1975-11-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a case of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the parliamentary restaurant was opened this past weekend coinciding with the Liberal party's convention in Ottawa, and in view of the fact that this was most unusual as the restaurant is not opened on weekends, and in view of the fact that the taxpayers of Canada were asked to subsidize Liberal party hangers-on and government hacks, who judging from the convention registration fee of $100 were quite capable of paying their own way at commercial establishments in the city, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That this House condemns the Liberal government's blatant rip-off of the Canadian taxpayer at a time when this same government is calling for voluntary restraint in spending and calls on the Liberal party to reimburse the public Treasury for the amount of the subsidy incurred as a result of the weekend splurge in the parliamentary restaurant.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. Having been present at the opening day of the United Nations in San Francisco and throughout a portion of the proceedings in 1945, I ask leave to make a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner):
That the ganging up of the UN member countries, from Africa in particular and in other parts of the world, to bring about the adoption of resolutions in the United Nations which are contrary to the principles inherent in the charter and which are unjust to the nations against whom they are directed is dangerous to the continued existence, even survival of the United Nations.
And further, that in the opinion of this House the iniquitous resolution passed by the United Nations Assembly last week, and against which Canada cast its vote, which denounced the state of Israel as a racist nation is in the opinion of this House unmerited, untrue and deserving of the unqualified condemnation by this House and by all peoples who believe in freedom and world peace.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 such a motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) moved, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner):
That the ganging up of the UN member countries, from Africa in particular and in other parts of the world, to bring about the adoption of resolutions in the United Nations which are contrary to the principles inherent in the charter and which are unjust to the nations against whom they are directed is dangerous to the continued existence, even survival of the United Nations.
And further, that in the opinion of this House the iniquitous resolution passed by the United Nations Assembly last week, and against which Canada passed its vote, which denounced the state of Israel as a racist nation is in the opinion of this House unmerited, untrue and deserving of the unqualified condemnation by this House and by all peoples who believe in freedom and world peace.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since cattle breeders are in a difficult situation because of the ridiculously low prices paid to them on the market, while city consumers are still paying very high prices, I

November 12, 1975
Oral Questions
move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House ask the Minister of Agriculture to authorize the review board on beef marketing to advise without delay about the means it recommends to do justice to those producers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of repeated examples of the incompetence of the co-ordinating committee for the 1976 Olympics with respect to the handling of financial arrangements for the games, and in view of COJO's most recent blunder, this time relating to discriminatory hiring practices for hostesses for the Olympic games, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House instruct the government to table immediately a report on all funding presently being provided by the federal government to the 1976 Olympic Games, whether under existing government programs or by special arrangement, and that in addition the government table a copy of all correspondence between itself and the Quebec government, COJO or the city of Montreal concerning any additional funding or guarantees which may be made available at some future date.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. He has had a further weekend to reflect on the Post Office situa-

tion, and I would like to ask him whether he and his government are now prepared to put before the House a measure to assure the resumption of postal service and also to provide a further period of negotiations.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No. Mr. Speaker. When the Postmaster General was warning the postal unions that this strike might last a long while, he was speaking on behalf of the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Recognizing the emphasis the government has placed upon the importance of free collective bargaining, would the Prime Minister not agree that in adopting his incomes policy, the government has already placed a very substantial reduction on the scope of collective bargaining? Particularly in view of this, is the government not now prepared to consider the great public inconvenience and hardship which is being suffered by the people of Canada through the apparent desire of the Prime Minister and the Postmaster General to let things run their course, come hell or high water and regardless of what may happen to the people of this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The premise of the question is based on the prices and incomes control measures, and on previous occasions I told the House that these measures by themselves were not meant to remove the right of collective bargaining.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the Prime Minister agreeing that this does remove the right of collective bargaining? Does the Prime Minister not agree that these compulsory guidelines, where they apply, of necessity limit the scope of collective bargaining and therefore make a mockery of continuing a long standing and long continuing interruption of an important service to the Canadian public in the name of free collective bargaining, which dees not exist under these controls?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot agree with that. The House has heard the Postmaster General and government spokesmen indicate that unions and management should bargain as best they can and adhere to the guidelines, and if there is some doubt in their application, it would be up to the Anti-Inflation Board to intervene after the fact. We still think that collective bargaining should go on in this country, and that unions and employers should take the responsibility of reaching the best possible agreement under the new guidelines.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-SUGGESTION LEGISLATION BE PASSED REQUIRING SUPERVISED VOTE ON GOVERNMENT OFFER
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the refusal of the union leaders to put the government's offer to the membership, is the government prepared to pass special legislation under which a government supervised vote will be conducted to determine whether the rank and file union members really are against accepting the government offer? Does not the public interest and
November 12, 1975

the principle of democracy within unions demand such action?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has put forward a proposition which might be worth considering at a later date, but for the time being I think it would be premature for the government to intervene and tell the unions how they should run their business.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-REASON FOR REFUSAL TO LEGISLATE AN END TO THE STRIKE
John Allen Fraser: I wonder if the Prime Minister is thinking of Easter as the proper date.
A few minutes ago at a press conference the Postmaster General stated that there was, and I quote: "nothing more to negotiate." In view of the fact that further negotiations will therefore be useless, why does the government still refuse to legislate an end to the strike?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question seems somewhat rhetorical. Strikes have happened before, and government has not always legislated an end to those strikes. Strikes are an economic weapon used by one side in the bargaining process, and the natural course for that weapon is to run its course against the members. When we find that it hits the public even more strongly than the right to free collective bargaining, that is the point at which the government intervenes.


POSSIBLE REOPENING OF MAIL BOXES-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF AMOUNT OF MAIL THAT WILL BE MOVED
John Allen Fraser: The government has in the past said that the time to intervene is when no further useful negotiations would take place.
May I put a supplementary to the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. At a press conference a few minutes ago the minister said that mail boxes will be reopened. Can he tell the House how much mail will be moved in relation to the normal volume or is this just window dressing?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, that will depend to what extent the public uses the mail boxes!


An hon. Member:: Are you talking about the canine public?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I might remind the hon. gentleman the position he is now taking is diametrically opposed to the one he took when the firefighters at Vancouver airport were off work illegally.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and
Oral Questions
Resources. The government acknowledged last week that while some $100 million has been spent on the Syncrude project it does not yet have representation on the heretofore non-existent board of directors that is ultimately going to manage that project. In the absence of the Minister of the Environment and in view of the fact that recent reports indicate that sulphur dioxide emissions from the Syncrude plant when it goes on stream in late 1978, will be roughly seven times greater than that which the use of present technology would produce, and in light of the fact that this sulphur dioxide is dangerous to human health and its effects will be spread over a number of provinces, can the minister assure the House that the government, by whatever means, direct or indirect, will not permit Syncrude to proceed with production as long as this level of emission will result therefrom?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to correct the misconception in the preamble of the hon. member's question. I did not indicate that the federal government was not part of the ongoing planning and project management of the Syncrude project. I did say they did not now hold a position on the board of directors but there is a Canadian federal presence on the management committee which is in fact the project management operation.
As to the second part of the question, I am sure the hon. member would want to address that to the Minister of the Environment. Quite clearly, he has indicated a major problem and one about which the government is very concerned.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I assume the minister must know the answer, although he is not the Minister of the Environment. Was the issue of the level of pollution by sulphur dioxide and related to that the control procedures to be implemented by Syncrude, brought before the management committee to which the minister referred, and on which the federal government does have representation? Was there discussion and if so, what was the position taken by the federal government representatives on that committee?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be referred to the Minister of the Environment.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, does the minister say-I do not ask this argumentatively-that the cabinet has not decided on this matter, that, therefore, he does not know the government's position, and that is why he refers the question to the minister who is not in the House?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I referred this matter to the Minister of the Environment because that minister is responsible for the environmental area in question.



Oral Questions POST OFFICE


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Considering that collective bargaining between department officials and union leaders ended nearly one week ago, could the minister advise the House as to the current situation after the negotiations broke off and indicate how many post offices are now providing services to the public? Could the minister bring us up to date on the situation which has developed since last Friday?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think that at least 87 post offices are now open throughout Canada. This compares favourably with last Friday, when only 40 were open. We intend to serve the Canadian public, even in small communities where people have as many rights to be served as those living in larger centres like Montreal and Toronto.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Perhaps the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary can answer. Can parliament be assured that it is not the policy of COJO, or anybody else for that matter connected with the Olympic Games, to discriminate against guides to be selected for the Olympic Games only because they happen to wear eyeglasses? Will the minister repudiate that obviously insensitive, sexist and outrageous statement?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister, I think, will want to answer this question, I shall bring it to his attention.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the parliamentary secretary cannot make up his mind. May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour? Will the minister undertake as head of his department to make sure that such an outrageous statement or idea, no matter by whom perpetrated, is repudiated by the government of Canada?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I will be happy to consult with the Minister of National Health and Welfare and have both departments look into the matter.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, may I direct my question to his parliamentary secretary? Considering CEMA's assertion on November 4, 1975, "that the pricing for eggs in this country is at the present time based primarily on a cost of production factor formula", and considering that today's Globe and Mail informs us that the cost of production seems to be coming down, can the parliamentary secretary tell the House why the price of eggs went up one cent a dozen this week in Toronto?


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency sets the average cost of eggs over four weeks. In addition to feeding, other factors must be considered such as salaries, interest and all other indirect expenses.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Further to the excellent motion introduced in this House by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, can the minister assure the House that the government is, indeed, prepared to withdraw from the Ghana conference, and perhaps the decade against racism program, should the United Nations general assembly not alter its position on the vicious resolution passed earlier this week?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, replying to the question raised by the hon. gentleman, if Zionism is to be an object of UN activities relating to racism, it will clearly and manifestly not be possible for Canada to play its proper role in such activities. I say this with regret, because racism is one of the scourges of our time, one which, in its genuine application, we are prepared to join other countries in resisting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: However, we are not prepared to associate Canada with a judgment in which the presumption of innocence is denied and for which we do not believe evidence would be found which would justify the decision reached by the General Assembly of the United Nations has reached. As our permanent representative said at the United Nations, the resolution on Zionism is not only objectionable in itself, but also taints two other resolutions which we would otherwise have whole-heartedly supported both in voting and in action. I refer, of course, to the resolution on the decade on racial discrimination and the
November 12, 1975

conference against racism to be held in Ghana two years hence. We have, with great regret, voted aginst both resolutions because of the overall poisonous effect the adoption of the resolution on Zionism would have on the operation of these resolutions. We have to consider very carefully the participation of Canada in any activities that would flow from the adoption of these resolutions. That, of course, applies to the conference at Ghana and the decade on discrimination.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Supply and Services.
In view of his reply last Friday on the postal strike, that all welfare cheques could be delivered through an urgency program, that he would invite hon. members to become acquainted with it, may I ask him what bearing this urgency program will have on family allowances and old age security cheques with a view to their being delivered to all concerned?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the urgency program for the delivery of socioeconomic cheques, the old age pensions more particularly, and the family allowances ch.eques, is operating now and provides for the gradual taking over of normal postal services as soon as they become available. As for the details of the program, an invitation was sent to all hon. members to attend a briefing tomorrow, on a regional basis, with a view to asking their participation in improving the program and helping with its implementation!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Is the minister aware of details of attempts to extract money for political contributions and even control of the enterprises involved in the case of at lease one of those parties which tendered for concessions at Mirabel? If so, has he been checking on this matter?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, he has referred certain documents to the Solicitor General, the Minister of Transport and to me. These have been referred to the appropriate law enforcement officers of the Crown who are taking action on mem. We have not had a report from those law officers.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I take it from the minister's answer that he will be inquiring further. I might tell him that I have
Oral Questions
access to photocopies of cheques which may be significant in this regard, particularly since they were dated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised in his question a rather important point. If he has any material, I would ask him to submit it to the RCMP.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. gentleman inform the House whether or not he has bothered to concern himself with the tax position of those stockholders and directors of Sky Shops Export Limited who contributed to the package of 5,000 shares for the honourable Senator Louis Giguere. If so, has he come to any conclusion in this matter?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of protecting the confidentiality of information received by the department, even if we had looked into the matter we would not make a statement until it became public information.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It seems appropriate that if we are conducting an investigation we should keep it quiet.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of statements made by the Prime Minister that it would be useless for unions to negotiate pay increases larger than those permitted by the guidelines because they would all be taxed away, I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he could confirm that in the discussions federal government representatives are having with the provinces in connection with guidelines for professional fees the federal government representatives have indicated that it is their intention only to monitor the 5 per cent of the doctors who have opted out of medicare and those lawyers who are members of firms where there are ten or more lawyers in the firm?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not aware of such a development in negotiations with the provinces. When I met the premiers they indicated they would do their best to live by the spirit of the guidelines. They have had time, now, to examine them in more detail and I am not aware of any development along the lines mentioned by the hon. member.

