1975-05-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. It is one which I believe is urgent, having in mind the desire for unity in this country and for good morale on the part of our people. In view of the fact we have been witnessing massive pay increases for members of parliament, senators, cabinet ministers, lieutenant governors, judges-there seems to be no restraint-I ask the House to be fair. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman):
That the government be asked to introduce forthwith a bill to increase the basic pension under the Old Age Security Act to $300 a month and to provide corresponding increases in veterans pensions and allowances and in all social benefits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Even with the leniency now allowed to proposed motions under Standing Order 43 according to the new format, I have to confess that the subject matter raised by the hon. member, although it is tied to certain legislation before the House, still relates to a matter of continuing concern rather than to a matter of pressing necessity. I do not think it should be put.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are there citations which Your Honour could give to the House to support this ruling, in the light of other motions under Standing Order 43 which have been put to the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In spite of questions raised by me in this House on April 15 and May 12 concerning the lack of protection accorded passengers by security procedures at Canadian airports, yet another illustration of this failure has occurred, namely, the passage through a security check at Toronto International Airport last night of hand baggage containing a high-powered rifle complete with ammunition.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That the government order an immediate inquiry into the procedures followed in the attempted screening of passengers and their hand baggage prior to boarding aircraft in Canada, and into the reasoning which results in there being no security check whatever in many airports in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43; it cannot be put to the House in the absence of unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Having regard to the fact that an export market is obtainable for the de Havilland DASH 7 because of its abilities in sovereignty patrol, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the Minister of National Defence immediately consider ordering these airplanes for our shoreline patrol thereby opening the market and providing capital and jobs for Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and unanimous consent is required before it can be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under the terms of
29561 -2714

May 16, 1975
Oral Questions
Standing Order 43 concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It arises out of the provocative action on the part of the government in hastily extending diplomatic recognition to the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Viet Nam, a move out of step with current attitudes in nations with which we conduct over 90 per cent of our trade, and coinciding with the news of the role played by North Viet Nam in the overthrow of the government of South Viet Nam-a truly reckless and unnecessary move in a period of mounting trade tensions and protectionist sentiments. I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That the House request an immediate statement on motions setting out the motivation behind this unfortunate move and explaining whether the government plans to extend any assistance to this provisional government whose representatives come from Hanoi, not Saigon; and that there be full debate on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be presented in the absence of unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who seems to have been behaving yesterday as just one of the boys. He is reported as having said this: "I am the first to say that if we are going to have any success in getting labour and business to agree to voluntary restraints, we have to set a better example in Ottawa". Is it the view of the minister that the spending increases for the 1975-76 fiscal year are excessive and inappropriate? If so, as a member of the government and not as a visitor to the Welland Chamber of Commerce, is the minister going to do something about it?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, obviously governments at all levels will have to participate in any program to moderate increases.


Mr. Gillies:: Including the federal?


John Napier Turner: Including the federal government. The federal government will have to exercise, in some respects an even tougher review of its spending priorities in the reconciliation of a good series of legitimate socially directed programs and legitimate infrastructure programs. These are good in themselves, but we have to orchestrate them within the ability of the economy to digest them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I took it that the minister said that "we would have to set a better example". Therefore, I ask the minister whether under his interpretation, which I think is very favourable to him, he envisages a 15 per cent increase in expenditures this year as opposed to last year. That was worked out when he foresaw a growth of about 4 per cent in the economy. Now, he foresees no growth in the Canadian economy during the period in question. Is it his intention to revise his spending estimates accordingly?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is correct in his analysis of the growth figures, but of course the spending estimates also depend on the forecasts of inflation which were set forth at the time, and how those spending estimates have been affected by inflation. The government has been affected in its own costs by inflation, as has every other sector of the economy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether the minister means to indicate that inflation is even worse than he anticipated when he presented his budget, but may I ask him whether, in order to save time for everybody and prevent a lot of confusion, in the case of future tours the minister will make it clear to the audience that he is addressing whether he is performing as a minister of the Crown or just as an interested outside observer of bloodshed around the cabinet table?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am performing as a minister of the Crown. If the hon. gentleman would like to go on tour and have this thing out in every chamber of commerce and union hall in the country, I would be glad to accompany him.


Mr. Nowlan:: We were doing that a year ago.


INCREASE IN SPENDING ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AS EXAMPLE FOR BUSINESS AND LABOUR
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's statement yesterday, referred to by my leader, that the federal government's lack of spending restraints has set a poor example for business and labour, would the minister indicate whether the two year 40 per cent rise in his own department's administration spending has, in particular, set a poor example for labour and business?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, those were not my words. My words were more closely identified with the question put by the Leader of the Opposition.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A further supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's statement that he would like to see more foreign investment in Canada, would he indicate whether,
May 16, 1975

with this attitude in the Department of Finance, it is unlikely that the remainder of the Foreign Investment Review Act will be proclaimed in the immediate future?


Mr. Woolliams:: Good question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman has the support of his colleague from Calgary North, then we are in trouble.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You are in trouble anyway, John.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that in light of the current account deficit project for this year of between $4 billion and $5 billion, obviously the climate for foreign investment in this country was more accessible.


THE BUDGET
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, there being only nine sitting days left in May, I wonder if the minister could now tell the House the date of his budget? Does he still hope it will be in May, or does he now expect it to be in June?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have further consultation with the Prime Minister, the House leader and my colleague and announce a date next week.


An hon. Member:: It is in God's hands.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the statement the Minister of Finance made in Welland, that we cannot pull out of our unemployment situation in Canada unless the economy improves in other countries. Is the minister now returning to the old position he has been advocating over the years, that we cannot do very much in this country until there is improvement in the economies of other countries and, if so, is he returning to that position because he has failed to reach a consensus and has given up on the idea of bringing in a wage and price restraint program?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. What I said was that since a good deal of our unemployment can be traced to a falling off of exports, particularly because of the recessionary situation in the United States, Europe and Japan, our three largest areas for exports, that employment can only be regenerated as our exports are restored, and our exports can only be restored as those economies come back.
Oral Questions


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, how does the minister reconcile that position with his statement that we have high unemployment in Canada because of high wage settlements?


John Napier Turner: That is not it at all, Mr. Speaker. What I said was that if current trends of rising unit costs of production continue at the present ratio with those in the United States then these cost trends would put us in a position where we are non-competitive, and that would have unemployment consequences. What the hon. gentleman is doing is trying to compare a statement of fact in respect of the present situation with a projection in the future as to what would happen if current trends continue.


INQUIRY AS TO STUDY OF COST TRENDS IN INDUSTRY
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, has the minister carried out studies which enabled him to substantiate the statement he has made in the House today about cost trends and, if he has, will he indicate to the House which industries are in danger of pricing themselves out of the market?


John Napier Turner: I would be prepared to go into more detail on an appropriate occasion, Mr. Speaker, yes.


FINANCE
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
In the event that labour and business refuse his proposal to limit salary increases to 12 per cent, did the Minister of Finance consider the possibility, on the one hand, of reducing taxes in his coming budget to stimulate the national economy, and on the other hand, of levying a special tax on the portion of the increase exceeding the 12 per cent he is proposing now, such a tax acting as an offsetting factor of the increase which might be imposed to the Canadian economy by industry and labour?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the representations made by all hon. members, especially the most intelligent ones must always be taken into consideration.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.

May 16, 1975
Oral Questions
In view of the uncertain situation surrounding the preparation of the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal and in view of the fact that the very reputation of the whole country is at stake, would he tell the House whether he intends to take special action in order to ensure the success of this project?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to say previously that the federal government would be willing under the present circumstances to support the Quebec government should the latter need it; however, as I have indicated yesterday, we feel that the Quebec government is now taking the necessary steps to solve the matter and, for the time being,
I have no other special measure to announce.


SOCIETY FOR STUDY OF HERITAGE OF CANADA
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Could the minister advise the House if the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada was approached by his department with an offer of funding or assistance of any kind?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will be giving a rather complete answer on Tuesday concerning the involvement of my department with the society. We did fund, I think, three senior citizen projects. The details of this I will provide the House on Tuesday.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister, in making his statement which I hope will be comprehensive, will include an answer to the specific question I asked which is whether his department approached the society with regard to an offer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Revenue who seems to have fled the scene. With your permission, perhaps I might file a caveat to ask it when he returns if I could be recognized then.


REASON DEPARTMENT CONTINUED TO DEAL WITH SOCIETY IN LIGHT OF WARNINGS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if in the course of the statement he will give on Tuesday he intends to tell the House why his department continued to deal with the society when as long ago as December 1974 the Government of Ontario was warning its school boards that they ought not to deal with this organization in view of the precarious position in which it found itself. Will he be dealing with this in the course of his statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think such questions really anticipate what the minister has already said, that he will 
be making a statement on Tuesday, and in light of our new procedure which allows for questions after the statement, perhaps questions on this subject ought to be held until the minister makes his statement on Tuesday.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether the minister could inform the House what percentage of inflation in this country is caused by the worldwide factors to which he just referred and what percentage does the feel is caused due to domestic factors to which his consensus program is aimed?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to be precise about that because of the factors involved. Underlying the hon. gentleman's question is the assumption that the inflationary situation is the same in 1975 as it was in 1973 and 1974. In 1973 and 1974 the fundamental thrust of inflation was a worldwide imbalance in supply and demand reflected in a doubling of commodity prices, an extreme rise in food prices, and a quadrupling of the structural price of oil. In 1975, beginning in the last quarter of 1974, the thrust now is on the cost-push side.


James McPhail Gillies: It is precisely the same.


John Napier Turner: It is not precisely the same, Mr. Speaker. The remedy suggested by the hon. member for Don Valley, accepted by his leader in 1973-74, was the wrong remedy at the wrong time, recognizing the wrong factors.


INFLATION-REQUEST FOR OUTLINE OF MEASURES TO CURTAIL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister has admitted that probably the largest single factor in increasing inflation in this country is out of control government expenditures at all levels, including the federal government, I wonder whether he could specifically indicate what steps he is taking to encourage other levels of government to restrain themselves, and also could he specifically outline now, or on a statement on motions if he prefers, what specific steps the federal government is taking to curtail its expenditures?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall saying what the hon. gentleman has incorporated in his preamble.


HOUSING
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of
May 16, 1975

State for Urban Affairs. Has the meeting scheduled for May 21 with the provincial ministers of housing been cancelled and, if so, why?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, no meeting was scheduled. A date was discussed among several of the housing ministers and myself. It is unlikely that I will be able to make it on that date, but I am trying to arrange a date that would be satisfactory to all of us.


THE BUDGET
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. Given that the Minister of Finance has stated that the whole range of federal initiatives in housing is being reviewed for the forthcoming budget, would the minister say if the postponement of discussions regarding housing with the provincial ministers of housing means a further delay in the presentation of the budget?


John Napier Turner: I have enough trouble scheduling meetings with my colleagues in the provinces without being concerned in every detail with how my own colleagues are able to achieve it.


An hon. Member:: You don't count, Barney.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Am I to
take it from the minister's reply that the proposals to the provincial governments regarding shelter, to which he referred in the House on Wednesday, are not to be part of the consensus talks or the budget proposals and that stimulation of the housing sector remains a very low priority with this government?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady should not assume that.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that after two years of operation the Foreign Investment Review Act has reduced the proportion of foreign controlled business by only one per cent of the combined book value of all business, is the government satisfied that sufficient progress has been made in limiting foreign control of the Canadian economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is only referring to one area in
Oral Questions
which the government is acting to increase domestic control of our economic environment, and I think he should consider the total picture before making an assessment.


Reginald Cyril Symes: In view of the statements made yesterday by the Minister of Finance in Welland that he would like to see more foreign investment in Canada, is it now government policy to downplay the aim and intent of the Foreign Investment Review Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not sure whether the minister was accurately quoted, but we have never said in this party that we were opposed to foreign investment. What we have said is that we want to make sure that it operates for the significant benefit of Canadians, and in this sense we continue to allow foreign investment in this country.


Reginald Cyril Symes: The Minister of Finance stated yesterday that the government is also reviewing all statutes and policies affecting foreign investment in Canada. Is this the reason that Part Two of the Foreign Investment Review Act dealing with new foreign business and foreign business expansion in unrelated fields has not yet been proclaimed as law?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
James McPhail Gillies: My question was intended for the Solicitor General, but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. It may be somewhat supplementary to an earlier question, but I would like a precise answer, if possible. In view of the continuing work stoppages throughout Quebec construction sites because of the possibility that the province would put unions under trusteeship, is the government prepared, if requested by the government of Quebec, to authorize RCMP officers to go in to protect construction sites against violence which may occur because of the unrest in the labour movement in Quebec at present?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no requests having been made of the federal government to assist them. If the question is hypothetical, then obviously it does not have to be answered.


AIR CANADA
Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In recent testimony Air Canada has stated that it lost $19 million last year on flights between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. Considering the high load factor on these routes, as evidenced by the consistent difficulty faced in obtaining seats between Ottawa and Toronto, can the

May 16, 1975


GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDATION AS TO PRODUCTION
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice in charge of the Wheat Board a question. He recommended that production of grain be increased this year, yet quotas have been cut off in May of this year. There is still much grain piled up on the farms and in storage space because of the dilly-dallying of the government over the labour difficulties at the ports. Is the minister now going to bring in another LIFT program next year?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the hon. member for Calgary North recognizes that there is indeed grain in the country. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain does not seem to agree that either the statistics or the visible piles of grain are evidence of anything.
The quotas originally proposed for termination on May 16 in regard to the higher grades of wheat were in fact extended by the Canadian Wheat Board, so the open quota continues. There is generous space in most elevators, and farmers are delivering their grain to them. Our recommendation in regard to acreage was that a very significant increase in acreage and reduction in summer fallow should take place because of the relatively low world stocks of grain. Although there is still a fairly reasonable stock of Canadian grain. That continues to be our advice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would ask the minister to contact the wheat pools and the grain companies across this country to find out how much grain is stored in the elevators and on the farms at the present time. I ask seriously, is he going to reconsider his suggestion for more production in western Canada in light of the fact that one of the biggest crops of winter wheat is now beginning to be harvested in the United States?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. The figures on farm stocks and on stocks in elevators are available in the best possible way. The elevator stocks are of course literally available in actual numbers of bushels, and I read the statistics every week. Statistics Canada calculations of farm stocks have been borne out in the past as accurate. The good crop which is being harvested in the United States is in a sense welcome news from a world point of view. It remains a fact, however, that the world stocks of grain are relatively low, and this means that it would be desirable to improve grain stocks. What we want now, of course, is some recognition from the rest of the world after the experience of lower stocks, that the rest of the world should appreciate our carrying stocks.
Oral Questions
minister ascertain whether the estimated loss is valid and, if so, what reasonable explanation has the airline to offer for what would appear to be, on the face of it, the most lucrative airline route in Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think that is part of the policy we will announce eventually.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Which year?


Jean Marchand: Hon. members still have a few days to laugh. It is good for their health.
We have to study the structure of air fares because there is no doubt that some short hauls are being subsidized by long hauls. We will have to revise all this to have a better equilibrium. Hon. members who always travel first class should know that they are subsidized by the economy class.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Only ministers travel first class.


Jean Marchand: I sometimes meet my hon. friends in first class, but as we have a pass, it is cheaper for Air Canada to have ministers in first class because this is where there are seats available.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Labour. Now that the government has received two reports on SIU activities, one from the Department of Justice and one from the Department of Labour, and in light of the statement of the Minister of Labour earlier this week to the effect that a decision on an inquiry will be made this week, why is the decision on such an inquiry now apparently being postponed until at least next week, and when can we expect this decision to be made?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. gentleman to be patient for a few more days.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I will ask the parliamentary secretary what ministers are involved in this discussion and if consideration will be given to making these reports public at the time the decision on the inquiry is announced.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will just have to await action by the government.

As long as we were carrying a large stock, there was no appreciation of that, and it may have been a necessary exercise to see those stocks go a little lower before the world began to see that it should pay us for carrying stocks rather than offering to pay us lower prices when we carry that security for the rest of the world.



May 16, 1975


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask if the Minister of Finance, in his memorable speech yesterday, was stating government policy when he said, "at least now there is an intellectual argument for controls." If this is so, when did the new dawn break? This time a year ago was the Prime Minister, as the leader of a party in an election campaign, just intellectually dishonest or just plain economically stupid?


Mr. Speaker:: There is a good deal of merit to the question, although one might have noticed a slight argumentative note at the end. The question basically seems relevant.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will take some of the argumentative nature out of the question. I certainly would not want to argue with the Prime Minister on such a beautiful Friday on May 16, when just a year ago we were all arguing in another forum. Does the Prime Minister accept as government policy that, as the Minister of Finance said yesterday, "at least now there is an intellectual argument for controls," and if so when did this new dawn break?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know when the dawn will ever break over the hon. member's mind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps if he is given time he will understand that at different times in the economic cycle inflation can be either cost-push or influenced by external events over which controls would have had no effect.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am not really worried about the dawn breaking over my head. After all, we have the Prime Minister and God to worry about us and to get us out of all these problems. But seriously, does the Prime Minister feel that there have been that many fundamental changes in the economic picture within the last year to make controls intellectually acceptable now, but not intellectually acceptable during the campaign?


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: When did Turner start speaking for the intellectuals?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, to observers there obviously is a difference, in that inflation is now more of a cost-push nature than it was when it was an international phenomenon caused by the high prices of energy and essentially caused by shortages of world commodities, so that there is a difference in the economic timing.
The second point is that there is also a difference between a thing which is intellectually acceptable and that which is politically and practically-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The House knows, because we have said it many times, that there has been at least for four or five years in the works of the government something called a contingency plan on price and wage controls. This had to be put together, to use the hon. member's words, from an intellectual point of view. The fact is that in the government's judgment neither last year nor this year have we decided to announce any such controls.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am not going to discuss the intellectual aspect of this at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
M0)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Taking the first part of the Prime Minister's answer, Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman agree with me that admitting and assuming there have been some changes to the economic pattern, we are now confronted with the fact that there was no action, even though an election campaign was fought on the basis that increased productivity was the only solution, that those factors which have changed have been aggravated by the inactivity of the government which the Prime Minister leads?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was on his feet.


FINANCE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance is also based on his speech in Welland.


Charles Joseph Clark: He was misquoted!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the minister's statement that the timing of the pay bill for members of parliament was lousy-I think that is a correct quotation-


Walter David Baker: Is he going to give back his pay cheque?


Stanley Howard Knowles: In his forthcoming budget proposals will the minister consider taxing back the portion of that increase that we should not now be receiving?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that I also said something that was not reported at the same time, namely, that the 33 Vs per cent increase, measured over the period since the last increase, was still lower than the rise in the cost of living in the same period and if prorated would be about 5'/2 per cent per year.
5868

May 16, 1975
Oral Questions


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister is not prepared to go as far as I suggested would he give favourable consideration to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean to tax back from everyone any increase that exceeds 12 per cent or $2,400, whichever is the lesser?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I take that as a representation as I did from the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
# * *


AIRPORTS
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of today's CBC news report that a passenger boarding at Toronto International Airport passed through the security check with hand baggage containing a high powered rifle with ammunition, will the minister investigate what is happening to the moneys allocated by Parliament for security checks at airports, since it is obviously not providing the protection expected?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I read the news report like my hon. friend. I know one passenger boarded, I think, a Sabena plane in Brussels flying to Toronto. He was carrying a handbag containing a rifle and ammunition, and even a knife. He went through the security check without being stopped and it was the stewardess who, finding the bag was heavy, asked the passenger what it contained. He said it contained a rifle. Of course, that does not show that the system is good, but the security system in Toronto is under the responsibility of Air Canada. I know the corporation immediately suspended the person responsible for the negligence.
I hope this will not happen too often, but there will be no need to be shocked if it happens from time to time, because it happens all over the world. Some people even entered Germany, France or England with machine-guns. I regret it very much, but at all events Air Canada has taken the necessary steps to correct the situation.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I wonder what would have happened if the passenger had not admitted he had the gun.


