you of the privilege-I would have liked to have heard the terms of the motion in French; I think it would be good for members of the government side to become acquainted with them.
I was only persuaded to proceed this afternoon because members over there were so disappointed with the performance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last Thursday that I thought this whole issue should be reviewed and discussed again. I trust this will have the effect of persuading them to change their minds so that they will no longer be the unthinking members on the government side that they have been in the past. The motion is phrased in colourful terms. It states:
That this House holds that it tends to a contempt of parliament and a subversion of the constitution to assert, as did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources before a standing committee in a previous session that a minister of the Crown may order a witness not to attend a committee or to withhold evidence from a committee where, in the minister's opinion, that witness has an advisory responsibility to the minister or the government;
Informs the minister and others of the government that the implementation of this pernicious doctrine by obstruction, threat, intimidation, molestation, offer of advantage, other corrupt practice, or at all, is a crime against the law and custom of parliament-
Had there been an opportunity, I would have amended this motion so as to include the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) because they, too, brought themselves into contempt of the House, having asserted last Thursday and on other occasions that they possessed this right. However, I cannot change the motion now. 1 merely wish to make it plain that I am not picking on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). I am thinking, too, of the Prime Minister and his seatmate, the President of the Privy Council: the words have application to them. I bring to the atten-
May 26, 1975

tion of the House particularly the third paragraph of the motion:
Affirms that it is the undoubted right and ancient privilege of this House that all witnesses to attend before this House or before any of committee of this House have and enjoy the privilege of this House in coming, staying and returning; and
Declares that it is a breach of the privilege of this House to tamper with a witness in regard to his evidence to be given before this House or before any committee of this House, or endeavour, directly or indirectly, to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, or attempt by persuasion, solicitation or advice of any kind to induce a witness not to attend or to withhold evidence or to give false evidence or otherwise interfere with his freedom to form and express his own opinions honestly in the light of all the facts known to him.
That is what the Prime Minister says he has the right to do. That is what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources says he has the right to do. That is what the President of the Privy Council says he has the right to do. That is, a right to tamper with evidence, a right to tamper with the calling of witnesses before a committee. While the motion uses colourful and, some might say, extravagant words, the words take us back to the time of Charles II, the king who lost his head because he asserted the divine right of kings somewhat in the same way as the present Prime Minister. It is the same type of right as the former president of the United States claimed for himself in the exercise of executive privilege. President Nixon said that as executive head of the United States, he had the power to say to witnesses, "You need not appear before a congressional committee and testify, if I tell you not to." That is exactly the position taken by those ornaments of the treasury benches who sit opposite.
It is all very well, apparently, for committees to call witnesses from the streets outside this House. Presidents of corporations, presidents of unions-any witness can be called and is compellable. But if he happens to be a member of the civil service, then according to the principle asserted initially by the minister of energy and repeated by his more or less distinguished colleagues, he need not and cannot be called because he is a member of a class set apart. Thus, the divine right of executive privilege is alive and well and flourishing in government today.
Members opposite attempt to defend this attitude by advancing a complete distortion of the phrase "responsible government". They say, in effect, that a government composed of ministers drawn from the House of Commons and elected in a general election has no responsibility other than to the House itself and that having discharged this responsibility they are free to prohibit the calling of witnesses before a parliamentary committee. I assert that this is a distortion of the principle of responsible parliamentary government. Over 100 years ago in this country, under the guidance of the famous Baldwin-LaFontaine ministry, responsible government was brought in. I have here a book called "Baldwin and the Great Experiment", by R. M. and J. Baldwin, the distinguished, direct descendants of Robert Baldwin who has written this book in collaboration with his wife and I will quote from it what I suggest to be a most acceptable definition of "responsible government". At page 134 of the book we read:
Why did it (the Crown) not keep a minister in office in spite of the voice of parliament? It was impossible for such influence to interfere, for it did not exist; while he enjoyed the confidence of parliament he continued in office; when he lost that confidence he was obliged to
Committee Procedure
gease being a minister. The breath of parliament made him, the breath of parliament unmade him-
To my mind there could be no clearer, more concise or better definition of what we mean or ought to mean by "responsible government". The hideous, distorted paraphrase of it which the right hon. gentleman opposite and his colleagues have attempted to foist upon parliament is quite unacceptable to me, to my hon. friends and, I would hope, to many hon. members sitting on the other side of the chamber.
What was it that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said on Tuesday, December 18, 1973, before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works? As reported on page 14 of the Minutes of Evidence, he said:
I have no objection whatsoever to appearing with Mr. Stabback-
He was a witness the committee was thinking of calling. -and having him answer questions on matters of information, but as he is one of my advisers for whom I am constitutionally responsible I would have to appear when he appears. It should be understood that I will appear with the witness and, of course, I will be quite agreeable, but from a constitutional standpoint he has been acting as adviser to me and as such should appear in my presence.
Later the minister went on to say:
I am sorry, that is too much. The minister is responsible; if he chooses to have his deputy minister appear without his being present, that is the minister's choice. Ultimately, it is the minister's responsibility as to who shall appear.
I then said:
The minister is wrong. He is challenging responsible government, the right of the House of Commons-
At this point the minister rudely interrupted me and said:
I must say that responsible government means that a minister is responsible for his portfolio to the House of Commons, not individual public servants.
Nobody would challenge that assertion standing by itself, but not in that context. I was left with the only retort I could think of immediately, namely, that the minister would not recognize responsible government if it got into bed with him. Then on May 13, during the question period, I put a question to the President of the Privy Council on the idea of responsible government. The President of the Privy Council, as reported at page 5769 of Hansard, had this to say:
Ministers take responsibility not only for their own actions but for the actions of their departments and for their civil servants ... If you go behind the minister and compel civil servants to appear, then, of course, you break down the whole principle of ministerial responsibility.
Then later on, as reported at page 5770:
Surely this is the principle upon which this House must operate, otherwise the whole system of responsible government breaks down.
There is the bold, unqualified assertion that a committee of this House cannot of its own right call a civil servant to appear as a witness before it. Unless the minister in whose department that civil servant is employed gives his approval, that civil servant cannot appear, cannot give evidence and cannot be called. This was repeated on Thursday, May 22, by the Prime Minister and the Presi-
29561 -4372

May 26, 1975
Committee Procedure
dent of the Privy Council. The Prime Minister was the first offender in that long, dreary monologue when he slyly conducted himself in such a way as to prevent this House from questioning him, as had originally been understood. The Prime Minister said, as reported at page 6015 of Hansard:
In Canada, the ministry is responsible to parliament and must defend itself there every day. As I have said, this government is in a position to be more sensitive to this than most, on the basis of the experience I quoted earlier ... Our policy, Mr. Chairman, has been to improve and defend the system we have enjoyed in Canada for over 100 years and which has had a great role to play in preserving our democracy by making the elected member paramount in the decision-making process and accountable for his actions when he is a member of the ministry.
What tripe, Madam Speaker! What drivel! The Prime Minister goes back to his coach in this, the Minister of Evergy, Mines and Resources, and reasserts the same principle. Then the President of the Privy Council, as reported at page 6038 of Hansard, had this to say:
-and that does raise a question whether, if a minister objected and the committee then required his attendance, that would raise issues with which I am not quite sure how to deal.
A little later on the same page:
The question which arises is whether a committee may summon an official contrary to the wishes of his minister who is taking responsibility for his actions, and in these circumstances, since I have never seen a situation like this, I treat it as a hypothetical question.
I then rose to point out that when I was chairman of a special committee of the House in 1962, that committee summoned the then Clerk of the Privy Council to appear to deal with the War Measures Act, and the distinguished Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Bob Bryce, appeared and gave very eloquent testimony.
So there, Madam Speaker, the issue is joined. We say that any person is a competent and compellable witness before this, the highest court in the land or before any committee of this House or this parliament. The government says no, if such a person is a civil servant he is only to be called if the minister in charge permits this to come about. In the name of heaven, what would happen to the public accounts committee in the circumstances? Is it the assertion of this government that public servants who appear and answer for the misdeeds of their department with respect to spending programs can only appear if they get the permission of their respective minister? If there is a discrepancy or a miscalculation, or if there is some skullduggery, it may be corrupt or simply an error.
Are the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council saying that if a minister of the department involved says he is not going to have his civil servants appear, then the public accounts committee cannot call them? It seems to be the assertion they are making. But it is not enough to say that public servants shall appear. We are talking about a principle-the right, the assertion, that this House and this parliament is paramount. The government gets its authority primarily from the House and generally from parliament, and it should not be heard to enunciate here the principle that it can prevent witnesses from being called.
I know that what we have now is government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats and for the bureaucrats. Hon. gentlemen sitting opposite may disagree with me, but I hope they do not. I think those of them who regularly

attend their caucus and are subject to the discipline of their caucus would be inclined to agree with me if they would only open their hearts and say so in this House. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the unbelievable complacency of politicians, of the press, of sections of the public toward a kind of government that we are seeing develop by the enunciation of principles of this kind is beyond all description.
We all know that even with responsible government ministers make mistakes. No one has ever urged that a member of parliament has the right in a committee to question a public servant on an issue of policy, or on an issue of confidentiality involving criminal prosecutions, information under the Income Tax Act or information derived from the confines of secrecy in the Privy Council office. That is not what we are asking for. Today governments have become involved in the development of difficult, complex, intricate and complicated programs for legislative purposes and for spending purposes, and they take months and months to develop such programs through information and facts brought to their attention by civil servants and consultants brought in to supplement civil servants. And I suggest to the House that there is no good reason why members of the House both on the government side and on the opposition side should not in committee be entitled to know something of the facts.
A member of parliament is entitled to ask, "What are the facts upon which this decision is based? I am not asking you to tell me why the policy was made, because that is a government decision". No one but the government takes responsibility for policy decisions in regard to bills and spending programs, and the government stands or falls at the next election upon its policies. But as for development of policy and the right to ask questions about facts, it would be an intolerable situation if a committee of this House were deprived of the opportunity of calling a witness to put to him factual questions that fall outside the ambit of that which is confidential.
It is on that basis that I have brought this motion to excite some interest and to find out whether there is support from different parts of the House for it. It also puts the matter into the public domain. As far as the government is concerned, I know its general tendency to be despotic and tryannical will prevent it from giving effect to the proposals I have made. But I hope my motion will initiate a public airing of this issue so that the matter is taken to the people. The only way an issue can be finally settled in a democratic system is to put it to the people. I do so in the clear knowledge to that this party is pledged to bring in laws as to secrecy and with regard to the right to call witnesses and to develop a full and open society. I hope we will get some reasonable discussion, not only in this House but in the country at large, of this major issue.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak to this motion which has been moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). It is one of his favourite topics and I am sure he has enjoyed presenting it to the House this afternoon. It is surely an important matter of the rights and privileges of members of parliament. It seems to me his allegations in the motion before the House and in his presentation really
May 26, 1975

bear pretty close scrutiny. For instance, he suggested that witnesses had been prevented from appearing before the national resources and public works committee by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). As we look at the evidence, and surely he did not substantiate his claim very well, this is just not so. I am aware of no witness who has been summoned by the national resources and public works committee and who has not appeared.
The work of the committee has involved some 20 meetings since January. The steering committee has set out a schedule of witnesses, and whether it has been in respect of the miscellaneous estimates, the study of the international energy agreement, the study of Petro-Can, the departmental estimates or the estimates of Crown corporations and other agencies, representatives of which appear before this committee, in no way has the minister prevented any witness from appearing. Likewise, on some occasion these witnesses have appeared before the committee without the minister or his parliamentary secretary being present.
It seems to me that the question we have before us today is whether the hon. member for Peace River really believes in responsible government. One of his allegations was that we really have government by bureaucrats, for bureaucrats-and I forget the rest of that couplet. I suppose if you really believe that bureaucrats make all the decisions, then, as he feels, he should be able to question them on matters of policy. We do not believe that on this side of the House. We believe ministers are responsible for the setting of policy and they should have to answer questions on policy before parliamentary committees. We believe that civil servants, when they appear with or without the minister or parliamentary secretary, are there to answer questions relating to information or administration.
The first statement in the motion of the hon. member for Peace River reads:
That this House: Holds that it tends to a contempt of parliament and a subversion of the constitution to assert, as did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources before a standing committee of this House in a previous Session, that a minister of the Crown may order a witness not to attend a committee or to withhold evidence from the committee where, in the minister's opinion, the witness has an advisory responsibility to the minister or the government-
Let us go from that and just see what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said on the occasion referred to, and I quote from the record of the national resources and public works committee meeting of December 18, 1973, at page 24:14. He said:
Mr. Chairman, I might speak to the suggestion concerning Mr. Stabback who is a public servant and in his capacity as a member of the National Energy Board is one of my advisers. I have no objection whatsoever to appearing with Mr. Stabback and having him answer questions on matters of information-
It does not seem that the hon. member has substantiated well his claim that the witness was prevented or ordered not to attend.