November 12, 1975
Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-SUGGESTED IMPOSITION OF SURTAX ON INCOME IN EXCESS OF GUIDELINES
David Orlikow: Since, if this program is to have any success, it must appear to the people mostly concerned, those who earn wages and salaries, that it is equitable, that they are not being asked to make sacrifices which people with much higher incomes, self-employed professionals, are able to make, would the Prime Minister look into this question, check what his representatives are proposing, and consider the imposition of a 100 per cent surtax which he seemed to be suggesting when he was talking about taxing away incomes for workers which are more than the guidelines would permit?


Right Hon.   P- E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Perhaps I should correct an impression which the hon. member has probably gathered through incomplete reporting of what I said on one particular occasion. I indicated there were three ways in which recipients of incomes in excess of the guidelines might be separated from that income. One way, in the case of salaries, would be to take it back by means of deductions from the monthly payments. Another way would be to take it away directly from the salaried persons themselves. It is in that sense I might have used the word taxation in a loose, though, I believe, clearly understandable way. The third method would be to take the excess directly from the employer if the employer were responsible for the settlement over the guidelines. So it is really only a partial view of things to suggest I was embarking on the surtax route.


David Orlikow: In view of the fact that self-employed people are themselves the employers, should not the kind of restriction which the Prime Minister has suggested as applying to people earning wages and salaries be applied to self-employed people, and would not the simple way of doing this be by imposing a 100 per cent surtax so that those who are restricted to a 10 per cent increase would know that professionals, doctors, lawyers, engineers, would not get more than the 10 per cent increase which the Prime Minister thinks is fair?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is suggesting a technique which various provincial governments will, no doubt, want to examine. If he refers to the white paper-I am returning to his first question today-he will recall that we put it to the provincial governments that they should act in the area of rents and professional fees. They have chosen to do so-


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, you know that in practice professional fees can only be regulated nationally.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member might ask a
supplementary.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, sir!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: This is not the Liberal convention. It is the House of Commons.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind taking a supplementary now if you would allow it. If you would ask the leader of the NDP to supersede his backbencher, I will

deal with it and then return to the backbencher who has been humbled by the intervention.


POST OFFICE
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Postmaster General. It arises from the present state of negotiations between the government and the postal union, the union negotiators being prepared to bargain and the government saying that its offer is a final offer. Is the government now prepared to consider a program designed to assist innocent third parties whose businesses and livelihood are affected by the failure of mail deliveries?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am not
unaware of the hardship caused to small businessmen who use the mail. I am pleasantly surprised at the support they have given to me. I suppose they prefer strikes in the Post Office in future to be confined to the legal periods of time rather than illegal strikes every few months. This was the impression given me by one of the recognized leaders in the direct mail business this morning.
It is wrong to presume there is no ground for further negotiation. We can always negotiate certain monetary features of the collective agreement downward or spread it among certain members of the postal union who are not benefitting as much as people in the higher classifications. If that is what they prefer, I would be more than happy to do it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. gentleman has given a good account of the exact state of the negotiations but it seems he failed to understand the purport of my question. Is the government considering making assistance available to innocent third parties who are affected by the inability of the mail to get through?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That is not a question which I can answer categorically, though I would like to do so, because I am aware that we are dealing, here, with a real problem. I can only say I have had several discussions with people in that particular area to ascertain what type of benefit they would consider the most tangible. If policy is needed in this general area, then I can only make general recommendations to my colleagues.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I believe he has been given notice. Since the minister has been unable to assure Vancouverites that adequate federal funds will be available for Habitat Forum and since the latest issue of Habitat Bulletin, which is
November 12, 1975

produced by the Canadian Participation Secretariat in conjunction with the Canadian host secretariat of the Department of External Affairs, carries the statement that costs of the Habitat Forum program at Jericho Park in Vancouver "will be paid under a specially created joint federal-provincial scheme", can the minister now assure the House that this statement reflects government policy? Will the hon. gentleman consult with his colleagues so that the residents of Vancouver can be assured of the proper funding for this international housing conference?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that it is not a housing conference but a conference on human settlements. In answer to the question I can give assurances that there is adequate funding for the completion of the physical arrangements and the programming for Habitat Forum at Jericho Beach.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that Chilean refugees were obliged to sign a special conditional document disallowing them from engaging in international subversive political activities in Canada before receiving a special ministerial permit, could the minister advise the House whether he is aware that precisely such international political activities are in fact taking place in Canada organized by Chilean leftists and that as recently as September 12 the former Vice-President of Chile, Clodomiro Almeyda, was a speaker at such a rally, illegal in terms of the special permits, which incidentally was chaired by the hon. member for Greenwood.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Otto John Jelinek: If the minister is aware of these circumstances is he prepared to deal with the illegalities as they relate to his department?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have heard of it.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of these illegal meetings that are taking place, could the minister advise the House whether or not he is aware that at least one foreign communist aligned diplomat,
Oral Questions
Rafael Reyes, an officer in the consulate of Cuba in Toronto, is involved in directly supporting and assisting the revolutionary left-wing Chilean refugee movement in Toronto that is working to overthrow the present Chilean government and, if so, what steps is the minister prepared to take to rectify what could be another internationally embarrassing situation for Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take a look at that question.



MANPOWER


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and it is possible that the Minister of Labour can also enlighten the House. In view of Falconbridge Nickel Company's announcement last Friday of a two phase lay-off of over 1,000 workers in the Sudbury basin, have either the Minister of Manpower or the Minister of Labour been informed of these lay-offs prior to last Friday's announcement and, if so, has this trans-national corporation given the government any reason or reasons for such insensitive actions?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, any notice of lay-off would be a matter for my colleague the minister of manpower. I am not aware of any contractual obligation coming under the purview of my department but I will certainly look into the matter.


John R. Rodriguez: *Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister of manpower. In light of the fact that Falconbridge's major stated reason for the lay-offs was an alleged softening of world nickel markets, and in view of the fact that the International Nickel Company is not laying off people but, on the contrary, is authorizing excessive amounts of overtime in its Sudbury basin nickel operations, has the minister already asked or does he intend to ask Falconbridge to justify its action in light of this apparent contradiction, especially considering the fact that Falconbridge is maintaining full production in its plants in the Dominican Republic and Norway?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there was no direct conveyance of this information to me in the last few days. I will check with the department to see whether any contact has been made.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.

November 12, 1975
Oral Questions
Could the minister confirm to the House the reports in last week's newspapers in northeast Quebec that $1 million had been allocated for reinstalling the instrument landing facilities at Val-D'or airport?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am not directly concerned by this project. As a rule, the announcements are made in the House by the appropriate minister. The President of the Treasury Board has seldom the opportunity to announce the projects himself.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Could the minister tell the House whether he wants to look into the announcement published in newspapers that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs himself has revealed that this amount of $1 million would be earmarked for Val-d'Or airport?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will not object to spending such an important amount of money for thousands of fellow citizens in northeast Quebec.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY INQUIRY WHETHER TOLLS WILL BE INCREASED

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the great concern expressed by a good many western shippers as well as central Canadian shippers, is the government going to make a ruling or decision on whether or not the St. Lawrence seaway tolls will be increased or will remain the same for the coming year?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no government examination of the question of any change in St. Lawrence seaway rates. There has, however, in connection with the anti-inflation exercise, been a determination that at least for the immediate future no rates ought to be changed except as reflecting changes in cost. Therefore any major review of the rates in the next several months will in any case be precluded.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. One of the reasons that the St. Lawrence seaway authority asked that the rates be increased was that costs were going up. Is the minister now saying that there will be an increase up to the 8 or 10 per cent ceiling, or, as a good many shippers have been asking, will the rates be frozen at the existing level?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that no consideration had been given to any change, so for the time being no change whatever is being proposed. I added in addition to that a limitation which would arise out of our current program which would not allow us to go back and catch up past cost problems but only current cost problems, at least in the immediate future.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration responsible for unemployment insurance. Can the minister advise why instructions went out this week to UIC regional offices telling them to make special arrangements to handle claims by letter carriers, and can he tell the House why this particular group is being given preferential treatment ahead of other eligible claimants?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, they are not being given preferential treatment in the sense the hon. member is suggesting. They are fully entitled under the law to unemployment insurance benefits. Wherever we run into a mass situation requiring processing claims and we are aware of it, we try to make special administrative efforts to deal with them. The same thing applied to the General Motors lay-off or any automotive lay-off. I think it only fair to these people that we do this.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, that is a very strange answer in light of the postal strike at this time. Can the minister explain why the normal waiting period has been waived for letter carriers, and why at least some regional UIC offices have been told to make sure that these claimants receive their first cheques by Saturday-that is, within 48 hours of establishing eligibility-and in fact to downgrade the claims of other Canadians in order to meet these requirements?


Robert Knight Andras: That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. There has been no waiving of the required legal waiting period for the letter carriers. That is applicable to them as it is to anyone else. We are simply attempting to expedite claims in what is a mass situation in terms of responding to the need, and we certainly try to do that with any claim.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the resolution that opened proceedings in this House today, which was passed unanimously by the House, regarding the vicious acts on Monday in the United Nations, will the government consider withdrawing from the United Nations and working with other nations of goodwill in establishing an organization of nations that will restore the UN covenants of peace and justice in the international community?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that it is my view that, in approving this resolution, the members of the United Nations who voted for it have made a mockery of the principles and purposes for which the United Nations was created. However, in this imperfect

world we see no substitute for the United Nations at the present time, even though we may vigorously disagree and denounce the action or decision which it has taken, and this is what we do in this particular case.
However, as I have stated in reply to the question addressed to me by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe, we will not be in a position to play a proper role in United Nations' activities if Zionism becomes an object of these activities, particularly in any relationship to racism. For that reason we are and will be reviewing that action we ought to take with respect to the resolution that was adopted in connection with the decade against discrimination and the conference on racism to be held in Ghana two years from now.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fisheries. In view of the fact that the minister has been holding continuing bilateral discussions with an increasing number of nations could he indicate if it is his intention to have bilateral discussions with France in respect of fishery matters particularly as they might relate to the geographical location of St. Pierre-Miquelon with regard to fishing rights and the extension of limits.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, conversations with representatives of France did take place during the ICNAF meetings in late September in Montreal and will of course continue. We have some complicated fisheries relationships with France.
[DOT] * *



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I do not know whether or not he heard the last question. Would the minister advise the House and the country what progress is being made in the discussions with France as they apply to unilateral or equidistant boundaries between the province of Newfoundland and St. Pierre-Miquelon in the determination of offshore resource rights or the giving of grants in respect of offshore rights, particularly with regard to Canada's position with France as it relates to St. Pierre-Miquelon.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice because I do not have the up-to-date information at my fingertips at the moment.
Oral Questions POST OFFICE



STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF MOVEMENT OF MAIL TRUCKS

Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. In respect of the opening of the post offices, would the minister give consideration to re-establishing the movement of mail trucks? I ask that in light of the fact that in the province of Alberta probably only six cities have their post offices fully closed down and all other communities have their post offices open.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we were discussing that subject with the officials this morning and I will be in a better position to report later during the week.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is further to a question put to him last week regarding Microsystems, and the possibility of a public inquiry. I am wondering whether the minister has now had an opportunity to find out about the situation and could he tell us in respect of the $36 million which the government had pledged whether the federal government has now come to an agreement with Bell Northern by which a portion of that has been paid back as full settlement.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, insofar as the loan of $6,729 million for capital assistance was given, this has been recovered in full.



