1975-05-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns the sale and delivery of our grain to foreign customers. The foreign exchange earned by our grain sales abroad is vital to our economy at any time; these sales are especially vital when this country is running a present trade deficit which economists forecast can only worsen. Recent failures to meet our delivery commitments due to lawful strikes within Canada in grain delivery operations have seriously hurt our grain sales efforts; already foreign buyers have gone to rival producers. Not only has our whole economy been injured but our farmer-producers have had to pay millions of dollars in demurrage charges.
In a matter so important to all Canadians, we cannot afford labour-management confrontations where there are no winners, only losers. I suggest that organized labour must be made a party to our international grain sale negotiations. Therefore I propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the government immediately invite organized labour to participate as a party in contract negotiations for the sale of Canadian grain to foreign buyers, to the end that grain movement is guaranteed to meet delivery commitments to foreign purchasers despite any lawful strike.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43. As there are no less than six federal departments already involved in the Olympic Games, and continuing problems threaten the very existence of the games in Canada, be they due to union blackmail or escalating deficits, and because of statements being made by members of the International Olympic Committee that the probability of the games moving to Mexico is in fact becoming a reality, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That in order to protect the government's involvement in the games and Canada's very own credibility, the government use its powers to involve itself directly in meetings with the IOC now being held in Lausanne, assess the over-all situation, and take direct action in bringing the existing uncertainty and chaos to an end.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that tomorrow, May 21, the QFL is to hold a study session in protest against the Quebec government's inaction with regard to the 20-month-old strike of United Aircraft workers that has been causing irreparable damage to the families of those workers, on the one hand, and to the Canadian economy, on the other hand, therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That the House consider immediately what amounts have been paid to this company by different federal departments and what action should be taken to oblige that same company to reimburse the sums received within two weeks, if work has not resumed normally at the plants in Longueuil.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 20, 1975
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that on the hottest day in May the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources may not be thinking of energy conservation. On February 6, the minister said he could not give a specific goal for cutting back energy consumption because it would depend on the extent of co-operation from other departments. I should like to ask whether the minister is now in a position to say that the program he has planned will be sufficiently developed so that next winter he will be able to cut energy use by the one per cent which he proposes and hopes he can do?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I can be quite so specific at this point. Certainly, growth in the demand has moderated during the past winter, but the extent to which that was due either to higher prices or the impact of a milder winter we cannot yet be certain. My colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and myself will be meeting at the end of this week with industry for the purpose of further mobilizing industrial support behind the conservation program. As I mentioned to the hon. member privately, I hope to be able to inform him and the House in a relatively short interval about some estimate of the impact of the program to this date, and some directions in which we would like to go hereafter.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, in his statement the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said on February 6 that the goal of the program would be a number of government standards, regulations, incentives and investment programs. Were these what he was alluding to a moment ago in his reply, and will he be able to make these standards available to the public by next Monday?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Some of them, certainly, Mr. Speaker, particularly with regard to those of CMHC for insulation and other standards for home heating. I have impressed upon my colleague that for the benefit of the National Building Code it should be amended at an early date, and I would hope that the changes can be made available to the House. Given the timetable of that meeting with that particular group, which is a mixed government-private group, I am not certain we can achieve it within the time frame the hon. member is talking about, but that certainly would be one of our goals.


James McPhail Gillies: Also at that time, Mr. Speaker, the minister suggested the major part of the conservation program in Canada would involve a series of tax measures. Without giving away any budgetary matters, could the minister

indicate whether we can expect to find a series of tax proposals relating to energy conservation within the near future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am restrained to await the Minister of Finance in that regard, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON RESEARCH ON ALTERNATIVE SOURCES-STANDARDS FOR BUILDING INSULATION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Science Council of Canada in its report yesterday entitled "Canada's Energy Opportunities" has recommended more intensive research and investment into renewable non-polluting energy resources as an important component in a national energy policy, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated on February 10 that his department had completed an assessment of research work that had been done at the federal level with regard to alternative energy sources, is the minister now prepared to table that document on the subject?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. lady that sometime ago I indicated that as soon as the document was completed and translated it would be laid on the table of the House.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Further to the minister's comment with regard to insulation, Mr. Speaker, given that the new standards for insulation just released by CMHC do not meet the recommendations put forward by the joint energy industry task force or those recommended by the minister for conservation purposes, will the minister say why he and his colleagues were prepared to accept only half measures in this regard?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would not agree with the hon. lady's premise, Mr. Speaker.


FINANCE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's attempts to get a consensus from business, labour and governments for an incomes policy to deal with inflation based on restraining their demands, will the minister look at the type of advertisements appearing in newspapers such as the Toronto Globe and Mail sponsored by IAC and the Urban Development Institute which are simply pleading their special interests as investors to see whether such ads should be permitted to be tax deductible.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I will look into that.
May 20, 1975


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS ALLEGED SUPPORT OF PREMIER BOURASSA BY PRIME MINISTER IN DEALING WITH CONSTRUCTION UNIONS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister has said that he backs the action the Premier of Quebec is taking following the publication of the Cliche report how does the Prime Minister, in giving his unqualified backing, justify Mr. Bourassa placing all the blame on Quebec construction unions going considerably farther than the report recommends while placing none of the blame or penalties on the members of the Quebec government and their civil servants who were seriously implicated by the report, and who remain unrestricted in their activities today and in the future?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, that is the latest example of the hon. member's non-sequiturs. All I said was that the Premier of Quebec was right in saying the social order had pre-eminence over holding the Olympics. That is all I said. If the hon. member wants to discuss my ideas about other things, he can ask about them independently in respect of Quebec.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has indicated he does not support all that Mr. Bourassa is doing in respect of this report, I should like to ask him if he would come clean with this House and tell this Parliament just what aspects of Mr. Bourassa's program he does not agree with.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the very despicable murder of a boy of Jamaican origin, Michael Habbib, who was brutally murdered in the city of Toronto following which the High Commissioner for Jamaica in Canada charged the Toronto police as being extremely racist, uncultured and inhuman and made this statement:
I am extremely dissatisfied with the administration of justice when there are clashes between my people and the police.
These statements are totally out of keeping with the position of one who is High Commissioner for another country to our country, and I would ask the Prime Minister whether he has been in touch with the Government of Jamaica in connection with these most reprehensible words and what the attitude of that government is to the statements I have brought to his attention.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brought to my attention a statement to which I was not listening, because he did not say the question was directed to me and I must apologize.
Oral Questions Mr. Diefenbaker: I did.