Gerald William Baldwin: What about what he said on page 33, which I read?
Committee Procedure


Maurice Brydon Foster: The second claim is that the minister was forcing the witness to withhold evidence from the committee. Let me complete the rest of the sentence that I read in part:
-but as one of my advisers for whom I am constitutionally responsible, I would have to appear when he appears. It should be understood that I will appear with the witness and, of course, I would be quite agreeable but from a constitutional standpoint, he has been acting as an adviser to me and as such should appear in my presence.
It seems to me the situation is that when a committee hearing is taking place, we do not have questions put by members of parliament in a neatly compartmentalized way but, rather, questions that involve matters of administration and policy. If a good committee meeting is to be held with information being supplied, we should have people in attendance who can answer questions on policy and on administration information as well. This is what the minister was saying, that if a member of his department or an adviser to him is to appear, he should be able to attend the committee to answer in respect of matters relating to policy.
The second paragraph of the hon. member's motion before the House this afternoon reads as follows:
Informs the minister and others of the government that the implementation of this pernicious doctrine by obstruction, threat, intimidation, molestation, offer of advantage, other corrupt practice, or at all, is a crime against the law and custom of parliament-
That is pretty strong stuff. I do not know if that is the kind of language the hon. member for Peace River would normally use, but it certainly does not-


Gerald William Baldwin: It is among my mildest.


Maurice Brydon Foster: He talks that way on opposition days; however, he did not talk early enough last Thursday, apparently, because that was a pretty weak and pathetic performance. I admit that he probably made the best presentation possible from that side of the House, but it was a pretty weak performance on the whole.
It seems to me that we have very serious allegations in the hon. member's motion this afternoon, but we do not have much substance to back them up. We have a minister of the Crown saying that when there are matters of policy being put before a standing committee to the House of Commons, the minister will or can be there to answer those questions and that civil servants will and can answer questions relating to administration or information. If we look at the proceedings of the national resources and public works committee we will find that on occasion witnesses have appeared without the minister being present and in those circumstances, of course, the witnesses have had to turn aside questions on policy.


Gerald William Baldwin: Well coached ahead of time.


Maurice Brydon Foster: It is rather interesting that the hon. member for Peace River should have referred to the public accounts committee, because surely there is no other committee that day after day, year after year and committee session after committee session has called more witnesses, deputy ministers and other officials on matters relating to administration. The hon. member really weakened his argument by even raising that matter, because everyone knows how many times officials from every department of

May 26, 1975
Committee Procedure
government are called before that committee to give testimony and information.
It seems to me that what is being followed is a long-established tradition of the British parliamentary system. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Peace River wants to move toward the congressional system, with a separation of powers, but under our parliamentary system surely the minister is responsible for policy.


Gerald William Baldwin: It beats the Roman system.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Knowing the hon. member's great interest in the parliamentary procedure, I find it hard to believe that he really wants to attack our system of responsible government.


Gerald William Baldwin: Remember that Caligula made his horse a member of the council. That is the kind of thing we see.


Maurice Brydon Foster: In looking at this matter, the hon. member also raised the matter of privilege. I would like to read that section of the Journals that concerns those special privileges that members of parliament have. It reads:
Mr. Speaker, I am commanded by His Excellency the Governor General to declare to you that he freely confides in the duty and attachment of the House of Commons to Her Majesty's Person and Government and, not doubting that their proceedings will be conducted with wisdom, temper and prudence, he grants and upon all occasions will recognize and allow their constitutional privileges.
I am commanded also to assure you that the Commons shall have ready access to His Excellency upon all occasions, and that their proceedings as well as your words and actions, will constantly receive from him the most favourable construction.
So we do have these special privileges given to us from the Crown, and under our system the government has a responsibility to the House of Commons for all the people who work under it in its departments.
The hon. member for Peace River has tried to broaden the motion before us today. As it is written, it refers directly to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I would like to indicate that the minister has never ordered a witness not to attend a committee meeting, or ordered a witness to withhold evidence from a committee as is alleged in the motion. Records of the work of this standing committee will show that he has co-operated fully in providing witnesses before the standing committee. I really think the hon. member should consider withdrawing the motion because it has no substance, as I am sure he is aware.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, hearing the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) I was a little uncertain just how to take him because, frankly, I was uncertain as to how he was taking himself. Listening to him I did not know whether he was actually making arguments which were subversive of the parliamentary system and of responsible government as we know it, or whether he was just repeating some tired old arguments for the sake of the reading public. Those who could hear the manner in which he was making his remarks and the lack of effort he put into it in comparison with the effort he usually puts into even his most unworthy causes would

have the same doubts as I have. We missed his enthusiasm today.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was trying to speak seriously, but when I saw the blank faces of people opposite who did not understand the issue I was discouraged.


Mark R. MacGuigan: In view of the manner in which he presented his own arguments I tend to think he made a political speech, I do not know whether in the best or the worst tradition. If we were to take seriously the kind of arguments advanced today by the House leader of the opposition, we would have no responsible government left.
Up to a point he is entirely right in what he says. He says that it is the undoubted right and ancient privilege of this House that all witnesses who attend before this House or before any committee of this House have and enjoy the privilege of this House in coming, staying and returning. All this is right, provided he makes what he says subject to responsible government.
I should also add that there is one other aspect of parliament's power which is not being questioned here today and which I am sure is common ground to all parties, that is, the power of the whole House to summon before the bar of parliament any person in the country for an accounting of his actions. Parliament has not chosen to exercise that right very often, but I think that it includes even civil servants in a case where, because of some individual action of a public servant, the whole House decides to call him before the bar of the House in such a case the public servant would be required to attend. That is a very unusual situation which is not under discussion here this afternoon.
The House leader of the opposition is attempting to make it a rule that parliament, without any reference whatsoever to the doctrine of responsible government, should have the right to summon any public servant before it. That is not only not the intolerable situation he asserted it to be but in fact it is the unbroken tradition of parliament that it is the government that is responsible for the actions of the public service, and that it is the minister to whom the public servant is responsible who has not only the option but indeed the duty to appear before either the House or the committees of parliament to account for the actions of his public servants.
The House leader of the opposition and I have even sat on some of the same committees, and we have both observed the same things, namely, that when a public servant is summoned before a committee, he is normally accompanied by his minister. The minister may choose to answer most of the questions or he may choose to inform himself of the facts from the public servant who may be there speaking into his ear. In fact committees have sometimes halted proceedings while a public servant has an opportunity to acquaint his minister fully of the matter being discussed. That is the way the system operates-it operates through the minister. On those comparatively rare occasions when a public servant appears before a committee without the support of his minister, it is by advance permission and with the knowledge of the minister.
The House leader of the opposition has sat on various committees with me, among others on the Special Com-

mittee on Statutory Instruments and I believe also on the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada. In both these committees we heard public servants who were unaccompanied by their ministers, but this was done with the knowledge and authorization of the ministers. In fact I can recall speaking to the ministers on those occasions to see whether they would have objections to their public servants appearing on their own before the committee. Because of the limited nature of the inquiries that were being made and the fact that where a policy was involved it was so well-known that it was thought no confusion could arise, the ministers said that it would be perfectly all right with them if the public servants appeared on their own.
In case of the Public Accounts Committee as my colleague, the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), said, it has enjoyed the greatest possible freedom in the investigation of witnesses, a freedom I am sure all members of the House would like to see continued. But the fact is that it is the minister who is responsible. If the minister chooses to appear on his own, or chooses to appear with his public servants and to take full responsibility and fully explain to the parliamentary committee what has happened, that is the minister's responsibility.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the hon. member permit a question? I would like to ask the hon. member a question regarding his interesting comments. I hope it is taken off his time because he is entitled to full time. Does he urge the adoption of the principle with respect to the Public Accounts Committee that if a minister see fit to instruct a public servant who had been asked by the committee to appear before it not to go, the public servant would not be allowed to appear before the committee?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In my opinion, if the minister refused permission for that public servant to appear before the committee, it would be the minister's responsibility, and he himself would have to explain to the committee why he did not allow the public servant to attend. The minister would have to take the political consequences of his decision. That is what the discussion is all about, the responsibility of the government for the political consequences.
Governments cannot escape their responsibility merely by allowing some public servant to take the rap, at least if it is a matter which involves the normal implementation of government policy. There may be an unusual situation where a public servant has been indulging in a frolic of his own for which he himself deserves to bear individual responsibility, but in a case such as that the government would want to cut that man loose from its protection. However, in a more normal situation it is the government which has responsibility, before the committee and before the House, as well as before the public.
I am pleased the House leader of the opposition has cited the origins of the doctrine of responsible government in Canada, the doctrine which those great Liberals, Baldwin and Lafontaine, brought to this country, and which had been developed earlier in Britain as a result of the actions of earlier Liberals. It is a doctrine to which we on this side fully subscribe. I hope the fact that the other party came later to it in historical sequence does not mean that their devotion to it is any less, but that they are prepared to join
Committee Procedure
with us in re-affirming the fact that this is not only a parliamentary democracy, but that it is also one based on responsible government.
Obviously there have to be some bounds to responsible government, and there can be some argument as to the difficult cases, but the kind of case to which the House leader of the Official Opposition is referring is not a difficult case. What he is proposing is flying against the mainstream of parliamentary tradition. It is not a doubtful or difficult case at all. He is proposing that a committee should have the right to summon a public servant apart from his minister. If the doctrine of responsible government means anything it means that the minister is the one who is primarily responsible; he is the one who has the duty to answer for his public servant and the actions of his public servant.
I often wonder what is behind this attack, and others of this kind, by hon. members opposite. I suspect that their motivation is very political. In view of the kind of declarations we hear from the hon. member for Peace River and sometimes from the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), members who, certainly in the case of the hon. member for Peace River, understand the parliamentary system so well that we can hardly believe that they stumble unknowingly on these positions which they are putting forth, I suspect that there is a kind of design on the part of hon. members opposite to confuse the public about what is happening in parliament today, and to suggest that there is something completely unwarranted happening.
We hear cries from those opposite that the parliamentary system is being changed into a presidential system. They present the parliamentary system as it should be in terms of, for example, Bagehot's "Constitution of England," of 1867, which, as hon. members opposite well know, describes the British House of Commons for a period of some 30 to 40 years between the first and second reform bills and only that period of parliamentary history out of the 300 or 400 years of parliamentary history.
During all the rest of that period the meaning of parliament has carried with it a certain supremacy of the executive, often too much, and I often join with hon. members opposite in suggesting ways in which the powers of the executive should be limited. I might say also that I join with them on many occasions in suggesting that the principle of open government is of crucial importance to the future of democracy in this country, but I cannot go along with hon. members opposite when they try to depart from these valid principles and valid suggestions about the needs of parliamentary democracy today, and to perpetrate on the people-and I think it is nothing less than a perpetration-extensions of those doctrines and distortions of what is happening so as to suggest that the government, in effect, is not following parliamentary tradition.
We are here dealing with the mainstream. We are not talking about doubtful cases at all. The hon. member opposite, if he were to be taken seriously, would be making a subversive attack on the very foundation of our system of parliamentary democracy. I do not think he

May 26, 1975
Committee Procedure
intends to go that far. Indeed, I am sorry to say that I think his motives are somewhat less worthy than that in the sense that I think he is not speaking here as a statesman but as a politician, and I am sorry that he chooses to act as a politician in a matter which is of such basic importance to our country, a matter on which I think parliamentarians of all parties should speak with a united voice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to get into the argument which is taking place between the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and those on the other side of the House. With respect to the last remark of the last speaker, it seems to me that it is one we often hear. The other fellow is always the politician; the one who has the floor is always the statesman.


An hon. Member:: It certainly is true in this case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is my hon. friend saying it is true right now?