An hon. Member:: You would not have a question and we would all be happy.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: On April 15, the minister said in the House that he would consider an investigation into the failure of x-ray machines to detect the presence of four razor-sharp knives in hand baggage at Vancouver and Toronto International Airports. Last Monday the minister said in the House that he would inquire into the situation at some airports, such as Prince George, British Columbia, where passengers were not

required to submit to security checks. Would the minister report on his investigations or does he categorize these questions as "small and mean"?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to categorize them that way. I am told that they are making some alterations in the airport and this is the reason there is not yet a security check there. This is the reason given to me, and as soon as the alteration is completed the security system will be re-established.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and arises from the fact that world tension now seems to be shifting to the divided Koreas. Would Canada lend its good offices and efforts to try to have representatives of North Korea and South Korea meet on some neutral ground, preferably some international forum, to attempt to resolve their differences? From personal experience, as head of a parliamentary delegation to South Korea a year ago, I can state that nothing useful will emerge from meetings in the demilitarized zone between them.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's interest in this subject, and I will certainly give his representations consideration.


BAIL REFORM ACT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice who stated on February 4 that statistics on the operation of the Bail Reform Act have been provided to the provincial attorneys general so that they might be aware of the figures before they were made public. Has the minister received any comments from the attorneys general?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the answer to exactly the same question the day before yesterday.


INCOME TAX
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In light
May 16, 1975

of what appears to be the very dubious nature of some of the actions of the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada, is the minister giving consideration to an improved method of policing charitable organizations, donations to which are tax exempt?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I indicated in the estimates committee that this was a matter of concern to me and that my officials and I have been working on it. There is liaison with officials of the Department of Finance on the subject.


PROTECTION TO PRODUCERS AGAINST ILLEGAL DEMURRAGE CHARGES
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In light of the fact that there are still ten labour contracts due that can affect the grain industry in the current year, does the government intend to give any special protection to farmers against illegal demurrage charges?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the hon. member refers to when he mentions that ten contracts are due. The Wheat Board or other owners of grain who have demurrage claims made against them know fully what their rights are, and I doubt whether they would pay any illegal charges.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the statement made by the minister to the "Adventure in Citizenship" students on Wednesday night that the House of Commons should face the Ottawa River, could the minister inform the House whether he intends to alter the course of the Ottawa River or about face the parliament buildings?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Well, Mr. Speaker, Liberals can move mountains but I think it would be difficult to change the course of the river!


John Napier Turner: You are too modest.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: A supplementary question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that data and part of a policy paper being presently discussed by the cabinet has
Oral Questions
appeared in the press, can the minister tell the House if he will be able to make the policy proposals available to the House of Commons?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, we are going to follow the normal procedure. I am sure the hon. member understands that it has to go through cabinet before we can discuss it in the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I appreciate that it has to go through cabinet, but I thought we could get it from the minister rather than read it in the papers. I appreciate that I cannot expect the minister to divulge any proposals on new policy. Can the minister tell us whether or not the new policy proposals will contain any new directions concerning the operations of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada, particularly as CNR made record net operation profits, but the interest on the debt has eaten up an additional $30 million-odd over and above operating profits?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, all I can say at the moment is that there will be many, many changes. Some of the matters that were referred to by the hon. gentleman are to be studied and analysed and recommendations are to be made about them.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. With respect to the Prime Minister's statement to me in the House on Wednesday, that he would welcome my constructive suggestions on the formation of a Canadian position on international development, will the Prime Minister tell me how I can make such constructive suggestions when I am denied the material and views prepared by the CIDA team of experts on the ground that it would be premature to make public at this time the CIDA position papers. And will the Prime Minister take steps to provide members of parliament with the fullest information now being gathered by the government on the options for a comprehensive policy on international development?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that as soon as the department or the agency is ready to make these papers public, it will consider that. I encourage the hon. member in the meantime to do some thinking about the problem. I myself have not seen these papers but it has not prevented me from addressing myself to these questions in many discussions with my colleagues. I hope the hon. member will feel free in his party and caucus to raise such important questions. I think we should have some thinking on this subject on the other side of the House.
5870

May 16, 1975
Oral Questions


ALLEGATION FOOD AID NOT REACHING THOSE IN NEED-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? I am only one man and only so much information can be made available to me. I need the kind of support which the government has available for the formation of its own policies. In an effort to gather material for constructive suggestions, I asked the Prime Minister on May 8 if he was aware that 80 per cent of Canada's food aid is being sold to local peoples. The Prime Minister said he was not aware and undertook to find out if there was misinterpretation and misrepresentation in Canada's food aid. Could the Prime Minister now report to me on this subject?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have been made aware of the hon. member's question. It has been the practice, I think since about 1951, for governments which receive Canadian food aid to establish counterpart funds which are devoted to economic development purposes. Normally, the recipient countries of food aid distribute that food through their own distribution system to people most in need. In some cases they establish the price at cost or somewhat above cost in order to protect their own agricultural and distribution systems. It should be added, however, that in the case of multilateral assistance, and emergency assistance, no counterpart funds are established. But this practice, as I have discovered, has been systematically followed since the Colombo plan of 1951, and certainly is nothing new. It is intended, really, to protect the marketing and agricultural systems in the recipient country.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister actively considering purchasing the new de Havilland DASH 7 aircraft for sovereignty control over our oceans, and will he announce his intention to the House in the next few weeks?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the DASH 7 is one aircraft which we are considering, but it is only one of several.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Last Wednesday I asked the minister a question about the cross-subsidization of routes, inasmuch as the prairie routes are subsidizing the Air Canada Toronto-Ottawa-

Montreal route. I think the minister misunderstood my question. May I now ask whether he is prepared to intercede with Air Canada, with a view to seeing whether the application for increased rates can be forestalled or postponed until this discrepancy in the rate structure can be solved.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Justice as the minister representing western interests?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Will the minister not intervene, on behalf of western Canada, in this grossly inequitable situation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have noted the hon. member's representation.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State responsible for fisheries. What action has he taken to investigate the questionable decision of a federal-provincial committee concerning the declaration of certain zones and compensation for lobster gear losses last year? Also, in view of the time of year, will he advise the House if he has directed his officials to investigate doubts concerning the lobster season? If changes are to be made, is he aware of consensus on the part of fishermen?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to review a decision made by a federal-provincial committee over one year ago. I am willing to see if we can make improvements in this matter, but I really must tell the hon. member that the decisions were made in the light of facts then known, and only after full consultation with the provincial government which was very much involved in this process. As I have indicated, I will try to be as flexible as I can, but I would not want to give those who have been refused false hope.
As to the matter of the lobster season, we are looking at the matter again. I had not received official requests from fishermen's organizations up to a couple of days ago, but I will look in the files again. We are always willing to change the regulations which we can change at the stroke of a pen to accommodate fishermen. The problem is to obtain consensus among all fishermen of the district.
May 16, 1975


PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL COMMODITY AGREEMENTS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Finance about the brief report we received from Iran when the Minister of Finance was there? I would not wish to suggest to the Minister of Finance that there has been any wrong reporting. According to press reports, he suggested in Iran that all raw materials moving in international commerce should be subject to international agreements, both from the point of view of buying and selling countries. I ask, is that the policy of the government of Canada? Is it the view of the government of Canada that wheat, copper and other commodities besides oil should be subject to international agreements? If so, is the government of Canada taking an active initiative to push that view in the world community?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government's position, generally speaking, is that we are in favour of international commodity agreements. Actually, we are members, I believe, of every international commodity agreement which exists. But we have always insisted that these agreements are only fair and workable if they represent the producer and the consumer. We have been invited on several occasions to join agreements on commodities which were merely producer agreements and we have until now hesitated to do so, for reasons I just indicated. We could, I suppose, in special cases consider other actions. But this is our general policy, and, in so far as the minister explained that, he was certainly explaining what has been government policy for some time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry-Mr. Bechard.
[Editor's note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have given notice of a question of privilege which I should like to raise on Tuesday next with respect to Canadair Limited and vote L20 in the estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce calling for the spending of $38.1 million to purchase that company. It is a company which, upon purchase by the federal government, will apparently have no worth and one which has incurred cumulative operating losses of $2.4 million in six years, in spite of having received $21.5 million in grants and $21 million in financ-
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
ing benefits from the federal government. If it is in order, Mr. Speaker, and with your consent, I should like to present my question of privilege more fully on Tuesday.


Mr. Speaker:: I have never taken a position which would discourage the practice which the hon. member proposes to follow, that is, to give notice and thus afford other hon. members an opportunity to prepare themselves to participate in discussion. I think, however, that the hon. member ought to put forward at least a description of the nature of his question of privilege. He has mentioned the subject, but its nature has not been elucidated. I think it is in order to let the matter go until Tuesday next in order to allow other hon. members to contribute, but I wonder whether he will now indicate the nature of the question of privilege. We can hear argument on Tuesday.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to delay unduly the regular order of business of the House. The question of privilege centres on what took place in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs yesterday. A vote was called for on vote L20, at which time the Committee quorum was lost as a result of certain members on the government side vacating the room. Thus, the regular order of the committee's business could not be proceeded with. In consequence, I believe there will not be an opportunity properly to vote on and review this estimate, and on Tuesday I intend to seek your guidance as to what would be the correct approach for members of the House to take with respect to this unfortunate development.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises from a reply to a question of mine by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) earlier this morning concerning a meeting on May 21 to which I had referred. Since I would not wish the minister, perhaps unintentionally, to leave a wrong impression with the House, I thought he might wish to confirm, or otherwise, that a message did go out from his office today to the effect that the meeting had been postponed indefinitely.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, indeed. A message did go out from my office this morning to the effect that the May 21 date was not a convenient one and that I would be in touch shortly suggesting further dates which might be suitable.


CONSUMER PACKAGING AND LABELLING ACT
Max Saltsman: for leave to introduce Bill C-390, to amend the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that the public is able to clearly understand and see the price on the products they buy and to prevent the price being removed on items that come under the universal product code marking. The bill represents the concern of members of the Kitchener-Waterloo area branch of the Consumers Association of Canada that the removal of

May 16, 1975
Order Paper Questions
visible prices from items will lessen the consumer's price consciousness and that the universal product code should not be permitted to do that.


[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: Nos. 1,206, 1,327, 1,740, 1,947, 1,959, 1,960, 1,969, 1,971 1,984, 2,024, 2,028, 2,043, 2,067, 2,148, 2,257, 2,285, 2,380, 2,381, 2,441 and 2,465.
If questions Nos. 613, 1,843, 2,274 and 2,345 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 2,353 and 2,403?
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	In the last fiscal year, what was the total revenue from fines collected in courts in (a) Banff (b) Jasper?
2.	In the last fiscal year, what was the (a) staff complement (b) total cost of maintenance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachments in (i) Banff Townsite (ii) Banff National Park (iii) Jasper Townsite (iv) Jasper National Park?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Justice and the Solicitor General as follows: 1. The Department of the Attorney General of Alberta informed the Department of Justice that during the past fiscal year they collected (a) a total of $287,811 by court fines in Banff, and (b) there was no revenue from court fines in Jasper. The court at Jasper only became operational on October 1, 1974.
2.	(a) (i) and (ii) 26; (iii) and (iv) 13; (b) (i) and (ii) $398,900; (iii) and (iv) $590,590 (includes construction cost of $379,781).
Note: There is only one detachment in each area. Each is responsible, under provincial contract, for the policing of both the park and the townsite in their respective areas.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What specific progress has been made towards Canada achieving "world-recognized excellence in operating on and below ice-covered waters", as enunciated July 12, 1973 in the "New Oceans Policy" statement by the Minister of State for Science and Technology?

2.	Does Canada have any Arctic capability sub-surface vessels capable of unassisted progress in a submerged state for periods of several days or more other than mini-subs and, if so, what are they and on what dates were they built?
3.	Does Canada have any surface vessels capable of continuous progress through 7-foot ice and, if so, what are they and on what dates were they built?
4.	Will Canada have this degree of excellence by July 12, 1978?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: The following information was obtained in consultation with the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Transport. 1. The declaration in the New Oceans Policy that Canada shall achieve world-recognized excellence in operating on and below ice-covered waters led to the establishment of an inter-departmental advisory committee concerned with development of the requisite operating capabilities. Extensive consultation by the committee with experts in industry and government has resulted in identification of a series of priorized and integrated ice excellence R&D program requirements which, it is anticipated, will be presented for consideration by Ministers in the near future.
2.	Canada does not have any Arctic capability sub-surface vessels capable of unassisted progress in a submerged state for periods of several days or more.
3.	Canada does not have any surface vessels capable of continuous progress through 7-foot ice.
4.	MOT has awarded a contract for a study which will include the production of specifications and drawings for the construction of an ice breaker capable of continuous progress through 7-foot ice. A decision to build such a vessel has, however, not yet been made and it is thus improbable that a vessel of this type will be available by July 12, 1978.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, how many Canadian magazines have more than 20 per cent but not more than 25 per cent of their voting shares owned by non-Canadians?
2.	If during a fiscal year the sale of free shares results in a nonCanadian ownership in excess of 25 per cent is the tax deductibility right of advertisers affected?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Secretary of State and National Revenue as follows: 1. The information is not obtainable except by examination of specific taxpayers' records.
2.	Yes.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	To date and by province, what has been the cost of the Department of Supply and Services advertising campaign to promote and encourage small businesses to bid on federal contracts?
2.	What results are evident in terms of the discovery of new markets where costs might be curtailed?
May 16, 1975


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. The Advertising campaign has ended and the cost were identified as follows: British Columbia, $24,109.94; Alberta, $13,951.97; Saskatchewan, $5,447.53; Manitoba, $9,701.70; Ontario, $109,429.86; Quebec, $69,503.35; New Brunswick, $6,435.63; Nova Scotia, $9,572.41; Prince Edward Island, $2,836.14; Newfoundland, $2,801.78; Total $253,790.32.
2.	One of the goals of the Department of Supply and Services advertising campaign was to ensure that every Canadian businessman across the country was aware of how to do business with the Department and to assure all taxpayers that it is not a privilege but their right to do business with the federal government. Some 20,000 copies of the brochure "How to Do Business with the Department of Supply and Services" were distributed. The advertisements drew approximately 7,000 responses. Some 800 firms provided positive information which resulted in additions or improvement to our lists of suppliers. Approximately 250 additional firms enquiring about specialized activities in government were referred to the responsible departments. No estimate of the financial benefit accruing from this broader understanding has been possible.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How many companies are listed on the Department of Supply and Services product supply list for the prospective procurement of radiosondes and what are their names?
2.	Did the Department aid Sangamo Company Limited, Toronto, Ontario financially or otherwise in their initiative to market radiosondes?
3.	Did the Department expect a return share in profits as a result of this endeavour to create another supplier?
4.	Did the Department collect a returned revenue from such investment?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Seven companies. Aviation Electric Ltd., St-Lau-rent, P.Q.; Leeds and Northrup (Canada) Ltd., Rexdale, Ontario; Electrodesign Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.; Topping Electronics Ltd., Scarborough, Ontario; General Instrument of Canada Ltd., Toronto, Ontario; Conway Electronic Enterprises Ltd., Weston, Ontario; George Kelk Ltd., Don Mills, Ontario.
2.	No.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the difference between water-chiller units as contracted from the Trane Company, Calgary, Alberta on August 15, 1974 and December 11, 1974?
2.	What was the difference in cost per unit?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. The two procurements are separate parts of the heating/diagonal cooling system of the new Calgary Airport Project. The first covers two central water chillers required to chill a continuous supply of cooling water
Order Paper Questions
which is then distributed throughout the project for use in heat exchangers purchased under the second contract in question. The second contract is for a number of heat exchangers, each consiting of a blower and a liquid-to-air heat exchanger to transfer heat from hot water to the air in a local position, or to chill the air in that same position.
2.	The water chillers were two in number at $63,338 per unit. The heat exchangers were thirty-one in total number of four models at unit prices of $35,206 (4), $22,846 (12), $15,507 (10) and $10,373 (5). These contracts were awarded on behalf of the Ministry of Transport.


Mr. Reynolds: What is the cost evaluation breakdown relating to the contract awarded July 9, 1974 to Spar Aerospace Products Ltd., Toronto, Ontario for a total value of $7,604,000?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The contract concerns the acquisition of spare parts for the constant-speed accessory drive, overhauled for DND by Spar for a number of years. It was designed specifically for DND's Argus Aircraft by Sundstrand Aviation Corporation, Rockford, Illinois and this arrangement is not used on any other aircraft. This contract covers the first year of a two year acquisition program to provide maintenance spares sufficient for a period of four years commencing 1 April 1975 at an estimate cost of $14,560,000. The cost is based on unit prices established by Sundstrand and negociated downward to reflect the advantages available from volume manufacture. This bulk procurement program was initiated and negotiated with Spar to avoid the large cost escalation which began to be experienced under annual procurements. The contract was issued in July 1974 to authorize purchase of raw material required for this new provisioning program. Under DSS guidance, the agreement drawn up between Spar and Sundstrand provides for a quarter share of the manufacturing to be performed in Canada and limits the allowable cost escalation to 6 per cent annually over the program period.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What are the distinguishable characteristics within two contracts awarded for information display systems to Leigh Instruments Ltd. and I.P. Sharp Associates, Ltd., Carleton Place, Ontario?
2.	What is the difference in design and cost of the two systems?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Leigh Instruments Ltd.-Flight Information and Display System: This is a computer-based system, with multiple displays, for use in the new Montreal International Airport. It will provide the travelling public with information on flight arrivals and departures and baggage claim information; I.P. Sharp Associates Limited-Operational Information Display System: This is an Air Traffic Controller Operational Information Display System. Systems will be installed in Air Traffic Control Centres across Canada. The Controllers will be provided information on meteorological conditions and other data concerning the runway status.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded to the Mallory Battery Co., Mississauga, Ontario for 29,000 BA 3386 batteries at a cost of $24.59 per battery?
2.	Did the battery replace the BA 386 battery which cost between $2.80-$3.30 per unit?
3.	Are there any other countries using the same type of battery for their walkie-talkie units?
4.	To the knowledge of the government, did the US forces refuse to use this battery?
5.	What is to be done with the large inventory of BA 386 batteries and accessory equipment?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Supply and Services and National Defence as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes, the BA3386 replaced the BA386 battery. However, prices tendered for the BA386 in mid-1974 ranged from $4.29 and $7.26. The BA3386 battery is an alkaline type battery which is impervious to changes in temperatures and has a shelf life of three years. The BA386 battery is made of zinc carbon and has a shelf life of one year. This battery can only be used in summer and requires temperature controlled warehousing. In winter, the BA398 battery is used. This battery is carried in a vest which is worn by the operator to keep the battery as warm as possible. Thus, the BA3386 battery replaces both the BA386 and BA398. In addition to being more reliable and outperforming the BA386 an estimated 7 to 1, the BA3386 offers a decided logistic advantage. Because of its greater shelf life and all-climate capability, only one battery is needed and less warehousing is required because the requirement is less. Warehousing may be general in nature instead of one requiring temperature control. The BA386 requires protection from heat during transportation to the theatre of operations.
3.	Yes, two countries currently have the BA3386 undergoing field trials and at least three other countries have expressed interest.
4.	No.
5.	As of April 1, 1975 a total inventory of 4,019 BA386 batteries was held by Bases, Stations and Units to support

daily requirements. This quantity represents approximately a six week supply based on last years consumption.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	With respect to the Minister of Supply and Services' stated intentions as outlined November 15, 1974 through a departmental press release, will the Minister further describe the new dimensions of the proposed purchasing effort by the government to shift work out of government into the private sector?
2.	How is the mobility between private and public sector employees to be encouraged?
3.	What are the established guidelines proposed to disabilitate central purchasing authorities in favour of building purchasing wings at the local and regional levels?
4.	What is to be the effort to help small businessmen through increased information and most of all through an equal opportunity to do business with the government?
5.	What is the amount of money regional offices are allowed to allocate on contracts placed under the title of "single competitive purchases"?
6.	What is the amount of entitlement on contracts described as "non-competitive purchases"?
7.	Are there plans indicating the respective dollar amounts will be increased to enhance the independence of the regional office?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. In FY 1973-74 the Department of Supply and Services purchased, on behalf of the federal government, goods and services from the private sector totalling $1.6 billion. In the November 15, 1974, press release it was stated that the application of the make or buy policy in government would result in increased contractual activity with industry. In support of this statement several impressive DSS examples were cited. They were: the close-out of the departmental computer services bureau effecting $9 million (100 per cent) increase in awards to the private sector since 1970; an increase to 63 per cent in government printing requirements let to private concerns and the implementation of R&D buys from industry. The latter has resulted in awards of $33 million since January 1973. Though these examples tend to be the most impressive, the Department has sought to identify all areas where the application of the buy decision would be advantageous to government and industry. Hence, in such output services as Maintenance and Repair of federally-owned assets; security services especially guard contracting and the procurement of design and artwork, the level of awards to commercial organizations has been visibly increased and this trend is expected to be maintained into the future.
2. The Department of Supply and Services has sought to increase the mobility of private and public sector employees in several ways: (a) The Department supports the Public Service Commission program which provides for an executive interchange between industry, universities, and other governments, and the Federal Public Service. (b) An applicant inventory of qualified purchasing officers from industry is updated on a regular basis to enable DSS to recruit high-calibre employees at an officer level, (c) The Department conducts industry briefings thereby establishing a greater visibility to non-government employees of activities and programs sponsored by DSS.
May 16, 1975