Mr. Sharp:: At the very end.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was not until the very end that he mentioned my name. I will gladly read Hansard and see if I can supply an answer to the problem.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Prime Minister was not listening. I referred to him at the very beginning and I always refer to him as "right honourable", a lesson he might learn about propriety in this House.


SOCIETY FOR STUDY OF THE HERITAGE OF CANADA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Since the minister's department funded the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars, thus assisting it to take advantage of the many students who are presently owed money, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if he plans to make any funds available to reimburse or otherwise compensate those students who have been duped by the activities of an organization which apparently the government and the minister allowed to proceed with very little if any supervision or monitoring?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think before the hon. member draws conclusions of that type he might wait for the report I promised him which is ready but is being translated into French, and which I hope to have either later this afternoon or tomorrow. After he has had a chance to read that, he might want to raise a question.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I hope the minister will be able to deal with this particular aspect of the reimbursement of students who have been affected.
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the native study program announced from Ottawa in a press release from the minister's department on January 15 of this year, apparently under the auspices of the now insolvent Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada, can the minister confirm that all the funds advanced pursuant to this program have been properly utilized, and, if not, where did these funds go, the minister, I am sure, being aware that the Stony Indians themselves cancelled their participation in this program some time ago?

May 20, 1975
Oral Questions


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the full details. As a matter of fact, I have asked for a report on the situation of the Stony Indians and I will have to come back with the information later.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Can he assure the House that it is the policy of his department to award contracts whenever possible to firms operating on a regular basis in the regions where the work is required?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, whenever it is possible.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister advise the House why the first extensive federal government contract in many years for surveying on the west coast was awarded to a Toronto survey firm, despite the fact that three British Columbia firms bid on the job, know the area, and have the expertise to do the work?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely, the hon. member must realize that that is not the kind of information the minister should have at his fingertips.


CONSERVATION PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO OBTAIN PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. What are his plans to try to galvanize public support for a conservation program pertaining to energy as it seems to me that what has been done so far has not caused a ripple? Does the minister intend, for example, to give the Canadian people a detailed report on what the government itself is doing or has done to conserve energy within its own sphere, to turn out some of its lights, for example?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. gentleman's conversion to conservation in the energy field.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would say, as I indicated to the hon. member for Don Valley, that we will be prepared to report on the programs to date and also on the measures taken. Indeed, we will be going ahead with 
further discussions with industry in this regard. I am glad to see opposition interest expressed in this.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the only thing the minister has done so far is to engage in a controversy with Le Jour, I should like to ask him whether he is going to outline to the House a program designed to get the Canadian people behind a conservation program which has become even more urgent with the pronouncements of the Shah of Iran, for example, that the world price of oil will probably be increased this fall. Can the minister give the House-not today but in the very near future-some outline of a program that will really elicit some support from the Canadian people and results from expenditures of some several hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds by the government of Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A great deal of support has been elicited for the program to date in way of response to the specific advertisements and in expressions to me and members of the government concerning the efforts made to date. With regard to the reference to a possible international price increase, and indeed international efforts on conservation, I hope to be able to report to the House on this kind of question after the international meeting on energy next week.


INDUSTRY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. Ministers of Regional Economic Expansion and of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I would like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since the conflict at the United Aircraft is still continuing without any sign of hope for a solution, and since the QFL plans a general strike day for tomorrow, May 21, 1975, in order to force the Quebec government to solve that labour dispute, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he is prepared to assist in the settlement of that conflict by forcing the company, if necessary, to reimburse the subsidies it has been or will be granted, were the corporation to resume work in Longueuil?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I understood well, the hon. member's question was directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion or to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I take notice of it on their behalf, and I will see to it that an answer be given to the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of
May 20, 1975

State for External Affairs. In view of representations made by the National Women's Council of the Ukrainian Canadian Committee in a recent letter to the Prime Minister concerning certain Ukrainian women imprisoned in the Soviet Union, and in view of the request of this council that the Canadian government make efforts to secure the release of these women, will the minister ascertain whether the announcement of amnesty, which came from Moscow over the weekend, included these particular persons? If not, will the minister pursue this matter on behalf of the Canadian people?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will make the necessary inquiries and pursue the matter further.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that meat carcasses from diseased animals processed by Federal Packing Incorporated of Magog, Quebec and offered for sale to the general public as meat suitable for human consumption bore the provincial approved meat inspection stamp, would the minister confer with his cabinet colleagues to consider placing all meat inspection in Canada under the direct supervision of the federal health of animals branch of the Department of Agriculture to prevent any further such incidents from taking place?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this service is available to any provincial government which wants it, but it is not forced upon it.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: I realize this service is available, but in my opinion perhaps some direct action should be taken by the federal Department of Agriculture. Would the minister consider taking such action to prevent any further such incidents taking place?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we think that the sale of this meat is a deplorable thing. I have had discussions with my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and we will have further discussions, but it should be realized that this matter comes under provincial jurisdiction and that the province has the right to supervise that inspection if it so desires.


EGGS-POSSIBILITY OF CONTROLLING IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture, who seems to be enjoying a low profile these days, how he is reacting to the request of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, which met in Ottawa last week, to have the border with the United States closed. Does he intend to meet this request, and if so, why?
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as soon as it can be shown that the egg producers of Canada have their supply-management program in proper order-and they claim they do have but we are checking the facts on that at the present time-then we will inform our counterparts in the United States that we have a proper supply-management program which will take care of our needs, so they can expect that we would be asking for some control on imports into Canada.


CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENFORCE QUOTAS
James Aloysius McGrath: What steps is the minister taking to ensure that CEMA is operating within the quotas it has set out for its member agencies, how it enforces these quotas and if interprovincial trade in eggs is now free.


Eugene Whelan: We are
doing that very thing, checking the agreements to make sure they are fulfilled. These all have to be checked out to make sure that the proper procedure is being followed, because I am not going to become involved in anything which will not be a properly managed program for egg production and egg sales in Canada.


INQUIRY AS TO PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION OVER INSPECTION OF MEAT IN INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked of the Minister of Agriculture by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe. In view of the answer he gave, I should like to ask the minister who has responsibility for interprovincial trade if the provinces have jurisdiction over the stamping and inspection of meat travelling from one province to another?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, any meat that travels from one province to another is supposed to be federally inspected.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. It is some time since the SIU matter was placed in the minister's lap, but I notice that he and the Minister of Justice have been having a discussion this afternoon. Has the minister made up his mind what he is going to do with respect to the requirement for a federal inquiry regarding the activities of the SIU?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that I will be making a statement tomorrow with regard to this matter.

May 20, 1975
Oral Questions MANPOWER


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT ISSUANCE OF SOCIAL INSURANCE CARDS TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister indicate what steps he and his department may be taking to prevent the issuance of social insurance cards to persons who may be attempting to take up residence in Canada illegally?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of procedure and the issuance of social insurance numbers and cards is under review now, and I expect to make an announcement shortly.


'	OLYMPIC GAMES


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE GAMES WILL NOT BE CANCELLED
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that last week, in a statement on social peace, the Quebec Premier and the Prime Minister of Canada seemed to be prepared to cancel the 1976 Olympic Games and that such a statement is liable to make thousands of Canadians lose confidence although they believe in these Olympic Games, would the Prime Minister make a statement reiterating his government's support and assuring that his government will not let itself be intimidated by trouble-makers in the Quebec construction industry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is apparently suggesting that I say what I have already said many times, including the end of his sentence.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs with reference to the announced policy of the government of Israel to establish settlements of its nationals in the territories of sovereign Arab states now held by Israeli military forces. Considering the great need for peace in the Middle East, and the myriad of United Nations resolutions on occupied territories, will the minister consider using his good offices with the friendly government of Israel with a view to dissuading them from a course which is highly likely to exacerbate tensions in this already volatile area?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ascertain

the facts of the situation before taking any course of action. I have heard the news reports to which the hon. member refers but I should like to get some more detail.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Two weeks ago last Friday I asked the then Acting Prime Minister a question with respect to grants for second language training in English at Algonquin College in Ottawa and other community colleges in Canada. The Acting Prime Minister undertook to obtain an answer. I wonder if the minister has had a chance to read Hansard of that date and if he is able to give an answer to the question.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am not knowledgeable of the question. I will look into it and let the hon. member know as quickly as I can.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister confirm or deny that the transport policy package he is going to bring down in the first part of June will spell out the specific duties of the regulatory body of the CTC, the minister and the government in order to prevent another ruling by the Supreme Court to determine functions and responsibilities regarding transportation matters? I ask this question in light of the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court that the CTC had no authority under the law to postpone the fare increases that were ordered on March 1.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, may I take this question as notice.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I asked the Solicitor General a question about the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit, a co-operative international police organization which has about 19,000 files on Canadian and American citizens. In light of the fact that the Houston, Texas police force has said that LEIU is involved in surveillance of citizens not involved in criminal activity and has col-
May 20, 1975

lected gutter gossip and because of the participation of Canadian police forces including those of Montreal and Toronto, the OPP and the federal Department of Manpower and Immigration in LEIU, has the minister investigated the charges made against LEIU?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP does not belong to this organization and does not contribute or receive any information. As a result, I cannot say anything more about it. We have no information about that organization.


LAW ENFORCEMENT INTELLIGENCE UNIT-SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION OF ACTIVITIES BY DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION
Henry Perrin Beatty: May I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration? In light of the fact that his department does belong to LEIU, can the minister assure the House that the allegations of improper activities of LEIU by the Houston, Texas police department which were subsequently confirmed by the Atlanta, Georgia police department are being investigated?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about this organization. I will take note of the hon. member's comments and look into it and try to get the information.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the development minister of Nova Scotia has said that further increases in freight rates must not be imposed until the Nova Scotia government has received, and the federal government has considered, a new national transportation policy, may I ask the minister if he agrees with his Liberal colleague in the Nova Scotia cabinet on this matter?


Jean Marchand: Unfortunately, I have not read the statement of the Nova Scotia minister, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member will send me a copy of what he said, then I can tell if it is the policy of the government.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to send the minister a copy of the statement. Will the minister agree that the Nova Scotia minister should be in a position to see clearly both the immediate and the longer-term impact that a further scheduled freight rate increase would have on investment and jobs in the province of Nova Scotia?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, a lot of people are going to see their way clear and probably the minister in Nova Scotia is one of them.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


POSSIBLE ENLARGEMENT OF NATO CONTRIBUTION TO MAKE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's desire to forge a contractual link with the European Common Market, will he be going to the NATO summit meeting prepared to enlarge Canada's NATO contribution as a means of making the contractual link more acceptable to the European Common Market countries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not link the two organizations as directly as the hon. gentleman seems to in his question. Our position in NATO has been stated before and it remains the same. In so far as the contractual link is concerned, I will be visiting Denmark for one day and Luxembourg for one day. During those visits, I shall be talking about contractual links.