An hon. Member:: The previous speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I cannot even get a compliment when I set it up and ask for it, because I am on the other side of the House.


Mr. Cullen:: When you get to the Senate we'll call you a statesman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, my goodness! Not only are they unwilling to pay me a compliment;
I am now being insulted.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is a compliment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said when I first rose that I was not going to get into the argument. I am not sure there is much of an argument, when one pulls brushes aside the words and the epithets which are thrown back and forth. I think there is agreement on both sides that the general system of responsible government we have is a good one, and that on both sides of the House there is a desire that responsible government should really work.
I rose, however, because I have the feeling that one of the reasons why we have this kind of motion before us, and one of the reasons why we have had a number of discussions lately about how things proceed in committees is that there is a certain amount of unhappiness, certainly less than happiness, about the way some of our committees are functioning. We in this House are aware that the amount of business we have to do in the course of 12 months is so voluminous that it is not possible for all of it to be done here. This means we have to make greater use of the committees than has been the case in years gone by. If we are to make greater use of committees, they are going to have to work. Therefore when things happen in committees which we do not like, there is this feeling of unhappiness.
I want to speak only for a minute or two, and I will not go much longer than that, Madam Speaker, because you will probably wonder whether I am in order or not. I will

get it over before you rule me out. I just want to say that I think one of the reasons why there is unhappiness about committees and that this unhappiness produces this kind of motion, is that our committees are too crowded in their operations. This leads me to the pitch I have been making for a good many years, and that is why I took the floor today. I think we must organize our work so that there are occasions-for example, a week at a time-when the House does not sit, so that committees can be at the centre of the stage and have time to do their work without the members of those committees being concerned about having to be in the House or having to do other work on those days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is not a new idea. I said that I have proposed it a good many times. I was not the first to propose it, but it seems to me that there is agreement that it is a good idea. I was applauded for it just now. There is agreement on this proposition, yet we never seem to get around to doing anything about it. The successful working of the committee system is important. That includes the right to question the witnesses who appear before them. But I think it is terribly important that we find better ways to accommodate the work of our committees, and I hope we will do something about this very soon.


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, I just want to say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in a very statesmanlike speech made a suggestion with which I am in wholehearted agreement. I think there ought to be more time for committees so that they can function without having to worry about the operations of the House of Commons, which does tend to dominate their activities, particularly since the amount of work now going through committees and the importance of that work have become so fundamental to the proper functioning of the House of Commons.
I believe that the House of Commons has lost its capability to deal with the amount of work which has to be done. As a result, it will have to consider its own operations with a more clear eye as to what is actually going on, the kind of work which the government is increasingly putting before it, and the frustration of the House in not being able to process that work in a way which is becoming to the House, to the members, the committees and, indeed, to the institution of parliament.
I believe, therefore, that the motivation which has led to this particular resolution on the order paper is a genuine one. It stems from the frustration as to the proper relationship between the House of Commons and committees. It stems from a frustration that members feel about the operation of committees and the lack of knowledge as to what the powers, authority and privileges of the committees are vis-a-vis the House of Commons.
We have seen over the last week where His Honour the Speaker has had to deal with a number of motions hon. members have brought forward regarding conflicts in the standing committees. Many of us feel that the conflicts are
May 26, 1975

not going to be resolved in the standing committees until we work out some system by which members agree that solutions reached in committee are equitable and fair.
I feel that the current system of appointing chairmen, and the way committee business is handled by the steering committees and committees themselves, leave a great deal to be desired. We have to look for substantial reforms in this area.
I want to deal more specifically with the proposition advanced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). At the start I think we should make clear what he is talking about. In his motion the hon. member alleges that the committee has been tampered with in so far as a member of the Public Service, and adviser to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), was not permitted to testify before it. I would say that a committee of the House of Commons has certain rights to command the attendance of certain people before it to give evidence on certain subjects.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is a very dangerous doctrine.


John Mercer Reid: I would say that when it comes to compelling people to appear before the committee, the committee does not have that power. It is within the power of the House of Commons, however, to compel somebody to appear either before the bar of the House or before a standing committee, but a committee itself has very limited powers in that area. Let me give an example, Madam Speaker.
Committees are generally given the power to summon persons, papers and records. We have seen a number of examples of those powers being exercised. When a committee has before it the estimates of a government department, however, or a bill of the House of Commons, then it seems to me that the only witness a committee has power to compel to attend is the minister who has sponsored that legislation in the House, or the minister who is responsible for the estimates for which he has signed and which are before the House, and which the House has referred to the committee.
In our system ministers are responsible for decisions taken; civil servants are not responsible for decisions taken. That is why ministers sit in the House of Commons, it is why they answer questions and why they take responsibility. If we were to accept the doctrine that civil servants were responsible for these decisions, then perhaps civil servants should be invited to sit on the treasury benches in this House of Commons so that they could be responsible to the House.
That is not the system, however. Our system is clear, exact and precise. Decisions are taken by ministers-they are imputed to have been taken by them even though they have not in fact been taken by the ministers. Ministers stand and fall in the House of Commons defending those decisions taken by them and the advisers who work for them and under their authority.
I recall one occasion when a minister was in deep trouble in this House over a decision that had been taken by his advisers, and about which he had not been aware. He told me, "There are at least 92,000 public servants in my department. If by nine o'clock in the morning Ottawa
Committee Procedure
time one of them somewhere has not got me into trouble over something, then obviously the department is not doing its job." He acknowledged that he accepted responsibility for the activity of public servants engaged in implementing policies to which he had given concurrence, and implementing decisions in which he had participated with his colleagues.
I think we should make it quite clear that when a minister's estimates are before a committee, or when a bill is before a committee, that committee does have the power to compel the minister to appear before it, or a representative of the government to appear before it. I would even go further and argue that if a committee wished to have outside advice from somebody who is beyond the government pale, somebody who is an expert in the university or business field, the committee would have power to compell him to appear before it and give testimony. But I make a clear distinction between the committee's power to do that and the power the committee has to compel members of the government to appear. I believe this is an important distinction, because in the case of the government it is crystal clear that employees are responsible for the activities, responsible for their proposals-which after all is what the estimates are and what a bill is. The people brought in by committees-and they do this and it is a desirable practice-are there to give testimony to the committee within the bounds of their specialized knowledge. That is one of the reasons why committees have taken advantage of this, to call people before them, some of whom have not always been happy to appear, but whose testimony has been valuable.
I can recall a number of instances when I was chairman of a committee when in order to obtain information on what was going on we requested the presence of an individual who had prepared a report for the government on a particular subject. That gentleman came before us and gave testimony on what we wanted. We found his testimony quite useful. We did not get the government report we wanted, but we got the use of the expert witness who had immersed himself in the subject and who was not in the public service. Madam Speaker, I see it is six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hour appointed for private members' business having expired I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
29561 -44
Non-Canadian Publications

[Stage Direction]
May 26, 1975

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, just before the supper recess I had been reviewing Bill C-58 and the effect it will have on non-Canadian newspapers. As an example I single out the Red Deer Advocate. I understood the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) to say before supper that in his opinion the bill does not pertain to the Red Deer Advocate, even though it is wholly owned by a group in England. Having read the bill I see no foundation for the Secretary of State's statement about the Red Deer Advocate.
I submit that proposed section 19.1 will apply to advertising space in the issue of a non-Canadian newspaper or periodical. I particularly emphasize the word newspaper. The definition of non-Canadian or Canadian, as the case may be, turns in part on share ownership. Three quarters of the issued shares must be Canadian if the publication is to be considered as Canadian owned.
I draw attention to these facts as I feel the present language of the bill is too all-encompassing. It affects both periodicals and newspapers and casts a net, so to speak, which catches newspapers like the Red Deer Advocate.
We should remember that Canadian newspaper and publishing companies are healthy and prosperous and, to put it mildly, large. According to the latest figures available, four of our largest publishing groups enjoyed sales of $546 million in 1973. Those four groups consist of Thomson Newspapers Ltd., which made $157 million worth of sales in 1973; the Toronto Star Limited, which sold $94 million worth of goods that same year; Southam Press Limited, which enjoyed sales of $183 million, and MacLean-Hunter Limited, which enjoyed $112 million worth of sales. The 1973 revenues of these companies were substantially larger than their 1972 revenues, and I understand the 1974 figures will be even larger.
One cannot suggest, surely, that a foreign-owned newspaper like the Red Deer Advocate is a serious threat to Canadian newspapers. I just indicated how large are the revenues of our four largest publishing groups. It goes without saying that they are Canadian-owned, and the number of shares held by foreigners is not meaningful. This being so, I find the position of the Secretary of State strange. He insists on the inclusion of periodicals and newspapers.
We should compare the earnings of some foreign publications with the earnings of our own. Although I do not have available the figures for Time Canada, I do have available those for Reader's Digest Association of (Canada) Ltd. Compare the sales of MacLean-Hunter
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
Limited of $112 million for 1973 with the sales of Reader's Digest of $28 million during the same period. Clearly, although some foreign newspapers or periodicals operating in Canada have been given income tax advantages, our Canadian companies are healthy and doing relatively well.
Another point I would like to touch on is the fact that we must be very careful in discriminating against foreign investment in this country, and perhaps even more so in discriminating against the investment of foreign concerns in newspapers or periodicals. We are coming into a world environment where many countries are tending to be much more nationallistic in their attitudes with regard to trade and investment in their own countries. The United States, for example, which has been among the world leaders in encouraging other countries to keep relatively free as far as trade is concerned and also to open up with regard to foreign investment, has now shown for the first time a distinct trend in favour of restricting foreign investment in the United States.
Canada, being one of the largest if not the largest investor in the United States, has to be exceedingly cautious in doing something that may inadvertently cause more and more concern in the United States with regard to our investment in that country. I refer to the fact that congressmen who are presently greatly exercised over the danger of foreign acquisition of United States companies and strategic natural resources in the United States have introduced nearly three dozen bills to curb foreign investment in recent months. The most widely publicized bill, one written by Senator Harrison Williams, a Democrat from New Jersey, would give the President authority to veto foreign acquisitions of more than 5 per cent of the stock of virtually any publicly-owned corporation in the United States.
The Williams proposal has been sponsored by eight senators who represent almost the full spectrum of political opinion from liberal Democrat to conservative Republican. Since the Williams bill does not need the President to allow the takeover of one domestic corporation by another, it overtly discriminates against foreigners who might be interested in investing in further concerns in the United States.
In short, as I indicated earlier, this bill, in setting up some type of content rule with regard to what magazines or newspapers will be considered to be Canadian, is getting into a grey area that may lead to some limitation of freedom of the press in this country. This, I suggest, we must resist. In any event we must resist the broad spectrum that is thrown out by this bill which includes newspapers as well as periodicals. Surely a paper such as the Red Deer Advocate does not have to be caught up in the provisions of this bill as it is now before us.
Finally I suggest in the broader sense that we must be cautious that we do not provoke retaliation in the United States or in any other foreign country, be they countries in which we are presently investing or not. The retaliation, I suggest, would come in the form of resistance and restrictions against further investment by ourselves in those countries.
May 26, 1975


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-58. With the exception of capital punishment and abortion, this bill has given rise to more correspondence than any other subject that has been debated in the House since I came here in 1972.
The majority of my letters have been with respect to Reader's Digest. With one exception they have all been opposed to the legislation. I had fewer letters in connection with Time magazine, but here again of all the letters I received there was only one that was in favour of the legislation.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: And that was from the publisher.