3.	(a) When a requisition originates in a region, the policy is to solicit bids in the region if there are enough suppliers in that region to insure competition, (b) With respect to Headquarters purchasing the policy is that when the final point of use for the product is in the Atlantic or Western provinces, purchases are made from suppliers in these regions provided that total PROC cost (Product, Resource, Operating and Contingent Cost) to the government cannot be reduced by using alternative Canadian sources. All national requirements including those for the National Capital Region are solicited from suppliers throughout Canada, (c) The Government's program for contracting out research and development work provides that contracts should be let so that the resulting industries will be established throughout the various regions of Canada.
4.	The following practices of the Supply Administration are intended to assist firms in identifying and obtaining contracts or sub-contracts: The publication of a Weekly News Release of Business Opportunities of Unclassified Contracts over $10,000 and the public opening of tenders for requirements over $10,000 provide information to any interested parties on current contracts, some of which contain sub-contracting opportunities. Smaller firms whose government contracting potential is likely to be limited to the sub-contract level are referred to the purchasing branches of the Department to obtain information on current acquisitions. The Department is increasing its effort to inform potential prime contractors on the general requirements of government contracting procedures including their application to the sub-contract level. Referrals are made to customer departments of those firms who may handle specialized requirements. Liaison is maintained with DREE and ITC local representatives to keep them informed of anticipated acquisition programs. From time to time, conferences are conducted to inform prime and sub-contractors of our requirements (e.g. Operation Access, Electronics and Data Processing Conferences). The recent country-wide advertising campaign in newspapers and periodicals was another instrument to inform industry about the role of DSS, our policies and practices and how businessmen can become potential sources of supply for government requirements. Over 20,000 copies of our explanatory brochure "How to Do Business with the Department of Supply and Services" have been distributed. As a result, we have received many requests for copies of our Weekly Bulletin of Unclassified Contracts for more than $10,000 which we offered in the booklet as a useful tool in identifying sub-contract possibilities. The Supply Administration maintains a liaison with suppliers both at the prime and sub-contract levels by answering verbally or in writing, approximately 1,600 enquiries per month. These involve explanations of DSS purchasing policies, practices and procedures and outlining services which are available from DSS. Discussions are held with representatives of firms to ensure adequate listing of their capabilities so that they can do business with DSS to their fullest potential. Our Printing Products Branch has initiated a system whereby urgent requirements are posted on bulletin boards in all our Regional Offices. This permits more equitable opportunity for suppliers across Canada to compete for government printing business. The increased usage of Standing Offers permits
Order Paper Questions
suppliers of such items as automobiles, typewriters and pharmaceuticals to disseminate contracts to their outlets at the local level, thus enabling the small businessman to have greater participation in government procurement.
5.	$100,000.
6.	$50,000.
7.	This is now under consideration.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What conditions were posed as part of the tender procedure for bids received concerning the disposal of CFB Foymount by CADC?
2.	What general conditions apply for disposal of Crown-owned assets, particularly property, within invitations to tender?
3.	Was the sale of CFB Foymount pursuant to such general conditions posed by CADC?
4.	Were there any changes in the rules to bid after tenders were first requested?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: 1 and 2. The Conditions of Sale are contained in the copy of the Offer for Sale of CFB Foymount tabled in answer to Question No. 2,025.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): In the last fiscal year, what was the cost of operation of the Parliamentary Returns Office of the Department of Communications?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: There is no Parliamentary Returns Office as such in the Department of Communications. Parliamentary returns are handled on a part time basis by the Administrative Assistant in the Office of the Deputy Minister, assisted by a secretary of that office.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): In the last fiscal year, what was the cost of operation of the Parliamentary Returns Office of the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: There is no Parliamentary Returns Office as such in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Parliamentary returns form part of the duties of the General Services Division.


Mr. Reynolds: 1. (a) Is the Canadian Government Specifications Board efficient to the extent that they have a minimal backlog of requests for specifications (b) what central body is charged with the responsibility for

May 16, 1975
Order Paper Questions
screening such requests (c) approximately how many specifications are awaiting approval?
2.	Is there a priority list of items that imperatively require specifications?
3.	What is the cost of maintaining the specifications system?
4.	Are the savings in purchasing cost offset by increases in the cost of maintaining the specifications system?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. (a) Yes; (b) Requests for specifications are investigated by the CGSB Secretariat in accordance with well defined procedures, (c) As of April 21, 1975, 20 CGSB standards are awaiting Board approval.
2.	The work program which is developed annually represents the list of priority items.
3.	The budgeted CGSB costs for fiscal year 1975-76 are approximately one million dollars.
4.	Specifications are intended to achieve savings in terms of the total supply cost that includes purchase cost, resource cost, operating and contingency costs. Only those specification projects that appear to offer a favorable benefit-cost relationship are undertaken. This process is considered to provide adequate assurance that the total cost savings are significantly greater than the cost of maintaining the specifications system.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,342, was consideration given to the percentage of foreign textbooks in the French language that are used at the elementary and secondary school levels?
2.	Is the Department of the Secretary of State considering means of encouraging an increase of domestically produced textbooks?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. No.
2. The Department of the Secretary of State is of the opinion that textbooks for use in Canadian schools should to a large extent be written by Canadians, and that the field of educational publishing should be occupied to a considerable extent by Canadian-owned publishing houses. To this end, the Department would like to see the provincial governments, which are responsible for matters pertaining to school curricula, treat Canadian publishing houses in a way which would allow them to develop their potential in this field.


Mr. Marshall: What are the names and addresses of the 24 young men and women who have been selected from each province to participate in the pilgrimage to Italy to visit the cemeteries of war dead?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Wayne Payton, St. John's, Newfoundland;
Jacqueline Ryan, St. John's, Newfoundland; Martin Morrison, Flat River, Prince Edward Island; Christine Shepherd, Cardigan, Prince Edward Island; Colleen Middleton, L'Ardoise, Nova Scotia; Anthony Olender, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia; Catherine Gillespie, Moncton, New Brunswick; John Kerrigan, Fredericton, New Brunswick; Gerald L'Archer, Quebec, Quebec; Anthony Pollard, Mont-

real, Quebec; Rosslyn Whiteside, Montreal, Quebec; John Bennet, Port Colborne, Ontario; Denis Chartrand, Ottawa, Ontario; Candace Collins, Rexdale, Ontario; Helen Beattie, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Curtis Phillips, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Lois Barton, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Trevor Lowe, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan; Marion Henry, Sundre, Alberta; Leonard Lay, Morrin, Alberta; Bryan Brimacombe, Oliver, British Columbia; Evelyn Whitfield, Burnaby, British Columbia; Hugh Charlie, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory; Mona Paquet, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory; Carol Villeneuve, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories; Heather Wishart, Inuvik, Northwest Territories.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Did the Department of Supply and Services issue an order assuring that tender bids delayed in the mail will be included in the competition and, if so, on what date?
2.	How many tenders have been delayed in the mail during the past five fiscal years?


John Mercer Reid: The answer is as follows: 1. The Department of Supply and Services issued an information bulletin concerning delayed bids as an attachment to Invitations to Tender in June 1974. This bulletin stated that delayed bids mailed in Canada, at least 48 hours prior to the designated closing time and date or mailed outside Canada at least 96 hours prior to the designated closing time and date, would be considered if they were received by the Department prior to contract award.
2. No statistics concerning delayed tenders have been kept for this period.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Did the government recently award a contract for $280,000 for the construction of a fiberglass research ship?
2.	Was the contract put to tender and, if not, for what reason?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. A contract was awarded in the amount of $278,849.92 for construction of a 40 foot, fibreglass, fishery research vessel, on behalf of the Department of the Environment.
2. Tenders were called in the west-coast region of Canada, where the vessel is to operate.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What bid price was accepted by the government for the construction of a number of steel gill-netting boats, 27'2" long, Department of Supply and Services file LC-A-2762-5-0003?
2.	Was the lowest bid accepted and, if not, for what reason?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. The second low bid in the total amount of $57,800 for the four boats was accepted.
2. Lowest bid was not accepted, as the company could not meet the technical requirements. The lowest tenderer
May 16, 1975

subsequently withdrew his bid. This contract was placed on behalf of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Forrestall: Will the Minister of National Defence give consideration to personally reviewing the orders that went to members of the Canadian Armed Forces to the effect, that members who were previously authorized to retain their pre-unification rank designation and who concurrently retained their pre-unification element/service badges are now to be required to wear badges representing the occupational classification while concurrently being permitted to retain their pre-unification rank designation and, if not, for what reason?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. Dress instructions issued on April 3, 1970, stated that the cap badge associated with the class of service to which officers and men are assigned, was to be worn when the badge became available.
2.	Cap badges in general use at that time were authorized to continue to be worn during the intervening period.
3.	During this intervening period that is from April, 1970 to the present time extensive discussions with personnel at all levels were held and, cap badges in some cases were designed, and in all cases were approved by all groups concerned.
4.	There is every indication that servicemen and women wish to be identified with the particular type of military duty in which they are engaged, and that the new cap badges are being worn with pride.


Mr. Dick: How many licenced sufferance warehouses were authorized to be in existence by the Department of National Revenue for each year (a) 1950 (b) I960 (c) 1970 (d) 1971 (e) 1972 (f) 1973 (g) 1974?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The
following is the number of Customs Highway Sufferance Warehouses which were in existence during the years specified: (a) None, (b) 48. (c) 139. (d) 143. (e) 148. (f) 154. (g) 157.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Does the government know the names of individuals who worked in the Office of the Prime Minister, in the Privy Council Office or as a Research Assistant, Special Assistant or Executive Assistant, in or for the office of any Minister or Minister of State from 1963 to the present?
2.	What is the (a) name (b) position (c) job description of each of those individuals who are presently in the Public Service or employed by (i) Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (ii) the Bank of Canada (iii) the Canada Council (iv) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (v) the Canadian Commercial Corporation (vi) the Canadian Dairy Commission (vii) the Canadian Film Development Corporation (viii) the Canadian International Development Agency (ix) the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission (x) the Canadian Transport Commission (xi) the Canadian Wheat Board (xii) the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (xiii) the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer (xiv) the Defence Research Board (xv) the Economic Council of Canada (xvi) Eldorado Nuclear Limited (xvii) the Federal Court of Canada (xviii)
Order Paper Questions
the Food Prices Review Board (xix) the Foreign Investment Review Agency (xx) the Fresh Water Fish Marketing Corporation (xxi) Information Canada (xxii) the National Capital Commission (xxiii) the National Energy Board (xxiv) the National Farm Products Marketing Council (xxv) the National Film Board (xxvi) the National Gallery of Canada (xxvii) the National Harbours Board (xxviii) the National Research Council of Canada (xxix) the Representation Commissioner (xxx) the Science Council of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question number 782 answered on May 1, 1975.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of money allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 1973-74 in the constituency of Westmount, Quebec (a) what are the names of all projects involved along with their addresses and the names and addresses of those signing the applications (b) in each case what is a detailed description of the actual project, specifically including the functions performed under the project?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who recommended each project in any manner whatsoever to the Department?
Return tabled.



NEW HORIZON GRANTS

Mr. Hogan: By year for each constituency, since its inauguration, what were the expenditures in New Horizon grants?
Return tabled.



UN EMERGENCY FORCE AND UN DISENGAGEMENT OBSERVER FORCE

Mr. Stanbury: As of March 31, 1975 (a) what amount was owing by each country in arrears of payment of the special United Nations assessment for maintenance of the UN Emergency Force and the UN Disengagement Observer Force in the Middle East (b) how much has Canada received on account of its contributions to these forces (c) what amount is owing to Canada on this account?
Return tabled.



SERVICEMEN REGISTERED RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN

Mr. McKinnon: Did National Defence Headquarters survey 144 financial institutions in Canada before one was selected as the trustee for the Servicemen's Registered Retirement Savings Plan and, if so (a) what were the names and addresses of those surveyed (b) what was the cost of the survey and what firm did the survey (c) how many actuaries were employed in the survey?
Return tabled.
Salaries Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
May 16, 1975

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp that Bill C-24, to amend the Salaries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Last night, Mr. Speaker, I began my remarks in response to an invitation by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to take part in the debate.


An hon. Member:: That was a mistake.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I was glad to accept the hon. gentleman's invitation. The interjections which I made in the speech by the Leader of the Opposition came after he had made some remarks about not picking on one or more groups, such as lieutenant governors, judges or members of parliament, and singling them out when it comes to restraint. I interjected then, and I repeat now, that it is a little difficult to feel any concern about increases for people who are getting $25,000, $35,000 or $45,000 a year.
It is even more difficult to accept or even listen to anyone attempting to justify percentage increases in incomes at those levels, increases which in real dollars reflect incomes for those categories far in excess of what is necessary or desirable. The same percentage increases for people with incomes less than $12,000 or $13,000 a year would be meaningful. I submit they are excessive and somewhat obscene for people earning between $25,000 and $50,000 a year.
The Leader of the Opposition said that he was getting a little tired of the talk of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about restraint, and that he would like to see us support some program of restraint. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and others of this party have put forward proposals on quite a few occasions during the last two years. The fact that some hon. members chose not to listen to them or reply to them cannot be blamed on us.
I remind the House, particularly the Leader of the Opposition, that we have been saying for quite some time that there has to be restraint. But we have submitted in the past, and we submit again, that the restraint has to start at the top, not at the bottom. It is obscene, or at least unseemly for members of parliament to sit in this place and propose increases for high income groups while urging low income earners and people on fixed incomes in Canada to show restraint.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) was complaining the other day that wages and salaries represent 70 per cent of total income in Canada so obviously, in his terms, this was a major sector of the economy to show restraint. But

he conveniently omitted the fact that this 70 per cent includes high income earners such as executives, judges, senators and members of parliament, lieutenant governors, lawyers, doctors and other professionals, engineers, and so on, all of whom earn incomes ranging between $25,000 and $75,000 a year. This is the area where restraint must be exercised. As far as we are concerned, people earning $6,000, $8,000 or $10,000 per year are entitled to all the increases they can get, if for no other reason than to bring about a greater measure of equality in this society.
We have had recently statistics showing that a family of five people-husband, wife and three children-on an income of less than $15,000 a year in the city of Toronto is not going to make it. Such a family will not be able to meet the price of housing, food and other necessities of life if they live in a city like Toronto. Yet we have the gall- when I say "we", I should say the government and members of the official opposition-to suggest that people in such income categories and even lower should show restraint. They then try to plead, on behalf of themselves as members of parliament, on behalf of judges, and now on behalf of lieutenant governors, that increases ranging from 20 per cent to 90 per cent are justified. This is sheer nonsense.
When the Liberals and Tories talk about restraint for the poor, it reminds me of days of old when peasants were supposed to stand by the roadside and doff their caps and touch their forelocks as dukes, earls and lords rode by. Today they drive by in their Cadillacs and Lincoln Continentals on their way to open parliament, or to the courthouse, or even on their way to the House of Commons.
If the Minister of Finance, the government and the members of the official opposition think for one moment that ordinary, average Canadians will hold still or accept the pleadings and urgings of restraint while we pass Bill C-44, Bill C-47, Bill C-24, and Bill C-23 still to come, then they are kidding themselves. The public will not accept it because it is unfair. It is so basically unfair that one would think no member of this chamber would have the nerve to put forward legislation of this kind while asking the poor to show restraint.
I would have been more inclined to support a pay raise for parliamentarians had we first done something about increasing the old age pension. We were able to get the reluctant acceptance of the government to tie old age pensions to the cost of living, but the problem with this is that the percentage is based on too low a basic amount. This country can afford to double the basic old age pension right now. It would not be inflationary. The people on old age pensions and low incomes are not the ones who cause inflation. Not only are they not the ones who cause inflation, but they are the first victims of it.
People on salaries between $25,000 and $75,000 a year can look after themselves quite nicely, thank you. To grant them a 20 per cent, 30 per cent or 40 per cent increase is totally unjustified. I hear it pleaded on behalf of lieutenant governors that they have not had an increase for 12 years. Something which was conveniently not mentioned last night is the fact that none of them has been there 12 years. In fact, I do not think any lieutenant governor has held his appointment for more than five years. They serve a five-year term and, once in a while, a year or two extra.
May 16, 1975