HOUSING


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs responsible for housing. It concerns the statement he made last week regarding the interest-free loans available to builders who will create rental housing at rents controlled by CMHC. Can the minister tell the House if these controls are to be exercised by CMHC independent of the Anti-Inflationary Board guidelines and of the rent controls of the governments of the provinces? In other words, are the controls in this sector of rental housing to be set unilaterally by CMHC and if so, at what level?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, this has been the practice under the assisted rental program for the past many years it has been

November 12, 1975
Oral Questions
in existence. This raises a further question of whether it will come under-it will certainly come under the federal guidelines-the provincial programs. This is unlikely. In discussions with the provincial ministers they have said they prefer to exclude this because they realize it has been a compassionately administered program and they are quite happy to see it remain in the hands of CMHC. However, that will be finally confirmed when we meet with the housing ministers later this month.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could say at what level these are to be set?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, no specific level is set. The only increases allowed are those increases which are allowed because of actual costs. They are more tightly controlled than other rentals in return for the rental agreement which we have with the entrepreneur when the original arrangement is made which is renewed from time to time in order to make certain that it is checked up and current. The landlord can only raise his rent with the agreement of CMHC.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister now able to make a report to the House on the work of the interdepartmental committee which he set up to deal with the serious situation created by lay-offs by the CPR at its shops in Winnipeg?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe further meetings took place today, the details of which I hope to have for the hon. member before the end of the question period. Perhaps I could fill him in on the details later on in the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the minister, either himself or through that committee, look at reports to the effect that the CNR is laying off some of its security personnel.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It is further to some questions asked of him last Thursday I believe regarding a proposed increase in the cost of moving Stocker calves from western Canada to Ontario. Has the minister had an opportunity to speak with the Canadian Transport Commission and can he say whether this proposed increased rate of 25 per cent which is to come into effect I believe later this week will be disallowed because it will

represent in the year 1975 an over-all increase of about 71 per cent for single-deck cars and 87 per cent for doubledeck cars which I am sure is beyond the government's guidelines.


Otto Emil Lang: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to deal here very specifically with specific rates. Hon. members will be aware there was a freeze on certain rates and that therefore some more rapid than usual increases have taken place. We have already indicated to the CTC that we will expect them to play a role in making sure that the 95 per cent of margin rule is adhered to in the over-all rate setting, and we have been having further specific discussions about the question of how the guidelines are to apply, if at all, to specific rates as distinct from the 95 per cent margin rule.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, further to the specific question of rates there is another problem which involves a lot of sick cattle reaching Ontario from the west caused by so many delays in respect of cattle left in cars on sidings. A specific example-and the minister asked for this in answer to one of the questions asked last week-would the CPR car No. 277642 which arrived in Toronto on Friday-at 4 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Elgin McKinley: -and was not sent out to London until Sunday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vegreville.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. It is supplementary to the question of the hon. member for Central Nova. Last Friday the Minister of Transport indicated he would examine the material he had affecting the contracts for the Sky Shops at Mirabel, and would determine what might be the best possible technique to deal with the request of the hon. member that the bids be tabled in the House. I wonder whether the minister has had an opportunity to review this information, and whether he can advise the House what action he intends to take in that regard.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there should be no problem at all in the House having information with regard to the bids. The question was rather broader than that and I am not prepared to deal with it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the specific question, the minister has had five days in which to review the contracts and calculations. Can he now advise the House how long we will have to wait until he will be in a position to present the information asked for by the hon. member for Central Nova.

November 12, 1975


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member is really referring to a rather different issue. The question of the analysis of bids is something I have engaged in prior to the last series of questions in the House on Friday. The question referred to material upon which the analysis was made, and I do not have a report on that.


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It has come to my attention that on Remembrance Day the customary memorial wreath was not placed in the Memorial Chamber of the Peace Tower of this House. I understand that it has been a custom over the years, and I feel this is a question of privilege relating to all veterans who are members of the House and, indeed, veterans right across this land. If Your Honour feels that this is indeed a question of privilege, I would appreciate it if you would look into the matter to see whether there was any reason this was not done and, if so, report to the House on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises a subject of considerable importance and, I am sure, sensitivity among members of the House. My immediate information is that the usual wreath was placed there on behalf of the House of Commons, but whether or not such action by the government independent of the House of Commons is customary is a matter about which I am not immediately aware. In respect of the House of Commons, the usual action was taken; therefore, I would conclude that no question of privilege exists. But the hon. member has raised a point which I shall certainly look into and try to get some information on.


William David Knowles: I have one more comment to make, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is customary for His Excellency the Governor General to lay the wreath.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (A) for the financial year ending March 31, 1976 was presented by Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet):
That the Supplementary Estimates (A), 1975-76, tabled this day, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Agriculture votes 15a, 20a, 25a, 40a, 45a, and 50a.
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence: External Affairs votes: 10a, L15a, L16a, L17a, L18a, 30a, and L36a.
Supplementary Estimates
Mr. Speaker, I have a long list which I believe is before you. I do not think there is any difference in view on the desirability of the references that I am proposing, and perhaps this list could be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 59 makes provision for the presentation of such motions. The House has heard the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) about including the list in Hansard as if it had been read. Shall I dispense with the reading of the list?


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know it is no fault of the House leader or of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), but we have just now received the estimates and we have gone into deep shock after noticing the amount of $1,750,000,000. However, since no statement was made by the President of the Treasury Board I will have to reserve my comments until later. I am probably in agreement with the general proposal made by the President of the Privy Council. I cannot say that what he suggested will fit the pattern, but certainly the estimates should be allocated to different committees. We just have to hope that the judgment has been sounder than the amount of the estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that there was some consultation about the committes to which these estimates would be referred, and the motion does seem to be in accordance with those consultations.
[Editor's Note: The remainder of motion is as follows:] National Defence votes la, 10a and 15a To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry:
Environment votes 5a, 10a, 15a, L21a, 25a and 30a To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs: Consumer and Corporate Affairs votes la, 10a, 15a and 35a National Health and Welfare votes la, 15a, 25a, 40a, 45a and 50a Urban Affairs votes la, 10a, 15a, 30a, L35a and 40a To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development votes la, 5a, L21a, L22a, L23a, 25a, 35a, L61a and 75a
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
Solicitor General votes 5a, 15a, 20a and 25a To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works: Energy, Mines and Resources votes 5a, 20a, 25a, L51a, L52a, 65a and 70a
Public Works votes la, L3a, 5a, 10a, 20a, 35a, 45a and 50a To the Standing Committee on Regional Development:
Regional Economic Expansion votes 31a and L40a To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications:
Post Office vote 5a
Transport votes la, 10a, L17a, 20a, 25a, 30a, L35a, 50a, 60a, L76a, 85a, 91a and 105a
To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs:
Veterans Affairs votes la, 5a, 15a, 20a and L21a To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates: Communications vote L6a Finance votes 11a, 12a, L13a and 15a
Industry, Trade and Commerce votes la, L36a, 47a and 65a Labour votes la and 10a
Manpower and Immigration votes la, 5a, 10a and 15a

November 12, 1975
Postal Strike
National Revenue votes la and 5a Parliament vote 5a Privy Council votes la, 5a and 15a Science and Technology votes 5a, 10a and 25a
Secretary of State votes la, 5a, 10a, 15a, 20a, 25a, 40a, 62a, 65a, 75a,
L80a, 90a, 100a, L105a and 115a
Supply and Services votes la, LlOa, 15a and 20a
Treasury Board votes 5a and 10a


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26, I ask leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. This specific and important matter is the postal work stoppage which has continued for the past three weeks and is still unresolved in spite of the best efforts of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) and in spite of assurances of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that-
At some time the right of free collective bargaining has to give way to intervention by parliament when we judge that the public disservice caused by a strike outweighs the freedom of the right to strike itself.
The absence of this essential service is creating accumulating hardship for all Canadians, but particularly for those who receive their incomes and revenues by mail, those whose jobs have been terminated because of disruptions in trade and commerce, and those who have lost their* livelihood as a direct result of this stoppage; for example, the letter carriers. It has also ended the exchange of mail with other countries, a serious consequence of which is the present and potentially permanent loss of foreign trade.
If acceptable, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House do now adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 26, the hon. member has given the Chair notice of his intention to seek consent of the House to set aside a special time to debate the motion that the House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a specific and urgent matter, namely, that of the effect of the postal strike.
Motions of this sort respecting work stoppages in the country, particularly work stoppages in the public service-especially work stoppages in the public service that have gone on as this one has, for some three weeks- always cause great difficulty for the Chair. There are one or two contradictions which I am sure all hon. members will understand, the first being that since it has been the expressed will of parliament to give to workers in the public service rights that are akin to collective bargaining rights in the private sector, and therefore to include the right to strike, an immediate contradiction is posed if as soon as that right is pursued parliament is asked to consider it as an emergency.
The fact that the right to strike exists presupposes that when a strike in the public service is going to take place it will cause inconvenience of major proportions. Since that is anticipated, it is very difficult to say immediately that the exercise of the right to strike constitutes an emergency within the terms of Standing Order 26.
On the other hand, there is the contradiction that if Standing Order 26 exists for any purpose at all in order to move the House into a special session, surely a three weeks' strike in the postal service must be something which ideally comes within the four corners of that Standing Order, otherwise the Standing Order would not make sense.
The Chair, of course, must wrestle with these two contradictions every time a motion such as this is put in this kind of situation. There can be no question that the effect on the public that is described with respect to the proposed motion is very clear. It is, in fact, always a matter of critical importance when disruption of a national service of the nature of the postal service takes place. On the other hand, the language of Standing Order 26 makes it clear that if there is another reasonable opportunity afforded to hon. members of the House to discuss the matter, then Standing Order 26 ought not to be resorted to.
The fact is that, in the first place, not only today, which is obvious, but almost every day since the postal strike began or since the conflict between the postal negotiations and the wage and price legislation which is before the House began, this subject has formed a substantial part of the question period every day. I recognize that that tends to argue for both sides of the question. On the one hand, it argues that since there is the opportunity to use the question period, which has been taken advantage of, an emergency debate is not necessary; while at the same time it says that since the subject occupies half the question period every day, it is obviously a matter of importance which tends to come within the four corners of Standing Order 26. The fact of the matter is that the longer I go on with this reasoning, the further I get from a conclusion: I realize that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 12, 1975

Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Speaker:: In the resolution of the matter I also have to take into account that pursuant to Standing Order 26 only one of the opposition days or allotted days has yet been used in the trimester which ends shortly, and therefore must be considered to pose fairly soon a reasonable opportunity for discussion of this matter. For that reason, and also for another reason which I think is consistent in respect of work stoppages of this sort, it seems to the Chair that in the area of the strike, work stoppage or negotiation itself-however that whole arena is described-as long as there is some activity which might produce a resolution within itself, then there would be resistance-not necessarily refusal, but certainly resistance-by the Chair to have parliament conduct a debate when it is open to speculation whether it would have a beneficial or an adverse effect on the outcome of the proceedings.
The specific activity, to be clear about what I refer to now, is not that talks or negotiations are carrying on, but that there is an obvious activity within the union which I think the Chair cannot ignore. As long as that activity may produce some kind of resolution, at least for the first application which is made pursuant to Standing Order 26, it would be my inclination to allow us to await a few more days' development to see what happens. I am sure that this in no way precludes the hon. member who raised this question today from raising it again two days from now, which is Friday, or at the beginning of next week if the developments in the area of negotiations and discussions themselves take a turn for the worse, or I have an indication that they are not about to bear fruit or to resolve the conflict.




Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition bearing the signatures of 2,862 residents of southern Manitoba. This petition was prepared and gathered by postal employees in the federal riding of Provencher who, along with many other postal workers, feel that the postal strike should end and that members who are presently on strike should be called back to work. The petition reads in part: "We, the undersigned people of southern Manitoba"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has leave just to file the petition.

(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 62, 3,081, 3,203, 3,208, 3,306 and 3,341.