FISHERIES
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and I have given notice of it to his office. Could the right hon. gentleman or one of his ministers advise the House of any initiatives taken by Canada regarding a question posed by me some weeks ago regarding efforts to restore the sale of Canadian caught swordfish to United States markets?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for having notified my office of the question. I am informed that the United States still prohibits the import into all states of swordfish with mercury content in excess of .5 parts per million. That is the situation in the United States and that is the situation in Canada. There is no law against fishing the swordfish of course, providing the fishermen do not sell it to Canada or the United States if it has more than that percentage of mercury. As to whether that is necessary for the protection of the health of Canadians or Americans, I would, of course, defer to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I know of no expertise in my office that would contradict that.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Contrary to continuing government statements, I am certain that the Prime Minister is aware that his government is involved up to its neck in the floundering

May 20, 1975
Oral Questions
preparations for the Olympic Games. Because of that fact, and the very good possibility of the games being moved to another site, can the Prime Minister advise this House whether he is concerned with the problems being encountered by COJO, Montreal and Quebec. If so, why is he not prepared to take the initiative to get directly involved in assessing the overall situation, perhaps by meeting directly with IOC officials in order to protect the federal government's involvement thus far and perhaps arrive at some satisfactory alternative that Montreal is afraid to take?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, these questions seem to be quite hypothetical. As far as the government is concerned, we are confident that the Olympics will take place in Canada next year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the minister has stated that the perpetual bonds will be redeemed in 20 years, and in view of the fact many holders of these bonds are senior citizens who not only purchased the bonds in good faith but now find themselves in need of 100 per cent return on their investment due to the increasing cost of living, will the minister also keep the faith and permit the original purchasers of these bonds, when they reach the age of 65, to have the bonds redeemed at par value?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty there is to achieve an equitable way of redeeming the bonds without overly dislocating the market price to the prejudice of those who immediately prior sold their bonds. On the basis of the 20 year redemption, those bonds now carry an effective rate comparable to other bonds.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, my question was with regard to the original purchasers of the bonds who are now in a deplorable situation. Will the minister give consideration to that group of senior citizens who were the original purchasers of these bonds?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will not exclude any representations, but I am not too optimistic about the hon. member's submission.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his role as defender of women's rights. Will the minister get in touch with Air Canada with regard to their practice of insisting that only the designation "Miss" or "Mrs." be used? They will not accept "Ms." as a designation. Will the minister determine why?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to take the hon. member's recommendation as notice. I shall advise my hon. colleague the Minister of Transport and Air Canada; I am sure they will consider this matter seriously.


Max Saltsman: Can the minister indicate when he expects to complete this dialogue with the Minister of Transport and the Air Canada computer and report back to the House?


Marc Lalonde: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. What progress has been made by the Bayda commission which is studying labour problems in the west coast grain handling industry? When can we reasonably expect to see the final report?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, that question should be directed to the Minister of Labour.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. What progress has been made by the Bayda commission which is studying the problems of labour unrest in the grain handling industry on the west coast, and when can we reasonably expect to see the final report?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me right, Mr. Justice Bayda indicated he would have his report ready about mid-July. I will double check and get back to the hon. member.
May 20, 1975


TRANSPORT
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that Boyd, Stott and McDonald Limited of Montreal is proposing to incorporate a new bank to be known as the National Commercial Bank of Canada, that an application for such incorporation has been made to the other place and, more specifically, is the minister aware that shareholders of the Boyd firm who have been invited to subscribe for shares in the new bank include directly or indirectly Air Canada and the CNR?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details. I will take the question as notice and give an answer tomorrow.


SUGGESTED INSTRUCTIONS TO AIR CANADA AND CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS NOT TO INVEST IN NON-RELATED VENTURES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Bearing in mind we almost go into the travel agency business without, presumably, government approval, will the minister indicate if he has given instructions to the management of such Crown corporations as Air Canada or CNR that in future they should not make further investments in new non-related ventures without government approval?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, surely I cannot give instructions to Air Canada, or any other Crown corporation, on things which they are authorized by law to do.


FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of this pending bank incorporation and the move by the British Columbia provincial government to set up its own financial institution to be known as the B.C. Savings and Trust Corporation, will the minister indicate why Bill C-7, a bill providing for speedier incorporation of banks and the possible provincial participation in the share ownership of banks, has been left in limbo for so long in this parliament after having similarly been left in limbo in the last parliament, bearing in mind this bill received first reading in this parliament eight months ago and there has been no further action on it?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the issue is primarily a question of House time. I will consult with the leader of the House.
Oral Questions PUBLIC BUILDINGS


SUGGESTION LIGHTS BE TURNED OFF TO CONSERVE ENERGY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. It is further to a question asked earlier with regard to energy conservation. There were recent advertisements in the press with regard to the Department of Public Works turning out lights in many buildings in Canada. We know that is not true, even in Ottawa. Has the minister taken steps to ensure that the lights in all public buildings in Canada are turned off after hours in order that the federal government will better conserve energy?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think I explained some considerable time ago that in the interests of economy and capital investment, a number of buildings which we occupy have master controls, but not individual controls. The result is that all the lights have to be on or all the lights have to be off. We are currently modifying this in order to have individual controls.


John Raymond Ellis: When will the minister make a statement to the House on the progress being made on this work?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, such a statement can be prepared at any time. Perhaps the most appropriate occasion would be before the committee on the estimates.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since Mr. Gerin-Lajoie confirmed the fact that he wanted all financial details of the CIDA loan to Cuba to be suppressed and not made public in the press release, does the minister consider this attitude to be consistent with his avowed beliefs in open government and how many other examples are there where CIDA has deliberately withheld potentially embarrassing information?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for raising the question of Cuban financial assistance because there has been a good deal of misinformation floating around, either accidentally or otherwise. The facts are that in February I made a public announcement indicating the extent of financial assistance to Cuba. In February 1975, in a press release, I indicated the amount of the loan and the amount of the grant component. That is the only assistance available to Cuba that has been approved or that will be put into effect. Any other suggestions with regard to fictional or real documents refer to speculation and do not refer in any way to actual decisions or actual assistance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 20, 1975
Oral Questions


Steve Eugene Paproski: In view of the fact that my questions 1,480 to 1,511 have been on the order paper since February 5, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise whether one or two of my questions could be answered in a week or is there something to hide?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. The questions put down by the hon. member have been very much on my mind, but there has been a natural conflict between my desire for open government and my desire to curtail government expenditure; in this case, I believe that to answer all the hon. gentleman's questions fully would cost in excess of $10,000. Maybe a more selective approach on the part of the hon. member would relieve me of concern in that area and possibly provide him with the information he is seeking. I am suggesting he could tell me exactly what he wants without going over the whole waterfront.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are very simple questions, Mr. Speaker. All I would like to know is what criteria were used in awarding the contract and who was the low and high bidder. There must be a full file containing this information and if there is not, the government is incompetent.


PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE CIDA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since problems concerning CIDA appear to be cropping up ever more frequently, would the hon. gentleman be willing to support the establishment of a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to look into the affairs of CIDA?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That matter was dealt with in the standing committee itself. I am ready to deal in the committee or in the House with any questions relating to CIDA, though I hope they are based on sounder information than that which was put about with respect to the Cuban loan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that a high percentage of those in our prisons are native Indians, many of whom are there simply because of their failure to pay fines, and since the hon. gentleman is bringing in changes to the Criminal Code, would he advise us whether among those proposed changes is a provision whereby those who do not have the money to pay fines will not be jailed because of their impecuniosity?


Otto Emil Lang: A proposal to make this particular change is not included in the amendments which are anticipated in the very near future. However, the whole subject is one which is receiving a good deal of consideration both within the government and within the law reform commission. I would anticipate some solution in the not too distant future.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Would the minister consult with his counterpart in British Columbia, where legislation has been in place for some time under the summary conviction act, with regard to the success of that legislation in reducing the number of Indians held in prison?


Otto Emil Lang: I am consulting very widely within a variety of jurisdictions, including certain other countries of the Commonwealth where interesting experiments are going on.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Minister of Transport-it follows the announcement of the creation of four additional lifeboat stations in the maritimes. A look at the map will reveal a very wide gap in the spacing of these stations, indicating a lack of appreciation of the factors governing the spacing of the lifeboat bases, particularly in western Newfoundland. Would the minister reconsider the deployment of these bases and see that at least two are located in the western part of Newfoundland?


Jean Marchand: I have seen the map and it is true there is a gap. We are now reviewing our rescue policy and this will probably be one of the matters we shall look into.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns the removal of 42,000 acres from Wood Buffalo National Park in order to satisfy native claims under Treaty No. 8. Has the minister made any provision for obtaining other land suitable for national park purposes to offset this removal? Further, what is the policy of Parks Canada regarding the removal of land from national park status?


Mr. Speaker:: The first part of the question deserves an answer but the second should not properly be asked during the question period.
May 20, 1975


J. Judd Buchanan: Since the obligation to the Indian people for the treaty land antedated the creation of the park, we decided that this was an obligation we should honour. This was the decision taken by my predecessor and we are in the process of carrying it out. I would point out that the land in question represents only a minute fraction of the largest national park in Canada and that its removal from park status will not impair the value of the national park.


Peter Elzinga: What guarantees, if any, have been negotiated to protect the park land surrounding the reserve areas?


J. Judd Buchanan: The land is being excised. There are no guarantees. As far as the adjoining areas are concerned, they remain in the parks and are subject to the control which normally applies.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State I would direct my question to the Acting Secretary of State. What criteria were used to fund projects under the student community service program? Can the minister inform us why all applications from native people under Treaty 7, with the exception of one, were rejected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That information should be sought in some other way.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns local government guidelines in connection with housing policy and education and the fear that if local Indian bands do not follow these guidelines their funds will be cut off. Will the minister tell us whether or not local bands will in fact be cut off from funds if they do not abide by these guidelines?


J. Judd Buchanan: These are guidelines which we have established for the operation of local government on the reserves; we feel they are reasonable guidelines having to do with normal administration, auditing and so on; we are asking the bands to agree to them and we expect they will be prepared to do so.


Arnold John Malone: In view of the fact that according to a telegram I received this morning from the chief of the Samson band that there is to be a three-day conference concerning the guidelines in Edmonton on May 27, 28 and 29, would the minister allow some period of grace during
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
which to hear representations from the Indian people who have some serious misgivings in connection with these regulations?


J. Judd Buchanan: As far as these guidelines are concerned, I have already indicated to the Indian people that we are prepared to regard them as being of an interim nature; we would discuss them and review them after they have been in operation for a year. There are further guidelines which have not yet been proclaimed and we have stated we are prepared to hear any representations regarding them.


THE BUDGET
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance who, I think, undertook to tell the House this week when the budget will be brought down. After a beautiful weekend given to optimism and making decisions, is he in a position today to tell the House when he will be bringing down the budget?


John Napier Turner: I shall be able to announce the date this week, Mr. Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I gave notice of a question of privilege which I proposed, with your consent, to raise today. The matter concerns the obstruction of the business of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs- business which was referred to that committee by this House for consideration and report. This obstruction was carried out on Thursday, May 15, by the newly elected chairman, the member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), certain other members of the government party who are members of the committee, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), and the responsible officials of the office of the chief government whip.
During the course of the proceedings on the estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, with a quorum present, I moved that vote L20, being a vote of $38.1 million for the purchase by the government of Cana-dair, be reduced to $1. The chairman improperly permitted the minister, who had no status in the committee except that of a witness, to speak to my motion. During this delay, members of the government party, who were in a minority, left the committee without pausing to speak to