May 16, 1975
Salaries Act
from the Minister of Finance or from the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Let me remind hon. members of the increase in corporate profits, especially in 1974. In the last few months we have heard a lot of weeping and wailing about corporate profits falling. There has been a great gnashing of teeth in this regard, but let me suggest-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I have listened very attentively to the hon. member and I am wondering whether he is still speaking on Bill C-24. Perhaps he could limit his remarks to that bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I am arguing that increases in incomes such as those proposed in Bill C-24, and as proposed in bills C-47 and C-44, are unjustified. The Minister of Finance and the Leader of the Opposition talked about restraint, but they did not show any restraint in respect of those bills. The Leader of the Opposition did not say a word about restraint in respect of Bill C-44. It seems to me that anything we do in the way of restraint should apply to Bill C-24, and should have applied to Bills, C-47 and C-44. It should also apply to Bill C-23 when it comes before the House. I could get up and make the same speech again on Bill C-23 if necessary, Madam Speaker.
How can members sit here and support the increases we are suggesting for lieutenant governors and what we did for judges, MPs and senators, and not do anything about the incomes of corporate executives, and corporate profits, while at the same time supporting restraint for all others? How can they do that and expect the public to believe them or have any confidence in them when they speak about restraints, particularly when they know at the outset that they are unfair. The people know that those who already have are the ones who get more and the ones who will not be affected by restraints, or at least they will be affected to a very minor extent by any government program of restraint and control. If the government does resort to mandatory controls, then those who already have been given more through bills C-44 and C-47, and will be given more by bills C-24 and C-23, will not be affected: they will already have their increases. The ones who have not received increases will be hit by these controls whether they are voluntary or mandatory.
The people on low and middle incomes are the ones who will be told not to ask for more or not to ask for too much. They are the ones who will be told to ask for just a little bit. The ones who are getting $10,000 to $12,000 a year, with a wife, three kids and mortgaged up to the eyeballs, will be told not to ask for more. This is intrinsically unfair, yet the Leader of the Opposition acquiesced supinely to bills C-44, C-47, and now C-24. I find this incomprehensible. I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he read the remarks of a member of his own party, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I will say nothing more on that subject.
To show how callous the Minister of Finance is, the only defence he made in response to criticisms about these huge increases was that the timing was lousy. If that does not reflect real disregard for the people on pensions and low and fixed incomes in this country, I do not know what does. Not only was the timing lousy; the amounts were lousy. The increases for lieutenant governors in this bill

are being justified to us on the basis that they have not had an increase for 12 years. It is said that if you work the increases out on a percentage basis over the 12-year period, they are reasonable. One could do that with an increase in the income of John D. Rockefeller or E. P. Taylor; you could say that because they have not had an increase for 12 years, 1 per cent would be justified-but 1 per cent of tens of millions of dollars is quite an increase.
Another point that is bandied about is the percentage increase. If the increase is 12 per cent of $35,000 or $55,000, that is a different ball game compared to an increase of 12 per cent of $10,000 or $12,000. It is suggested that an increase in salary to $35,000, $40,000 or $45,000 for judges is not too much because when you work it out on a percentage basis over a four or five-year period, it only comes to about 12 per cent per year and that is within the suggested restraint guidelines. They do not talk much about 12 per cent of what. It works out to an increase of $15,000 a year. That is as much, or more, than the majority of wage earners in this country earn in a whole year. That is how much the increase is for the first year.
I agree with the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the Leader of the Opposition and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) about the respect due to people who hold positions such as that of lieutenant governor or judge in our country. But I suggest those people are of such a calibre that they should be the first to say, if there is a sacrifice to be made, restraint to be shown and leadership to be given to all our population, they should be first in line, instead of asking the workers of Canada and pensioners to be first in line when it comes to exercising restraint. We should be saying to the corporate executives, the professionals and others that they, corporate profits and interests rates should be first in line in respect of restraint and controls. We should start at the top and work down. We should have a little more equality and decency in this society, instead of sitting here mouthing restraint and talking about fighting inflation which ends up as a fight against the poor.
We are dividing our people even more by helping those at the top and decreasing the opportunities of the low and middle income people to own decent homes. The whole attempts of the government to arrive at a program to fight inflation that would have the support and co-operation of the provinces, the municipalities and the public at large is shot full of holes by the succession of steps that have been taken in the past year. The four bills I have mentioned are just four of those steps. There is the constant rise in interest rates in respect of homes, the unconscionable program which instead of getting more houses built is getting fewer houses built, and the attack on the people who are unemployed as well as the failure to increase pensions.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member again, but I am afraid he is straying from the subject matter of the bill. May I remind the hon. member that Standing Order 35 states that no member may reflect upon any vote of the House except for the purpose of moving that such vote be
May 16, 1975

rescinded. The remarks of the hon. member in respect of Bill C-44 are not in order under this Standing Order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am referring not only to Bill C-44 but also Bill C-24, Bill C-47 and Bill C-23. I thought that Bill C-44 and these other bills were good examples of what we have in Bill C-24. They are four examples of the government's attempts to restrain and fight inflation not being worth the paper they are written on. I ask, Madam Speaker, what is the difference? One could refer at length to the income proposal for lieutenant governors, but I do not see much difference in that and what the percentages are from what was proposed for judges and MPs. I thought we should broaden it out a bit and be fair. There is also the case of moonlighting teachers and the salaries of professors. I think the kind of income university professors have been getting is disgraceful when they have been drawing up all kind of plans designed to help the poor. Bill C-24 is not deserving of passage, just as all the others.
I am saddened and disappointed by the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition and his casual way of passing this off, even though he was in favour of controlling prices and incomes in the past two or three years, as though it is something we do not need to worry about because one cannot just pick out lieutenant governors, and so on. I repeat, and I shall close with these comments, that we should not be increasing the salaries of those who are in the $25,000 to $75,000 income bracket, because surely this is where you start if you want to do something about inflation. Surely they are the kind of people who should be setting the example and leading the way.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the hon. member rising to ask a question?


Mr. Francis:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Chairman. I should like to refer to section (1) of Standing Order 31 which says that unless otherwise provided in the Standing Orders, no member may speak for more than 40 minutes at a time in any debate. The hon. member has spoken for more than 40 minutes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I assumed that you knew what you were doing. I realized that my time was almost over.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The record shows that the hon. member has not passed the 40-minute limit.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Madam Speaker, the hon. member began his speech last night. I have watched carefully, and certainly by my count he has exceeded 40 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The record shows that the hon. member is within the 40-minute limit. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I knew that you and the table were keeping an accurate record, and accuracy is not something for which the hon. member is noted. I shall repeat my final sentence, because obviously the hon. member was not listening when he interrupted
Salaries Act
me. I said that we should start at the top when we want restraint and want to fight inflation: we should start with MPs, senators, corporate executives, judges, lieutenant governors, and professional people. I submit that this kind of legislation flies in the face of that principle.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Speaker, I sympathize with the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) because while the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) may not have used up his 40 minutes, from what he had to say one could easily think he had been speaking for hours and hours in terms of picayune, petty, partisan nonsense. Perhaps the fact that this should come from the mouth of such an intelligent member of the House-of course, the fact that he belongs to the party he does to some extent disavows my description of his being intelligent-could be ascribed to the fact that somewhere in the great prairies there is an election going on in the province of Saskatchewan, and the hon. member is looking far beyond Saskatchewan where his party is in serious trouble because it is a party which-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but whatever was ruled in respect of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre also applies to the hon. member for Peace River.


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, may I say that I have known the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for some time, and I would think, as the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) said a few days ago, he was in the process of clearing his throat ready to make a speech.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Speaker, I undertake not to depart further from the rules than did the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. Having indulged in these few pleasantries to start with-


Stanley Howard Knowles: If those are pleasantries, what will you use for an attack?


Gerald William Baldwin: I shall have some more pleasantries later; I am just getting started. Last night the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) took the same attitude as the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) with regard to the bill that had come up before, that the place to make any suggestions as to changes in the salaries fixed by the bill is the standing committee. The Leader of the Opposition said that we are in full accord with the principle of this bill and we think there should be some increase in the salaries, but that this is a matter for the committee to decide, not the House. The House can decide to be against this bill on the grounds that we are against the principle that there should be an increase in the salaries of lieutenant governors.
I think the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre went far astray in his description of what was said by the Leader of the Opposition last night, in the same way as he disclaimed, in the course of his speech, the extent of the demagoguery which has animated his party with regard to all these bills. In a very narrow sense, what the hon. member said may be correct but it has to be construed in

May 16, 1975
Salaries Act
an exceedingly narrow sense, if one has to examine this against the whole broad background of the national and international economic situation, what the hon. member is saying is just as demagogic as what was said by some of his colleagues on the other bills dealing with salaries of members of the House and salaries of judges.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: That demagoguery was found in several parts of this House; it was not necessarily all in the NDP.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain!


Gerald William Baldwin: It is patent nonsense to argue that, for example-taking the lieutenant governors whose salaries are the subject of this bill-the last occasion on which we dealt with these salaries was 1963, because in the same way a number of years elapsed before members of parliament and members of the judiciary received an increase in their salaries. If anyone suggests to me that the time which elapsed was of such a length that there was ample opportunity for those who felt it their duty to set an example at the highest level, I say that an example was being set in this House with respect to the judiciary and lieutenant governors. But did that stop people from demanding, and receiving, a larger share of the economic pie than perhaps was justified-such segments of society as industry, business, international unions and other people? I will not go into a preview of the budget debate, but to listen to the arrant nonsense to which we have had to listen inside and outside the House is, to me, quite objectionable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I think we should look at the true picture. Indeed, people should try to set an example; but we have to go beyond that. What we are finding now-and it is true with regard to lieutenant governors, the judiciary and members of parliament-is that when many years ago this country and other countries set their course on a pattern of developing social assistance programs, with which I and other members of the House agreed, we failed to take into consideration the necessity of linking them to the capacity of the country to sustain and support them. For the last 10 or 12 years people have been demanding, and receiving, more than we have been able to produce in this nation through people in the agricultural sector, the labour sector, industry and individuals who by their ingenuity have created an economy of usefulness and value. As a result, we are facing a very serious situation with regard to inflation.
This is not the time to go into that matter, but I want to make it plain. To say, as my friends to the left have been saying and as we have heard through the media and in the country, that a small group of ten people, whose salaries obviously have been inadequate over the last 12 or 13 years, should now be the subject of attack such as was launched by members of the party to my left is, to me, completely inexcusable. It is not a situation which has contributed in any sense to the inflationary processes in this country, and I suggest that we have to look much deeper for the causes of this situation. The kind of dema-

goguery which we have heard from that party is simply nauseating.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: It should have no effect on the approach of hon. members to the bill that is before us.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to follow the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in this debate. Although I know there are differences of opinion among members of the House about the devotion of some members from time to time, I do not think any person in the House would indicate anything but the highest regard for the involvement in all aspects of public life of the hon. member for Peace River.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: When we look back over the difficulties and vicissitudes of public life, not only of members of the House but of members of the judiciary and of lieutenant governors, and the restrictions on life in general, we should listen very carefully to the words of a person who has made great sacrifices in order to serve his country in this House. Having heard the member of the NDP who just resumed his seat-I do not wish to cast any reflections on him-I feel bound to say that I heard a speech by the resident hypocrite of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am glad you are trying to be nice.


Walter David Baker: I hope that when the time comes at the end of this month to collect the bounty that has been given to us and for which all of us are grateful-most of us, in any event-he will be at the front of the second line, that is, the line of those who will turn their money over to some worthy charity such as "Beans for Benjamin" or something like that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I think it is extremely important that we recognize a couple of facts about lieutenant governors. There are lieutenant governors in each of the provinces, and each province has treated its lieutenant governor a little differently in terms of the prerequisites of the office. Some lieutenant governors, for instance, are supplied with homes. However, I am advised that the NDP government of Saskatchewan in 1944 decided to do away with having a home for their lieutenant governor, through some mystical form of tokenism with regard to savings, and ever since the person who occupies that office has had to rent a suite in keeping with his position. The people of Saskatchewan and the successive governments of Saskatchewan have regretted that shortsighted tokenism. The government of that day, as I recollect my history, was led by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas).
I think we have to be careful when we consider the positions some men and women of this country are privi-
May 16, 1975

leged to occupy. When I consider that, through neglect or otherwise, there has been no increase in the emoluments or the salaries of that office since 1962 or 1963, frankly I think that is scandalous. I hope the government House leader will not take this to heart, but I think there has been considerable neglect by the government, and it is neglect which cannot carry on forever.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Walter David Baker: I will when I have finished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will that be this morning, or this afternoon?


Walter David Baker: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member's lunch hour; it is likely to be this afternoon. If the hon. member is taking that as an undertaking, and if he wants to go to the parliamentary restaurant and have his lunch now, he can do so and I will be available to answer the question this afternoon.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He doesn't go there.


Walter David Baker: If he wants to have soup and a sandwich in his office, he can do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am staying right here.


Walter David Baker: What I am saying is that in Canada there are ten lieutenant governors, all of them men and women who distinguished themselves not just in professional callings but in service to the public long before they ever came to that office: that is why the prime minister of the day invited them to take the office. The people of Canada should be grateful to them, not just for their past service but for the fact that they accepted the office. When I think of the neglect over the last 12 years, I believe we should be doubly grateful to the men and women who have accepted the office under those circumstances.
It is very easy to take pot-shots at people in public life. Members of parliament are in the controversial field of active, open and overt politics and we have to expect these things from time to time. It does not make the criticism levelled at members of parliament less valid, but quite candidly I do not like members of the judiciary of this country, a judiciary which has a remarkable record in terms of the quality of the men and women who have accepted appointment to the Bench and have cut themselves off from their profession, to be the subject of some of the things that we heard today. I take great umbrage at the lieutenant governors of the provinces being subject to this kind of crass, low, political attack in this chamber. The representatives of Her Majesty the Queen in all the provinces are being attacked.
I will criticize the government for not bringing in legislation sooner and for not establishing a system by which there could be an annual review of these salaries, just as I criticize it for not doing the same for the judiciary, and certainly for members of parliament. If there are some hon. members of this House who can stand up and say this
Salaries Act
is wrong, perhaps it is within the rules of the House and within the rules of public debate on public matters but it is in the poorest taste, and I think the hon. member who will be the beneficiary of the "Beans for Benjamin" fund which is to be established will regret, on reflection after reading his speech, that he ever raised the matter in the way he did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Having said that, I do not want to suggest that there are not groups in Canada who must have their wages, salaries and pensions adjusted. That is a problem we are faced with. That is the great challenge to the government. That is the challenge the government has not met, as the situation has deteriorated since 1963. When postal workers demand more money, when the GLT workers in the public service demand more money, when old age pensioners say that they are falling further and further behind, they are really saying that we have to take a new look at the redistribution of income in this country. With that I agree; but to use that as the platform to attack the Crown and those men and women who give something to this country I think is most unfair, and I am sorry that speech was made by the hon. member from Saskatchewan.
Madam Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, just before the luncheon adjournment I was talking about the question of the redistribution of income in Canada. I was speaking in the context of the remarks of members of the New Democratic Party with respect to where the thrust ought to be in terms of redistribution of income. I said there are no two ways about it: the great challenge facing Canadians and this government-and we have to judge whether it has been successful-is on the whole question of redistribution of income.
In this country there have been no national guidelines with respect to redistribution of income. Those who have been strong in the constituencies represented by my friends in the New Democratic Party have been able to chase a larger and larger piece of the economic pie: an economic pie which itself is not growing any larger. As a result, pressures are built into our economic system that are now laid on the doorstep of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). One of the groups that is not strong, one of the groups that is small, one of the groups that is performing a sound constitutional function within our system is the group of ten lieutenant governors who are the subject of this legislation. I think it is important that we give them the recognition the position warrants.

May 16, 1975
Salaries Act
I should like, now, to turn to yesterday's debate on this subject, Madam Speaker. I do not often agree with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), but he said something yesterday which I can endorse. At page 5853 of Hansard he said:
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to recognize the continuing importance in our constitutional system of the functions discharged by lieutenant governors of the provinces-
He added that there ought not to be, as a matter of principle-a principle that everyone in this House can support, I am sure-continuation of the practice of having a variation in the salaries and remuneration paid to lieutenant governors dependent upon the size of the province in which they have the honour to be the Queen's representative. I think it is extremely important that this be recognized. After all, the functions are the same, the constitutional duties are the same and the representation asked of the office is the same. I think it is high time this legislation was brought in to change a principle that I gather has been in force for a great many years.
We do not support this bill to reward the "fortunate ten" in Canada, nor to denigrate those who are not so fortunate through no fault of their own but perhaps because their circumstances are beyond their control. We support the bill because we earnestly believe that the principle set forth in the bill regarding the amounts is proper. We also believe that we can debate this matter until the cows come home and never settle on what is a proper amount. We support the bill and believe that it ought to go to committee where the whole question can be examined in depth. I think this is a position worth taking.
The President of the Privy Council said that in the table of precedence in Canada, lieutenant governors rank immediately after the federal cabinet. I have reservations about that. I have very high regard for lieutenant governors of the provinces, and I do not know whether they should be placed below the "salt". Even placed in that position of some disadvantage, however, the office is worthy of Canadians of the highest calibre who from time to time are asked to accept it.
I have always taken the view that the salaries and allowances paid to people in public office, whether in the political sphere, the judicial sphere or, as in this case, the vice-regal sphere, ought never to be the enticement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I hope the lone representative of the press gallery feels properly welcomed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I have said that I do not believe salaries and allowances ought to be the enticement into public life, but at the same time they ought not to be a deterrent to people wanting to continue in public life, on the one hand, or to good people wishing to enter public life, on the other hand. I have been shocked lately at the attitude of people who should know better with respect to this principle. This is a difficult balance to strike and I am sure in this legislation the government is attempting to find it. Whether they are successful will be 
for the committee and, ultimately, this House to decide. The government must strive for the balance, however, so that when the Prime Minister of this country asks a man or a woman to become the lieutenant governor of a province, he or she will neither be deterred nor attracted by the remuneration but will be attracted by the opportunity presented for further public service.
What do I mean when I speak of further public service? I mean this: I am satisfied that no prime minister, no matter which party he leads, would select for office any person who has not demonstrated throughout his lifetime the ability and desire to serve the public of Canada. We should remember something else: public life entails sacrifices. I am new to public life and, in personal terms, I do not know all the sacrifices. I know that some have been in public life much longer than I or many members of this House. It is important not to overlook the sacrifices and penalties of public life, even though those in public life are not conscripts to it.
We should make sure that the sacrifices involved do not deter entry into public life of those about whom we have talked in the last few days. Today we are discussing the lieutenant governors of provinces-a small group. Judges form a larger group, and members of parliament, given the turnover in membership of this House, an even larger group. These groups are important to Canada. We should not lose sight of this fact. It is important for us not to become cynical. It is important for the media of this country not to be cynical about our institutions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: We must not deter good men and women from serving, because there is always a place in public life for those who want to serve. There is always a place for them at some level. As I say, today we are discussing those who hold the office of lieutenant governor of a province. We should not forget this. These days we see rhetoric in print, cynical newspaper reports and advertising the like of which I have never seen before. Such activities do nothing except denigrate those in public life in this country, denigrate this institution and, in some respects, come close to denigrating our courts. If we are not careful they can denigrate the office of the Queen's representatives in the provinces.
Lastly, I ask hon. members to remember that in the province the lieutenant governor performs the function of the Governor General of this country. His constitutional duties are similar to those of the Governor General. Speaking as a member of this House and as a Canadian, I want to entice good people to that office and not see such people deterred from seeking office because of extraneous considerations which have nothing to do with the office. I want people to seek that office for the sake of the duties of the office. I would like to be able to say that there is a reasonable hope of adequate recompense. That is really what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) meant last night when he said in the House that he supported this bill and wanted it to go to committee, where these questions can be discussed.
May 16, 1975

I am angry when I hear my friends of the NDP talking about restraint. The fact is that they have not given, and are not prepared to give, anything but lip service to any program of restraint in this country. What has happened in the past will demonstrate the truth of my assertions more eloquently than anything I can say. It is important for us to exercise restraint. It is important for us to do our best for the less fortunate. But let me say that the NDP has no monopoly on that concern. I do not want anyone to think that my party or the leader of my party has not been concerned for a long time about lack of restraint and what it has done to the less fortunate. Need I remind the House that an election was fought in 1974 partly on the issue of restraint? The death-bed conversion of the last eight months or so, this turn around in government thinking, shows how right my leader was in 1974.
We support this bill, Madam Speaker, because we believe in the office and believe that the restrictions of the office, the inability of the office-holder to engage in commercial or professional enterprise, ought to be considered. I hope we shall never again hear the kind of speech that was made just before the luncheon adjournment about the holders of this office. Let me say to the government House leader that all kinds of public salaries falling within federal jurisdiction ought to be reviewed regularly, so that never again will the situation arise, through negligence, forgetfulness or any other reason, in which the salaries of public servants, including those of lieutenant governors and people in a similar position, are overlooked. We must avoid doing anything which brings the institution as such into disrepute because of the actions of those who attack it in a misguided way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, before lunch the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said that he would accept a question of mine at the end of his speech. Will he now do so?


Walter David Baker: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, my question is prompted by a remark the hon. member made before one o'clock, to the effect that it is scandalous that these salaries have not been increased since 1962 or 1963. Does the hon. member not know that not one of our lieutenant governors was in office at that time; that seven of them have been in office for three years or less?


Mr. MacFarlane:: I thought you were going to ask a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to see my hon. friend here on Friday afternoon.