Douglas Charles Neil: My hon. friend said that was from the publisher. I was very interested in reading the remarks of the minister as recorded in Hansard for Thursday, May 8. I wish to quote from page 5592, the first paragraph of the minister's speech, as follows:
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.
I was impressed by the words "a free society" because that is what every man, woman and child in Canada is concerned about today; a free society, a society in which we have freedom of expression, freedom to move about, freedom from fear, and freedom to read whatever books, magazines, periodicals or newspapers that one wishes. All these are freedoms which individual Canadians hold dear. We should have a free society that creates an atmosphere which lends itself to a natural and gradual development of a culture, unencumbered by government legislation and regulations.
You cannot legislate culture. All a government can do is create an atmosphere which lends itself to the development of the richness of one's culture. Culture in a nation such as Canada, which is young in years, has to evolve with time. It develops as a result of the intermingling of the ideas and customs of those various ethnic groups who came as immigrants to Canada to meld their thoughts, ideas and cultures into the mosaic of our society.
Bill C-58 will not do anything to add to our distinctly Canadian culture and identity, as the minister put it. This legislation has one purpose and one purpose only, to assist the Canadian periodical industry. Development of our cultural society is secondary and very minor in the mind of the government. I wish to quote again from page 5592 of Hansard where the minister, talking about the Canadian owned periodicals and the industry, said:
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. ... It is not a negative
Non-Canadian Publications
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.
In other words, the government is not concerned about the cultural aspect of the magazine industry. It is concerned about assisting the publishing organizations and the periodicals that are published in Canada today.
Later in his speech the minister said that Time and Reader's Digest have an unfair advantage over Canadian periodicals. What is this advantage? My reading of the present law is that these foreign-owned periodicals compete on an equal footing with Maclean's and all other Canadian magazines. The only advantage they have is an advantage with respect to other foreign magazines. So what is the problem?
Why is the Canadian magazine industry in difficulty, if it is in difficulty? After listening to the remarks of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) I doubt whether it is in real difficulty judging from the profits the Maclean-Hunter organization has made, for example. It is not the lack of advertising dollars.
I went down to the Parliamentary Library this morning and thumbed through the most recent issue of Maclean's. Between one third and one half of that magazine is taken up with advertising-I suggest it is a larger percentage of advertising than most magazines carry. Basically, people buy magazines to read the articles, not for the sake of the advertising and, frankly, it is annoying to have to search through the advertising to find the continuation of articles.
As I say, people buy magazines to read the articles, and this is where Canadian magazines have fallen down. They do not carry articles which the general public finds interesting or informative. They carry articles which in many cases are biased, and in others, critical articles which are never complimentary of our public figures, our society or our way of life. If it is poor circulation these magazines complain of I submit it is not the fault of competition but the fault of editors failing to keep their finger on the pulse of the nation so as to know what the public wants.
I should like to comment on a number of other statements the minister made during this debate. As reported at page 5593 of Hansard on May 8 he talks about the world view of Canadian readers being influenced by United States periodicals. Surely Canadians are intelligent enough to read foreign periodicals, whether American, French, German or others, and understand that in most cases, in their editorials at least they are inclined to be biased in favour of the country of origin. Surely adult Canadians are intelligent people who can assess the comments made in these magazines and draw their own conclusions.
A short time ago I had occasion to speak to a group of servicemen. The first thing they said to me was, "Make certain you vote against that legislation because we want to see Time magazine continued." I questioned them, and they said, "We agree it is inclined to be somewhat biased toward a United States view but, on the other hand, it is the only magazine where we can get in summarized form an overview of what is taking place in the world; we
29561 -44J/z

Non-Canadian Publications
discount it and still find it is a good source of information." Does the government have to protect the public by shielding them from news reports or features it doesn't like? It seems as though this is the case.
I was listening to Canada-AM a short while ago. A prominent provincial Liberal was appearing on a panel discussing newspaper reporting and periodicals in Canada. He was complaining that most newspapers and many periodicals did not act in a responsible manner in reporting the news. He felt the government of Canada should set up a Crown corporation along the lines of the CBC to publish a newspaper throughout Canada in order that Canadians could get a proper view of the news. What a lot of nonsense! Heaven help us if it ever comes about.
Later on, as reported at page 5593, the minister said he did not want to see the continuance of a practice whereby the stories and articles reported in the French language Canadian edition of the Digest were translated outside Canada. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that a good deal of the translation of government papers and documents is done in France, or in New Orleans in the United States. If what I am saying is correct, how valid is the minister's statement?
There are many other points I could raise, but I do not wish to repeat what has already been said by other members. I do, however, wish to commend the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) who gave us a comprehensive review of advertising revenues, circulation figures, capital investment by Reader's Digest, employment created by that magazine in the Province of Quebec, and so on. I would also commend for reading by the minister a letter regarding Reader's Digest and Time circulated to all members by one of his own supporters on the government side, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). That hon. member is a writer, and I believe she expresses the fear of many Canadians when she says:
At the very time when free societies are being swallowed up in the Communist thrust to achieve its proclaimed aim-world domination- this action is symbolic of a concerted effort to alienate an old and strong ally and Canada's closest friend, the United States. One wonders if we are not being used by the small but vocal Toronto-based anti-American clique.
This should be read in the light of the statement by Senator Keith Davey when he talks about "a window on the world through American-tinted glass".
I believe in a strong Canadian magazine industry, but it should be an industry which is built on competition, an industry which is based on public demand in terms of content, not of what a few intellectuals think is right for the public to consume. If a magazine is responsible to the wishes of the public and publishes what the readers find interesting and educational, it will be in demand and achieve popularity. Consequently it will be profitable and able to compete on an equal footing with other magazines and periodicals.
In closing I should like to read a letter from a constituent of mine. It is typical of many letters I have received, and I believe it is typical of the feelings of the majority of Canadians. It comes from Mr. H. D. Wilson of Moose Jaw. It is dated March 10, and it reads:
[Mr. Neil.)
Dear Mr. Neil:
This is to advise that as a lifelong subscriber to Reader's Digest and Time magazine I take a dim view of the government's current effort that may deprive me of my major sources of pleasant, meaningful and informative reading.
I have no reason to feel that either magazine has deliberately omitted anything Canadian that might be newsworthy, pleasurable, entertaining or informative. Both seem to fill the gaps left by Canadian magazines, newspapers, radio and television.
I do not subscribe to either magazine because of their Canadian content but rather for their detail in American and worldwide coverage.
I would be deeply appreciative of anything you can do to help ensure that these two time honored magazines continue to be available to me and my fellow Canadians.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, the sheer volume of mail on the subject of these amendments to section 19 of the Income Tax Act forces me to speak on behalf of my constituents. I am one who has always enjoyed the arrival of my Time magazine. It gave me a quick overview of Canadian news and a very quick perspective of world affairs and how they related to me as a Canadian. As for Reader's Digest I seldom purchased a copy; I always managed to borrow one of the family's or finish reading it in a doctor's office or, heaven forbid, a dentist's office.
I now find myself as a new member of the House of Commons participating in a debate determining the future of these two magazines, along with others, that will be affected by Bill C-58. We are not just talking of Time and Reader's Digest, as we have a tendency to think. There are other foreign owned publications that will be affected by the revocation of section 19(2) of the Income Tax Act. For example, there is the Red Deer Advocate, the Chilliwack Progress, the Abbotsford News and the Fraser Valley Record. These are all owned by the Liverpool Post and Daily Echo Limited. In addition, in the periodical field there is Modern Medicine and a magazine entitled M.D. The former is now printed and published in Canada by South-am under a licence from the New York Times, and I believe there is now a 50 per cent ownership on the Canadian operation.
It would be impossible for Canadian editors and writers to write the input of periodicals like Modern Medicine and M.D. because what our professionals in those disciplines are trying to achieve is a perspective and insight into what is going on in other countries and among people in other countries who are writing in certain fields of research. These are all institutions and media that will be affected by the bill we are debating here this day.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), in a release dated March 26, pointed out that successive Canadian governments have considered the action we are discussing, since 1960. In that year Senator Grattan O'Leary, head of a royal commission, urged that the country develop a selfsufficient national press. I should like to quote one point he made which the Secretary of State quoted in his release on March 26. He said:
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.
May 26, 1975

The commission at that time concluded that:
A nation's domestic advertising expenditure should be devoted to the support of its own media of communication and a genuinely Canadian periodical press can only exist if it has access to a fair share of domestic advertising.
Another quotation from the commission used by the Secretary of State in his March 26 release is the following:
It is largely left to our periodical press, to our magazines, big and little, to make a conscious appeal to the nation to try to interpret Canada to all Canadians, to bring a sense of oneness to our scattered communities.
I remind hon. members that these very sincere words were written in 1960 by a royal commission of that day. The Secretary of State has made use of these words as the basis for his move to remove special status from Time and Reader's Digest in Canada. The Secretary of State has pointed out in this release that Time and Reader's Digest took over half of the total of Canadian advertising revenue earned by 14 member magazines in the Magazine Association of Canada. In an address at Trent University on January 24 the Secretary of State said this:
-the real problem area is that occupied by the smaller special interest magazines which are just getting by or are having trouble staying alive.
He is not really basing his reasons for this legislation on the magazine industry per se. He is extremely concerned about those small magazines that are just getting by. He leaves out of his consideration the Magazine Association of Canada group of 14 who are actually doing very well in the Canadian periodical and magazine market. In his address at Trent University he went on to say this:
These are the magazines that attract a limited number of readers and have little hope of substantial commercial support through advertising. They are dependent almost totally on readers' response and publishers' support for their financing. The former is rarely sufficient to cover costs and most of them require financial assistance from governments, associations, groups or private individuals to keep going.
Yet here we are today, Mr. Speaker, placing emphasis on legislation that is going to risk the continuance of two major magazines on the Canadian scene. It appears to me that the real pressure has come from the Canadian Periodical Publishers Association, which in March of 1973 had only ten members but grew to some 58 members in September of 1974. I have reviewed this list of members and magazines belonging to the Canadian Periodical Publishers Association and, without doubt, many of them are extremely sincere in their efforts to try to interpret some aspects, some limited aspects, of Canadian life. However, their position in the Canadian reading scene in no way relates to the importance that we seem to be giving to them in Bill C-58.
In light of the review I have made of this list of some 58 members of CPPA, I sincerely believe that we should look seriously into some more facts in order to round out a sound and solid perspective before we work Time and Reader's Digest, and other papers and periodicals that I have mentioned, perhaps right out of the Canadian reading scene.
It seems to me that there has to be a more positive perspective and approach to resolve the dilemma that I find myself in this debate. If these small magazines can survive, we should do all we can to assist them through our taxation laws, rather than adopt the course of direct
Non-Canadian Publications
government involvement through subsidization. I sincerely believe that subsidization of magazines and papers and other reading material for Canadians has some very serious, inherent dangers.
According to Charles Lynch, magazines just cannot live on nationalism alone. He has also said that if Time and Reader's Digest disappear from Canada there is no guarantee that Canadian readers would either like or buy a domestic product that seeks to take their place. I personally do not find Maclean's magazine to be the type of reading for which I have time as it just does not fill my needs. I am sure I am not alone in that, although I respect the fact that there are others, because of its circulation, who find it completely satisfying. Are we going to cater to just one class, or are we going to cater to all the inputs which are available to Canadian society?
As Charles Lynch said in the Province of January 25:
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.
An editorial in the Ottawa Journal recently stated: Governments should not be in the business of magazine or newspaper publishing, by almost outright subsidization.
Why do we keep subsidizing and thinking we have to support inefficiency in this country? What is wrong with placing incentives into this line whereby we support and reward the people who are successful? What troubles me is trying to reach a perspective in this debate, and I would now like to review with you some of the redistribution of advertising revenues that would be available if Section 19(2) were revoked by Bill C-58.
The total advertising bill in Canada is approximately $1.5 billion, and of this the daily newspapers receive slightly less than one-third, that is, 28.6 per cent, or approximately $500 million. Television receives 14.1 per cent, or about $250 million; radio receives 11 per cent, or around $175 million; business papers, I am surprised, only receive 2.4 per cent of this total advertising bill or $38 million; general magazines receive 2.3 per cent or around $37 million, and the weekend magazine supplements that we get with our newspapers receive 1.6 per cent of the total revenue, or about $26 million.
It is estimated that Reader's Digest would lose some 64 per cent of its revenue if this bill became law. The survey by Canadian Facts Co. Ltd. indicates that of the revenues diverted from Reader's Digest and Time, 19 per cent would go to other magazines, yet this entire debate seems to rest on the rediversion of the advertising revenues that these two great magazines have, as the sole source of salvation for a lot of independent periodicals that probably, with all the help in the world, could not sustain themselves legitimately under legitimate sale and purchase arrangements among the Canadian public.
Of that 19 per cent the major beneficiary would be Maclean-Hunter which now holds 40.1 per cent of the revenues shared by the Magazine Association of Canada, which is a group of 14 major magazines in Canada. Some 41 per cent of this diverted revenue would go to newspapers, magazine supplements, television and radio. I would