May 20, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
the motion. The chairman then ruled there was no quorum and refused to put the question. He did this by ruling that a member of the official opposition who was present was not a member of the committee inasmuch as neither he nor the committee clerk had been notified under Standing Order 65(4)(b).
If the Chairman had not been notified, as he alleged, Mr. Speaker, that was a deliberate failure for which the chief government whip is responsible. The appropriate change in membership had been effected by the responsible officials of the official opposition chief whip's office in plenty of time for the chief government whip's office to make the change. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the government has a majority sufficiently large to supply members on committees at all times. Yet in this case they left one sole member on the committee, the hon. member for York Centre. There is no reason for these government members to be absent from their duties in committee and, if it please them, to outvote opposition members in committee under the rules. To fail in their duties as members but yet to obtain their way by trickery and obstruction markets them as devious, and the government to which they adhere as devious. I leave the conduct of the chairman and of the minister to their several consciences: I merely point out to the chairman that his conduct is not conducive to co-operation.
The result of this deviousness and obstruction of the business of the committee will probably be that vote L20 will not be considered; it will be deemed to have been passed and reported to the House. No consideration will have been given by the committee to the dubious expenditure of almost $40 million of public moneys for a questionable adventure. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the same Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce circumvented the same committee in the last parliament with respect to a similar purchase.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member can confine himself to the events at hand.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to move, if you find my question of privilege is well founded: That the subject matter of this question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
If Your Honour decides that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization is more appropriate, I will so change my motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) rising in his place to speak to the question of privilege. While this might tend to lend some balance to the remarks which have been put forward by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), the fact of the matter is that both hon. members must realize that proceedings in a committee may be all of the things that have been described but they may have been otherwise motivated. However, surely it is not for the Chair to judge what the motivations were or whatever the actions were on the part of members of the committee as referred to by the hon. member for York-Simcoe.
The fact of the matter is that even if I accept all of the descriptions of the motivations involved and the results thereof, I am sure the hon. member is aware that even if 
the descriptions were correct in every case, with regard to which I am sure there must be dispute-otherwise the hon. member for York Centre would not be seeking to enter the question-none of the actions so described constitute a question of privilege.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that this is not a question of privilege, but since personnel in my office have been mentioned I think it is up to me to make sure that this is rectified, and with your permission I should like to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have ruled on the question of privilege without giving the hon. member for York Centre the chance to speak. Having ruled on it, I really feel that there should be no further comment.


Mrs. Appolloni:: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I should like the record to show that the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) was present at that meeting and doing her duty.


CRIMINAL CODE
John Raymond Ellis: for leave to introduce Bill C-391, to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, the bill I propose will provide for more appropriate penalties for conviction on charges of impaired driving. Specifically, the bill provides for penalties of imprisonment from nine months to ten years where death results, and from six months to five years where injury results. The bill further provides for stiffer penalties even if death or injury does not result. These range from a fine of $50 to $500 for a first offence to imprisonment for three months to 12 months for a third offence. In addition, conviction on any of these charges would result in loss of licence to drive for up to three years.


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

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to confirm that Thursday and Friday of this week be allotted days, pursuant to Standing Order 58.
May 20, 1975


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,150, 1,822, 1,831, 2,054, 2,057, 2,058, 2,062, 2,142, 2,174, 2,201, 2,211, 2,295, 2,367, 2,388 and 2,413.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,556 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2,030?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): For the years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, what leases were awarded by the National Capital Commission and, in each case, what was the (a) type of lease (b) description of property (c) terms of lease and length (d) names and addresses of lessees?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: For the years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, the National Capital Commission has negotiated leases and lease renewal agreements numbering between 1,300 and 1,500 per annum. The types of leases based on the kinds of property involved were varied, as the following approximate percentages for each year indicate: Farm and Market Garden Use, 10 per cent; Residential Use, 58 per cent; Commercial Use, 14 per cent; Open land used for Municipal, Institutional, Recreational and Conservation Use, 18 per cent. A description of each property, the terms and length of each lease and a list of names and addresses of lessees would be of a voluminous character and require an inordinate cost to prepare. In addition, many of the leases are the private concern of the lessees and publication might be considered a breach of confidence. If there are any individual leases about which details are required, this information can be provided.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What has been the total cost since its inception of all aspects of CANAC Linguistic Services of Montreal?
2.	How many employees to date (a) of Air Canada (b) of CNR have received language training from this school (c) how many have been instructed in (i) French (ii) English?


Jean Marchand: The
Managements of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada advise as follows: 1. CN/AC Linguistic Services was established in June, 1973 to provide translation, terminology and language training services to Canadian National and Air Canada. The total cost of operations from June, 1973 to December, 1974, the period for which figures are readily available was $2,078,037.
2.	(a) 1,415; (b) 1,018; (c) (i) 2,254, (ii) 179.
Order Paper Questions PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE STAFF


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): As of February 28, 1975 (a) how many individuals were employed in the Privy Council Office (b) how many were raised in Westmount and/or went to McGill University and/or studied at Oxford University?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: (a) 315.
(b)	Westmount, 3; McGill University, 9; Oxford University, 4.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Since October 30, 1972 (a) what are the names and addresses of lawyers who were given work by CMHC in the Constituency of Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (b) by year, how much was paid to each for work on behalf of (i) CMHC (ii) the government?
2.	What are the names of lawyers currently on CMHC's approved list within the Constituency?
3.	Since October 30, 1972, what were the names of people consulted in determining what lawyers in the Constituency would be given business by CMHC?
4.	(a) Were government members consulted about the allocation of business within their constituencies (b) was the Member for the Constituency of Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo consulted about the allocation of business within the area and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the length of the answer, may I be permitted to have it appear in Hansard as if it had been read?


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the length of the question, is it agreed that the parliamentary secretary be permitted to file the question and it be appended to Hansard as if it had been read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above follows:]


Pierre De Bané: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. For loans approved in 1973 and 1974 in the counties of Dufferin, Grey and Wellington, the following lawyers were retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for legal work in connection with CMHC direct loans: Fergus- Wilson, Jack and Reycraft, J. Cecil Wolfe; Guelph-A. Aiken, A. Braida, Frank O. Brewster, Grant A. Campbell, Stanley Flesher, John T. A. Gamble, Q.C., G. W. Goetz, W. C. Hamilton, J. W. Matthews, Brian M. McCann, P. J. Morris, C. L. McKinnon, Q.C., A. J. Moon, Frederick P. Moyer, Q.C., Ronald G. Sansom, David C. Smith, R. Paul G. Smith, A. Edward Thoms, J. E. Valeriote; Hamilton-J. F. Easterbrook,; Kitchener-James R. Breithaupt; Mark-dale-J. Arkle Dunlop, Q.C.; Orangeville-Miss Carol A. Allison; Owen Sound-McLeod A. Craig, Q.C.; Toronto- Hassard, Elliott. Legal fees with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation direct loans are paid by the borrowers, and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers. The following lawyers were retained in 1973 and 1974 to handle actions where arrears on loans required legal action: Legal Actions: Fergus- Wilson, Jack and Reycraft; Guelph-C. L. McKinnon,