Walter David Baker: He is always here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As this increase is to be awarded to some who have given, so far, only three or four years of service, does the hon. member not feel that he was putting it a bit strongly when he said the delay is scandalous?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, with respect-I have great respect for my hon. friend who is my neighbour outside the House and my colleague in this
Salaries Act
House, although I do not always agree with his opinions-
I feel that the office itself, and not the one who may be the incumbent from time to time, is really the subject of the debate on this bill. The point I was trying to make was that the salary should be the last consideration which should either entice prospective office-holders into public life or deter them from it. Salary should be the last thing on the mind of the prospective office-holder when the Prime Minister offers the appointment.
I must say I do not know any of the gentlemen involved-I do know the one lady lieutenant governor- but I would be surprised if one of the considerations which went through the minds of prospective lieutenant governors was not the question of salary and allowances, especially in view of the fact that the person appointed might have to give up any interests which would conceivably be in conflict with his office, which could mean giving up virtually everything in terms of a business or other profession. Even though others have accepted appointment since 1962 to this high office, this does not remove from the government the obligation to increase the salaries paid in a regular way having regard to conditions in society.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit one further question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I would remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we are not in committee of the whole. However, perhaps the hon. member will allow a second question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In this instance the hon. member may well be agreeing with me. In view of his support of the principle of paying the same rate to lieutenant governors in all provinces, thus establishing a national rather than a regional rate, does he not believe that this strengthens our case for national rates to be paid in the public service generally?


Walter David Baker: I do not know whether the question can be regarded as anything other than frivolous.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is very serious.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member and I are among many in this chamber who are actively engaged, almost on a day to day basis, with issues affecting the public service. One of these is the question of national rates-the justice of such rates, or otherwise. I would not want to give an answer to this question other than the one I have given: I would have to examine the situation very carefully before I could answer specifically whether national rates would be applicable to the public service.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: I rise on a point of order arising out of a reference by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) to the one member of the press Gallery who is present. My point of order is this: I hope the lone member will assess, in terms

May 16, 1975
Salaries Act
of quantity, the quality of the press gallery, as its members consistently try to assess the quality of this chamber in terms of quantity.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. That is not a valid point of order.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: One might even mention that they are still up in the subsidized restaurant.


An hon. Member:: Obviously, there are no newspapers in Miramichi.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, if I may return the debate to a semi-serious tone, at least I would like to say one or two things about the bill before us. I am referring, of course, to the interruptions and not to the very excellent speech of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).
I am very happy to speak on the measure before us and I have no reservation at all in commending the minister responsible, not only for the legislation but for the remarks which he made. They struck me as being very apropos, very sound constitutionally, and a serious prelude to a measure which is extremely important. I have no personal axe to grind-I am as likely to become a lieutenant governor as I am to become a senator.


Mr. McGrath:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: It is the impossible dream of my public career!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Which do you want?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Yes the legislation before us is a source of personal satisfaction to me because ever since I came to this House I have been appalled by the inequity which existed as between provinces. During the years when the Progressive Conservative Party was in office in the country, I spent much time and effort pleading with the Hon. Donald Fleming to make adjustments. The rate in Prince Edward Island was $8,000, in Quebec and Ontario it was $10,000 and in all the other provinces it was $9,000. I could never find anyone who could explain to me why that situation should prevail. I commend the government for establishing, once and for all, that since the provinces are juridically equal and constitutionally equal-if, god knows, not economically equal-the very epitome of their constitution, the chief person there, the lieutenant governor, should reflect that in this particular matter. It is for this reason that I commend the government for recognizing this aspect. I think where the minister shows wisdom is in recognizing differences in expenditure. This is done through the expense allowances. It just happens that it is not always the lieutenant governor of the largest province or the most populous province who most dutifully fills that office or works hardest at it.
I remember that one of our journalists, who is not in the gallery at the present time, Charles Lynch, made quite a sensation in Prince Edward Island when he visited Government House and was reported to have found the wife of the lieutenant governor sewing up drapes in preparation for the royal visit. Some people were appalled by that, but

I was not at all disturbed. She was the wife of a very distinguished soldier and scholar, she was the mother of very distinguished Canadians in the professions, in the arts, and if she sews as part of her devotion to her duties, it does not offend me at all.
I remember another governor of Prince Edward Island, the late Governor MacKay, who died only about a year ago, I think. There was a young lad of about 13 who had been sent by his teacher to find out all he could about Government House. He went to the Island Heritage and got the pamphlets there, but he thought he might investigate a little further. He had nerve enough to go up to the front door of Government House and was admitted by Lieutenant Governor MacKay who took him through the ancient and very beautiful building. The young fellow told his mother later that the lieutenant governor had told him many things which were not in the booklet. When he was through with the tour, he was taken to the kitchen where Mrs. MacKay gave him some milk and cookies. That is probably a more eloquent demonstration of the value of an office properly filled than the treatises of many learned political scientists.
I suggest that we must believe in this system; and those who know me in the House know that I am not an emotional monarchist but that I am a rational monarchist. I suppose this is what you would expect from one whose forefathers were defeated in 1745. We have lost a certain sense of emotion because our man was beaten there. If the system is to function, we must respect the office. I would assiduously avoid dragging the office of the lieutenant governor through any bric-a-brac about costs and salaries. I believe that my colleague who has just spoken is profoundly correct when he stated-and it is something which has concerned me throughout my life, especially in the last few years-that there is great danger in the tendency to play the political game, to denigrate not only the participants but the institutions.
I think in recent years, the press in this country, which I fear is not as strong or as perceptive or as sensitive as it should be, in getting after the politicians, who are fair game, may bring down the institution with them. We are inured to and expect criticism. There is a syndrome about the politician; we are supposed to be smooth and hypocritical. But when this is moved over to a denigration of the House of Commons or parliament itself, then we are in danger.
I do not care for this discussion about the occupants of a gubernatorial office belonging to a political party; that they are this or that. It is an office which we respect and one that is essential to our system. If we do not regard it with the proper respect and dignity and, I hope, affection, then we should change the system. We are talking about the most important person in each province, man or woman. It is the number one person occupying a post of honour that should not be restricted to the rich and well born. To do so would be disastrous. I have known people in my own province, the small province of Prince Edward Island, who have been fine, dedicated men who have exhausted a great deal of their personal finances in doing a proper job as lieutenant governor, and that should not be. That is wrong. Nor should the post be exclusive to
May 16, 1975

those who may have gone in for earning, as R. B. Bennett used to say, a competence. There are, alas, a great many people in this country who are not rich, and I could be one of their best spokesmen, knowing a good deal about it.
Therefore, I commend this new recognition of equality, constitutionally and juridically, among the provinces. I hope this measure will not be mired down by sniping about who is more restrained than someone else. I think these ten people, no matter who they are, should have conferred upon them by this parliament a respect for their performance of a highly important duty.
The office of lieutenant governor has been often overlooked by our students and scholars in political science. I do not suppose I am the favoured colleague of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), but I was profoundly impressed by the quality of the people whom he appointed to the office of lieutenant governor. Over the years I happened to become acquainted with nearly all of them. They were adornments to the office. They were more than adornments; they were functioning in an office which they filled nobly.
One of these appointees-I do not know how widely this is known-had a little difficulty on a royal visit with one of the members of the royal family. In a fit of pique, I suppose, she declined to meet any more people and said she was not going to have any more people presented to her. This very distinguished and able lieutenant governor to this member of the royal family, using the proper tone of address but also showing the power of his own office, said, "I hope you will not force me to act in my role as Her Majesty's representative and command you to go to this presentation". He knew his office, and it is an important office. And this is an important bill. But, Madam Speaker, it is surely not, and should not be, a controversial one.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 8, 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.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Madam Speaker, I hope I am not establishing a precedent by having made a speech yesterday and making another
Non-Canadian Publications
today, but I had planned on speaking on this measure for some time. I think the minister will know the position that I am going to take. According to the title of this bill, which is described as Bill C-58, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, it is a very innocuous little bill, but I get pretty worked up about this sort of thing. Of all the matters I inherited from my constituency, I have never had so much correspondence as on this matter. I have received over 263 letters about Readers' Digest and Time magazine.
Let me say at the outset that I am not speaking as one who is prejudiced against Time or Readers' Digest, particularly Time. I recall a cartoon by that great cartoonist, MacPherson, that appeared in the Toronto Star in which three people were putting various ingredients into Mr. Stanfield's salad. The cartoon was with reference to a meeting held in Saskatoon. I was not at the meeting and had no part in it, so I called up the editor of the Toronto Star and of Time. I do not know whether it is because of my physical make-up, but my wife always maintains that I do not cartoon very easily, and they had my name on my tie so there was no mistaking who I was. I cannot remember whether I was putting glass into the salad or something worse, but I hired some lawyers and received an apology both from the Toronto Star and Time. I think Time carried an article saying "Woolliams is innocent." I felt as though I had just been tried for murder and acquitted by a jury.
So after that introduction, Madam Speaker, I am certainly not speaking from any prejudice. However, I have always felt that Time gave a kind of capsule or pill version of the news and never really carried the news itself. They tend to editorialize the news. But this is not what I want to speak about this afternoon. I came here this afternoon because I am pretty concerned that by means of a tax measure we have brought censorship into this country.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My hon. friend says, "Oh, no". If this bill passes, the Readers' Digest and Time magazine will likely come off the news shelves in Canada. One of the most fundamental freedoms of all is surely freedom of speech. From freedom of speech flows democracy; and freedom of the press, of course, follows from that. It might be a good idea for my hon. friend who says, "Oh, no" to look at chapter 44 of the Revised Statutes of Canada and read section 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which crystallizes the common law not only of the Commonwealth but particularly the law that we have inherited in statute form through our constitution from the British system. I maintain that if this act passes, it will permit not only this act but the act covering taxation in this field to allow a group of bureaucrats to determine what Canadians will be able to read.
I only know of few countries, even today, that have taken such drastic steps. One is the U.S.S.R. We have only to think of one of the great writers of today who was forced out of his homeland, Mr. Solzhenitsyn. Let me remind hon. members of what he said when he first escaped. He said that when you curtailed the press or tried to curtail freedom of speech, whether by taxation or other-

May 16, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
wise, you turned back the pages of history of the country 700 or 800 years. Let me read from the Bill of Rights, which states:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a)	the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person
and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof
except by due process of law;
(b)	the right of the individual to equality before the law and the
protection of the law;
(c)	freedom of religion;
(d)	freedom of speech;
(e)	freedom of assembly and association; and
(f)	freedom of the press.
This minister and this government are trying to bring about censorship in respect of what Canadians should read. For some unknown reason this government and members of other parties seem to think there is some great Canadian nationalism in the fact that you are anti-American.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know whether the hon. member is applauding because he is anti-American or pro-Canadian. However, you can certainly be pro-Canadian without being anti-anything. But I wonder about the policies of this government which have recognized those countries which have been taken over by the communists in the last little while. Now this government wants to bring in censorship on what we should read.


James Hugh Faulkner: Read the bill, Eldon.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have read the bill, and I will let the chips fall where they may. I knew the minister would get upset, Madam Speaker, because the truth is apparent. Many and varied, indeed, are the ties that bind Canada and the United States together as virtually the last remaining bulwarks of freedom in this collectivistic world. We have a common heritage. Our ancestors came from the same part of the world. We have the same basic political make-up, although we have a different constitution and a parliamentary system, whereas they have a republican system. We have the same spiritual ideals and we have enjoyed 150 years of unbroken peace along the longest unfortified frontier in the world.
It seems to me the government is bringing in a bill of this nature because they think it will do something for Canadianism. After listening to members of the NDP, 1 have come to the conclusion that some of them enjoy being anti-American. I was born in Canada and my people came out here before the railway was completed out west. I am proud to be a Canadian and I am also proud I was born in western Canada where there are open spaces and where the people really know what freedom means as they look across the plains toward the mountains. This is what my friends want to take away.
The minister talks about Reader's Digest as being American, or an American periodical. Reader's Digest is not an American periodical; it is an international periodical. Those people who hate the United States because they

think that will make them pro-Canadian should take a look at what is in the April edition of Reader's Digest. I do not intend to read the whole thing; I just want to give some titles.


An hon. Member:: We hope not.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member says he hopes I will not read the whole thing. Let me remind him that this is a very serious debate. I do not think we have said enough or have been strong enough about what is taking place. A lot of things have taken place since 1968, particularly when we think about the turn of events in respect of foreign policy in this country. Let us consider the first article in the April edition of Reader's Digest which is entitled "Man's First Home in Space". It is to be found at page 33. This article was not written especially for Reader's Digest but, rather, it came from National Geographic.


An hon. Member:: That's a subversive group!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, they are terrible. Then we have an article entitled "Killer Hurricane" which deals with hurricanes and their causes. It comes from a paper called The Americas. We then find an article entitled "The Wild, Free Life of Andy Russell". It is taken from Outdoor Canada, a Canadian magazine. We then have an article headed "Have a Good Cry". I don't know what that means, but that was written by a Canadian author for the Vancouver Sun.


Stanley Ronald Basford: You are not sticking up for the Vancouver Sun, surely.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will stick up for any Canadian paper or article written by a Canadian, and I suggest that the people of Canada should have the right to read any kind of literature written by any writer or philosopher anywhere in the world. I think the only thing the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) is hoping for is to roll in a few more dollars taken from the wage earners of this country. That is what his government has been doing.


An hon. Member:: We need them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, you need them, the way you spend money on studies and other such things in the extravagant way of this government.


Mr. Crouse:: Yes, $70 million more in one year for the Department of National Revenue. No wonder you need it, the way you are wasting money.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I must remind hon. members that they should address the Chair and not members on the other side.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That applies to the minister as well.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate that admonition, Madam Speaker, because I deserved it. Sometimes when you are dealing with such sensitive things as freedom of the press you tend to allow your emotions to take over from your brain power.
In looking at these articles we find one from the Vancouver Sun and another from the London Times. If you
May 16, 1975

look at the February edition you will find articles from the Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times and the London Times, along with a number of Canadian articles. What this government is trying to do is put this periodical out of business. This government is frightened about what we might read and feels that if the background is American it might do something to us as Canadians. When I went to university, part of my political science study included the reading of Karl Marx and other writings on the political philosophy and background of communism. Did that make me a communist? I leave that question to you, Madam Speaker.
This government has taken over everything else, and now it wants to tell us what we should read. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) once said he wanted to keep the government out of the bedrooms of the nation. I suggest to you that the Prime Minister and his government should keep the government out of the libraries. To me this is a complete affront and an attack on the freedom of our minds, or freedom in every respect. Let me put on the record some of what the Russian philosopher to whom I have referred said when he left his country. He said he wanted the privilege of reading anything that is written. Mr. Solzhenitsyn then said:
So let the reader who expects this book to be a political expose slam its covers shut right now.
This was a man who was educated in a communist state, but he is capable of the most beautiful philosophy and English language. He wrote the following:
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place: sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish.
One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn't change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil.
That is literature from a man who was raised and educated in a communist state during the time of the revolution and the development of Bolshevism, communism and a dictatorship which is really the same thing as socialism in the world. This government would want to choose what we are able to read.
I want to remind Liberals today of another Liberal. I do not know where the Liberal Party has gone and where the Liberal thinkers are. Some years ago in this chamber-and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will recall it because one of his own members, Mr. Rose, left at that time to go to Poland-we heard from one great Liberal. Although it was not because of what was being done in the civil service or what one member of parliament did, people were being arrested for what they may have done and were kept in jail, not charged, interrogated and everything in respect of the scandal at that time in reference to the spy case. At that time, one great Liberal in the cabinet, Mr. Power, who was a minister during the war, stood up and said this:
Non-Canadian Publications
As for me, brought up in an atmosphere wherein a framed photograph of Magna Carta was on almost every wall, accompanied with a warrant for the execution of Charles I, and steeped through my reading in the traditions of the martyrs of liberty and freedom, I cannot wish to turn back the pages of history seven hundred years and repeal Magna Carta. I cannot by my silence appear to approve even tacitly what I believe to have been a great mistake on the part of the government. If this is to be the funeral of liberalism I do not desire to be even an honorary pall-bearer at the funeral, and I do not wish by not taking part in this debate to give silent approval to the procedure which has taken place.
Where are the Liberals today? They say they are here. They are here in the Liberal Party, but the Liberal philosophy is gone because today they are turning back the pages of history 700 years to tell us what we will read and to go into our libraries and select the reading content in this country. With all the horror with which I have viewed this government, I never thought I would stand in this House of Commons and see censorship by taxation in this country. If that is not turning back the pages of history 700 years, nothing has ever equalled it in my time in this House and I question whether anything will ever equal it again.
I hope this bill dies on the order paper. My friends talk. They do not worry. They are the new Liberals. They are exactly like the Prime Minister said in his writings of 1963. I do not have the quotation before me but I can tell you what he said: he said that a Liberal is an opportunist today, he is a pragmatist and that the name of the game is power; power at any price or for anything. He said all he wanted was power. When he finally became a minister, at that moment the party changed from a Liberal Party to the kind of Trudeauism it has today, with a new foreign policy, selection of what one may read and taxation for pleasure. The attitude is that they are far more able to do it for the people than the people can do it for themselves.


An hon. Member:: Read the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My friend says, "Read the bill". Sometimes I wonder, if these people do read, whether they can think, because they follow blindly what I have just described. The Prime Minister wrote that article and described the philosophy of the party today. The reason they are sitting there is that they love power. When the Prime Minister wrote that article he was asked how the power is held, and he said that you give them a ministership, you give them a parliamentary secretaryship, you give them a senatorship and you give them a judgeship: he said that is how you do it-and that it how they are doing it.
My friend is not sitting quite where she should sit. But it is all right because I do not mind. I did not make the remark to which she alludes, but I am sure it applies to her as it does to me. We are all equal people. I said that I received approximately 200 letters.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary rises on a point of privilege.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: Madam Speaker, although I do not agree with the hon. member in his premise, I was listening to him courteously and I should like to remind him of the remarks of my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway who

May 16, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
noted that Neanderthal thinking has no place in this chamber.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am very glad the parliamentary secretary reminded me of that, because I never argue with the hon, lady to whom she referred who takes the same position on this bill I take. I am glad she brought her into this as evidence, because I have her letter here in which she says that every member of parliament should fight this for all their worth.


Iona Campagnolo: Madam Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does the hon. member consider and imply that all ethnic minorities, like all women, think alike and look alike as other minorities and ethnics and women?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not want to get into that, but I believe that the rules in respect of every person, be they female or male, in this chamber apply the same. I have always believed that. I might tell the distinguished lady member of parliament that I have probably defended more ladies at the bar than I have gentlemen, and I have done it with all the vigour at my command.
We are having a great afternoon. There is nothing like the truth to stir up my friends. They listen to certain speeches, with no comment; but when I speak there are questions and answers and the excitement becomes fairly emotional. I should like to read part of a letter I received on May 5. Incidentally, it is from a lady in Vancouver and at the end she has something to say which I believe contains a good point. She says:
As Canadians we are becoming more aware of ourselves and, in our-awareness, less self-conscious and more confident-in our institutions, our way of life-in our country!
To erect a cultural wall around our various media will serve no useful purpose. Prohibition provides no solutions! Censorship will not work!
Canadians are strong and mature enough to make their own decisions in the areas of culture and entertainment.
This is a time for bold and positive legislation in a great many fields. The legislation you have proposed is parochial, unnecessarily restrictive, and not in the best interest of the country or the industry! Your purposes would be much better served by imaginative incentives to create more outlets for Canadian writers in existing publications, and more motivation for Canadian investors to seek opportunities in the publishing field.
In all the more than 200 letters I have received there is not one word of support for government censorship or for this bill. If ever I have had a duty, it is to stand here and fight with all the knowledge and ability at my command to see that we do not have a law in Canada in respect of censorship over what we may read.