POST OFFICE-LYNDHURST ONTARIO
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 48 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament to the effect that the annual rent paid by the government is $5,500 for a post office in Lyndhurst, Ontario, owned by Mrs. Deborah Lawlor, daughter of Area Postmaster, J. S. Hackett, and leased by the government as of May 1, 1973, is the Post Office Department or the Department of Public Works aware that the rental previously paid for a post office in Lyndhurst was $120 per year from 1960 to 1966 and $300 per year from 1966 to May 1, 1973 and, if so, what are the specific justifications for the large difference in rents between the former and present locations, which are both situated on the same street other than the somewhat increased amount in space?
2.	Is the Department of Public Works aware that the present rental figure of $5,500 far exceeds the usual rentals in the area in question and, if so, what was the reason this excess was permitted?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Post Office Department and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. A group postmaster is responsible to provide adequate accommodation for the Post Office he operates and included in his remuneration is a certain amount to help him provide for such accommodation. These amounts are established by collective agreement with the Canadian Postmasters' Association. The Post Office Department does not get involved in the rental arrangements that may be made between a group postmaster and another party other than making certain the premises are satisfactory and centrally located within the village boundaries. In most instances the postmaster owns the premises where the Post Office is located. However, the conditions change substantially when a post office is elevated to Grade status. The Department of Public Works then becomes responsible to provide the required postal accommodation and this is usually provided in a Crown-owned or leased building, in accordance with post office specifications. Our file shows the postmaster at Lyndhurst, who has been in office since January 15, 1966, was renting space (136 square feet of work space plus 55 feet of public lobby) in a building owned by a Mr. Wing. The rental excluded heat and light which the postmaster had to provide. It is possible that his Predecessor, Mr. Fred Barry, postmaster from 1960, who retired on the December 17, 1965, also rented from Mr. Wing. The office remained a Group Office until the October 16, 1970 when it became a Grade 1, following a Unit of Work Survey. Subsequent to this, the Department of Public Works was requested to provide us with a new S.P. 1 building or acceptable rented premises. In accordance with the terms of the collective agreement, the postmaster continued to receive a rental allowance and provided premises under his own arrangement pending the provision of suitable Grade 1 office accommodation by D.P.W. The present postal premises
November 12, 1975

Order Paper Questions
were provided May 1, 1973. Hereunder is a comparison between the former and present accommodation.
Former accommodation Work Space 136'
Public Lobby 55' Bathroom-none Mail Lobby-none
Present accommodation Work Space 665'
Public Lobby 92' Bathroom 42'
Mail Lobby 81'
Lock Boxes-none	Lock Boxes 168'
Night Lobby-none	Night Lobby 92'
Storage Space 30'
2. The rental rate being paid is in line with recent lease arrangements in the area.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Beatty: 1.	With reference to the contracts described in the twenty-eight Research and Development bulletins published up to and including the July 1975 issue let by the Department of Supply and Services, by department (a) what is the total value of the contracts (b) how many were publicly advertised prior to being awarded (c) what were their numbers and descriptions (d) what was their total value?
2.	Of the contracts that were advertised before being awarded (a) how many had more than one bid submitted (b) what were their numbers and descriptions (c) what was their total value?
3.	Of the contracts for which more than one bid was submitted (a) which contracts were awarded to anyone other than the lowest bidder (b) in each case (i) what were the bids submitted (ii) by whom (iii) for what reason was the contract not awarded to the lowest bidder?
4.	Of the persons or organizations awarded contracts (a) what are the names of any who were previous employees of the government (b) on what dates and for whom did they work (c) what previous work have they done on contract for the government (d) at what cost to the taxpayer were the contracts let?
5.	What are the names of contractors or principal investigators who have been awarded more than one contract and, in each case, what were the (a) numbers (b) descriptions (c) values (d) client departments?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The question requires considerable research and the information will be communicated to the hon. member at a later date.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: seven firms; (a) $3,450,000; (b) one firm; (c) $140,000.


PAYMENT OF RETAINER TO HANGMAN
Mr. Nystrom: Does the government pay a retainer to Canada's hangman and, if so, how much has been paid for each fiscal year 1962-63 to date?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No.


RENOVATIONS TO PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Coates: On how many occasions since 1968 has the Prime Minister had any of the offices and suites provided to him at public expense (a) renovated (b) refurnished and, in each case, what was the cost?


Mitchell William Sharp: In 1971. See reply to the hon. Member's questions 126 (House of Commons Debates of March 29, 1972) and 2,584 (House of Commons Debates of December 19, 1973).


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 56, 58, 60, 61 and 62 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations with regard to confidential documents and the authorization of public authorities concerned.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Howie: How many firms in Quebec were given incentive grants by DREE from April 1, 1973 to September 30, 1975 and how many are not currently operating?


Marcel Lessard: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 716 firms in Quebec were given incentive grants from April 1, 1973 to September 30, 1975, eight of which are not currently operating.


DREE-QUEBEC FIRMS IN RECEIPT OF GUARANTEED LOANS
Mr. Howie: How many firms in Quebec had loans guaranteed by DREE from April 1, 1973 to September 30, 1975 (a) what was the total amount of the guarantees (b) how many of the firms are not currently operating (c) what was the total amount of guarantees to the firms not currently operating?


REMOVAL OF PROVISION ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES FOR ADVERTISING IN NON-CANADIAN PERIODICALS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, June 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, when this House adjourned the debate on Bill C-58 last June 4, I was in the process of putting to hon. members

November 12, 1975

excerpts from the overwhelming response received from my constituents in favour of Reader's Digest. Perhaps I should remind the government that on this bill there have been 38 speakers, including the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) who introduced the motion. Of these, only ten speakers have been in favour of the provisions of this measure where magazines are concerned. Moreover, of the eleven speakers from the government side of the House, only seven could be found to support it. Of these seven, one, the former minister of communications, Mr. Pelletier, has resigned from the government and his nominated successor, Mr. Juneau, was roundly defeated in a by-election.
These facts, coupled with the overwhelming protests which hon. members have received from their constituents about the provisions as they concern Reader's Digest and its French language counterpart in Canada, are a clear and straightforward indication of the immense unpopularity of what the government is trying to do with the magazine portion of this bill. What is the government trying to do? Its stated purpose is to help the Canadian magazine industry. It has used as its guiding principle the special Senate report on the mass media. This inquiry drew attention to two major problems. The first was the overflow circulation of U.S. magazines which have never been published in this country but which sends copies across the border to be sold on Canadian newsstands. Reader's Digest does not fall into this category. The second major problem as identified by the special Senate committee is the intense competition for advertising revenues among radio, television, newspaper and magazines.
Let me give this House some figures on this subject. Magazines coming from abroad circulated approximately
182.000.	000 copies in Canada in 1974, according to the audit bureau of circulation reports. This compares with approximately 418,000,000 copies of Canadian magazines, not counting the circulation of Reader's Digest and Time. The
418.000.	000 figure includes the circulation of mass circulation magazines like Maclean's and Chatelaine, the Weekend Magazine supplements and the controlled circulation consumer magazines. It does not include the wide variety of business and trade magazines put out by Canadian publishers. From these figures it can be seen that Canadian magazines outnumber magazine imports by better than two to one. Thus, the Senate special committee was able to report that most magazine publishers in Canada do not think of overflow circulation as a primary problem; it is simply part of the environment.
Where advertising revenues are concerned, the picture is a little different. In this competition, newspapers are the big winners. Of the approximately $1.5 billion spent on advertising in Canada, newspapers took $458 million in 1974-the last year for which there are figures-television took $225 million, radio took $176 million and those magazines with which Bill C-58 is concerned took a mere $37 million. The share of magazines amounts to a mere 2.3 per cent of the total spent in Canada on advertising. On this point, the Senate special committee said the following:
Magazine publishers are painfully aware of the competition for advertising revenues from other media. It is a scramble between radio, television, newspapers and magazines for available advertising dollars
Non-Canadian Publications
and for the attention of audiences. Between 1954 and 1968, magazines' share of total advertising revenues dropped from 4.2 per cent to 2.4 per cent.
Bill C-58 does nothing to tackle either of these major problems, as pointed out by the Senate special committee. On the contrary, it proposes to weaken the industry by denying advertisers an important magazine medium. It will force them further into television, radio and newspapers to get the audiences they need. This will weaken the magazine reading habit amoung Canadians, create a monopoly for the Maclean-Hunter group of consumer magazines, and force a magazine that has honourably published in Canada for the better part of 30 years into a critical loss position.
The Association of Canadian Advertisers has stated that Bill C-58 would-
-tend to weaken the whole magazine field as a medium in Canada compared to the strength of television, radio and daily newspapers. Past experience has shown that taxes or other financial restriction ... did not help Canadian magazines but, on the contrary, caused a total loss of advertising lineage in the 12 magazines that were members of the then magazine advertising bureau.
The federal government's own advertising program has not been redesigned to lend strong support to consumer magazines. Data from Elliott Research Ltd. shows that in 1974, of federal government expenditures of $8,873,000 on advertising in six media, daily newspapers received 49.1 per cent, television received 24 per cent, radio received 12.6 per cent, and magazines received 6.1 per cent or a little better than $540,000. So much for the government's desire to help magazines.
What is the target of the government's magazine policy? As we know from our mail and the comments of the Secretary of State, Reader's Digest is one of the targets. This House hardly needs reminding that Reader's Digest has established itself in Canada as a good corporate citizen. It has conformed to every guideline for good corporate citizenship ever produced by a Canadian government. I draw the attention of the House to the new principles of international business conduct issued by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as recently as July 18 of this year. Reader's Digest meets or exceeds all of those guidelines and has done so for many years. More than 30 per cent of its share capital is traded on the Montreal and Toronto stock exchanges. Five out of six of its directors are Canadian citizens of distinction who made public contributions to this country of extraordinary merit.
I think of Dr. Davidson Dunton, the director of the Institute of Canadian Studies at Carleton University, onetime chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicultural-ism, and Mr. Jean Martineau, formerly chairman of the Canada Council. Such men are not going to lend their names to a corporation which does not serve the interests of this country.
Reader's Digest conducts all its publishing operation in Canada. It directly employs, as I said earlier, 500 people in its Canadian publishing operation. Another 1,000 people are indirectly employed in papermaking, inkmaking, printing and distribution. Its magazines are entirely edited in Canada by Canadian editors for Canadian readers. More than 90 per cent of its annual revenues stay in Canada. The Canadian content of its magazines, the equivalent in major
8990

Non-Canadian Publications
articles to that of major consumer magazines in Canada, is circulated around the world to other Digest editions and can receive an exposure of up to 100,000,000 readers in 13 languages.
The corporation is a Canadian taxpayer, as are all its employees. The company's operations resulted in a payment to the Canadian Post Office in fiscal year 1975 for first, second and third-class mail of $2,774,548. Madam Speaker, that is a great deal of money. I would point out that in the year before they cut back, it reached the amount of $3,900,000. If that is not considered good corporate business and a good deal for the Canadian Post Office and the Canadian government, I do not know what is. Is the objective of this legislation to drive such an operation out of the country? If it is, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that Canada will be the loser.
The unpopularity of moving against this company is well documented. A Gallup poll released in January of this year, conducted among Canadians at large, showed that less than 1 per cent of the Canadian public wanted the Digest to lose its present position in Canada. Research among Digest readers showed that 94.5 per cent say that they believe the Digest is "serving the Canadian purpose" as defined by the Secretary of State. The same survey showed that 82.5 per cent of Canadian Digest readers would disapprove of legislation that disallowed the expenses of advertisers in the Digest for tax purposes.
I might point out, Madam Speaker, that a poll of a great many readers in my area showed that a lot of them wanted the magazine. They said they did not think Reader's Digest should get an unfair advantage over Canadian magazines, however, by being allowed additional expenses. In other words, they were given the erroneous idea-whether by the press or other means-that there was actually additional revenue available to Reader's Digest that was not available to Canadian magazines.
The Secretary of State says that he wants to put Reader's Digest on the same footing with foreign magazines coming into the country. What is his reason today? When section 19 of the Income Tax Act was passed in 1965-in those days it was section 12(a)-the Liberal government of the day recognized that the Digest had had a prior history of corporate citizenship in Canada unmatched by any other foreign publication. It recognized that this magazine was serving the Canadian purpose and acted accordingly by not deeming the Digest to be a non-Canadian periodical. This was unquestionably behind the Digest's decision to sell part of its equity in Canada to Canadians in 1968. Its contribution to citizenship has increased progressively from the beginning. Its contribution to our nation's culture has increased also. Some 200 Canadian writers have appeared in its pages in the last ten years. It has developed some distinguished Canadian books.
Bill C-58 will not remove special tax privileges accruing to Reader's Digest, because there are not any. The bill will create special penalties that will put the Digest on the same footing as magazines like Playboy, Penthouse and such magazines which appeal to the more prurient interests of their readers. These magazines have never been published in Canada. They have no editorial staff here. They make no attempt to select their material for Canadian readers. They make no investment or commitment to this country. Read-