May 20, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Q.C., G. Hayes Murphy; Orangeville-H. Clark Adams, Q.C.; Owen Sound-Telford and Van Wyck. Where actions are settled prior to trial, the costs are paid by the borrower and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has no records of the amounts.
2, 3, and 4. The Minister of Justice, in accordance with the responsibilities imposed upon him by his position, recommends from time to time names of legal agents across Canada who are best able to perform the legal work that the Government of Canada or certain of its agencies may require to have done. All governments have observed the unchallanged principle that the choice of agents to act on behalf of the Minister rests with him, and that the criterion for appointment is one of competence. Advice on appointment of legal agents is taken from numerous sources including, at times, local bar societies. The final choice of legal agents is simply a matter of judgment, and there is no single set procedure for receiving recommendations. Present practice with respect to CMHC is that, with the approval of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs from time to time provides CMHC with the names of legal agents who might be employed by CMHC in various municipalities throughout Canada.


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


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: The Parliamentary Returns Office of the Department of National Defence operates as a subunit within the Directorate General of Information which is responsible for a wide range of information functions and duties. It is not possible to separate costs for Parliamentary Returns work from the overall operating cost of this directorate.


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


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no Parliamentary Returns Office as such in the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office. Parliamentary Returns are handled by the office of the Director of Administration, Privy Council Office.


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


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no Parliamentary Returns Office as such in the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office. Parliamentary Returns are handled by the office of the Director of Administration, Privy Council Office.


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


William Warren Allmand: The Parliamentary Returns Office is not a separate entity but operates as a unit within the Ministry Secretariat which reports to the Deputy Minister. It is not possible to separate costs for Parliamentary Returns work from the overall operating cost of the Secretariat. The foregoing reply is applicable also to those persons to whom the Heads of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Penitentiary Service and the National Parole Board have delegated responsibility in relation to Parliamentary Returns.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is it the intention of the government that the Post Office Department be financially self-supporting and (a) if so, by what date is it intended to reach that objective (b) if not, to what extent is it intended to subsidize the Department over the next few years?
2.	Is it planned to subsidize specific sectors of the economy by low mail rates and, if so, what are the priorities and will the matter of Canadian or foreign ownership be a consideration?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. The Post Office Act under which the Post Office Department is managed contains no reference to financial self-sufficiency nor does current government policy call for this achievement, (a) Not applicable; (b) The funds required to meet anticipated expenses each year are voted by Parliament after consideration of departmental estimates. Major postage rates are also set by Statute. The extent by which expenditures may exceed revenues is, therefore, at the discretion of Parliament.
2. There is no specific policy to subsidize, by low mail rates, specific sectors of the economy. The excess of expenditures over revenues for the department is regarded as a necessary cost of providing postal service to all citizens rather than a subsidy to specific mailers. The effect of Canadian or foreign ownership on rates will be a matter for Parliament to decide.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are all the reasons that the government has designated the Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario, bilingual?
2.	What are all the reasons that the government has not yet designated Royal Roads Military College, Victoria, British Columbia, bilingual?
3.	What are all the reasons that one college is being treated differently than the other to date?
4.	What part has politics played in this situation?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The decision to extend instruction in both of the official languages at the Royal Military College is consistent with the implementation and development of Government policy on bilingualism.

May 20, 1975

2.	At present Royal Roads Military College offers only the first two years of university training and students attend RMC for the final two years of the four-year course.
3.	There is no difference in treatment, except for the timing of implementation of the programme of institutional bilingualism.
4.	None.


Mr. Firth: 1.	(a) How many Indians and Inuits are presently employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on a (i) casual basis (ii) contract basis (b) in which branches are they employed (c) what were the number of persons employed in (i) clerical (ii) executive (iii) administrative categories for the fiscal years 197071, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75?
2.	What was the amount of money spent for training programmes operated by the Department for Indian bands (a) band management
(b)	housing (c) education (d) economic development for the fiscal years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75?
3.	In determining the position of Director of the Operations Branch in the Department, was the National Indian Brotherhood involved and, if so (a) in what way (b) how many applications were received (c) how many applicants were interviewed for the position?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. (a) (i) 338. (ii) Figures for employment on a contract basis are not available, (b) Indian and Eskimo Affairs, 207; Northern Affairs, 13; Parks Canada, 111; Administration, 7.
(c)	Breakdown by categories is not available.
2.	(a) Band management, (b) Housing, (c) Education,
(d)	Economic Development, 1970-71-figures are not available, 1971-72 (a) $353,220; (b) nil; (c) $64,189; (d) $1,950;
1972-	73 (a) $213,135; (b) $7,115; (c) $68,603; (d) $17,033;
1973-	74 (a) $246,796; (b) $15,865; (c) $195,821; (d) $38,481;
1974-	75 (as at Dec. 1974) (a) $176,098; (b) $1,750; (c) $62,368; (d) $22,212.
3.	No. (a) not applicable; (b) none; (c) none.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Commons on March 26, 1975 to the effect that he did not know the names of those donating money for construction of a swimming pool at his Official Residence, what are the names and job designations of all persons in government service or employ who do know any or all of the names?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Appropriate officials in National Revenue.


Mr. Cossitt: What is the name and job designation of the individual in CBC who decided how many and what personnel are to be assigned to cover the forthcoming visit to the Caribbean, including Jamaica, by the Prime Minister (a) what is the reason for 22 persons being selected (b) what are their names and job designations (c) what is the total amount budgeted for expenses of all those concerned (d) what is the cost of
Order Paper Questions
transportation for the group and what is a full description of the means of such transportation including the aircraft?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: As for the main question and parts (b) and (c), it has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration. As for part (a), the persons selected were assigned in connection with the differing requirements for news and special program coverage of four networks in the respective languages of those networks. The networks are: the English television network, the English radio network, the French television network and French radio network of the CBC. (d) The group paid normal commercial rates for space in either the Prime Minister's aircraft or, in some cases, on scheduled commercial flights.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	What is the actual amount of the reserves of each chartered bank held by the Bank of Canada?
2.	During the past five years, on what dates were the amounts changed and to what extent?
3.	What were the profits gained by each chartered bank through such changes?