May 26, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
repeat that 41 per cent of the diverted revenue, as a result of passing this bill, would go to existing newspapers that already have 28 per cent of advertising held in Canada, magazine supplements, television and radio. Twelve per cent of this diverted revenue would go to other forms of promotions and advertising.
I really think that these facts are indicative of the need for us to take a good second look at this bill to make sure we are on the right track. As I have said, it is estimated that Reader's Digest would lose 64 per cent of its present revenue.
I have just given you the redistribution of that revenue which in no way seems to indicate a re-organization or re-allocation of the revenue in the direction the Secretary of State would like.
Another factor we should keep in mind is the area of growth in this list of media I have presented. Where are these areas growing, in the total concept of the advertising dollar that is available? I should like to put on the record some figures covering the period from 1960 to 1974.
During that period the daily newspapers have grown by 170 per cent, and television has grown by 350 per cent. If we took a close look at the situation I think we would find that television is the major villain as far as periodicals are concerned and the reading time of the Canadian public.
During the same period radio has grown by 250 per cent; business publications have grown by 48 per cent, and the general magazine industry, to my surprise, has grown 76 per cent. In 1960 it had a revenue of $21 million whereas in 1974 its revenue was $37 million.
Although magazine revenue has grown in terms of dollars, and I have not corrected these dollars to constant 1961 dollars, the paid consumer market share during that 14-year period from 1960 to 1974 fell from 3.8 per cent to 2.3 per cent of the market, a drop of 1.5 per cent, I believe. During that same period the total dollar growth for newspapers has been 18 times that of the general magazine category. Television has been 11 times that of the same general magazine category while radio has been eight times. As I mentioned, television seems to have affected magazines perhaps more than any other media.
In 1954 Canadian magazines enjoyed 4.2 per cent, or $14.2 million of total revenue. In 1960 this dropped to 3.8 per cent, and in 1965 to 2.6 per cent, but in the 1965-66 period there was a turn-around and Canadian magazines increased their percentage of that market by .1 per cent, and it climbed to 2.7 per cent in 1966. In 1974, however, it had slid back to 2.3 per cent, or $37 million. In the meantime in 1954 television revenues were $8.6 million, and in 1974 they were $225 million.
I know statistics and figures are boring, but in light of these figures I do not think we can afford to rush this bill through. I think the perspective for 1974 was much different than the perspective for 1960 when this royal commission report came out.
I mentioned earlier in my speech that the 14 magazines belonging to the Magazine Association of Canada have enjoyed a healthy growth. The one with the largest growth has been Miss Chatelaine by 838 per cent. Second to Miss Chatelaine was Time with 115 per cent. Reader s Digest had

a growth rate of 37.9 per cent in the period from 1965 to 1974.
The total growth of the Maclean-Hunter publications between 1965 and 1974 was $6.3 million, or a growth performance of 68 per cent for that group which already controls 40.1 per cent of the advertising dollar in that category. The total growth of Time was $5.8 million, or 115 per cent, as I have already mentioned, and the total growth of Reader's Digest was $2 million, or 33.8 per cent in the period between 1965 and 1974.
It is probably worthy of note that Reader's Digest has been an exceptional corporate citizen. They are reaching for a 30 per cent Canadian editorial and subject matter content in their publication. As we all know, they print an English version and they also have a French version, Selection du Reader's Digest which costs them a subsidy of $157,000 per annum. I think they are an organization which has tried to play the game and they have been very aware of and sensitive to the wishes of the House and of the Canadian people.
I do not want to appear to be affected by their lobby, but I have read the material presented to me quite objectively and I think it is a sound argument for the minister in charge of this bill to take a good second look at before this legislation becomes law.
In this period also another factor has affected us. There has been a rapid growth of major free distribution magazines with advertising revenue in 1974 of $10 million, with total copies per issue in 1974 reaching 2.7 million. This is a sizeable entry into the market for the advertising dollar in Canada and I wonder if it is truly part of the considerations behind this bill. One has to conclude that magazines are still in the process of establishing their medium as a viable competitor to the other media mentioned.
I have mentioned the position of newspapers and particularly of television and radio as the true competitors of the periodical industry, and the establishment of a truly Canadian owned periodical industry in Canada. The Association of Canadian Advertisers had something to say on this subject. Their members are responsible for some $400 million worth of advertising placed in Canada. They have stated that the proposal to rescind Section 19 (2) of the Income Tax Act would:
... tend to weaken the whole magazine field as a medium in Canada compared to the strength of television, radio and daily newspapers.
I urge the minister to look at these facts seriously when he considers this bill and the amendments to it in committee.
The question now before the House would appear to be to provide such legislation guidelines by which the industry can attain a final maturity as a medium deserving the lasting respect and support of the Canadian reading public and those wishing to reach that audience through advertising. I cannot emphasize the phrase "lasting respect enough.
One of the things that has happened in the last ten years is the destruction of the Canadian decision making base. The private sector does not know where it is at any longer. It is getting retroactive legislation; it gets itself estab-

May 26, 1975

lished on one course and pattern; it makes capital investment of a sizeable nature today, and then all of a sudden, through nationalism or a sense of other urgency, we in this chamber start changing the rules. There is a general lack of confidence throughout Canada that is a very serious factor facing the way of life and the standard of living we will have tomorrow.
There are certain criteria that are perhaps necessary and that we should consider. I do not think these are too difficult for a magazine to live up to. It should be edited and published in Canada-that we know. All its publication functions, such as typesetting, platemaking, printing, the circulation, advertising, customer service and billing operations, treasury and administration, should be conducted in Canada. The magazine should be published by a Canadian corporation, proprietor, partnership or association incorporated or registered under the laws of Canada or one of its provinces. We are asking for 75 per cent Canadian ownership. Personally, I think that is excessive. I think we should be asking for 51 per cent over a period of three years.
It should have a degree of Canadian ownership as defined in section 257 of the Income Tax Act, and the magazine should publish in Canada in two official languages. I do not know that that would always be possible for the small periodicals which seem to be the source of demand and agitation for the bill that we are discussing now. I agree that the policy should be controlled by a Canadian board of directors and that at least 75 per cent of those directors should be Canadians. It should be wholly directed and edited in Canada by a management and staff resident in Canada. It should be able to grant complete freedom of editing to its editors, the editors being in Canada and subject only to copyright law.
A Canadian magazine should contain a proportion, excluding advertising matter, of editorial content to the extent of 30 per cent. I think that this is a reasonable demand of any foreign owned magazine working in Canada if the Canadian people are to have a perspective of the globe and of other countries, and of what is happening in other spheres of influence. What are we going to do in our rush for nationalism, just become knowledgeable of this land alone when the globe is getting smaller and smaller as our ability in communications speeds up faster and faster? It does not make sense to demand any more than 30 per cent Canadian content in that type of magazine.
We should encourage the development of editorial material about Canada which could have international appeal outside of Canadian borders. I think that Reader's Digest has been a magazine that is underrated in the exposure it gives of Canadians and this great land to other peoples of the world.
I think these are a clear set of standards that would enhance the free flow of information essential to citizens in a free state such as Canada. Let me return to the words of the royal commission. This set of standards would ensure the attainment of objectives outlined by the Royal Commission on Periodicals which stated;
Only a truly Canadian printing press, one with the feel of Canada and directly responsible to Canada, can give us the critical analysis, the
Non-Canadian Publications
informed discourse and dialogue which are indispensable in a free society.
I think those are criteria for which we can ask without threatening the survival of the Time and Reader's Digest and the other newspapers and periodicals I have mentioned at the beginning of my address.
In order to help some 58 small independents, this bill risks Canadian payrolls, Canadian plants, Canadian suppliers, and a chance for the world to see Canada and for Canada to see the world through the eyes of other writers. I think that is too much to risk with this bill. We also risk the French edition, Selection du Reader's Digest", in Canada which is already costing that organization a subsidy of $157,000 a year.
I would like to see a much more positive approach on this subject. I think we should correct the distribution system. I think it is fundamentally wrong, and I do not know how we got into the position where 13 of the 14 distributors of periodicals in Canada are American owned. If we are to give Canadian magazines and periodicals a chance, I believe that we should provide a tax incentive, and not a disincentive, as we are doing under this bill. If we are to help these 58 small magazines, and if we are to help cultivate talent in students from our universities interested in writing and dedication to a particular point of view, then we should do it with incentives, and not disincentives. I do not think we should threaten that which is serving us well. If we want improvements, we should provide incentives.
In reading one of the reports from the twenty-ninth parliament I was fascinated by the fact that these small, independent magazines with a Canadian perspective could be helped by giving the advertisers in those small magazines 125 per cent deductibility on their advertising dollar. In that way there would be an incentive to encourage advertising in those small magazines. The hardheaded world of advertising and business just will not spend money in small magazines which are struggling for a breath of life because large circulation does not exist. I cannot get it out of my head that if we want to help this Canadian need, and if we want to help these budding Canadian artists, an incentive system like 125 per cent deductibility on the Canadian advertising dollar is the way to do it.
I think we should also return to having postal rates whereby the larger the circulation the higher the bulk rate because, after all, the Post Office is working at a loss, and these bulk rates cannot cover their cost. If the Canadian people are subsidizing the postal service, perhaps the higher the circulation of the periodical or magazine, the higher the bulk rate should be. That would give the small Canadian entrepreneur and the Canadian artist a chance to enjoy a lower cost and a competitive distribution, because economy of scale does apply, and it applies more importantly in this area than in most other aspects of industry.
We have discussed 75 per cent Canadian ownership. I think that is extremely severe and impractical. I think we should be satisfied with 51 per cent Canadian ownership of magazines which want deductibility privileges in

May 26, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
Canada. I think we should ask that this be achieved over a 24 to 36 month period.
We have discussed the need for Canadian editorial content, Canadian management, Canadian production facilities, Canadian payrolls, and the use of Canadian supplies. I think it would be a mistake to demand more than 30 per cent Canadian content. I do not think we have the talent to produce more than that and still maintain the broad popularity and the world perspective most Canadians want, at least the Canadian readers who support such magazines as Time and Reader's Digest.
I plead for a more positive approach in resolving this national debate and the dilemma which have now been going on for more than 15 years. I think we should try to resolve them with a program of incentives and not of disincentives and destructives moves such as are contained in Bill C-58.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, one should express gratitude for being able to participate in an important debate such as this, but I personally have mixed feelings about the privilege of standing here to respond to a measure which I consider to be a threat to the orderly cultural evolution of our country.
I listened with great interest to the minister when he spoke in defence of this measure, the elimination of Section 19(2) of the Income Tax Act, and I heard him speak about the cultural integrity of our country. He compared the magazine industry with our transportation industry. He went as far as to compare the magazine industry with the National Hockey League. I wonder whether there will ever be a day when I will have to speak in this House in response to a measure which might recall our Canadian hockey players from the United States, or which might put a tariff on editorial comment which may come to Canada from other parts of the world or leave Canada for some other part of the world. That is about how ridiculous I consider the measure before us.
We want to protect and stimulate interest within the magazine industry in Canada, and the problem is that there is an obvious and deliberate attempt to censor not only magazines coming into Canada from other parts of the world but also to direct the content of the Canadian magazine industry within our country. This is a serious matter which is of concern to most of us. It is a deliberate attempt to direct cultural evolution within our country. I would like to know who is attempting to direct our cultural evolution. It certainly is a departure from the words I heard expressed by one of our learned colleagues, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), who was here a few moments ago.
A couple of years ago I had the privilege to attend a dinner at the Chateau next door when we had asked a number of young Canadians under the Adventure in Citizenship program to come to the capital city. I was proud to be a member of parliament that night because the then secretary of state for external affairs told these young Canadians that he was not so concerned as some people about the lack of an identity for our country, but that he was concerned with the preservation of something we valued, a multicultural approach and the cultural mosaic

of which we are so proud, and of which the world is so envious.
This cultural mosaic allows us to pick the best from the world and from all the cultures of the citizens who live within our country, and to shape it. I do not see any attempt by the government to go to the newsstands and regulate and direct the cultural evolution when it comes to dirt magazines. They seem to have taken over. I wish the hon. member from Vancouver who spoke before me had expounded on how that industry has been allowed to evolve and take over the front shelves of the newsstands in the last while.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I don't read them.