Mr. Breau:: Where do you see censorship? You can still buy Time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, but the bill is not through. My hon, friend says that I can still buy Time. All we are doing today is buying time to get rid of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herb Breau: Time magazine.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But we have to find out why this happened. Why would a government like this take this position? I know they have great elements of anti-Americanism in their party. One day the Prime Minister said that we must have American capital. Now he says that he never said that. He said he would like much foreign capital but that he just wants to control it. He sure likes control.
I asked myself why this bill came into this House, and when I read an article about Time it finally came to me. The article says:
'If Time becomes 75 per cent Canadian-owned but provides four to six pages of Canadian news and then a window on the world through American-tinted glass, that won't be good enough'-Keith Davey
Keith Davey is a magic word in the Liberal party because he brought Mr. Pearson to power and gave the Liberals back their majority. He is the great brain behind the Liberal campaign, and this is the pay off to Mr. Davey, the Senator.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: At least we are not attending the old campground.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member, whose constituency I forget, is one who makes more speeches from his seat than he makes on his feet. I will let the record decide for itself.
There is one other reason. I read a book once called "Renegade in Power" written by Peter Newman, the editor of Maclean's magazine, so with Keith Davey and the editor of Maclean's magazine I think that is the reason we opt for censorship and drive out Time and Reader's Digest from this country.
I am on the committee and on many other committees. I work when I am on a committee, and I will fight this with all the ability at my command. The government is guilty of implementing a bill of censorship. It is the worst form of taxation in the history of this country. It is a disgrace to the Liberal Party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. If my hearing is correct, I believe the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) made a statement which is incorrect. I am sure it was inadvertent on his part and that he would be happy to correct it. He referred to Mr. Fred Rose, who was here many years ago, and identified him as a member of my party. That is not correct. Fred Rose was a member of the Communist Party. He got into this House by defeating David Lewis in Cartier in a by election in 1943. I would be grateful if the hon. member would make this correction.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate that that is probably correct. They were close together-and I am not saying close together in philosophy. Mr. Coldwell or Mr. Woodsworth was the leader at that time. I believe it was Mr. Coldwell, and you could not find a better Canadian. He happened to be my member of parliament for many years where I was raised. If I left the impression to which the hon. member referred, I certainly would want to correct that on the record.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate to express some very serious reservations about the bill which is before us. I think it is a little unfortunate that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. May 16, 1975

Woolliams) made this a partisan issue because I don't believe it is a partisan issue. Indeed, there are a number of people on this side of the House who would like certain things changed in this bill. That is precisely why a bill is brought before the House, so that we can suggest changes and bring it into committee where we can put forward our amendments and perhaps make it more acceptable to the majority. That is what I intend to do, and I am sure there are a number of other members who have the same idea.
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. Perhaps he is waiting for committee in order to do that, but I have the feeling that there is an intransigence there jo any compromise, and I would like to suggest that we must make some compromise. If the object of the bill is indeed to deliver a death blow to organizations because of their American parenthood, as suggested by the previous speaker, that kind of motivation is nothing but anti-Americanism which is disguised behind a virtuous sentiment of Canadian nationalism, and I would deplore that.
In my view the central issue before us in this debate is to establish, once and for all, a set of guidelines for the magazine and periodical publishing industry in this country which meets the approval not only of the industry itself but of the advertisers, editors, graphic artists, and perhaps most important of all, the general public of Canada.
This is certainly no easy matter. The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) said himself on May 8 that the government did not arrive at this decision to present this bill easily, and indeed it was a decision which was hard to make. In fact I rather suspect that probably a good number of ministers were not present when the decision was made. Moreover, this very subject has occupied the attention of more than one royal commission, particularly the Royal Commission on Periodicals under the leadership of Senator Gratton O'Leary. It provided one of the major areas of investigation for the Special Senate Committee on Mass Media under the chairmanship of Senator Keith Davey. At no time has anyone yet been able to provide the magazine advertising and publishing industries with conclusive guidance which legitimately protects all those who have a direct and indirect interest in the publication of magazines in Canada.
It is all very well to criticize and tear down, but what about establishing definite guidelines which people can follow? In the special report of the Special Senate Committee on Mass Media it was admitted that it was juggling unknowns. In discussing the options open to the Government of Canada, it rejected the idea that Reader's Digest- or Time, for that matter-should be "kicked out", as the report bluntly put it, because, and I quote from volume I, page 165:
Singling out for expulsion two corporations that have done business in Canada for nearly three decades, and done it with flair and fairness and excellence, struck us as somehow inconsistent with the Canadian character. We were mindful, too, of the economic dislocation this could
Non-Canadian Publications
cause. Unemployment in the cause of socio-cultural development is a lot more palatable for its proponents than for the participants.
Nonetheless, the special committee proposed to go ahead, juggle the unknowns and recommend what is, in effect, the government's proposal in this bill as it stands, and that is to rescind section 19(2) of the Income Tax and prevent advertisers from deducting their advertising expenses in these two publications in computing their income for tax purposes.
The effect of this, as we all know, would be a severe restriction. As far as Reader's Digest can project, it would plunge its company into a calamitous loss position from which its magazine operations could not recover. Time is in a somewhat different position because it has no public equity in Canada, much less Canadian employment to consider, and is a magazine of news written by its international staff. It has options open to it which are not available to Reader's Digest. I feel that most of our colleagues are not too sympathetic to the position of Time, but many feel a great concern for Reader's Digest, which has bent over backwards, in my view, to be a good corporate citizen of Canada.
Furthermore, for Reader's Digest the upshot would be that the French Canadian edition would have to cease publication. As the company has pointed out, the French Canadian edition has been running at an average annual loss of $157,000 for the last ten years. So we have about 1.3 million Francophone readers who would be deprived of that edition.
Moreover, the Canadian edition of the Reader's Digest in English would be in severe jeopardy. It has been suggested that this edition should be replaced by one edited, published and printed in the United States. Surely it is the intention of this legislation to encourage publication of Canadian material for Canadian readers. What would be the point of making this company, which has been publishing in Canada in French and English since 1948, close its Canadian edition? What would be the loss to Canada?
Reader's Digest of Canada, as we have have already heard from the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), has a full editorial and production team of 80 people at work on its books and magazines-all Canadian citizens. The company in total employs some 460 Canadians directly and a further 1,000 Canadians indirectly among its suppliers. It gives work to Canadian freelance writers and gives them an opportunity to appear before a worldwide audience of some 105 million readers in 13 languages around the world. Its operations provide the Canadian Post Office with a revenue in excess of $3 million a year.
We should, at least, examine this company's record in Canada-attained before and since the 1965 legislation deemed the Canadian editions of Reader's Digest not to be non-Canadian-before we attempt to wipe it out. The magazine has been circulating in Canada since 1922. The English language Canadian edition was printed here in 1943. In 1948 it began investing in plant and equipment in Canada. It has steadily increased its Canadian contribution since that time.
With the encouragement of the government's 1966 guidelines for good corporate behaviour, the Reader's Digest
29S61-29

May 16, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
Association (Canada) Ltd. issued a substantial portion- some 32.6 per cent-of its share equity to Canadian stockholders in 1968. Its board of directors today is composed of six people, five of whom are Canadians of distinction and achievement. The board includes a former chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a former president of the Canada Council, a former Batonnier of the Quebec Bar, and a company president who is the other member of the board and who has a distinguished record of public service in Canada. I submit that a corporation directed by men of such stature would not sit idly by if the company, whose Canadian shareholders they represent, began acting to the detriment of Canada's economy, Canada's purpose, and Canada's cultural identity.
Because Reader's Digest in Canada is run by Canadians and edited by Canadians, it includes a substantial amount of Canadian material. A large proportion of this material is read in 13 languages around the world. Consider that, through the Digest, the story of Ontario's Science Centre has been carried to some eight million to ten million people in Finnish, Portuguese, Spanish and Chinese; or that Dr. Philip Gold's work on cancer diagnosis in Montreal has been reported to nearly 100 million readers in 12 languages; or that an appreciation of Ralph Bunche of the United Nations by Lester Pearson, the story of Expo '67, and other such stories went through all editions of the Digest in 13 languages to a full readership of 105 million people.
This, I suggest, is an aspect of serving the Canadian purpose that has been overlooked in proposing Bill C-58 in its present form. There are scores of such examples. A conservative estimate of the cost of buying space for this coverage of Canadian affairs in the last two years would amount to some $38 million. Editorially, of course, the value is impossible to overestimate.
Equally important is the attention Canadian editions pay to Canadian affairs in both our official languages. Some 150 Canadian writers have produced material for the Digest editions in Canada since the 1965 legislation gave this publication continuing Canadian status. The publication has paid attention to Canadian affairs from coast to coast. It was written about Canadian agriculture, the beef industry, the rapeseed industry, the plight of the farmer, the honey industry. It has dealt with Canadian trade and international assistance.
An article about Japan's trade with Canada was of great help to the Quebec government in informing Japanese businessmen of the opportunities in Canada-because it was distributed in their language in their country. Digest editions in Canada publish almost as many Canadian articles as any domestic consumer magazine and, as the company states, when this shortly amounts to some 30 per cent of the total contents of the magazines, it will be the full equivalent. Its goal is to establish 30 per cent of the total content.
If I could believe that the legislation before the House would be of benefit to the Canadian magazine industry, or to magazine readers, I could see some merit in it. But I do not believe this to be so. As the Secretary of State says, the consumer magazine advertising industry is struggling in this country. But its competitors are not magazines-and certainly not United States magazines, since the customs

tariff and section 19 of the act effectively cut off the outflow of advertising revenues to United States magazines in 1965. The real competition comes from the other mass media-newspapers, television and radio. Of the total $1.6 billion spent on advertising in 1974 consumer magazines received about 2.3 per cent, or $37 million. Newspapers received $458 million, or 28.6 per cent; television $225 million, or 14.1 per cent and radio $176.5 million, or 11 per cent.
The growth in newspaper revenues in one year alone exceeded the total revenue to consumer magazines in 1974. That is the measure of the competitive problem for magazines. And yet magazines are our journals of reflective thinking, our journals of record. I am in total agreement with the Secretary of State in his attempts to encourage their growth and responsibility. Yet I cannot help noting that to remove a large section of the magazine reading public-some six million Digest readers-from the reach of Canadian advertisers does the magazine industry a disservice. This is especially so when we learn that the expenditures diverted from Digest editions would go largely to Canadian newspapers, television, radio-and only a small proportion to Canadian paid circulation consumer magazines-which are profitable anyway.
It is of further concern to me that the effect of these restrictions would deprive Canadians of a monthly magazine, independently edited by Francophone Canadians for their readers, and by Anglophone Canadians for their readers. These publications regularly bring both a national and an international balance of worth-while articles and have done so for longer than most of us can remember. We cannot quarrel with the fact that readers of the Digest editions purchase their copies with the full knowledge of what the contents are because of a reputation that has been carefully fostered in 50 years of publication.
As the Secretary of State quite admirably said, it is not the intention of the government to interfere with the freedom of Canadians to choose what they wish to read. Nor, he said, was the government about to direct publishers of magazines, or of any other kind of publication, on how they should discharge their responsibility to serve the Canadian community and the Canadian purpose, culturally or in any other way. The entire House, indeed the entire country, would find it impossible to fault such a fundamental statement. Yet there is a danger in this legislation that its effect would be precisely that kind of interference.
Economic restriction is but the back door to the control of freedom of expression. It is a negative path to what the government, the House, and the people of this country want-identical rules for all so that legitimate competition, the free uninhibited choice of customers-whether readers or advertisers-holds sway in the marketplace. To this end I suggest that we set up the kind of guidelines, as I said when I began my remarks, which will meet with the general approval of all parties without restricting the freedoms to which we, as a nation, are dedicated.
I suggest, therefore, that the government and the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, consider adopting legislative guidelines which provide for no special cases but which, at the same time,
May 16, 1975

do not discriminate retroactively against corporate immigrants that have discharged their responsibilities and served the Canadian purpose.
These guidelines, it seems to me, should include requirements that permit advertisers to deduct their expenses for the purchase of space in Canadian magazines that are not only printed and published in Canada, but which must have all their publishing functions in Canada. These would include the typesetting, printing, circulation management, customer and billing services, promotion and advertising functions. Moreover, they should have editorial autonomy in Canada for the selection and editing of material. Furthermore, the publishing company should be an association, proprietorship, or company registered or incorporated in Canada with a degree of Canadian ownership as already defined in the Income Tax Act, and whose use of material is confined only as is consistent with the international laws of copyright.
It would appear consistent with our national goals that the committee should consider a requirement that publications could be given minor ownership concessions if they publish in both our national languages.
These guidelines extend those already in the act which have to do solely with ownership, directorship, printing, editing and publishing. They ensure that all the economic benefits of the entire corporate operation accrue to Canada, to Canadian employees and Canadian talent, save only that minor portion of revenue that would go to a non-resident investor whose equity Canada was making use of. They would, at the same time, avoid this government getting involved in the highly dangerous area of editorial content and editorial policy. They would give the same rules to all and provide, once and for all, guidelines that would permit the Canadian magazine and periodical industry to work to the cultural, economic and social benefit of the citizens of this country. The minister so far has not proposed such guidelines. I intend to put before the committee a set of such guidelines, in the hope this House will pass judgment on them, so that we will not be unjust to anyone who has helped to build up Canada.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, it is a great thrill to speak in this jammed House this afternoon, with so many members hanging on our very words. This is the first time that I have seen more members of the press in the press gallery than members of the House in the House.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that the press gallery is full. This is the first time in the history of our parliament that there are more members of the press in the press gallery than members of the House in the House of Commons, on a Friday afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I wish the parliamentary secretary would pay attention to our speeches. I just made that point. I wish he would not repeat it.
I am glad the minister is present. This afternoon I want to put a serious proposal to him, and hope he will respond when he closes debate on second reading. Meanwhile I
Non-Canadian Publications
compliment the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) who has just made what I judge to be a thoughtful and constructive speech. It is all the more important because he was previously the chairman of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. I hope the minister will give the hon. member's points serious consideration.
The key vote of this bill will not be the vote on second reading; it will be the vote on third reading. I suggest, for that reason, that this bill presents many of us with some difficulties. For example, as the minister said in introducing this bill, the clause devoted to broadcasting near the end of the bill would prohibit tax deductions for Canadian advertisers advertising on American television stations, especially those stations which are close to the Canada-U.S. border. Actually some such stations have been established for the precise purpose of obtaining Canadian advertising revenue and directing advertising at Canadian audiences. That, surely, is not what the CRTC or, indeed, the Canadian people want. So, if we were to oppose this bill completely we should be opposing an enlightened provision which is aimed, obviously, at curtailing the violation of proper Canadian broadcasting policy.
I shall begin my remarks by suggesting that the broadcasting clause is a step forward.
It is interesting to note how quickly, relatively speaking, the government is moving to remove those sections of the act which allow Canadian advertisers to claim tax deductions with respect to broadcast advertising. One should note how quickly this is happening, and note the long period during which Time Canada and Reader's Digest have been unable to offer tax deductions to Canadian advertisers. What I am saying is this: it seems to me we are too far down the road with respect to Time and Reader's Digest to think about taking legislative action which will end the tax exemptions those two publications enjoy, and expect that such move will help the Canadian publishing industry. That is the point which worries me most.
As the hon. member for Cochrane suggested in the concluding part of his speech, by passing Bill C-58 we shall be, in effect, discriminating retroactively against corporate immigrants. I feel that this will affect the large readership which Time Canada and Reader's Digest have obtained. There are too many jobs at stake. The implications for our economy are too severe for us to take what I judge to be a simplistic action in an effort, ostensibly, to help the Canadian publishing industry.
I am not satisfied that a vote on second reading in support of the bill, even though the bill contains the broadcasting provision of which I approve, will lead to the enhancement of Canadian publications. I believe a positive policy is needed rather than restrictive legislation. If I could be convinced that the removal of the tax concession from Time and Reader's Digest would truly help the Canadian publishing industry I might be inclined to favour this bill. But it is my judgment that the measure will not help that vast array of educational, political, scientific and agricultural publications which are at the core of the Canadian publishing industry.
29561 -29'/2

May 16, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
One must not think only of the big publications- Macleans, Saturday Night and Chatelaine. These magazines are undoubtedly important-as a matter of fact the restoration of Saturday Night is a positive step forward. But Saturday Night was restored at a time when this legislation was still on the order paper. Indeed the publisher and the editor have indicated that Bill C-58 is not really of such significance to them-that the survival of their paper is not really at stake in the debate on the passage of Bill C-58. In any case, I do not believe that the plan to establish a truly Canadian news magazine, which they say they want to produce, really depends on the passage of Bill C-58.
When I talk about a positive policy I should like to remind the minister that I do not speak as a Johnny-come-lately on this subject. I am not a neophyte in the publishing world. When I call for a positive policy as an alternative to the present terms of Bill C-58 what I am really doing is coming back to the government, in a different role as a member of parliament, to say the very things I came to Ottawa to say in 1968 when I was a member of the executive of the Canadian Church Press.
The Canadian Church Press is an association in Canada which embraces about 25 publications with a total circulation of well over one million. It is only one of many trade associations representing various publishing categories. Others are educational, scientific, or agricultural.
When we came to Ottawa in 1968 we came with a sense of alarm because at that time the postmaster general, Mr. Eric Kierans, was bringing before the House a bill to raise the postal rates. Mr. Kierans took the view that the Post Office should pay for itself and that second class mailing privileges, which publications such as those I have described had enjoyed, should be restricted in such a way as to decrease the Post Office deficit.
We came with a brief and we presented it to the postmaster general. I do not hold the minister responsible today for the actions of Mr. Kierans when he was postmaster general, but I want to assure him that when I talk about postal rates for Canadian publications these are much more instrumental to the survival and encouragement of Canadian publications than is this bill concerning Time and Reader's Digest. Thus, when I come to spell out the basis of a positive policy I want to assure the minister, with as much modesty as I can muster, that I know what I am talking about.
I was, during this period, the editor and manager of a religious publication which sought to fill a community and social need in western Canada. This publication received many international awards. I am not going to say it is in the class or category of Reader's Digest, but it was doing its bit to make this country stronger. When we came here in 1968 we ran up against a stone wall of cabinet thinking as exemplified by Mr. Kierans.
I want to read a couple of paragraphs from our submission because they are relevant today-even more so, because what we predicted in 1968 came to pass as a result of the unprecedented actions of the Liberal government of that day and the absence of a policy on publishing which

recognized the effect of postal rates on publications. We said at that time:
The Government of Canada has long recognized the role of the church press of Canada as an important educational medium, operating for the common good. Religious publications have enjoyed a preferential postal rate, '/ cent per pound below that of general magazines, along with publications devoted to the sciences or agriculture.
The church press represents a cause and not an economic investment. All of our publications operate either on the narrowest of margins financially, or at a deficit made up by the sponsoring church or religious organization. Most of the advertising appearing in our journals is from church-related organizations, although some of the magazines compete as vigorously as limited budgets permit for general advertising.
As you may be aware, church publications do not enjoy news stand sales in Canada. Some of our member publications have investigated the possibility of putting their magazines on the news stands without success. Our publications are almost completely dependent, therefore, on the mail for distribution.
There is grave concern, therefore, for the survival of some publications if increases in rates for second class mail are such that they put too heavy a strain on the publications' financial resources.
I have recounted that in order to indicate that at that time the government was not interested in merely retaining special rates for consumer publications to enable them to survive. If the government had done so at that time, that itself would have been a big step for Canadian publications which in 1968 were beginning to feel the ravages of inflation.
I remember very well putting forth our arguments to Mr. Kierans, who could see only the corporate approach to the Post Office-that of its paying its way. Immediately after that a bill went through the House of Commons and the government took away the preferential rate for specialized publications to which I have referred, and increased the rate for magazines of between one and a half cents and three cents a pound. The basic harm that was done was that the bill, which was then known as Bill C-116, raised the price per pound from three cents to five cents and, worst of all, instituted a minimum floor rate of two cents per piece.
That action alone put in jeopardy many specialized publications that were trying to make a contribution to Canada's life, and ended the lives of several. I recall that not so much from the negative point of view but to remind the minister that I remember only too well what happened. I ask him whether he now thinks that bringing in a bill to take away a tax concession granted to Time and Reader's Digest is the answer.
I suggest to the minister it is not, because the magazines and publications that I have been referring to do not depend on big consumer advertising for their survival. Indeed, if you pick up the major Canadian consumer magazines today they seem to do pretty well with Canadian advertising. But what these magazines are contending, along with the smaller publications, is that the postal rates are killing them, and so are postal service and late delivery.
Therefore, hand in hand with a positive policy toward Canadian publications would have to go some improvement in service for Canadian publications on the part of the Post Office, with the recognition that Canadian publi-
May 16, 1975