er's Digest does, and has done in the past. But this bill says to Reader's Digest, "sell out." It also says, according to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen), "Sell out", and the new owners cannot publish Reader's Digest in the form that has made it so popular.
Reader's Digest has specialized from its inception in the republication and condensation of articles that have already appeared in print. It is a digest. That is what its immense popularity is based on. The ability of its editors to select material of enduring interest, in convenient form, is its stock-in-trade. The interpretation of the act by the Minister of National Revenue would make that impossible. It would also deny the Digest the right to become a Canadian magazine and operate under its licence even if it did meet the ownership criteria.
How does this happen? The act stipulates that Canadian magazines must not publish under licensing agreements to foreign publications. The Digest has such a licensing agreement. It constitutes the company's sole legal right to use the Reader's Digest name on the magazines and other products, and to publish material from other Digest editions. The licence protects from unscrupulous use the rights and materials of the many authors who write for the Digest worldwide. No such licencing clause applies to newspapers, and thus the act applies a double standard in its provisions for newspapers and magazines.
The second key clause contains a similar discrimination. It requires that to be considered Canadian, issues of a Canadian magazine must not be substantially the same as one or more issues of one or more foreign periodicals. Again, no such restriction applies to newspapers. Yet the basis of the Digest's worldwide editorial operation is an exchange of articles of international origin and universal interest. Therefore, if the conditions of the act are to be met, a drastic change in the magazine's content and character would be necessary to make Reader's Digest selections different from what they are now. If such a change were made, editors of the Digest in Canada could no longer include in their editions material drawn from traditional Digest sources. No publisher and no reader can properly support such a grave restriction on a magazine's editorial freedoms. Nor should this House. While the licensing and substantially the same clauses remain in the act, there is no practical opportunity for the Digest as it now exists to be accepted as a Canadian magazine for tax purposes.
It is said that because of its licence the Digest has unfair advantages over Canadian magazines because the company has access at nominal cost to editorial material which is dumped in Canada. By definition, dumping is the importation and sale of a product, virtually unchanged, at a price lower than that charged in the originating country, so enabling a firm to undercut local competition. But Canadian Digest editions sell for the same basic price in Canada as in the United States and for a higher price than either of their major competitors, Maclean's and Chatelaine. Canadian Digest advertising rates, for a smaller page, are proportionately higher than in the U.S. and competitive with those of Canadian magazines. Moreover, the content of the Digest in Canada is selected by Canadian editors and fully edited for Canada. Dumping is not a factor where the Digest is concerned.
November 12, 1975

The Canadian Digest's method of paying for its foreign material is similar in principle to that of Canadian newspapers which subscribe to foreign and domestic news services and purchase rights to that material at less than the cost required to produce it. Readers and publishers thus benefit from the international news relayed by Associated Press, Reuters, and the comics, crosswords and columns provided by U.S. newspaper syndicates.
I should also be emphasized that articles on science, medical health and physical fitness and international news are of great interest to Canadian readers as they are of a global nature and would, of course, be classed as foreign material. None of these could be economically provided without the sharing of cost made possible by multiple use. The same principle applies to Digest material that originates in the British, German, Australian, U.S. or any Digest edition. The Canadian editions, I am informed, pay a pro rata share of development costs for publishing rights to the material they print. The same principle, quite obviously, applies to the new Maclean's magazine to which this bill will give a monopoly if it is passed. The publisher of this magazine, Mr. Lloyd Hodgkinson, said recently in a public statement:
Over the years Maclean-Hunter has built a formidable international communications empire. (Its size and scope may well astonish you. Its size and scope often astonish us). In Canada, we're involved in 101 various businesses, technical, consumer and special interest magazines and newspapers including Le Maclean, Chatelaine, Financial Post, the Medial Post; five radio stations; a TV station, cable TV and programming services. In England we produce 12 business and technical magazines. In the U.S. we have eight business journals and three cable TV systems. In South Africa, four magazines and six marketing services. In Europe, we co-produce six media publications in the key cities of Paris, Frankfurt, Milan, Vienna, and as of 1975 we're in the publishing business in Brazil.
These are the resources, Madam Speaker, that are to be put at the disposal of the new Maclean's. Is this the tender flower we are being asked to protect with Bill C-58? While looking through the Globe and Mail on November 5 I saw further evidence of how tenderly the competitors of Reader's Digest need to be nurtured. Homemaker's magazine and Madame au Foyer expect to become the largest consumer magazine in Canada, at 1.5 million circulation in 1976. The Globe and Mail reported that Mr. Edward Gittings, the publisher, said as follows:
-advertising revenue for the three publications-
He included Quest
-for the year will exceed $7 million, up 27 per cent over 1974_
November issues of the three were the best yet with combined revenues of $1.3 million.
This statement, Madam Speaker, comes from the publisher of magazines started in 1966, 1967 and 1971 respectively. That is not bad, when you consider that the Secretary of State said on May 8 in this House that Canadian magazine publishers have been forced to exist for too long in an economic and psychological climate that has not been conducive to growth or new ventures. I submit that competition with other media not within the magazine industry is the important factor in the uncertain climate to which the Secretary of State referred. I demonstrated this with relevant and indisputable figures. I suggest that the Secretary of State should withdraw that portion of Bill C-58 dealing with magazines and bring forward legislation to
Non-Canadian Publications
tackel the real problems of the magazine industry. It should not be a bill that clearly favours one particular publisher who can boast of an international communications empire that astonishes us.
Now I would read an editorial printed in the Toronto Sun of October 30, 1975, entitled "Canadian Content":
The federal government is determined, at any cost to pride and integrity, to be rid of the Canadian editions of Time and Reader's Digest. In the name of Canadian nationalism-and encouraged by those publications anxious to eliminate Goliath rivals that eat up half the available magazine advertising revenue-a dangerous, hypocritical, shabby act is being perpetrated.
Revenue minister Cullen now says a magazine must have 80 per cent Canadian content to qualify as "Canadian", thus entitling advertisers to tax deductions.
The Toronto Star with its knee-jerk nationalism and to hell with competition is all for the regulations. The Globe and Mail frets over the principles involves, and doesn't want government ruling on contents of publications. On this issue we are solidly with the Globe and Mail. (Why, on some days the Globe could barely qualify as "Canadian," so filled is it with material from the New York Times, Condon Observer, and Economist, not to mention AP and UPP. And it is a better paper because of its international scope.)
Content of publications is none of the government's business-unless they preach sedition or violence against the state. Government-any government-would love to manage, control, censor and dictate news.
That is true of this government. I continue:
To give any content decisions to government is a step all Canadian should oppose.
Maclean s and Saturday Night would like to see competitors removed from the arena. Understandable. Theirs is a vested interest and a conflict of interest. And their views should be ignored. If they can't hack it and appeal to Canadians on merit alone, then they don't deserve to survive. Time outselling Maclean's in Canada is like the Washington Post having more appeal in Toronto than the Star. An indictment of the home product.
If Canadian publications improved quality, they'll sell more, advertisers would use them more, and they wouldn't need government protection. What the new rules will do, is guarantee mediocrity in our magazines. Surely we've enough of that already.
I quote from the Vancouver Sun:
If there are tears to be shed they are not for two magazines that will, without doubt, continue to provide many of their two million Canadian purchasers-and at least twice as many readers-with a different, American version.
Rather, they are for a country that would allow its laws to be twisted by bureaucratic redefinition to apply to two specific publications, whatever the publications.
I hope that the government will reconsider, and in so far as Reader's Digest is concerned will listen to the great majority of the people in Canada who have said loud and clear that they want Reader's Digest to continue the same as in the past. They are saying to the Secretary of State, 'Mr. Minister, keep your cotton-picking fingers off our magazine."


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the previous speaker made me think-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I can understand the cheering; it is not often that a Conservative spokesman makes me think, but this is one of those instances. He made me think that I do not know of any country in the world which at this point in its history would have this kind of debate taking place.
29956-17%

Non-Canadian Publications
The essence of this bill, whatever the technical details, is that the government, at long last, is saying it is going to remove the special consideration from foreign-owned and controlled publishing companies. Can we think of any other nation where a majority of the speakers in the democratically-elected assembly of the country would be speaking in favour of maintaining foreign control over a major part of its publishing industry? They are speaking against a legislative measure which does not discriminate against them but puts them on precisely the same basis as any other foreign publication. I find it totally indicative of a colonial mentality that we should have managed to twist and turn this piece of legislation into something that it is not. I do not question the honesty and judgment of the previous speaker, but merely his conclusion. He and others have raised the matter of censorship as being at stake here. That is one of the most erroneous elements brought into the debate.
The government, in this instance, has made an appropriate decision. It is a problem of judgment. The decision is not only that tax benefits are not going to go to the two magazines, Time and Reader's Digest; the decision has been made to define a Canadian publication as, among other things, meeting the requirement of 80 per cent Canadian content. The purpose is not to stop those publications from being sold in Canada. If that were the case, I would be with the hon. member 100 per cent, because in my judgment that is where the issue of censorship would come in. All it does is remove a publication that does not meet those requirements from getting the same tax benefits as Canadian publications.
In this case, Time, and Reader's Digest will be in the same position as Newsweek, Playboy and all the other publications that come from south of the border. That is all. It is not that they cannot come into Canada or that we will put up tariffs to inhibit the free flow of thought. All this bill is saying is that the Canadian taxpayer will not give them a special concession. I agree that it is an element of judgment. How do you make a precise judgment of what is 80 per cent? I agree with the hon. member that there is no fixed and firm rule that will guide the people in National Revenue. However, there are other tax laws in which the element of judgment also plays a role. Frankly, I think the 80 per cent Canadian content rule makes sense if they are to benefit from Canadian tax law.
Where there is a mistake in judgment with regard to a taxation matter, that can of course be serious. There must be the right of appeal and persuasion if there is a wrong decision. However, I want to state categorically that it is misleading to suggest that censorship is involved. That is not the case at all. Publications will be able, and ought to be able, to flow freely into this country no matter what their source.
I am speaking on this, the sixth day of this debate, in the earnest hope that we will be able to vote on this issue today. As I said earlier, I can think of no other country in the world that would conceive of giving special tax concessions to publications owned and controlled outside its borders. The least we can do is to remove the special tax benefit from such publications and put them on the same basis as other foreign publications. Canadians can then read them. Canadians will continue to do so. However, it is

time we put them on the same basis as other publications in Canada so that we will get some of the revenue flow from advertising going into genuine Canadian magazines. I understand that about 48 per cent of all magazine advertising revenue in Canada goes to Time and Reader's Digest. Hopefully, it will find its way into publications that are written, controlled, edited and owned by Canadians. Hopefully, we will then get a better periodical press in Canada which reflects a distinctively Canadian point of view.
Much has been made that legislation will benefit Maclean's. I am certainly no great advocate of Maclean's magazine or the interests that control it. I will say, however, that as a Canadian-owned and controlled publication, in terms of our tax law it should be different from a publication which is owned and controlled by a foreign operation and is a publication with substantially foreign content. Surely, that is what the legislation is all about: it is nothing more substantial, positive or negative, than that.
I cannot understand the mistaken view that this is censorship. That is what a lot of Canadians think. They believe that in the future they will not be able to buy Time or Reader's Digest. But that is not the case.
I, like other members, have received a lot of mail from both inside and outside my constituency expressing the view that Time and Reader's Digest should be permitted to continue in Canada. I have written back saying that I agree they should be permitted to continue but that is not the issue. The issue is whether they should continue with special tax considerations that are not available to other foreign publications, and because of this we encourage revenue to go into publications which in my view would be more appropriately funnelled into those presently being generated within our borders.
It is interesting to note that the majority of Conservative spokesman have attacked this measure. I understood from their initial speakers that they would support the bill. It is now evident that they are not going to support it. That is unfortunate. The royal commission set up many years ago by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) recommended that the government remove these special considerations for Time and Reader's Digest. It was not done then by a Conservative government. It ought to have been done.
I regret the fact that the Conservative party, of all parties, a party which should have a special interest in the traditions of the nation, an interest in Canada forming a serious sense of its own role in the world and of its own past and the creation of its own future, should take the position of defending Time and Reader's Digest it terms of the tax situation. I would not be very surprised if it were the Liberals. After all, for years they have specialized in selling Canada out to foreign corporations. Nevertheless, in this one area, I am glad to say, the government has decided to remove the special considerations given to these foreign-owned corporations.
I will conclude by saying that I hope this is the last day of the debate, that we can come to vote and that the special privileges accorded to Time and Reader's Digest will be ended. These magazines will continue to be sold in this country, like Playboy, after the legislation has been passed.