Frank Oberle: My hon. colleague does not read them, and neither do I. Nor will I encourage my kids to do so. This is a matter of serious concern to many people in my constituency, and they have written to me about it. It is a matter of serious concern to many people in other parts of the country as well.
How is this cultural maturity, of which the minister speaks, to be achieved? Is it for example to be achieved in a similar way to the way we treat CBC? I think the reason why the minister is concerned about the financial welfare of the magazine industry in Canada is that he considers it to be in trouble. The magazine industry in Canada is in as much trouble as the CBC would be were it not for the taxpayers of Canada who support it. The reason is that neither the CBC nor the magazine industry responds to the contemporary mood and desires of citizens. The electronic and the print media are directed by a group of intellectual socialists, an elite group who believe it necessary to direct and advance the cultural evolution in the way they see fit. That is the reason why the magazine industry is in trouble, and that is the reason why it costs Canadians so much to support this monster called the CBC.
As you know, Madam Speaker, I grew up in another part of the world. I too am starved for the cultural milieu in which I grew up. I used to enjoy classical music, and still do. Nobody denies me the privilege of reading classical books. I too am starved for this cultural milieu that these people tell us is missing. But I travel around this country, Madam Speaker, and I feel the pulse and the desire of Canadians. They are not the same as I feel perhaps, or that the people I represent in this House feel, who live so far away from the great cultural centres of Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. They live in the smaller centres of the country, but still are not as culturally starved as some people who live in the concrete jungles. That is because they can make contact with things that people in the great cities cannot-with nature. They know what it is to be out and challenge the elements, to be your own man. They have the pioneering spirit still, which is being stifled by this cultural evolution that is taking place. It is necessary to preserve that pioneering spirit if we are to continue to develop this country in the way it has been developed over the last hundred years.
I should like to know who is making the decision that there is going to be censure. The Minister of National
May 26, 1975

Revenue (Mr. Basford) has said that he will insist that the magazines coming into Canada be 80 per cent different from those published by the parent company in another country.
The minister who brought this bill before us says there will be no censure. Surely he cannot be so naive as to try to make us believe that the difference in the magazines can be that in one an article appears in the front, and in another it appears in the back. Surely he would not defend this bill on those grounds. No indeed, he insists that the contents of the magazine which this act regulates be 80 per cent different from the magazine published in the United States. He cannot tell me that is an attempt to help mature this cultural evolution-that it is not an attempt to erect a cultural barrier along the longest peaceful border in the world, that between the United States and Canada. He cannot tell me there will not be a curtain along that border with the maple leaf on it. Some of the other measures with which we are confronted point that out in no uncertain terms.
We have a problem when attempting to defend some of the action we have taken in the electronic media against our American colleagues. We are pirating signals from the border cities of the United States, stripping them of advertising and selling them to a Canadian audience. What price cultural integrity there, I ask-what about any kind of integrity in the face of a scheme like that? The United States has no laws similar to those we are constructing here. They are not afraid of something that might come down from Canada although perhaps they had better be soon.
It is ridiculous to try to defend ourselves and make any kind of sense in talking to our American counterparts-as we recently had the opportunity of doing in Quebec City- when we come up with such laws and regulations.
Section 19(2) of the act provides the same privileges for Time and Reader's Digest as for many other publications. Today I learned that a number of newspapers in western Canada are totally owned outside this country. They have always presented the Canadian viewpoint, always displayed the contemporary scene in the little towns they serve where no Canadian had the guts to start such newspapers. They had to come from the United States and Great Britain. All of a sudden we say that these newspapers are in our country and doing something bad to us. That is nonsense, Madam Speaker. Surely we cannot let it go unchallenged.
When the minister says that Time and Reader's Digest enjoy special privileges in this country he is misinterpreting the facts-the minister is a stranger to the facts. These magazines do not enjoy special privileges in our country; they enjoy the same privileges as any other publication in the country-that of allowing advertisers to deduct that cost as an expense for taxation purposes. I say it is wrong that this privilege should now be taken from them.
If we have to discuss the matter at all we should at least have tried to make a distinction between Reader's Digest, that great window of the world, and Time magazine. I agree with the minister that it is impossible to do this; they are already in an impossible situation, and to perpetuate it would be wrong.
Non-Canadian Publications
I think this bill should be withdrawn, Madam Speaker. The minister is embarking on a course that will haunt us. We are talking about advertising dollars which are presently being spent in these great international magazines and which will apparently now flow to the Canadian media.
I have used advertising in the various business I have conducted in my time. I consider an advertiser to be much like a reader. If I spend a dollar on advertising I insist that I get my money's worth. Any smart businessman would. The giant-international corporations and the large corporations within our country that can afford to advertise in these international magazines will continue to do so even if the tax privilege is removed. They will continue to advertise in those two magazines in preference to any other media. Time and Reader's Digest will likely continue to send their publications to Canada-under considerable hardship no doubt, but I do not think they will be discouraged by a measure such as this from catering to the needs of the Canadian people.
I must confess that Reader's Digest is a little more to me than just a Canadian news magazine. I have a very direct, personal, and emotional relationship with the Reader's Digest and I hope you will bear with me if I elaborate just a little. I started reading Reader's Digest when it was called Das Beste, which in English means The Best. That magazine was published in the country in which I grew up.
I was 12 when the second war ended, and even at that tender age I felt that my mother country had nothing to offer me in the future. I looked around the world because I was young and ambitious. My older brother had read Reader's Digest when he was a prisoner of war in Great Britain. He advised me to read Reader's Digest and bought me my first subscription. I was 19 when I read two particularly good stories about Canada. I then decided what part of the world best suited me and my particular needs. Even at the tender age of 19 people have their own ideas.
It was the two stories about Canada I read in Das Beste which influenced my decision to come to Canada. That is why I am emotionally involved with the magazine. I do not want to see people all over the world deprived of the wonderful stories Reader's Digest prints about Canada. I want to see people of 26 countries who read that magazine read the wonderful stories about my own country, about Canada. I, for one, commend that magazine's objective and disciplined reporting of the contemporary scene. We should all be proud of the series of magnificent stories about this country which are read throughout the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I object strongly to having our window on the world shaded by this stupid proposed regulation. All of us here have received hundreds of letters on this issue, and I have received not one which supports the minister's attempt at regulation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Neither have I.

May 26, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications


Frank Oberle: Let me read into the record what a writer in Prince George has written. He says in part:
The Reader's Digest, in my opinion, is one of the finest monthly publications on the newsstand today. Its Canadian content and educational material is accepted and read in our Christian home faithfully and any attempt to remove it from the bookshelf would be an insult to my family's intellectual capacity to freely absorb unbiased opinion of current world affairs.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Just look at the government members laughing.


Frank Oberle: Obviously the government finds this funny. I do not think the people we represent in our constituency find this quite as humorous. I do not think the people in the constituencies of hon. members opposite find this funny. After all, I do not need to defend myself in their constituencies. They will have to defend themselves when their actions come back to haunt them in the not too distant future.
I will not bore my colleagues by articulating how we should encourage young people to enter the publishing field. If we want to create a viable cultural strategy in our country, we must ensure that all Canadians, whether they live in Prince George or downtown Toronto, in Lower Post, B.C., McBride or Tuktoyaktuk-


An hon. Member:: Or Humboldt, Saskatchewan.


Frank Oberle: Yes, or even Humboldt, Saskatchewan-we must ensure that all Canadians are included in our cultural community and are served by a medium of culture. As for Humboldt, there is a culturally starved community.


Otto Emil Lang: If you believe that, you believe anything.


Frank Oberle: During the last election campaign I visited my friends in Humboldt. They were of my ethnic background, and they had an old-fashioned picnic with all kinds of razzmataz and a brass band for those who turned up in great numbers. It was an expression of old-time culture in Humboldt. We did not perform the music of Mozart of Beethoven, but we did tell them a few facts. I was quite fair about the minister. I said he is a good representative of his party in the House of Commons but I had my doubts about whether he really represented the farm community in Saskatchewan. I am sure, when those people evaluate the minister's contribution to this debate, they will remember the fellow who came from British Columbia. They will remember what he said and wonder if he was not right when he suggested that their member of parliament does not really represent the views of his constituents in the House of Commons.
We must make sure that Canadians, wherever they live, have access to the electronic media. Not all Canadians have such access. The CRTC puts all sorts of stumbling blocks in the way of people who want to establish radio or television stations in out-of-the-way places where people are denied access to the electronic media. When I was first elected in 1972, part of my constituency on highway 16 consisted of 5,000 people who did not have access to television. They could listen to one radio program of questionable quality which originated in a far-off centre. I discussed this problem with the minister. Of course the CBC had decided that establishing television service in my area 
would not be lucrative, and therefore the people living in McBride and other isolated areas would have to do without television service. The corporation could not afford to install it. The minister told me if it cost 25 cents less to put the eleventh channel into downtown Toronto than to put the first channel into McBride, that channel would go to into Toronto-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member has not strayed from the bill. We are discussing, Bill C-58, which is to amend the Income Tax Act.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I am talking about broadcasting. Surely the magazine industry broadcasts some form of news. I am talking about the special problems of those who are not served with television programs. Until I represented them, many of the people of my constituency were without such service. We also read Time and Reader's Digest and, before we had access to radio and television coverage those magazines, for our people, represented the most sensible reporting which could be found in Canada. If it were not for the fact they now have one television signal, they would probably come here with placards protesting against this bill. They would consider it a further infringement on their special rights and privileges.
I am sorry to belabour this point, but I want to elicit the minister's support for a second television signal or cable system that would help the cultural evolution in those parts of Canada of which I speak. The minister said the CRTC must follow the regulations. He said the people in the city of Prince George cannot apply for a cablevision licence because they only have one of the existing TV signals, namely the CBC. In order for them to apply for cablevision, they must first have access to both television signals, the CBC and CTV, for one year. Only after that time can an application for cablevision be heard. Because you do not have access to both signals, you cannot have access to anything else.
If we really wanted to do something cultural in this country, we would ensure that every Canadian has access to all the media in this country, some of which are of excellent and enjoyable quality. We would give incentives to small entrepreneurs to provide those kinds of services. We would remove the stumbling blocks which I consider the CBC, CRTC and other regulatory bodies to be. However, that is not the intention of this bill.
The intention of this bill is to erect cultural barriers and to regulate and censor the media in this country. That should come as no surprise to anyone who has watched the performance of the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) since 1968. If I may refer to my country of origin, the first thing a gentleman there did when he got the power in 1933 was to censor the magazine and newspaper industry as well as the electronic industry. In fact he did not allow access from outside the country. That was the beginning of all evil in central Europe at that time. It should be no surprise to anyone to see this government embarking on that kind of course.
This is a strong, central government which is determined to remove the rights, privileges and law-making
May 26, 1975