cations that are trying to make a contribution to Canadian life cannot and should not be expected to pay their way through the Post Office. The Post Office is a service to the Canadian people, and it should also be a service to the Canadian publishing industry.
The second step that is essential to the industry in any positive policy would be a better distribution system for Canadian publications. On any newsstand in Canada there is for all to see an overwhelming number of American publications. This is because 13 of the 14 distributors in Canada are American distributors and they are pushing their own publications, the big sellers in this country. They do so because there is a lot of money in them.
We are not going to remedy this situation by taking away tax concessions to Time and Reader's Digest. What is required is a distribution system that is backed by the government which would enable Canadian publications to have much more reasonable access to the market. We require a distribution system for Canadian publications that guarantees room for them on Canadian news stands that are now filled with American publications, along with improved postal delivery.
I have asked the minister to consider the points I have made respecting postal rates and a distribution system as practical steps that could be taken to help the Canadian publishing industry, because the minister said in introducing the bill that what we wanted was an increase in the size, number and saleability of Canadian magazines, with resulting large opportunities for Canadian writers and publishers. I am not out of sympathy with the minister's intention to improve the market for Canadian writers and publishers. There is a lot that can be said about the book industry, but I will not do so at the moment. It is also dominated by American books. I hope that the thoughtful remarks made by the minister in connection with a Canadian publishing policy for books will find implementation. However, for the moment I want to confine myself to magazine publishing, with specific reference to Time and Reader's Digest.
I cannot at this moment find in myself any recognition that this bill is going to accomplish the aims set out for Canadian publishing by the minister. I therefore want to make some specific suggestions to the minister and ask him to reply to them when he winds up this debate. I want to propose a spirit of compromise on the part of the government along the lines suggested by my hon. friend for Cochrane, namely, that there be some guidelines established which will take away this punitive aspect of the bill and at the same time make a contribution to a recognition that Canadian writers and publishers truly need some help in order to withstand the terrific inroads made by American competition.
We have to recognize that if Time Canada and Reader's Digest of Canada wer to close their offices, Canadian news stands would still be filled with American publications, including the American edition of Time and Reader's Digest. I have received, as have other hon. members, a lot of mail on this subject, and I think that many Canadians are under the misapprehension that if Reader's Digest of Canada were to close its doors they would not be able to get its publication. Such is far from the case. Reader's Digest would still be available. My point is that if we want
Non-Canadian Publications
to help the Canadian publishing industry we should produce a positive policy that will have as its keystone, as I suggested a few moments ago, better postal rates and a better distribution system.
Let me put this proposition to the minister. If this bill were to go to committee and we heard representations from the Canadian publishing industry and Time and Reader's Digest, I suggest that in an enlightened atmosphere it would be possible to produce a policy that would be in harmony with the interests of Time Canada and Reader's Digest of Canada as well as the interests of the Canadian publishing industry.
I suggest the route to that policy would be through the establishment of a five year plan which would lead to a graduated Canadian ownership of Time and Reader's Digest, so that at the end of the five years both Time and Reader's Digest would be 75 per cent Canadian owned. We now know that Reader's Digest is 32 per cent Canadian owned. Time Canada has given some indication that it is not unhappy at the prospect of becoming 75 per cent Canadian owned. Certainly I think this would be a step forward. That is the first of my three conditions in which I know the minister himself has shown interest. The first, I repeat, is 75 per cent Canadian ownership.
The second is that these publications must be licensed in Canada. It is not sufficient for them to be licensed in the United States. Although they would undoubtedly continue to operate out of their parent offices in the United States, nonetheless their licences should be established in Canada so they would truly be operated under Canadian corporate ownership.
The third section in this plan has to do with what the minister dwelled on in his introductory speech in which he said that these publications "cannot be substantially the same" as their parent magazines. What does "not substantially the same" mean? I suggest this is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of this bill because of the confusion it will mean for publications published in Canada being not substantially the same as the parent publications published in another country, specifically the United States.
Some members are afraid this will lead to censorship. Indeed, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) suggested, if I read him correctly, that 80 per cent would have to be different. Any provision in respect of the content of a publication is extremely dangerous and, therefore I am unhappy with the minister's reference to a formula under which a publication enjoying the tax benefits under our law would not be substantially the same.
This is a question which needs to be examined very thoroughly in committee. I would be content to see the bill go to a committee were I to receive the assurance from the minister that he would support the idea of Time and Reader's Digest being subjected to a gradual 5-year plan for Canadian ownership, being licensed in Canada, and in that spirit an attempt being made to work out what would be the proper application of "not substantially the same". That would forever remove the possibility of the charge that the government is going to be involved in censorship.

May 16, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
It is because I am so worried about government control of what any publisher can write that I am apprehensive, and I say this on the basis of my own experience in the business, of any formula written into law under which a publication would be required to be "not substantially the same", with that requirement being put into the hands of some official or bureaucrat who would be empowered to make the decision of what an editor could or could not say.
I am not so concerned about what a publication says or contains. I am less concerned about that than I am about the question of ownership and the question of licensing in Canada. If you put all these things together you will see that what I am suggesting is that this would be a way out of the dilemma we are facing now in dealing with a bill that has some good sections, such as the broadcasting part, as well as other sections that worry me a good deal. I do not think the bill as it now stands will accomplish the aim I share with the minister of helping to strengthen Canadian publishing. I ask the minister to consider seriously my remarks, and when I read his speech in concluding this debate I will determine how I am going to vote.


Mr. Marke Raines (Burnaby-Seymour):: Madam Speaker, I have heard a great many words bandied about which I do not understand in connection with this issue. For example, we have heard reference to the word censorship, the matter of government control, and punitive action on the part of the government. I would urge hon. members to come back to the basic matter at issue here, and that is Time and Reader's Digest.
As I see it, and apparently as the Cabinet sees it, what is involved here is a matter of special tax privilege and the withdrawal of this special tax privilege. This is the heart of the matter. I assume this matter will come before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, of which I am a member. I wish to make it clear that I will listen to all the arguments of the spokesmen, and I am sure there will be many from Time and Reader's Digest. I will listen to their arguments very carefully.
So far as I have been able to determine, the matter still comes back to the special tax privileges which were granted 10 years ago, for what reason I am not sure. At any rate, the government in its wisdom has now decided to withdraw those special privileges.
Where does the matter of censorship arrive? I have no great interest in the content of Reader's Digest, Time, Playboy or Newsweek. Canadians will continue to buy them, and I am sure the companies will continue to publish and put them on the newsstands in this country. Time and Reader's Digest are two of the wealthiest magazines in the world, and their publishers will continue to publish whatever they wish in whatever country they wish, and that material will continue to come into Canada.
As to punitive action resulting from the withdrawal of these special privileges, how this can be construed as punitive action is beyond me. I think perhaps I missed part of the argument that linked this action in that way. There is no censorship in any way, shape or form, and I can see no punitive action. What the government is doing is withdrawing special tax privileges.
The publishers have said they would like to continue with these special tax privileges, and they have asked us what they must do. We have told them they must become Canadian magazines because only Canadians can enjoy these tax concessions which are designed to help the industry grow. If Time and Reader's Digest wish to change their content that is up to them. This too will be a matter for discussion at the committee.
It must be pointed out that the editorial comment in Time and Reader's Digest comes from their headquarters in the United States. That is well and good. I like to read U.S. material, and I am sure many hon. members here read Newsweek and various other periodicals. Why should Canadian taxpayers have to subsidize these companies? I submit that this is simply a matter of belling the cat.


Walter David Baker: You mean catting the bell.


Marke Raines: If the hon. member has not read that little story perhaps he will in his basic French course.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. It being four 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, and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, I think you will find there is an agreement to take Item No. 36 standing in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) under private members' notices of motions.


Walter David Baker: That is agreeable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The ones ahead of it will retain their positions?


John Mercer Reid: Yes, at the request of the government.


Walter David Baker: Not to mention the Official Opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that the House will proceed to the consideration of private member's notice of motion No. 36 appearing in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), and that all other notices of motions appearing ahead of No. 36 will be stood at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 16, 1975


WEST INDIES
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: That, in the opinion of this House, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to consider the advisability of taking an initiative in seeking to promote closer relations with the former British possessions in the West Indies, such as the Turks and Caicos Islands, which have not yet attained independence, and further that if the residents of any of these islands so desire it, economic and political union of these islands with the Dominion of Canada be negotiated at an early date at the proper constitutional levels.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as this motion was called I heard my hon. friend from Fraser Valley East indicate that I had spoken already today in this House. I just have to tell him it is unfortunate that we do not have the American Constitution governing us and are not provided the protection against double jeopardy.
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to discuss this matter. I have no ulterior thoughts concerning why my motion received such good priority, and I shall not dwell upon the fact that this is a sunny Friday before a long weekend and that I am now doing better than I did on the draw for motions. This is a subject which I know most members are aware has been close to my heart for a long time. I think this is perhaps the tenth time I have spoken on this subject matter, either on a motion in my name or in the name of some other member. The first time the motion became familiar to us was when it was moved by a distinguished parliamentarian who is now a distinguished member of the other House, Senator Mcllraith.
Through the years my views on the general question have remained the same and my convictions have been strengthened, but from time to time there have been developments which have prompted me to give some additional focus to the general matter. Over the years since I have been proposing this measure, from one part of this geographic region has come a clear expression of interest in closer political ties between this country and that part of the Caribbean. Because that came to our attention I thought it would be well for the parliamentarians of Canada to demonstrate sufficient interest to be willing to set up some forum whereby the matter might be discussed. The motion of course does not make any claim in respect of recommendations concerning what should be done constitutionally but rather that the matter should be examined.
I have always believed that our Commonwealth Caribbean neighbours in many ways are the touchstone of the success of our external policy in terms of economics, in terms of aid, and indeed in terms of immigration because in many ways that is an aspect of our foreign policy. I believe if we cannot be successful in dealing with these our hemispheric neighbours, these our sister states of the Commonwealth, then we are failing and are likely to fail in the broader and more ambitious programs on worldwide basis.
I also have, as do most maritimers, a sentimental attachment to and sustained interest in this part of our hemisphere. The maritimers have known the people of the West
West Indies
Indies, of the Caribbean generally and, in what we used to refer to as the golden age of iron men and wooden ships, the exchanges of goods and people. From these ties have emerged a good feeling. I want to salute the Premier of Nova Scotia who I believe is making a special arrangement to invite a number of Caribbean parliamentarians to come to Nova Scotia in July this year. That is an excellent idea. They will see something of the second best part of the maritime provinces, and perhaps they will be able to come to the epitome of beauty and excellence, the province of Prince Edward Island, when they get to the Atlantic region. This is a part of the tradition. These are the ties. But more important than the romantic connection and the fondness we have for rum, and that is fairly important, is the realistic situation that the islands to which I refer in this motion are most interesting communities whose economic and political viability is most precarious.
I do not know if Canadians realize how many small but functioning and successful parliaments exist in these very small communities in the Caribbean area. We hear about the exciting things involving violence and occasional trouble with the banks and so on. But much more important is that down there there are miniature legislatures, emanations of the parliamentary system of which we are a member. They are carrying on and doing very very well. While the communities are tiny, their problems are vast.
I am always happy to find that the Caribbean people and their political leaders refer to Canada as their best friend. I do not know of any designation we should cherish more than to be well regarded by these people who look upon us as something of a big power. I remember when I was in the Turks and Caicos Islands with my colleague who is now the Chairman of CPA, one of the men there asked me what I thought of the whole West Indian area. I told him I had always been interested. I told him about the historic ties and I said also that because I come from by far the smallest province in Canada I probably have an emotional affinity for small communities, especially when they are islands.
He asked me how large Prince Edward Island is and I told him that it is 2,184 square miles, whereupon he said, "Gee, man, do you call that small?" So, in some areas even Prince Edward Island is something of an empire. However, I should like to see us concentrate our attention a little more on these areas.
I am not at all critical about the Caribbean CIDA program. I have no political axe to grind by pointing out that the aid program was started under the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I think we are doing very well, but I also think we can do more. I hear disturbing rumours that we are likely to wind down or get out of our CIDA program with Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Jamaica. I am not sure I am pleased with that, because while I am concentrating on the smaller islands which have not reached sovereign status these sister communities which are sovereign states are very important to us also, and their success in their political and economic experiment is extremely important. I hope that if CIDA is planning to cut out on these large islands that there has been the fullest consultation and co-operation with the leaders of those islands, and that we will not be regarded as having pulled the plug prematurely, if I

May 16, 1975
West Indies
may as a former academician lapse into an unusual use of the vernacular.
I would like to see the matter looked at again because, in my opinion, one of the most useful studies of the relationship of Canada to the commonwealth Caribbean was undertaken by a parliamentary body which in some quarters occasionally is lambasted. I refer to the Senate of Canada. In 1970 that body set up a committee to study the matter. They looked carefully at the subject and brought in academics, economists, political leaders, industrialists and so on. This committee prepared a very good report. I think it deserves more care and attention, and could be profitably picked up again. One recommendation is the following:
The possibility of constitutional links between Canada and the countries of the Caribbean area should be re appraised by the Canadian government. This prospect now seems remote, but the Canadian government should be prepared to discuss proposals for closer economic and political association between Canada and countries of the area.
While I am referring to the Senate recommendations I should mention one more which I think is very important, and which I endorse wholeheartedly. This is contained in the preamble, recommendation No. 5. It reads as follows:
The excellent and highly competitive rums of the Commonwealth Caribbean should receive as much assistance as possible in the Canadian market. The 1966 agreement to implement labelling regulations went into effect on July 1st, 1969, but does not appear to have led to any dramatic increase in imports. The committee recommends that the Canadian government re-assess the effectiveness of this measure and that the mutual advantages to Canada and the Caribbean countries concerned be discussed at the ministerial level with the respective Canadian provinces.
In other words we have to think not only of aid but of trade, and it is an old law of economics from those old days when the laws prevailed, and when inflation and unemployment were cyclical rather than simultaneous events, that we should trade best in things in which we have comparative advantage. That is why the Senate zeroed in on West Indian rum, which of course is the finest in the world.
I do not want anyone to accuse a gentle person like myself of harbouring imperialist ambitions. I remember raising this matter a few years ago, and somebody said that it was imperialism. I have no illusions of Canada sending down its aging destroyers and taking over these areas, nor do I suggest that we go down there with the big buck-which, by the way, is dwindling these days-and move in. My motion very carefully points out that if there is an interest, we should respond to it with friendship and brotherhood.
I do not suppose we will see the day when any part of the West Indies or the Commonwealth Caribbean will be an integral part of Canada politically, but if they should wish it, I would not be afraid of it. I would hate to be numbered among the ranks of the narrow minded who would say that because of the colour of the skin of most of their inhabitants we could not envisage a close relationship constitutionally and politically with those people. The essence is that it is their wish which must be considered. It is our posture and our policy consistently to be ready with the hand of friendship, to be ready with a

practical attitude and with an attitude of goodwill in regard to immigration.
When I was half as old as I am now, a mere stripling, I used to teach in some of the Atlantic college universities. Many of the students were from the Commonwealth Caribbean, and long before the days when it became popular to talk about the lack of prejudice, there was a total and complete fraternity among those students, and that has developed through the years. I had the great pleasure just two days ago of chatting with His Excellency the High Commissioner to Canada from the Bahamas, and he recalled that when I was a professor at Mount Allison, he was a student. Since that was a long time ago and I was very young, I did not pry too far as to how well he knew me or my activities, but in any case I did know that the Caribbean students were a very valued and highly regarded part of that campus and of every other campus in the Atlantic provinces.
So I again raise this matter. I ask the House to turn its attention to it. It is not exclusive of the larger islands which are sovereign states. It is not exclusive of the islands of the Caribbean which are not of the Commonwealth. I welcome most heartily the stepped up trade with Cuba and the opening of doors which have not been opened earlier, and one of the things I appreciated most about the government which I supported in 1962 was that, against very heavy pressure, Canada decided to retain and maintain its diplomatic and commercial ties with Cuba. There is no reason why we should not welcome the opening of doors with Haiti, which has a better and more amenable regime than before. These are the kinds of developments we should welcome.
I see no attitude except that of practical friendship between Canada and the people of the Commonwealth Caribbean. Because of the uniqueness of their problems and the great difficulty to retain their viability, I think that the islands mentioned here should be given consideration.
On the Turks and Caicos islands there are 6,000 people on 166 square miles. We do not even have a CIDA program for those islands. At least we could do that. I remember the director of the hospital and the community centre there saying that he had the British medical journals, but he would like to get Canadian ones. Through the good offices of the Overseas Book League, that now has been done. There is a need for teachers in the Turks and Caicos islands. The Ontario government was very helpful with school books, but much more can be done, and in view of their clear indication that Canada is a place of special interest to them, I would like us to respond with practical friendship, with an obvious interest, and with a clear, strong indication of good will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, before dealing in a detailed way with the essential of the motion moved by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), I deem it important to reassert the Canadian government's interest in the Commonwealth West Indies. My hon. colleagues know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had the opportunity, over
May 16, 1975

the last weeks, to visit several countries of the West Indies, especially Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados and Guyana, immediately before the Prime Ministers' Conference which was held in Jamaica, from April 29th to May 6th last. The purpose of those visits was once again to point out our interest in our relations with the West Indies and the Commonwealth as a whole and with that area in particular.
During those visits to the Presidents of the three countries concerned, the Prime Minister discussed our bilateral and multilateral relations with the West Indies and had very serious discussions as to the future of all the West Indies, the eventual future of a federation of the Commonwealth West Indies and of all the islands concerned and also the future relations between Canada and the West Indies.
I believe the Prime Minister of Canada made it clear to the Prime Ministers of the three countries concerned that we wanted to deal with those countries as equals.
I suppose we have no intention of interfering as Canadians in West Indian Affairs, or of trying to impose on that area, or on a country in that area, even supposing we were provided with the opportunity to do so, the solutions which might seem proper to Canada, but which we are not sure it would be appropriate to impose on those countries.
The relationship we seek with the West Indies is based on the principle of equality and reciprocity. We do not seek hegemony or territorial expansion. It is quite the contrary, in view of the long-established relationships we have had with that area and of the real community of interests that binds us. I think that it is only within the frame of total equality of relationships that we can help them meet their aspirations within the spiralling economic expansion they are presently experiencing also and in view of their problems stemming from that expansion.
That is why Canada has provided a lot of assistance through bilateral programs, for example through organizations such as the Caribbean Development Bank and the West Indies Community, CARICOM.
I think that it is within that context of Canadian assistance through multilateral or bilateral programs that we must consider the motion introduced by the hon. member for Hillsborough who, for that matter, gave a very interesting account of the need for Canada to help those countries meeting their aspirations fully.
I suppose that in that part of this motion which deals with former British possessions in the West Indies which have not attained independence yet, one must include Commonwealth West Indies Islands which have not attained total independence yet. Indeed those islands which attained independence de facto, and those which have some domestic independence but are still attached to the British Crown must be distinguished insofar as external relations are concerned.
The territories still under British authority are the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Turks, Caicos Islands and Montserrat. Furthermore, even though they are not part of the West Indies, Bermuda is still a British protectorate. On the other hand, we should not forget Belize, a Central American territory which is not autonomous. Last, there are the states associated to Great Britain
West Indies
and that I mentioned before: Antigua-Barbados; St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla; Dominica; Sainte-Lucie and Saint-Vin-cent which, although they enjoy a large autonomy in their internal affairs, have to deal through Great Britain for their exchange matters or external affairs. However, it is to be noted that autonomous states can without asking for Westminster's permission, proclaim themselves fully autonomous or constitute a Federation within the area.
To come back to the wording of the motion of the hon. member for Hillsborough, he wishes apparently that a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be established to study the opportunity of allowing the political and geographical union to Canada of Turks and Caicos Islands or any other island. It is probably appropriate that the motion does not prejudge of the nature of those closer relationships mentioned by the hon. member in his motion even though we can conclude from the rest of the motion and the mention of Turks and Caicos Islands that some form of economical and political union with Canada is contemplated.
The point I wish to underline is the following: the first part of the motion emphasises the fact that Canada should take the initiative in making proposals to those islands. Yes, in the second part of the motion it is asked that this House approve a political and economical union with any island of the Commonwealth West Indies which would request it. Were that motion to pass as it is presently, and were any West Indies island to request unification, Canada would have no other choice but to arrange a union agreement with that Island.
I wonder whether the hon. member really intends to deal in a hurry with such an important matter which might have serious consequences for the Canadian people and all the islands concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I think that Canada has reached the logical limits of its territorial development. Besides, when Newfoundland joined the Canadian Confederation in 1949, the historic dream expressed in section 146 of the BNA Act came true. The necessary amendments to that Act if other territories were to be added to the Canadian Confederation would not as such be a major problem. However, I think they would run counter to every philosophy in our constitution.
Another very important factor to be considered when new territories are to become part of a constituted political body is obviously that we might be accused of neo-colonialism.
The sun has set for quite a while on the splendors for the British empire, and in my opinion, it is a good thing. However, if Canada were to allow some islands, whether in the West Indies or elsewhere, to join the Canadian Confederation, I greatly fear that we would be accused by the world public opinion of trying to extend our hegemony to distant territories with which we have more or less important cultural and geographical relations.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very delicate matter on which I do not intend to dwell, but I do not think it is very timely for Canada to try and build its own colonial empire, directly or indirectly, at a time when the influence of all colonial states, Portugal, Spain, Great Britain, France and even the
29S61-30