People will still buy them and, hopefully, some of the money which is now going into the advertising coffers of those two publications will find its way into Canadian periodicals, not simply Maclean's but a number of others located outside Toronto, contributing to the birth of a healthy and vital, Canadian-owned, Canadian-controlled and Canadian-written magazine industry.


Mr. MacLean:: Would the hon. member permit a question? It stems from his reasoning, which I followed with a great deal of interest. He argued that Time, Reader's Digest and other foreign magazines designed primarily for a foreign market should not be granted any tax benefit in Canada simply because they set up plant for the physical productions of their magazines in this country. Would he apply that same reasoning to automobile manufacturers- General Motors, for example-who design a car primarily with the United States in mind and then set up manufacturing plant in Canada? Should these corporations be deprived of Canadian tax benefits?


John Edward Broadbent: The question is an entirely reasonable one and I hope my answer is a reasonable one also. The hon. member has put his finger on two aspects of publishing; first, the location o f plant and, second, the origin of content. I am supporting the legislation because it says that conditions covering each of these aspects have to be met. In the case of the automotive industry, I accept it would be desirable to embody a requirement in the Canada-United States agreement specifying that a certain percentage of the research and development work would have to be done in Canada. In other words, we would not become merely an assembly plant operation. I have stated this publicly on a number of occasions. I, for one, would favour the adoption of requirements to ensure that a substantial portion of the creative part of the industry would be undertaken in Canada. Thus, I believe my position is a consistent one.


John Angus MacLean: And that automobiles should be designed for the Canadian climate?


John Edward Broadbent: Certainly.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Madam Speaker, I should like to take part in this debate for the purpose of opposing the legislation which has been presented by the government. What we have here, to my mind, amounts to non-tariff protection for two or three magazines, primarily Maclean's and Saturday Night, neither of which I consider makes much contribution to the periodical press of Canada or to the advancement of Canada generally. We have problems in the periodical press industry, but I do not think this legislation is going to solve them. I suppose the basic one is that our population is fairly small and that it is divided into two major language groups. Of our 22 million people, approximately 6 million read in French and the other 16 million do their reading in English. To compound the problem, the English part of the industry is centred in the city of Toronto.
As a result, tne product of that industry is not as appealing as it should be to Canadians of the English tongue across the country. It can also be said that the product of this Toronto media centre is probably not too appealing to those who live 50 or 60 miles outside the city. There are
Non-Canadian Publications
many in Ontario who do not feel that Toronto is representative of their aims, desires or feelings about this country. Most Canadians are not concerned about the problems which are discussed on Bloor and Yonge streets.
As far as I am concerned, Maclean's claim to be Canada's national magazine is entirely fraudulent. I know they make an apparent attempt to show they have input from all parts of the country. Take, for example, Heather Robertson who has participated in articles for that magazine. She claims to come from the province of Saskatchewan, and I suppose the magazine hopes to impress Canadians by having a Saskatchewan point of view through looking at her output. But I would suggest that when you employ that type of person, she is really ashamed of the area from which she sprang. Some of her output, particularly the book "Grassroots of the Prairies," I would say was written by a person who is ashamed of the area from which she sprang. She brings that attitude toward her writings in Maclean's magazine and I think this is one reason it is not as popular as it should be.
Therefore, what we find in Maclean's and Saturday Night, as the two main English publications in the popular English press, is a rather parochial product appealing to a very limited number of people. It is important for the country as a whole to have access to events abroad, which these magazines have not been very successful in providing us with, and it is important to have the very best type of writing done with regard to our own Canadian affairs. I have always found these things in the Canadian section of Time which, I am happy to see, has recently been expanded. I suppose the government can be congratulated in that regard, because if it had not brought forward legislation to encourage improvement, perhaps we would not have seen that expansion. There should be government action to improve and expand avenues to good news reporting about this country and the world at large for Canadians. I think Time magazine does an excellent job. Reader's Digest also provides this window on the world which is important to Canadians.
Let us look at the product of our own publications. I have with me today the November 17 issue of Maclean's, the most recent issue of this newly-structured magazine that now appears twice a month in anticipation of the passage of this bill. It is of interest to note that in this magazine there are in excess of 25 full pages devoted to liquor advertising. I do not often agree with the premier of Manitoba, but I do agree with his recent call for taking away the privilege of allowing as an expense the cost of liquor advertising.
However, I do not know what Maclean's Would do without all its advertising revenue. Certainly, liquor advertising is the largest single category of advertising in the magazine. Of the 92 pages in the issue, including the four cover pages, over 25 pages are devoted exclusively to the advertising of liquor. This indicates the dominant role which that industry will play in the future of Maclean's magazine. I do not think it is a healthy one, one that should be encouraged, yet apparently the government wishes to encourage it by reducing competition from other magazines.

November 12, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
Apart from liquor advertising, the second most common advertisements are those of the travel industry and automobile companies. These are all foreign-controlled, as are the bulk of the liquor advertisers. So who are we promoting? I suppose it could be said that we are promoting the product of foreign companies, and I do not think this is very essential to this country.
In addition to the government being unhappy about effective Canadian ownership of Time and of Reader's Digest, the government seems to wish to control the editorial comment of those magazines. I think this is a very dangerous step. We have already seen that the government does not mind using its authority to punish those who disagree with it. We have the recent example of the federal government withholding the advertising of its current campaign to reduce the use of energy in the Montreal paper Le Jour because it did not agree with the editorial policy of Le Jour. Thus, it is not averse to using its authority to back up its own political views.
For the government to demand that the content of a magazine, even though it is owned primarily by Canadians, must be 80 per cent different from that of the parent magazine is a very dangerous step. It seems to me a rather artificial or arbitrary way to act. The decision is a subjective one, as well, because one person's idea of difference may vary from that of another. I do not see how you can say that news or news-based stories should be 80 per cent different from those of the parent publication if one is at all interested in accuracy or fairness in the reporting of news. Also, as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) clearly pointed out, there will be loss of revenue to Canadians as a result of jobs lost if this measure is successful in driving Time and Reader's Digest out of Canada.
It is also of interest to note that when Reader's Digest came to Canada a certain percentage of our population subscribed to it. This percentage has not changed in all the years it has been printed in this country. I suggest that if Reader's Digest were forced to cease publication in Canada, there would still be as many people buying the magazine as before, with the difference that our Post Office would lose several million dollars revenue but would still be required to carry the magazine to Canadian readers. Those who print the magazine in Canada would be out of a job, and if they did not find another job they would become the recipients of unemployment insurance or welfare and would not pay income tax. Neither would the companies. Thus, we would have suffered the loss of what is, in effect, the Canadianization or Canadian view of foreign happenings as presented by very talented people in a way that has not been copied by any other existing journal in Canada.
I should like to close by quoting an article that appeared in the Calgary Herald on Monday, October 27, 1975-a paper that is also concerned about this question:
Government control of magazine content, backed up by changes in the tax laws, is being used as part of an effort to destroy Time and Reader's Digest in Canada.
That is a very dangerous precedent, even if the aim-to make fully Canadian magazines more viable-is praiseworthy. The regulations are not, strictly speaking, censorship. However, they tend to legitimize a mechanism for government interference in the decisions of a publisher. They also tend to create a climate which discourages vigorous criticism of the federal government-a disturbingly authoritarian government, at

times. Donald Macdonald's decision to withhold federal advertising from a Montreal separatist newspaper is significant in retrospect. When a government begins to take measures against publications whose editorial position it dislikes, the habit can quickly become ingrained.
The government's action against Time and Reader's Digest, admittedly, is not intended to silence voices of dissent. The hope is that stifling these two magazines will enable Maclean's, Saturday Night and the like to breathe more freely, commercially speaking. But no matter how noble its purpose, a government that sets out to destroy or financially cripple a magazine bears watching. It might develop a taste for blood.
That is my great fear. Already we have had an example of what this government likes to do concerning people who do not agree with it. I think that if we allow a situation to develop in which editorial content will have to be 80 per cent different in relation to a certain publication, we will have the government imposing itself in an area in which it definitely should not be.
I should also like to point out that I do not see how these things can be considered as concessions. It is said that Time and Reader's Digest have received great concessions, as if we have been giving them something. I suppose they have concessions so far as U.S. News Report is concerned, but they do not have any concessions in relation to Maclean's, Saturday Night or any other periodical in this country. I do not like the use of that term. They are not on the same footing. I submit that if there were great merit to the product of Maclean's and Saturday Night, they would be able to compete and they would be in a position to grow in this climate. It has been perfectly obvious over the last number of years that they have been unable to do so. I do not see why the level of journalism should be dragged down to a lesser level just because these are wholly-owned Canadian publications.
There is also the question of what this bill will do in respect of professional journals. This measure could inhibit those publications which are necessary for the development of the country, economically speaking if not culturally speaking. I suggest it is not proper for the government to propose measures the only effect of which will be to drag down the level of journalism in this country and give the government the tools with which to impose control over its people.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Madam Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate on Bill C-58 one should point out that basically it affects four things.


An hon. Member:: Are you for the people?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, I am for the people. The great difficulty the present government has is in determining whether it understands the people and whether it is prepared to listen to the people. There is a very significant difference. That party just went through some kind of a conference in which a selected few had the right to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and their other leaders one question.


An hon. Member:: That is wrong. You are talking through your hat.


An hon. Member:: You hit a sensitive spot. Keep going.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Non-Canadian Publications
A moment ago I was interrupted by someone who asked who was listening to the people. I wish the readers of Reader's Digest would be listened to by the government. Perhaps one in 300,000 or one in 400,000 agree with Bill C-58, but the rest do not; the rest wish the government would allow Reader's Digest to continue its work of serving the Canadian people.
Time is a peculiar magazine. It has been in plenty of hot water in the past. Sometimes it is not too flattering to us, the politicians in Canada, and sometimes we do not particularly like it for that reason. But I think it should be judged on its ability to provide a necessary service to Canadian readers. Time magazine has been in my home for so long that I cannot remember when we first began to subscribe to it. It was in my parents' home for so long that I cannot remember the time when it was not around.
Why did I feel I should subscribe to it? It gives a summary of current events in Canada, the U.S. and the rest of the world. I am not ashamed of wanting to read what is happening in the United States. Whether Canadians like it or not, we are tied to that country by something like 4,500 miles of border that separates us. Our trade is closely linked with the U.S. Some 65 per cent of the goods we import are from the U.S. and some 65 per cent of the goods we export go to the U.S. It behooves every Canadian to know what is going on in the United States. We can better prepare ourselves for conditions which may occur here in Canada.
It is sometimes said that our economy lags behind that of the U.S. by around six months; that what is happening in the U.S. will happen here in six months' time. I do not know if it is a rule of thumb at all times, but certainly it behooves any Canadian who wants to keep abreast of world affairs to read not only the Canadian section of Time magazine but some of the American content and some of the world content. One might wonder why one should read the Canadian content in Time magazine. As a member of parliament, I am supposed to be well informed on Canadian politics. I can honestly say that, apart from reading Canadian daily newspapers, I like to read Time magazine where the news is summed up-whether correctly or incorrectly does not matter. On some occasions I agree with them, and on others I do not; nevertheless, they put out the best weekly capsule on current Canadian news that I have been able to read.
I might say that I have subscribed to Maclean's magazine for a number of years. It has been the wish of Maclean's management to send me, personally, a copy, so that we get two copies of Maclean's in my household. Maclean's does not contain, yet, a weekly or bi-weekly summary of the news. I could complain at length about the format of the new Maclean's magazine, but I do not want to complain about it. The argument here is whether or not it needs protection from Time magazine, which receives similar advantages under the Income Tax Act.
It is not amusing for me, as a longtime student of politics, to see the recent trend in the Liberal party. We seethe present young minister attempting to bring in protection for Canadian publications, we see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) attempting to bring in protec

tion in the field of agriculture, and we see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the Minister of National
[Mr. Homer.J
Defence (Mr. Richardson) trying to bring in protection for Canadians under their jurisdictions.