freedom of the provinces. It is attempting to take over private industry and destroy private enterprise. Wherever possible it establishes disincentives for anyone who wants to help himself and structure his own destiny. The government is determined to look after all its people from the cradle to the grave, destroying any incentive that anyone may muster.
This measure will come back to haunt us. Our friends to the south will retaliate. They have to retaliate. We already stepped on their toes with the measures I touched on earlier, the electronic media and the curtain we have put up. They will have to respond. I am afraid the response will not be welcome.
Surely the interests of this country would be better served if the government would respond to the contemporary mood and needs of the majority of our citizens, and provide incentives and encouragement to Canadian talents to compete against foreign publications, instead of erecting artificial barriers against them. The time and need for better understanding of a global problem have never been greater. It is essential to the very survival of the human race that nations and societies respect each other's integrity. In a country such as ours where the greatest asset is the multicultural heritage of our citizens, one wonders what the government intends to achieve by a move that is at least parochial, if not overly nationalistic.
I do not intend to support the government on this measure unless someone can demonstrate to me that, in the process of saving a Canadian publishing industry, it will not destroy something that is considered by many Canadians to be a Canadian institution itself.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, in the beginning I might say that I am quite opposed to the government's position with regard to which magazines are eligible for the tax changes imposed in this bill. I am in reasonable agreement with the proposition that most magazines should be 75 per cent Canadian owned. However, with regard to governing of content, the government has given the civil servants far too much power. It smacks too much of censorship.
My main objection to this bill is adequately expressed by a letter which the "Mennonite Brethren Herald" has written, I presume, to every member of parliament. I quote:
If some of you have read Time's recent account of the U.S. government's debacle in Viet Nam, in terms of sober and ultimately healthgiving reportage, I think you will understand what it is about a publication such as this which has made so many of us reach for it rather than for Maclean's. Or the Watergate coverage, to give another example.
The government's position-as I understand it-would be that to qualify as a Canadian publication, the magazine would need to be 60-80 per cent different from the parent U.S. publication and 75 per cent Canadian owned. For Time this would obviously mean ceasing to be. The government would be totally re-making the magazine so that it could impossibly continue to be the very thing for which we have chosen to receive it. This is a form of muzzling of the press which I believe we should view very seriously. We are already exposed to many extremist voices in this country, and what the government is doing by its legislation is making us more susceptible to them. Rather than giving the privilege of easy access to publications with a large world view, it is opening the door for the narrowest kind of Canadianism or the strongly ideological kind of journalism which is becoming increasingly common in this country.
Non-Canadian Publications
It is this sort of manipulation of the press which we should view with the utmost seriousness. The free movement of the press ought to be one of our most cherished possessions and jealously defended. Canadians in a very real sense are being deprived of their freedom of choice in a manner which is much more reminiscent of totalitarian regimes than a truly open democracy. Such an action by a Canadian government brings to me a great sense of foreboding.
We have in this country far too many regulatory bodies in matters of culture that are directly related to what the government thinks. We have the CBC who are carrying on a virulent campaign of anti-Americanism and who are carrying on a virulent anti-Western campaign. Perhaps in the fate of Time and Reader's Digest and the noisy debate that has ensued, most people see in this an attempt by the government to restrict the freedom of the press, to establish some sort of cultural sovereignty with economic nationalism, anti-Americanism and corporate power, and to restrict the right of citizens to read what they please.
But let us take a look at what the government is actually proposing. This measure is technically a tax measure but the objective of the legislation is not to raise federal revenues. Almost certainly it will reduce them. There is not even an attempt to Canadianize Time and Reader's Digest, which might be a reasonable course, by use of the ownership principle. Obviously the idea is to knock out these U.S.-based publications so that they will no longer be major competitive forces in the Canadian magazine industry. It is obviously the hope that this will clear a path for new domestic publications, more specifically a weekly news magazine.
By the withdrawal of the income tax amendment it is intended to diminish the sale of these periodicals in the hope that the revenue from their former advertising will go to Canadian publications. But it is unlikely that this will happen to nearly the extent the government would like. Indeed it seems likely that with the phasing out of the tax measure both Time and Reader's Digest will find it profitable to leave the country.
But will this stop Time and Reader's Digest being read within Canada? I doubt that it will. In 1944, when Reader's Digest first came to Canada, sales in the English division were something like one million. It seems interesting that at the present time, taking into account the increase in population, sales in the English edition are not any larger. They have obviously added the French edition, which of course would be lost. Will the removal of these two publications from the Canadian scene meet the government's desire to increase the revenue available to Canadian magazines? It seems to be far from certain, the more you look at it.
The 1970 Davey Report on the mass media said it had to concede-it is impossible to predict the effects of removing the exemptions with much precision-and merely urged the government-to remove the exemptions and see what happens.-Presumably, as far as advertising is concerned, the magazines might decide to remain in Canada and continue as they are, in which event advertisers might decide to spend less on their Canadian publications in order to continue advertising in Time and Reader's Digest at a higher cost. Or they could decide to settle for less space in the two magazines at the same price they are

May 26, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
paying now, which would not do anything at all for other publications.
Some advertising experts have predicted that if Time and Reader's Digest do leave Canada it would hurt rather than help the smaller publications, because the disappearance of these two magazines with their large circulations would make it unprofitable to prepare magazine advertisements. So it seems obvious, and it is a very real possibility, that we might lose two magazines and gain very little in return. There is no certainty that dollars which go to Time and Reader's Digest would go to other magazines.
It is interesting to note that the main contributors to magazine advertising-I did not realize this until I had checked it through-are liquor, automobiles and travel. It is significant these are fields in which international companies are usually involved and, as I understand it, even if they advertise in Time and Reader's Digest after they have left the country they could, in effect, recover the cost by charging a management fee to the Canadian subsidiary.
To attract advertising dollars, a magazine must first attract readers. Could, for instance, a news weekly magazine such as Maclean's, attract dollars if Time and Reader's Digest leave the country? I do not think anyone seriously believes any magazine could approach the Reader's Digest with its vast international appeal. Reader's Digest is in a class by itself. Its stories are universal in appeal; they can be set anywhere in the world; you only have to change the name of the place and the story is quite suitable. If a Canadian magazine can attract readers, why don't they do it now? There does not seem to be any reason at the moment why any Canadian magazine along the lines of Time could not be as successful now as if Time were no longer here.
People obviously read Time not so much for its Canadian content but because as a North American publication it gives us a window on the world. As for the Canadian content, I have never found it particularly good, and I can find the material in our own newspapers and elsewhere. We have to recognize that we live on the North American continent and we think of the world from a North American point of view. There is no assurance that if Time and Reader's Digest depart, an equivalent Canadian news magazine could give us this viewpoint.
Perhaps in this discussion certain things are not quite appreciated. Look at our population. Although we have a population of 22 million it is divided among two languages. In effect, the 6 million Francophones are not part of the English reading culture, so the market for English magazines is reduced to between 12 and 14 million people.
Again, we are very regional in our population and our reading habits; the English language magazines must necessarily be based in Toronto. I might say that if there is any group of literary Canadians more disliked in Canada by other Canadians it is those who live just outside of Toronto. The regional prairies and the West Coast are not interested in the day-to-day happenings of the Toronto literary world. If they must look outside they tend to look outside to Minneapolis and St. Paul, to Los Angeles and San Francisco. It is all part of living on the North American continent.

Canadian publications which cannot hold their readers are not alone in their fate. In the United States, Life, Look, Saturday Evening Post and a host of publications in that country, with its vast market of 200 million people, have also gone under. It seems to me that with the publication of a Canadian weekly news magazine the problems are particularly complex. If such a magazine is to be called Canadian, then surely the six pages of Canadian content in Time will not keep it from attracting readers and advertising. On the other hand, if it is to be international in its scope, like Time, its competition for readers will be equally intense, whether Time has a Canadian edition or not.
It does not seem possible to me that a Canadian publication can expect the worldwide coverage Time or even Newsweek can provide for its market. The Canadian market simply isn't large enough to sustain an effort of that scale. It seems obvious that the outlook of a Canadian news magazine on the international scene will closely parallel an American viewpoint on the international scene. In other words, since we live on the same continent our viewpoints will be quite similar to those in the United States.
If Time is driven out of this country it seems likely that the United States edition will be available in Canada, and Canadian news magazines will have to compete with others in expressing their viewpoints on international affairs. The Canadian news magazine will be essentially similar. It seems to me that the argument really comes down to whether it is better to have a single Canadian news magazine owned by a concentrated group engaged in competition with Time, Newsweek and other trans-border magazines lacking Canadian content. While Time may not be what Canadians would like to have, it is so powerful that the present situation is better than what the new situation would be.
What about the rule that publications do not qualify if the contents are substantially the same as those published abroad? I understand that this regulation has been on the books since 1964 but has been largely overlooked because it did not apply to any major publication. No real guidelines as to the percentage of figures that a Canadian publication must have have ever been laid down. However, the Federal Court case in 1972 of Jay-Kay Publications had this to say;
The evidence discloses that the Canadian publication has been mainly a repeat in a proportion of 60 per cent of the material published in the American publication, and for this reason alone it would not qualify.
That is to say, it would not qualify as Canadian under our tax laws. This type of percentage could be used to qualify a Canadian publication in the following situation. A Canadian publication might have ten pages of American content of high literary value and 20 pages of Canadian garbage and it would qualify, presumably by being under the umbrella.
I should also like to point out that there are one or two magazines that will be caught in the net that I think should be allowed to stay. I refer to the medical magazine Modern Medicine of Canada. I believe there are other artistic and scientific magazines in the same category. Since
May 26, 1975

medical knowledge is world wide and really knows no international boundaries, it seems senseless to drive out what magazines we have at present.
In a brief presented by the publishers of Modern Medicine to members of parliament, they put forward a very good case to the effect that Modern Medicine of Canada is a genuine international, scientific and medical magazine, and that Canadian publishing policy should not discriminate against it and other publications. Modern Medicine is similar to other medical publications spanning five languages and 40 different countries in the international family of medical publications. The Canadian edition has access to material published in other editions. In effect, it is merely a collection of synopses taken from medical and scientific articles appearing in magazines throughout the world, of which there are a vast number.
Canadian scientists in general and medical scientists in particular find it very difficult to publish their articles, particularly on research, in any journal. The National Research Council spends $35 million a year on medical research projects. Large sums of money are also being spent by universities and provincial governments on medical research over and above this $35 million. One of the complaints of Canadian scientists and researchers is that the vast majority of this research, which is often quite good, never sees the light of day but accumulates, ages and withers in the files.
The throwing out of the two magazines M.D. Canada and Modern Medicine, particularly the latter, will in no way contribute to the publication of scientific articles by a Canadian scientist. Medical knowledge is a truly international field, and it seems that little will be gained by removing Modern Medicine from Canada. It will probably be replaced by the American edition and will feature mainly American authors. Canadian authors will not have any chance of publishing the results of their research. The problem of publishing scientific research results is so acute that I believe the Science Council of Canada has considered it, and is looking for ways in which scientists can have their research published.
This bill brings out the eternal problem of the gover-ment's right to intervene in the content of the printed word. It is substantially different from the situation in the broadcasting and television fields. My position is that the government should not withdraw the tax provisions relating to Time and Reader's Digest provided they meet the Canadian ownership rule of 75 per cent. To drive these two magazines out of Canada would not likely improve the position of the Canadian publishing world. The monopoly of the Maclean-Hunter chain would give Maclean's domination over the influential publishing and opinion moulding media of our times. I do not think this power should be given to Maclean's magazine or any other single magazine in existence. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I intend to vote against this bill on second reading.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Madam Speaker, I should like to discuss Bill C-58 now before the House, but quite frankly I feel obliged to call it ten o'clock.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, on two occasions in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence I have presented motions asking that a special sub-committee be established to examine the Canadian International Development Agency's financial controls, accounting procedures, and other matters related to the fiscal management and control within this government agency. My motions were defeated. I have since asked the minister of external affairs to consider establishing a special sub-committee to examine CIDA procedures as I am making no headway with these motions. I am now requesting the government to have the office of the Auditor General examine all CIDA operations.
In March, 1975, a report of the independent review committee on the office of the Auditor General submitted a 162 page report dealing with the Auditor General's functions. In this report a number of recommendations were made dealing with Crown corporations, and these recommendations could also be applied to government agencies like CIDA. One of the recommendations is that the Auditor General should have the right of access to the financial records and documents of all Crown corporations of which he is not the auditor, as he deems necessary to the fulfilment of his responsibilities as auditor of the accounts of Canada.
Another recommendation is that each commercially oriented government corporation should have an audit committee. The report also had 47 other recommendations. Many of them cover reasons why there should be a complete audit of CIDA's financial operations and a complete examination of all its documents, particularly in regard to the Cuban loans and the reasons why minutes of CIDA meetings are not finalized and reviewed by the CIDA management committee. The President of CIDA stated that minutes taken at management committee meetings have no official meaning. This statement is also unbelievable in regard to conducting government business.
At the External Affairs Committee meeting of Thursday, April 10, 1975 the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) stated that usual standards of government efficiency simply cannot be applied to CIDA operations. This is all the more reason why the Auditor General should be instructed to undertake a complete examination of the whole operation.
In a memorandum to the Secretary of State for External Affairs from the President of CIDA, dated December 3, 1974, the president stated:
It is currently estimated that sugar production by far the main source of exportation and hard currency earnings could be around 5.75 millions metric tons in 1973-74 which would make a 7 to 12 per cent