May 16, 1975
West Indies
United States, over the various territories they had under their jurisdiction is dwindling away.
There is also the question of the possible reaction of the people of the Commonwealth Caribbean in that case. Mr. Speaker, in the last thirteen years, six countries in that area have become independent: the Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. As a matter of fact, those countries have come to play a very active part within the world community, were it only through their action in the United Nations and their collective action as the West Indies group, and they have definitely managed to draw the world's attention to their needs and their activities. They have developed their own methods and institutions, and work together towards a greater cooperation. I believe that the government of Canada has understood the aspirations of the West Indian people and that, by its development assistance program and by other means, it has tried to meet the objectives they have set for themselves.
While respecting absolutely the right of the West Indian people to determine their own political and economic institutions, Canada has strongly supported the efforts for cooperation in the West Indies. Certain aspects of our modern assistance program stem from our desire to meet the needs expressed by the now-defunct West Indies Federation, a regional unification project which failed in 1962. Since then, even though bilateral assistance has not been neglected, we have always been ready to enhance cooperation at a regional level when the West Indian countries deemed it beneficial.
Canada takes part in the activities of the Caribbean Development Bank in order to promote regional projects and it expects to reaffirm its collaboration with CARI-COM, to help them to establish firmer regional institutions.
What would happen if Canada accepted within the Confederation the islands in this area which have not yet gained their independence? What would be the effect of such a union on the other West Indian Islands? These are so many questions which must be asked before the motion submitted by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie) is resolved in the affirmative.
At first, I let the hon. members make speeches about the neo-colonialism feeling that we would certainly create within the various people of the world. Also, as Canadians, we would certainly have to ask ourselves very serious questions about our hidden or under underlying motives. On the other hand, we must continue to give assistance to the West Indian countries who need it the most. Indeed, I believe that is surely the best way to interfere within an area that is trying to set up its own institutions. I think that the other islands of the Caribbeans would not like us to impose our authority and political institutions upon two small islands such as the Turks and Caicos. Those islands would receive considerable sums of money to try and improve their standard of living and ensure development. Hotels would be built and all sorts of touristic activities would be developed, so that they would contrast with the neighbouring islands, which would disapprove of same 6,000 inhabitants of the Turks and Caicos living according to North American standards, while they themselves would still be at a lower level.
Tourism is very important, but I do not think that our minds, as Canadians, should be dominated by the pleasures we could indulge in, when bathing on the beaches of the Turks and Caicos. For, in summertime, we can do exactly the same on the fine beaches of Prince Edward Island, which are a real marvel and where I had the pleasure to go.
No, I do not think that, as true Canadians, we should take such superficial criteria as a basis to decide whether the Turks and Caicos are interesting territories for Canada to annex. I use a very strong word, I speak of the pure and simple annexation of a territory, which could not impose its conditions of acceptance within the Canadian confederation.
Tourism, as it is presently developed in the Caribbeans, had a considerable bearing on the economic development of those territories. I fear that a great part of the damages currently done in the Caribbeans are the result of tourism and of the almost wild development we have been witnessing in some islands. Let us take for example the case of Puerto Rico, where the central government has shamelessly developed tourism; we now can see on the local population the disastrous effects of that almost wild development which raised the standard of living of certain sectors of the population, which improved the island's economy, but left the people in a state of poverty that is still less bearable.
For all these considerations, I believe the motion moved by the hon. member for Hillsborough is unacceptable as it is. We should rather keep on extending as much credit as possible, through international development assistance, not only to the Commonwealth islands but to all Caribbean islands.
As a matter of fact, the aid extended by Canada during the last five years exceeded our 1962 commitments to the federation, to which I shall refer in a moment, because it now totals $200 million.
I believe that is the efficient way of helping local populations achieve their objectives. It lets them use the money wisely, according to their own development concepts, and does not impose upon them a development planning concept we are accustomed to but which does not necessarily fit their needs.
There is another way in which we can help local peoples develop, that is trade as such, which does not necessarily use the international development assistance channels. Our cooperation with the Caribbeans is no longer a matter of direct help only, because important trade ties were developed by Canadian industries. I know of many instances where Canadian companies, in cooperation with Caribbean businessmen, launched joint ventures that brought to the islands a transfer of knowledge and, above all, currency. And as everyone knows, currency is an important item in a country's development, because without it trade becomes much more difficult. Lack of currency prevents certain countries such as Bangladesh and other countries which are in the same serious needs, to build a firm basis for development.
So, our trade with some Caribbean islands has allowed some currency transfers which helped to improve the economy of those islands. I believe that is a very success-

May 16, 1975

ful form of cooperation which is welcomed by the Caribbean authorities.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by showing once again the kind of very serious difficulties Canadians would have to justify such an annexation before the whole world, at this time where Canada is trying to yield a pretty good image in the area of external relations an image of leadership in the matter of international detente, and of each people's right to self-determinate, and to decide more or less by itself how it will organize its own development. I do not see how we as Canadians could explain to the international community that interference or annexation of those two islands and eventually other islands, because if a precedent is created for two islands why not more? I do not see how we could explain that situation to the world community which then will not support Canada and will surely consider us as neo-colonialists or something else. I, for one, would not be proud to go around the world an being said: What did you do with Turks and Caicos Islands? What business did you have to do over there? Why did you not give them financial assistance? Why did you not help them by allowing them to develop themselves instead of including them in Canadian federation?
Mr. Speaker, the time when one could take possession of non-contiguous territories, an effective way to determine what we call colonialism, even with the consent of its inhabitants, is gone once and for all. Canada is willing to help her friends, or some less developed countries, to get their share of social and economic justice. She will continue to pursue that goal with the tools she has and those she might conceive; but annexation is not one of those tools.
I want to repeat that I feel the motion is unacceptable. But one must not conclude that, given that fact, any assistance must cease.
The hon. member said that there is no assistance program for Turks and Caicos Islands. I will not dispute that. I do hope that such a program will be implemented very soon and that the 6,000 people in the Turks and Caicos Islands will benefit as much from the Canadian assistance as their neighbours, the Commonwealth islands and the West Indies in general. It is not the intent of Canada to renounce values advocated for 15 years-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. If he has unanimous consent, he may continue his remarks for a short time. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Claude-André Lachance: ... as I was saying, it is not our intent to renounce our values, and I do not believe Canada wishes to absorb neither of the islands of this area but, on the contrary, to assist them directly by providing more substantial funds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in a very few words I should like to indicate that we are happy to support the motion which is before the
West Indies
House in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). As he and other hon. members of the House know, my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), has made a similar proposal in the form of a private member's public bill which has been before the House on two or three occasions.
When I suggest that the proposal in my colleague's bill and that in the hon. member's motion are similar, I have in mind that in neither case is there a proposal for an absolute and final settlement of the situation but, rather, that each hon. member is proposing machinery under which discussions might take place. It seems to me that discussions with our friends in the Caribbean area, to ascertain what kind of closer relations they might like to have with us, are desirable and ought to be set in motion in this House.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemount (Mr. Lachance) who indicated that he finds the motion of the hon. member for Hillsborough unacceptable. It seems to me that in order for the hon. member to reach that conclusion he had to read things into the motion which are not there.
My hon. friend from Hillsborough is not suggesting hegemony, annexation, neocolonialism or any other kind of colonialism. Rather, he is suggesting that there should be established arrangements under which discussions can take place. His proposal is that if those discussions were to lead to a statement of desire on the part of the people in some of the Caribbean islands for closer relations, whether economic or political, the whole question should be given consideration at the highest level. It is my view that it would be good for the people of that area, and good for us, if there were closer relations. I can even see the possibility of some of those islands being part of this country-of what province they would be a part might be an interesting question, but that is a detail which could be dealt with later on.


Mr. Whelan:: Would they get four Senators, too?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am afraid the people of Turks and Caicos islands do not even have enough people for representation by one member of parliament let alone a Senator. I suppose they would have to be attached to a constituency on the mainland, like the Magdalen Islands. However, I did not want to get sidetracked on to that aspect, though things like this can happen a on a Friday afternoon. Rather, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for Hillsborough, as I commend my hon. friend from Waterloo-Cambridge, my friend and colleague across the way, and even my friend who has gone to the other place, Senator Mcllraith, on proposing this idea. I hope our discussion today will lead to further consideration of this interesting proposal.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take very long. I wish to commend the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) on his excellent speech and for bringing forward this suggestion. I was a student at the University of British Columbia during the years when the confederation of all the formerly British islands of the West Indies was an important
29561-30'/'

May 16, 1975
West Indies
topic of discussion every time one encountered a student who came from that beautiful part of the world. They were living in exciting days; there was great promise there, and it has always been a matter of regret to me, as it has I am sure to other members of this chamber, that this dream was so rapidly destroyed shortly after it had been realized. In the event, it stands as an example to all democracies in the British tradition not to refer to referenda in attempts to stabilize situations. The federation split up and was destroyed.
There are still some parts left over, in a sense, and the hon. member for Hillsborough was referring to some of them. It is a temptation to a country such as ours to look south occasionally. I was here as a member of parliament in an earlier parliament when the sugar beet producers of Ontario and Alberta were seriously pressed and when they made repeated applications to the Liberal government of the day for a national sugar policy. Had such a policy been developed it would have done more for the Caribbean than anything we could have done in the way of aid or special programs or gifts. In addition, in recent years it could have saved us a considerable amount of currency when sugar prices went wild. But we had no national sugar policy and no long term agreements in effect. That was the time, too, when we might have acted with vigour and initiative to aid the islands of the Caribbean.
I believe the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemount (Mr. Lachance) was a bit hard on the proposal and on the remarks of the hon. member for Hillsborough. I do not really see any hint of annexation. There have been many periods in the development of this country and of the Commonwealth, formerly the British Empire, when areas of the world have asked to be attached to Canada or to the Empire because of advantages inherent in the form of government. Annexation is too harsh a word.
I have word of caution, however, to direct to the hon. member from Prince Edward Island. The proposal will be hard to sell in the west, particularly in British Columbia. I am sure a good many of my voters will see it as a plan to lure people from British Columbia to Toronto. One can imagine all manner of fly-by-night travel agencies being formed, charging a very low rate for trips to the Turks and Caicos Islands, and going bankrupt just when the 747 lands at the airport outside Toronto. Would-be tourists would then find themselves obliged to spend their hard-earned money in Toronto and substitute a holiday there for what they had planned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A holiday?


Howard Earl Johnston: The alternative which I suggest to the hon. member for Hillsborough is that he find a comparable group of islands in the South Pacific. I am sure members from British Columbia will insist on a trade-off which will make it possible for them and their constituents on the Pacific coast to enjoy the summer sunshine, too, in the middle of winter. I do not know where he would find these islands as he looks south. I do not think Alcatraz would be available, and Easter Island is a little remote. It might be possible to work out some arrangement with the marvellously beautiful island of Fiji, but that would certainly be harder than developing an understanding with the Turks and Caicos islands. It is late, now, to ask for the return of

San Juan, though if the hon. member could arrange that with our neighbour to the south I am sure we in British Columbia would all rejoice.
I hear someone mention Vancouver Island. Well, we are hoping that the federal government will eventually do something about transportation links to the mainland of British Columbia. There are dreams of a bridge. The time may come when the government in Ottawa-I do not think it will be a Liberal government-will appreciate the value of the islands off the Pacific coast of the nation. So, although I support the interesting proposal put forward this afternoon, I must warn the hon. member for Hillsborough of the difficulties we shall face in British Columbia, and suggest to him that a good many people might favour the transference of the islands which are being built either in the Arctic or in the northern seas to a latitude which would provide the same number of hours of sunshine as he envisages. Some such arrangement might satisfy those of us who live on the Pacific side of this great nation.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Before beginning what I have to say on the interesting motion before us, Mr. Speaker, I might tell the hon. member who has just finished speaking that should it prove impossible to transport one of those northern islands to the Pacific we might be able to transport him to one of those northern islands.
In his motion the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) touches upon a subject which has been of long standing interest to many Canadians and, I think I may safely say, especially to the residents of the Atlantic provinces. The trading links between Canada and the countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean are much older than Confederation itself and represent one of the earliest manifestations of Canadian commercial enterprise. Within the last century this relationship has developed and expanded to include substantial Canadian investment and, during the last 15 years, a high volume of Canadian development assistance. In fact, taken as a unit, the Commonwealth Caribbean has received the highest per capita level of Canadian aid of any region in the world.
There is also an intimacy of association based on the existence of many shared traditions, including the heritage of the British legal and parliamentary systems. Many Caribbean leaders have been educated in Canada, as the hon. member has said, and some are veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces. The long-standing friendship between the Commonwealth Caribbean and Canada has most recently been re-emphasized by the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and Guyana, before his attendance at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Jamaica.
Given the multiplicity of the ties between Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean, it is not surprising that the possibility of some form of constitutional linkage has from time to time been suggested as a possible evolution of this relationship. About the time of the first world war, serious consideration was given to the concept of Canada's assuming Britain's responsibilities in several of the dependencies in what is now called the Commonwealth Caribbean. More recently there have been expressions of interest by
May 16, 1975

various individuals within the Commonwealth Caribbean in the idea of some form of constitutional relationship with Canada. Nothing, however, has developed to the stage of a formal request for association, although a petition suggesting that association with Canada be explored went to the British government from the Turks and Caicos Islands in the winter of 1974.
As is well known, last winter much interest was attracted to the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), in which he called attention to a proposed association between Canada and the Turks and Caicos Islands. Certainly the proposal was not without its attractions and, with a predictably effective assist from the Canadian winter, many of us were moved to ponder favourably the prospect of a salubrious winter climate within the boundaries of Canada. Why not, it was even suggested, establish a winter capital in this tropical paradise?


Howard Earl Johnston: We should move it to Victoria.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: You do not
need another Pacific island there. Some unkind newspapermen were moved to suggest that any form of constitutional association was bound to demand the attention of parliamentary committees, which would most certainly require the attendance of members of this House to assess the climate of opinion within the territory itself. I have not heard any of them suggest they would want to accompany that committee.
However, like so many wonderful illusions, the prospect of this happy association could not withstand the hard light of critical analysis. In a statement tabled in April, 1974, by the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, the reasons for the Canadian government's position on the subject of a possible association between the Turks and Caicos and Canada were set out, and they are reasons which can be projected to include other countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean.
As hon. members may recall, it was pointed out that any association of this nature would inevitably produce a variety of complications. It was emphasized that the Canadian government attached high priority to ameliorating the disparity of wealth between the rich countries and poorer ones. However, the absorption of one small country into Canada, which in any event might be represented as an act of neo-colonialism, would not be in keeping with the pursuit of this objective. It was concluded, therefore, that there was no evidence that the association would be of greater mutual benefit than the already existing friendly relations between the Turks and Caicos and Canada; that Canada should not seek to alter its present boundaries; and that, in view of the foregoing, the Canadian government did not intend to pursue the question of a constitutional association with the Turks and Caicos Islands.
Among the problems created by the establishment of a constitutional association between Canada and the Turks and Caicos, or any other Commonwealth Caribbean state, would be the likelihood of pressures developing in other non-independent Commonwealth Caribbean countries for a similar arrangement. It is undoubtedly true that the small non-independent states of the Caribbean are con-
West Indies
fronted with something of a dilemma as to their future status.
I am sure hon. members will agree that it is for the Commonwealth Caribbean countries to work out their own destiny, and Canada's role must be confined to that of a good friend. If Canada were to establish a constitutional relationship with one of these countries it would inevitably mean that we would become drawn into Caribbean affairs and Caribbean politics in a manner which could prove to be an embarrassment. Inevitably the perspectives and interests of Canada with regard to a number of issues are not always the same as those of the Caribbean countries. Yet, if small Caribbean states were to join Canada, the capacity of their populations to influence Canadian policy would be small.
This might then mean that an initial enthusiasm for association with Canada would eventually give place to a sense of frustration and consequent alienation. Additional problems might also arise if a large number of Canadians chose to live in the territory, thus swamping the local population. For example, the entire population of the Turks and Caicos Islands is very small, so it would require that only a minuscule proportion of northern Canadians take up residence in the islands to overwhelm the local population completely. I submit that such a development would be most unfortunate and would almost certainly provoke a bitter local reaction when it was realized that the entire composition of their population had been changed through the movement of Canadians from continental Canada to their islands.
It would also seriously weaken the prospects for greater Caribbean unity if Canada were to appear to entertain seriously the prospect of detaching some of these countries from their Commonwealth Caribbean associations and integrating them into the Canadian system. May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. It being five o'clock p.m. the time allotted for private members' business has now expired. Is the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton rising on a point of order?


Walter David Baker: I just wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, if I may, that it is nice to see you gracing the chair today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I am only sorry that you have had to witness yet another example of talking out an opposition motion, but perhaps those are the breaks of the game. May I ask the acting House leader for the government to confirm that we will in fact be dealing with Bill C-58 on Tuesday?


John Mercer Reid: That is correct. May I take this opportunity of saying that it has been a vintage day in the House of Commons on a Friday afternoon, the first time in the history of the Canadian parliament when there have been

May 16, 1975
West Indies
more members in the parliamentary press gallery than on the floor of the House. I am sure the lone CP reporter must have been delighted to have so much support with him this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since everybody else seems to find something to say, may I wish you, sir, a happy week end.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Perhaps I can step out of character a bit and wish everybody else a happy week end. It being five o'clock p.m. this House accordingly stands adjourned until Tuesday next at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(3).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 20, 1975