Mr. Symes:: It is almost as if they were Conservatives.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, Conservatives of the 1911 era. Some protection was warranted in 1911, 1912 and 1920, but surely it is not warranted today, either in agriculture or in the news magazine field. In my opinion, this whole question has not been adequately aired. I know that one should not use colour, but it is interesting to see that this bill has been piloted by three rather green and naive ministers. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) at one time was involved with this bill. There was the former .minister of communications and the new Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen). They are all ministers doing what they are told. Where does this lead us? The Montreal Star-


An hon. Member:: Oh, ph!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: 
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is a good NDP area.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: that Canadians learn so much about Patty Hearst that she must be some kind of Canadian heroine.
Some time ago one of the proponents of the Company of Independent Canada did a study of Canadian school children. He posed a series of questions to school children and was appalled by the answers he received and by how often Canadian children were incorrect. Some of those children were as high as grade 12 but they knew little about Canada and Canadians. Is it the fault of Time magazine, or Reader's Digest, that young people are so ill-informed about Canada? No. I suggest that young Canadians are not avid readers of Time and Reader's Digest, although they should be. Young people are ill-informed about Canada because it is not dealt with on the national news on television or by the daily headlines in newspapers. If one were to consider the percentage of Canadian news broadcast every evening on CBC and CTV, one would become alarmed. Little wonder Canadian students are so well informed about whether Patty Hearst is mentally sound or able to stand trial. Why should Canadians know about that? I do not think she is a heroine of any particular cause in which Canadians should become involved. Canadians were well indoctrinated with respect to the Viet Nam war by the national news media.


Reginald Cyril Symes: And Time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That may be so, but Time never covered that story so comprehensively as the national news media. If we are so concerned about Canadian content, let us go where the most persuasive forces are really at work, the national news media, and not to independent television stations sitting along the border trying to be good corporate citizens. I am thinking particularly about a situation in the Vancouver area.


Miss Campbell:: Pirate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A pirate is anyone who steals the property of someone else.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: And money.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Many ideas have been stolen from one political party or another and I am not going to get into the question of pirates, but I believe that many of these television stations are attempting to become good Canadian corporate citizens. It is wise for the Canadian government to lay down guidelines for them to become good Canadian corporate citizens, but those guidelines should not make it impossible for them to be good Canadian corporate citizens-that and is what this bill is doing to Reader's Digest particularly, and to some of the television stations operating close to the Canadian border. Certainly, exceptions will have to be made for daily newspapers such as the Red Deer Advocate and a couple of others operating in Canada.
The minister should fully explain why the government wants this legislation. If the government does not explain it any better than it has to date, it will have failed. According to the people I have been listening to, the government has failed to convince them. It has failed to convince the news magazine business.
I am not arguing the fact that the government has failed to convince Maclean's magazine. That magazine would like
Non-Canadian Publications
to get Time out of the road; then it would have a monopoly. Who would be better served by a monopoly? Just recently the Minister of Transport said he believed in competition in the transportation field, and when he is not throwing Air Canada to the wolves he leads us to believe that he is going to give CP Air some advantages it has not had until now because of the theory of competition. Yet here we have another minister acting in a directly opposite manner by attempting to force Time magazine out of business and making it more costly for Time to produce its Canadian version, because he wants to be rid of competition. He wants to help Maclean's magazine, and I do not doubt that Peter Newman and company will favour him in the next election-and his leader, whoever that might be. I suppose that Maclean's will go down in history as a Liberal rag. I hope its future is brighter than that. I hope it will continue to publish in spite of good competition from Time magazine.
I think Time magazine does publish a Canadian version. They pay specific attention to Canada on six or eight of the front pages, and that is worth something. Canadians should be entitled to read those six or eight pages as well as some news from the United States and other parts of the world, just as we are entitled to view happenings from all over the world on our late night television news. We know more about the dispute in Northern Ireland than our proximity to Ireland warrants. The nightly news programs became tired of that issue and aired another. They follow trends. I suppose we will now get a large dose of Australian parliamentary problems, and maybe we should; I am not complaining about it.
My complaint is that in this legislation the government is attempting to prohibit me, my constituents and people across Canada who think as I do reading about these events in Reader's Digest, Time magazine or the Red Deer Advocate, or seeing it on the TV stations. They are all attempting to become good corporate citizens and for one reason or other have found it an advantage to become established at or near the border.
When the legislation goes before the standing committee and witnesses are called, I hope the minister in charge of it will listen to them. As a result, perhaps he will bring in different legislation which will not lay him open to the charge of censorship. I like the minister, Madam Speaker, and 1 do not think he wants censorship. I think he owes it to himself and his constituents, however, to attempt to remove that stigma. In a free country, censorship is perhaps the most damning accusation that could be levelled against anyone.


Mr. Faulkner:: If it were true.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: 
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate shall be very brief. I hope that the debate in future will be as brief as my statement. I point out that Bill C-58 originated in a notice of ways and means tabled on April 17, 1975. That notice of ways and means was concurred in on April 18, 1975, and the bill was given first reading on that day. The bill was debated at second reading on May 8, 16, 20 and 26 as well as on June 4 and, of course, today.
It is the government's opinion that the issues raised by this bill would be best resolved after full committee hearings. I was very happy to hear this view expressed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). Consequently, I have discussed with my counterparts the question of completing the debate on the motion for second reading and reference to committee of Bill C-58 and I am obliged to report that agreement could not be reached, under the provisions of Standing Order 75A or Standing Order 75B, in respect of proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 75C I hereby give notice that at the next sitting of the House I shall move that not more than five additional hours shall be allotted to the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the said bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Closure on censorship.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) labelled the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) as the minister of censorship. Now the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) has risen and placed closure on the House of Commons on a censorship bill.


James Hugh Faulkner: It is not a censorship bill.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The NDP held the balance of power.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: But you blew that, son! Now the government is to use its majority to force the bill through on second reading. This is a sad day for the people of Canada. Hon. members may say that our fears are groundless, that we are hoisting false danger signals. We are not. We say it is dangerous for the government to be involved in censorship and to say what we can and cannot read or see. Now, when the country is enduring for the fourth week a national postal strike and hearing the government explaining its restraint program, we are debating this particular issue the outcome of which will determine if certain magazines are to have the right to exist. On top of this, the government seeks to invoke closure. Where are the government's priorities? This is a sad day for Canadians.


Mr. Paproski:: A shameful day.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The government unabashedly admits it is willing to close the debate. It will not listen to our representations; it will do as it jolly well pleases. Has not almost every member of this House received letters from average Canadians who support the continued existence of Reader's Digest and Time? Do these letters not ask us not to impose closure? I submit that almost every hon. member has received such letters which are overwhelmingly in favour of the retention of Reader's Digest and Time, and oppose Bill C-58. But the government will not listen. I challenge government backbenchers not to remain silent but to speak and tell us they are concerned about the implications of Bill C-58. Let them speak their true feelings.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are afraid.
November 12, 1975


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Why are they afraid? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. They fear that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his annual bestowal of parliamentary secretaryships and other goodies, will pass them by.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He does not even do that any more.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Consequently, they remain silent. How will the 80 per cent content rule affect Canadians? How will it affect our daily newspapers?


Steve Eugene Paproski: They will be next.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am concerned, as I am convinced that the government's action could involve the censorship of our daily newspapers. They receive news stories from United Press International, which is not a Canadian news dispensing service, from Reuters, from independent writers and from Canadian Press. How is the content of some daily newspapers to be 80 per cent different from, say, that of their counterparts in the United States? For example, must the content of a Windsor newspaper be 80 per cent different from the material printed in some newspaper across the river, in Detroit? At present, the 80 per cent rule affects only Reader's Digest and Time. But when will it affect others? After all, why should not the government, which will close this debate, not take the next step?
What about television? Let me tell hon. members something that happened in my riding. For several years, near one extremity of my riding, people were able to receive the television signals of station KCND, situated near Pembina, North Dakota. That was the only television signal available in the area. What happened? Suddenly, that television station was called a pirate. Why? It was situated in the United States and was beaming signals into Canada. Manitoba advertisers were advertising on that television station and people in the southeastern part of the province picked up the television signal. What happened? The hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) called the station a pirate, said it took our money and was against it. I point out that the CBC did not provide service in the area.


Iona Campagnolo: The CBC could provide service if it had more money.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Let me tell you what happened. Certain influential people said that television KCND was siphoning away Canadian advertising dollars and that advertisers on that station should not be able to deduct their expenses for tax purposes. In the end, the television station was sold. Another station, CKND, beamed programs from Winnipeg; only the call letters were changed. In the end, southeastern Manitoba was without television coverage. Station KCND had been called a pirate. After all, it was American and we were not to watch it. It was sold. So far the CBC does not provide television coverage, either in English or French, and the CTV network does not cover the area. In the end, we presented two petitions, one to the Secretary of State, who answers in this House for the CBC, and one to the CRTC. What were we told?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Tell us.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We were told, yes, we could get coverage. But before hon. members leap for joy, let me tell them when it
Non-Canadian Publications
is to be. In 1978 there is to be an application and-just perhaps-we shall be given television coverage by 1980. I raise this issue to show what government interference can do. The same can happen under this bill. I will not mention what is happening to cable; that is another topic.
The question is, if Reader's Digest and Time in their present forms are discontinued, will Canadians buy more Canadian publications? Is that the way to build the Canadian publishing industry? Clearly, a magazine's major competitor for advertising revenue is not another magazine; it is the other forms of the media. I suggest that radio and television siphon off a much larger proportion of advertising dollars than some hon. members are willing to admit.
When making a comparison with other countries we find that magazines in Canada receive a smaller percentage of the total advertising dollar than those of other industrial nations. In Canada, this is approximately 2.3 per cent of the revenue generated by advertising, in the United States it is 6.5 per cent, in the United Kingdom 8.5 per cent, in France 16.8 per cent, and in West Germany 27.9 per cent. I sincerely question whether the Canadian publishing industry has in the past been publishing the type of material Canadians want to read. In a free enterprise system such as we have, whether or not you are going to sell a product depends primarily on whether people are willing to buy it. They will only buy your product if they feel it is useful or will enhance their quality of life.
I believe Canadian magazines today are not struggling because of Time or Reader's Digest but because Canadians, individually, think those magazines are not worthy of their support to anywhere near the degree the magazines expect. Legislating Time and Reader's Digest out of existence does not guarantee that the revenue will go to other Canadian magazines. Quite likely, a lot of it will just dry up. A larger amount will go to other of the media, such as television, if the CRTC does not have a hand in that. If the CRTC is the watchdog of Canadian television, why does it not say to these terrible multinational corporations that the NDP spout about so often, that this is non-Canadian content and therefore should not be used for tax purposes? This can be carried to ridiculous extremes.
What is needed is a Canadian publishing industry that will develop its own magazines in the way that other businesses develop. It should promote the sale of its product and build a reputation over the years. That is how to sell a product; it is not done by asking the government to legislate you into existence by legislating someone else out of existence. In particular, closure should not be used to bring them into existence.
What about the contribution made by Reader's Digest? I believe it has made a very significant contribution to Canadian writers. Stories by Canadian writers have appeared on a frequent, regular basis. For example, Farley Mowat, a writer from Newfoundland, is known right across this country. I believe this is partly because of the coverage he has received in Reader's Digest. In addition, Canadian writers receive recognition through the international connections of Reader's Digest: it publishes in many countries.
29956-18%


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Not in the Conservative party.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You are saying you do not mind that your constituents will be unemployed, unable to find employment.