May 26, 1975
Adjournment Debate
improvement in performance over the last year crop. Although details of protocols between Cuba and its communists partners are not available it is expected that the communist countries will receive increased sugar supply commitments from Cuba. Approximately 3.45 million metric tons for which they pay less than on the free market.
We should be finding out what financial aid or other aid Russia is providing communist countries like Cuba before we supply aid. This area should be completely examined by the Auditor General.
Also in a memorandum dated December 13, 1974, from the President of CIDA to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, dealing with loan terms for Cuba he stated:
I would suggest that the press release announcing this project not mention specific loan terms and CIDA assistance to Cuba be linked to the totality of economic and trade relations between Canada and Cuba.
Why should not specific loan terms be mentioned? We are dealing with Canadian taxpayer's money. Also, there were difficulties within the Liberal government in that sugar-rich Cuba could, according to several experts, including the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), afford to meet stiffer terms. It also has been stated that CIDA was rushing to spend $117 million within the next few weeks in an effort to impress Treasury Board officials. CIDA apparently feels it must spend the leftover $117 million in order to strengthen its bargaining position when the Treasury Board considers the agency's 1975-76 cash allocation.
Among other loans the Auditor General could examine would be the national survey in Morocco which has cost CIDA $4,385,000 to date. The contract terms expired about one year ago, but the job is only half finished and its future is uncertain.
As a CIDA critic I do not argue that the use of even more money to send wheat to drought stricken areas, to vaccinate cattle, to develop agriculture and commercial fishing, to build badly needed bridges, power dams and irrigation systems, is wrong, but many of CIDA's country-to-country projects have been arousing interest. As an example, CIDA sent a machine which weighs grain and automatically fills and sews up bags to Calcutta, India, about a year ago at a cost of $300,000. Fortunately it has not been installed for use, since labour saving devices have sometimes provoked riots in Calcutta, a city with massive unemployment, but CIDA recently had tenders out for a second and more advanced machine of the same kind estimated to cost $500,000. These reasons are more than enough for a complete examination of CIDA by the Auditor General's department.
Another example was in respect of Senegal where labour is similarly cheap and plentiful. The polytechnical school at Thies is equipped with automatic dishwashers, according to CIDA employees. In addition a ham slicer was provided, a curiosity in this Moslem land where dia-tery rules forbid the eating of the flesh of swine. Schools have been built in several hot countries along Canadian lines, with few windows but plenty of electric lights. As one CIDA official said: "You know what happens- the hydro in these countries is a terrible price, so what happens is that the local government can't afford to use the building and it's wasted". Such occurrences are common enough in CIDA initiatives that they have now come to be taken pretty much for granted.
Also, Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the question of having the committee deal with CIDA over and above the study of estimates is one that the committee has dealt with on a few occasions. As regards another reference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, the minister and I have indicated to the committee on a few occasions that we were interested in having a reference to the committee, not only to deal with CIDA but to deal with the whole question of Canada's economic and social relations with the developing countries. I think that this would be a good time for the committee to make a real and positive input to Canada's policy with regard to the developing countries.
I am at a loss to understand why the hon. member is concerned about access by the Auditor General to CIDA's books or management processes. I heard him mention at the beginning of his comments the question of Crown corporations. Let me point out to him that CIDA is not a Crown corporation, it is a department of the government, and the Auditor General has complete access to its books, to its structure, to its management processes, as much as to those of any department of the government. So I do not see the necessity of asking for special access by the Auditor General to CIDA.
Both the former and the present Auditor Generals are very competent people and they have had a very competent staff working for them. They know what work they should be doing. They check every department, and if they find something that is not in accordance with the rules and procedure, or with the votes appropriated by parliament, they make their reports which the House of Commons can study, and then suggest remedies and changes at any time hon. members want.


SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE HERITAGE OF CANADA- REASON FOR PAYMENT TO SOCIETY TO COMPENSATE FOR USE OF NAME
Robert Hylton Brisco: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the subject of the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada and, more particularly, to address my remarks to the garbage that has been submitted by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner).
If I had asked a ten year old child to prepare something for tabling in the House, I am convinced that that child would have done a better job than this shallow, superficial, obviously neglectful attempt at providing answers to the scandal that exists right here with reference to that society. I am disgusted at not seeing the minister himself present to hear what I have to say. I find it very difficult to contain myself with reference to this matter when the government has poured over half a million dollars into a project that has gone down the tube. It has shown, by virtue of the comments contained in the report that was tabled in the House, that it has neither knowledge of nor concern about creditors. Not satisfied with legislating against Reader's Digest, it has helped them a little farther down the road by going after the Foreign Study League of
May 26, 1975

Paris. I am sure that the Secretary of State is not even aware of the fact that a subsidiary of Reader's Digest is a creditor to the tune of $160,000 to the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada. I am very concerned about this attitude of the minister.
The Foreign Study League is only one of several creditors lending in excess of half a million dollars. It is interesting that the government has poured in excess of half a million dollars into the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada, and it is interesting that this society is now in the glue and owes people, including students, in excess of half a million dollars.
I think it is indeed significant that the minister has not indicated in his report that he has even seen the bankruptcy statement of this society, let alone that he is aware of the companies behind which this society is very well sheltered, and I refer to the same society with the additional name of Toronto. I refer to Palace Investments, M. and M. Travel, the LaSalle Hotel, and so on. There has been no concern about the students who have been ripped off. I wonder if he really cares about Marline and Charline Johnson, Helen Hollicks and Sue Messenger, four little girls from Creston whose earnings of $410 each have gone down the tube.
The minister said he has only received communications from two creditors. Obviously he has not bothered to lift the paper and look at it. He has not seen that the University of Ottawa was ripped off to the extent of $52,000. I told the Secretary of State that the reason the people of Canada were ripped off was that they thought this was an agency of the government, and I suggested that he look at their stationery, their logo, and read what they said. What has the Secretary of State provided in his report? He provided photocopies of two pieces of stationery which do not even apply.
If the Secretary of State had bothered to consult the trustees, he would have seen the slick material which was produced, which has the Canadian flag as its logo, the very words of which indicate that it is a society and a government agency. In his statements he has not demonstrated any concern about the money which came to this society through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In fact he said that they recommended that the wilderness project not be funded, but the Indian Affairs Department funded it.
The minister had indicated no concern over the applications for charitable contributions to this society. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) has given this society a certificate which says that it is an organization to which charitable donations are tax deductible. How much of the Canadian taxpayers' dollar has gone to this organization, and where is that money? The Secretary of State has avoided those questions. He has avoided involving the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of National Revenue, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), and the Minister of National Revenue. I say that the Secretary of State is doing Canadians a disservice.
Adjournment Debate


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, early in 1971 during preliminary planning for the establishment of Heritage Canada, officers of this department checked with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to see whether the name Heritage Canada was free for use in this connection or whether it had already been registered by some other corporation or person. We were told that the name was free for our use and that it would be protected until we were ready to establish Heritage Canada formally.
It was subsequently discovered that the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada had previously adopted a short form title, Heritage of Canada, for everyday use, including telephone book listings. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs then advised us that in the new circumstances the title Heritage Canada would not, after all, be available for our use, and that the only way we could obtain the use of that title would be by negotiating with the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada to obtain its consent to cease using its shortened title, Heritage of Canada. We were also advised that we should be prepared, if necessary, to pay compensation to the society for any reasonable expenses it would have to incur in making this change. I use the example of printing new letterheads, new brochures, new promotional material, etc.
After careful consideration at the highest level within the department it was agreed that Heritage Canada was, for a number of reasons, the absolutely right title for the organization we were proposing to launch, and that we should therefore enter into negotiations with the society to persuade it to cease to use its shortened title within an acceptable period, and to offer to reimburse it for all reasonable expenses that would have to be incurred by the society in making this change, such expenses to be authenticated by receipted vouchers or in some other way satisfactory to the department.
Treasury Board approval was obtained in September, 1972, to open negotiations with the society. This was done immediately, and a legal agreement with the society in a form satisfactory to the department was signed by officers of the society in October, 1972. The amount paid to the society under the terms of the agreement, after production by the society of the necessary supporting documents, was $79,262. Payment was actually made early in 1973 by Heritage Canada from earlier federal operation and maintenance grants provided at the establishment of Heritage Canada. This is the extent of the department's relationship with this organization.
The hon. member, who is disgusted with a $500,000 expenditure, would be well advised to observe how it was actually spent. I should also like to remind the hon. member that the money to which he refers was financially efficient in a program which brought the greatest pleasure, adventure and excitement to the lives of hundreds of senior citizens that they had ever known.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.

May 26, 1975
Adjournment Debate


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA FOR PROJECTS
Howard Earl Johnston: Madam Speaker, I rise to develop a question that I asked today and one that comes to my mind each time the report of regional development incentives is produced by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. One can go through this report very carefully and find not a single acceptance of a project within the province of British Columbia. This is true of the last two reports, and was almost equally true of the previous two although there might have been one small project accepted in them.
If it were a case that no area in British Columbia was designated to qualify for these grants, that would be the end of the matter. But there is an area in the province which lies within my constituency and that of Kootenay West that has been accepted by the program, but there is a dismaying lack of acceptance of projects.
When I was in the city of Cranbrook last winter I heard that it was extremely difficult to have a project from British Columbia accepted. I looked into a couple of cases. In one case the reason given was:
In the face of a reducing production in the industry, one must recognize the fact that jobs cannot be created in this circumstance. New jobs would simply displace existing jobs in the total industry and the basic intent of the Regional Development Incentives Act would not be served.
That is one approach to one kind of project. One can argue that perhaps the department could have taken a fresh look at the research in the area. When one looks at the second case, however, one finds a different situation. This applicant was told:
In the circumstances, we have had to conclude that you do not need our support to make this project feasible and financially attractive. We therefore cannot justify the use of public funds for this purpose in accordance with Section 7(1)(a) which stipulates that we cannot provide an incentive if it is probable that the facility in question would be established without such assistance.
That project was in the sawmilling industry, an industry that has been extremely hard hit in British Columbia over the past year by closures and layoffs. The slump is continuing. I should think that any sawmill in the province that had the courage to expand at this time would deserve every aid, co-operation, and assistance from the federal government.
I was particularly concerned when I received another news release from the same department, dated April 24. It says in part:
The Honourable Don Jamieson, Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, today announced that The E.B. Eddy Company of Hull, Quebec, has accepted a regional development incentive offer from his department for the expansion of its facility at Davidson, Quebec, which manufactures spruce lumber and chips. The project is expected to create 73 jobs.
The incentive offer, of approximately $510,000, is based on a rate of 15 per cent of the approved capital costs ...
Are we to assume from this announcement that the E.B. Eddy Company was in such poor financial condition that it would collapse unless it received the grant? Contrast this attitude with the one shown to a small outfit in
British Columbia which applied for an incentives grant. That grant would have created one third as many jobs in British Columbia as were created by the E.B. Eddy expansion; but the company in British Columbia was told that it did not need the grant because it was getting enough money already.
If one totals the grants made in the last two or three months, it is interesting to note that they have been awarded as follows: there were none at all for British Columbia, two for projects in Alberta, eight to Saskatchewan, one for Newfoundland, 16 for Manitoba, eight to Ontario, six to New Brunswick, four to P.E.I., seven to Nova Scotia, and 51 to Quebec. It is these figures which forced me to raise my question this afternoon, a question to which I did not receive a reasonable answer.
Are we to take it that these applications for projects are judged on a different basis, depending on their place of origin? Are the criteria different? If the criteria are the same we could solve some of the unemployment problem in British Columbia by asking for a team of advisers to be sent to our province from Quebec, to advise applicants from my province, from my constituency, just where they are going wrong in making their applications. Certainly, the rate of success of applications in the province of Quebec compares very favourably with the rate in other provinces. The success rates in the two provinces, British Columbia and Quebec, are so far apart that I am led to ask if there is not something basically wrong with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion incentives program.


Herb Breau: Madam Speaker, it is impossible to compare responses to applications from one province with responses to applications from another, as each application is studied on its merits.
On the specific question of the status of the current discussions between DREE and the province of British Columbia, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) said this afternoon that he would seek an up-to-date report on the progress which has been taking place between the officials. When this information has been received, the minister will be in contact with the hon. member.
As hon. members are aware, DREE has undertaken negotiations with the various provinces under general development agreements signed last year. In the case of British Columbia where the southeastern region was designated eligible for DREE incentives, this designation was extended. The latest extension was announced on April 1 and is effective to the end of this year. This action was designed to allow additional projects to be considered for support in this particular area while discussions continue with the government of British Columbia on possible new economic development measures that might be undertaken before this designation expires.
I should like to correct an implication left by the hon. member's questions this afternoon, to the effect that there appeared to be no further DREE offers to companies in the Kootenays regions. Since the designation was extended, companies in the region have continued to apply to DREE for incentive assistance, and since January of this year
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
May 26, 1975

four offers were announced, including one in the hon. member's constituency. These offers were contained in press releases from the department and will, as a matter of course, be recorded for tabling in the monthly incentive reports to parliament.
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Tuesday, May 27, 1975