An hon. Member:: But where is Wagner?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You are saying that it is of no consequence. My hon. friend from Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) has probably spoken on this issue, while you do not have either the ability or the intestinal fortitude to do so.


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


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the reminder. I needed it, and members opposite needed to be bailed out. It has been pointed out that Reader's Digest, as far as direction and management are concerned, is overwhelmingly Canadian. Five out of its six directors are Canadians. Its president and all its officers are Canadian. It has some 600 Canadian shareholders. What about investment? Substantial investments have been made in Canada. I have already pointed out that this publication has helped many Canadian writers. All these things considered, we say the government is taking an entirely negative attitude when it seeks to legislate Reader's Digest out of existence here. One can only wonder at the mentality of members opposite when they bring forward this type of legislation at a time in our history when so many things are going on which make us fear for our future.
We hear it said that Reader's Digest and Time benefit from tax privileges which Canadian publications do not enjoy. But take the case of any businessman operating in Canada today. If he buys equipment or goods from another country, none of us has ever suggested that the money he spends in so doing should not be deductible for tax purposes. I refer hon. members again to the case of the television station in Pembina, North Dakota, to which I drew their attention. It by no means follows that advertising will go to Maclean's or Saturday Night if this legislation is passed. Of course, Maclean's is in favour of this bill. It has a vested interest in its passage. Is the government trying to tell us that Maclean's is more sensitive to Canadian needs than Reader's Digest or Time?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Is that what they are trying to tell those who live somewhat east of Toronto the good, that Maclean's is the only expression of Canadian nationalism?


An hon. Member:: The best.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Is that what you are trying to impose on us?


Mr. Gilbert:: Is that a rhetorical question, or do you want an answer?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I have the answer; it is to be found in the intent of Bill C-58. It is quite clear. Yes, Maclean's is to be the voice of Canada's magazine industry. One gathers this from the bill as well as from the lobby that Maclean's has mounted, one which is as well organized, one might say, as the lobby organized by Time and Reader's Digest-, it has been well organized in both cases. Granted the corporate offices of Time and Reader's Digest are not in Canada, but since when has it become illegal in this country for a company other than a Canadian company to do business here as long as it obeys the laws of Canada? Is this the way to build Canadian nationalism, by legislating it, or a form of it?
November 12, 1975

My last question concerns the subject of censorship. Members opposite will say that this is not a bill which imposes or implies censorship.


An hon. Member:: What about closure?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 
An hon. Member:: 
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 
Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: I have read it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You agree with it?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I said I have read it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I have had as much mail as any member of the House on the issue of Bill C-58. From looking at this mail and reading it carefully, I have ascertained there were 352 letters, at the last count, against the legislation and seven in support of it. This is an issue that has gripped many people, and I am very sorry that the government has seen fit not only to gag its own caucus but to bring in closure to close off debate on the bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame.


William James Kempling: It is not only a shame, it is somewhat disgusting. I should like to refer to an article that appeared in the Montreal Star, entitled "Incendiary". It had this to say:
A group of enthusiasts calling themselves the Canadian Liberation Movement lit a merry blaze on Parliament Hill the other day and burnt copies of Time and the Reader's Digest.
The bonfire, no doubt, was intended to symbolize at once the destruction of a dreaded enemy and the sacred flame of nationalism,


An hon. Member:: You should stand up over there and make a speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) has the floor.


William James Kempling: 
An hon. Member:: Continue.


William James Kempling: You want me to read it all? All right. It goes on to say:
In this day of trashy publications and second-rate writing, the Reader's Digest is a bright and shining star, invariably wholesome, educational and vital. Its scope and appeal are largely dependent on the range of magazines from which it is able to select its outstanding articles. What kind of digest would we be left with if it could glean material only from Canadian magazines? We have two major magazines to choose from - Maclean's and Chatelaine - and a few more limited ones like the United Church Observer - all good publications, but certainly not adequate for a magazine composed entirely of extracts.
After all, many Canadians already subscribe to Chatelaine and Maclean's as we do, and if Reader's Digest had to rely on such repetitive content it would have little appeal.
Then it continues by stating that this is one magazine that is available, above reproach, and so on. The last paragraph reads:

Here is one magazine that is above reproach. So what if there are articles from the American viewpoint? There are also Canadian selections, and English ones, and a good smattering from many other countries. This is what the world needs to bring its peoples into closer harmony. We need to understand various cultures and outlooks, and here they are presented intelligently, along with a wide range of human interest, scientific and historical articles.
It is signed by Rosemary Brown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: As I say, I wish the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby were here.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The one and only Rosemary Brown.


William James Kempling: I would not say that. All I say is that it is signed by Rosemary Brown. I think we should be realistic and look at the contribution made by these magazines. Let us take Reader's Digest. It does $30 million worth of business in Canada. That is considerable. At least 90 per cent of its revenue produced in Canada remains in Canada. It has an investment of something like $8 million in capital assets. Its land is worth a little over half a million dollars. Its buildings are worth $2,700,000. Its machinery is worth $4'/2 million. It employs about 500 people and provides additional employment for about 1,000 others. We should think what would happen to these people. Can this magazine continue? We have heard that Time magazine intends to reduce its advertising rate for Canadians in order to offset the effect of the legislation. So what, really, would the government gain by this legislation?


An hon. Member:: 
An hon. Member:: Canadian friends.


William James Kempling: When I speak it always seems that several people interject. This is great because it makes speaking at this hour of the evening, when the galleries are packed, very interesting. Thirty-two per cent of the stock of Reader's Digest is available to the Canadian people. Five out of six directors, as has been mentioned, are Canadian. I was very interested in the question the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) put to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. He mentioned automobiles and said that if we are doing this in respect of magazines and are insisting on 80 per cent Canadian content, why should we not also do it in respect of products such as automobiles, and so on? The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby said he thought this would be great. I say we would not have an automobile in this country if we had to rely 100 per cent on Canadian design and Canadian content.
I read Time, Newsweek, Reader's Digest and Maclean's. I have these magazines at home, where my family looks at them, and after a period of a few days I find that Time, Reader's Digest and Newsweek are dog-eared but Maclean's could go back to the newsstand as it is rarely read. That is their choice; it is for them to read it or not. But if they find other magazines more interesting, so be it.
I am concerned, as other hon. members are, about the content requirements and about some civil servants sitting
Non-Canadian Publications
in an office here in Ottawa with a ruler and pencil deciding just whether there is 80 per cent Canadian content in a magazine or if it is 80 per cent different from the content in the foreign issue of the same magazine. I think that is a backward step and many of the letters that I have received from my constituents have expressed this view. I will go through this pile of letters and select some which I would like to read to the House. I have about half of them here and the stack is about five inches high. I will read my constituents' comments into the record because they have expressed their views and have asked me to express them to the House, which I intend to do.
There is a letter from a gentleman who writes;
This is ray letter of protest against the government's bill to remove the special income tax status of advertising in Time, Reader's Digest and a number of religious and scientific magazines.
He also sent a copy to the minister. I suppose I find the following paragraph in practically every letter that I receive. He writes;
Specifically with respect to the two first mentioned publications, they have an eminently deserved reputation that results from the quality of their offering and not, in my view, from the special tax standing they enjoy.
In other words, so far as he is concerned he has not been de-Canadianized or de-Americanized by reading these magazines. He finds that they are a source of information to him and he is intelligent enough to judge that information and to treat it accordingly. Another letter from a constituent reads:
We urge you to vote against the proposed government bill to withdraw the tax privilege from Time and Reader's Digest. We feel this bill is a serious threat to democracy and our tradition of free press.
Another letter is from a little old lady in a senior citizens' home who writes:
Both my husband and myself are quite upset over the action the government is contemplating on taking regarding the Reader's Digest Association (Canada) Ltd.
We strongly oppose any action parliament may take against the
Reader's Digest.
We enjoy reading the Digest and feel the articles printed are most interesting and worth while.
We also feel that the possibility of more Canadians becoming unemployed would be disastrous.
Many of these letters are in the same vein. This letter from a lady reads:
In this day of trashy publications and second-rate writing, the Reader's Digest is a bright and shining star.
Another letter reads:
I am a resident of Wentworth Lodge. For several years I have enjoyed and read Reader's Digest. I would most definitely like to continue doing so.
Could you please direct this letter to the proper department so that possible further legislation would be aware of my views and those of many other Canadians on this matter.
Some of these letters are very hard to read because they are written by elderly people. The following is a letter from a businessman:
I strongly object to the proposal of rescinding section 19(2) of the Income Tax Act. I have been reading the Reader's Digest for over 20 years and don't feel that I have been corrupted or Americanized.
I have some letters from students as well. One of them reads:


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: 
James Hugh Faulkner: You have to go back to the O'Leary commission to understand why.


John Raymond Ellis: You have to go back further than that to understand what you are doing. I am sure the good senator would not countenance this at all. We talk about the loss of the publishing industry and the loss of jobs, in Quebec particularly. I ask, without being partisan, why does the minister wish to impose that kind of income loss on a province from which the Liberal party receives a good deal of support? Surely the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) is not overly anxious to collect a few extra tax dollars. Considering the speed with which tax money is spent, I do not think the few extra dollars will last long. That cannot be the government's purpose, nor does the bill suggest it is. The House was told that only 19 per cent of the additional revenue will accrue to Canadian publishers and most of that will go to the Maclean-Hunter organization which, surely, is better able to look after itself than any other Canadian publishing group.
Hon. members may not know that I spent a couple of years publishing a magazine. I was in the concrete business and had a good deal of fun publishing a small quar-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They don't care.


John Raymond Ellis: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is probably correct, the government does not care. I must again ask myself why the government would bring in this piece of legislation. If they had brought in legislation that had to do with ownership, it might have been different. However, they say that a publication must be 80 per cent different from the parent magazine. As I said a moment ago, I regularly read Reader's Digest. The reason is that it gives me a cross-section of publications from all over the world. If it were 80 per cent different from the one regularly published in the United States, I suppose I would buy the one published in that country because I want to read different points of view from all over the world.
The fact is there will not be a Canadian Reader's Digest. I strongly suspect that the Canadian content we now find in that magazine will depreciate measurably. After all, if they are kicked out of this country why should they continue to put in Canadian content? I can think of no good reason. I enjoy the Canadian portions found in Reader's Digest. I like to read them, together with pieces from Europe, Australia, Asia, South Africa, South America, the United States, and so on. That is the richness of the magazine, the reason why I like to read it.
If it were an ownership issue, that would be different. I sometimes feel there might have been an attempt to make those two magazines Canadian-owned. But there was no such attempt. The guideline was content, and that is getting into censorship and it is something I cannot agree with. Liberal party policy does not usually embody any particular anti-foreign control attitude. Even the Foreign Investment Review Act which was passed some time ago does not legislate against U.S. take-overs.
Like so many other members, I have received all kinds of mail on this question and the mail is running better than 100 to 1 against the legislation. One letter in particular outlined in strong terms the case against Maclean-Hunter which, as owner, publisher and distributor was keeping certain competitive magazines off the stands. This particular constituent of mine had to import the magazine he wished to read. The fact is, he did import the magazine.
November 12, 1975

The legislation before us will not prevent people reading Time and Reader's Digest. The price may go up by 50 cents because they are no longer published here and because there is less Canadian advertising, but whatever the price may be I strongly suspect Canadians will continue to buy these two magazines.
With these considerations in mind, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister why he has brought this bill before us. What is so important about it that it justifies closure on second reading? What is so important that it should run counter the policy his party has expressed with regard to censorship? What is so important about it as to warrant the loss of so many jobs and so much income in the very province from which his party derives so much of its support? Until we have an answer to these serious questions, I find I cannot support this measure.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: 
An hon. Member:: Shame.


Fred Alward McCain: Someone says "Shame". I say to that person that the shame is on him, because when free choice goes out the window I am reminded of someone watching a hockey game in Cuba for only 30 seconds and then having the program jammed. We are becoming involved too much in the kinds of controls in countries which have governments which no member over there would support, yet they create the very atmosphere in which it cannot be avoided.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it 6.30?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. Pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, November 5, it being 6.30 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Thursday, November 13, 1975