John Napier Turner: 1. As
stipulated by Section 72 of the Bank Act, chartered bank cash reserves may be maintained in the form of notes of, and deposits in Canadian currency with the Bank of Canada. Information is not published for each bank on the amounts of these two components separately; the combined total is shown below for the latest month available.
Notes of and deposits with Bank of Canada (As at February 28, 1975)
Amount
Name of bank	(t housands of dollars)
Bunk of Montreal	667,412
The Bunk of Nova Scotia	396,333
The Toronto-Doniinion Bank	415,058
The Provincial Bank of Canada	105,785
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce	678,620
The Royal Bank of Canada	789,728
Bank Canadian National	174,470
The Mercantile Bank of Canada	20,163
Bank of British Columbia	4,999
Unity Bank of Canada	6,674
Total	3,259,242
2. The chartered banks are required under the Bank Act to hold reserves against their Canadian-dollar deposit liabilities amounting to twelve per cent of those liabilities payable on demand and four per cent of those payable after notice. The amount of cash reserves actually held by each chartered bank changes daily, primarily in response to clearings of cheques among the banks themselves and the public's demand for Bank of Canada notes but also as

May 20, 1975
Order Paper Questions
a result of changes brought about by the Bank of Canada in total reserves.
3. Bank of Canada notes and chartered bank deposits with the Bank of Canada do not bear interest. The chartered banks therefore do not gain any revenue from their holdings of cash reserves.


Mr. Rodriguez: With reference to the answer to Question No. 973, were any briefings as described delivered to any trade unions and (a) if so, in what locations and on what dates (b) if not, for what reason?


William Warren Allmand: No. (a) Not
applicable, (b) No requests for such briefings have been received by the Ministry of the Solicitor General from trade unions.


Mr. Dick: What was the total number of ports of entry in existence in Canada and recognized by the Department of National Revenue for each year (a) 1900 (b) 1910 (c) 1920 (d) 1930 (e) 1940 (f) 1950 (g) 1960 (h) 1970 (i) 1971 (j) 1972 (k) 1973 (1) 1974?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: (a)
406; (b) 413; (c) 492; (d) 506; (e) 340; (f) 340; (g) 399; (h) 356; (i) 342; (j) 339; (k) 335; (1) 334.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Andre: During each year 1972, 1973 and 1974, how much money was paid to Alberta firms for the purchase of architectural and engineering services?
Return tabled.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to the answers given to questions on the order paper. With regard to Question No. 2,238, I feel the reply given does not do justice to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Since the question dealt with the publication of the debts of the provinces within Confederation on July 1st, 1867, and the figures were not given for the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, I should like the parliamentary secretary to give special attention to that question and complete the answer, if possible, at the first opportunity.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, again I rise on a point of order regarding my questions 1,480 to 1,511 inclusive. Today, during the question period, the minister of external affairs said that these questions were going to cost $10,000

to lay on the table as orders for return. The last time I asked this question, which I think was two sessions ago, the parliamentary secretary to the House leader explained that it was going to cost $1 million to answer one question, and I found out after searching some files, particularly a computer file, that it cost only $256. The minister is now saying to the House that the answers to these questions will cost $10,000.
If the department does not have files to which they can refer for these particular contracts, especially a department that has $1 billion to work with, and therefore cannot come up with these figures, there is something wrong or the department is incompetent. We in this House should try to find out exactly what kind of a filing system the department has and just what we have to do to get these figures.
I am sorry the minister felt he should take the opportunity during the question period to stick it to me, if you will allow me that expression, but I really think he has to come up with an answer and I intend to keep pressing him for it.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to question No. 2,465 to which a response but not an answer was given the last day. The question sought to trace the number of executive assistants, special assistants and other exempt staff and employees of ministers who have been filtered in under the exempt staff provisions to the public service and various agencies. I had asked a similar, but longer question earlier specifying a much larger category of staff including secretaries, consultants, advisers and the like.
The response to the earlier question was that it would take too long to answer. While not accepting that, I nonetheless shortened my question considerably to only three categories of personnel appointments, namely, research assistants, special assistants and executive assistants. This involves a small number of people who would be easy to trace if the government wanted to reveal the degree to which it is putting these political appointees into the public service. The government does not want to do that, and for that reason it has not answered the question.
I raise the matter now as a point of order, to point out that the government is hiding from public view the degree to which it is filtering political appointees into the public service under the exempt staff provisions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 20, 1975



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS GARRISON DIVERSION PROJECT-DAMAGE TO ENVIRONMENT THROUGH CONSTRUCTION

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 26, to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. The specific and important matter is in respect of the damage which will be caused to the Canadian environment by the construction of the Garrison diversion project and the lack of positive action by the Canadian government to prevent such damage. There must be a debate so that the Canadian and United States governments become aware of these dangers and act promptly to prevent them. If my proposal is accepted, I will move the adjournment of the House, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).
Perhaps I could give a brief explanation at this time. There is evidence that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is attempting to complete the Lonetree reservoir as quickly as possible regardless of protests and studies currently being conducted. This reservoir is the last connecting link between the Missouri River basin and the Red River drainage basin and is considered the point of no return for the project. It will be completed in a matter of months, the necessary funds having been authorized in March by President Ford.
The following agencies have acknowledged that Manitoba will be hurt by the Garrison project: the Canadian government, the Manitoba government, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Congress, the Comptroller General and the Department of the Interior. The United States State Department, in a letter dated February 15, 1975, made public March 5, said that it believed continued negotiations on a diplomatic level between the United States and Canada would likely result in nothing more satisfactory than a stalemate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I feel that his explanation of the background of the circumstances up to this point is certainly adequate to enable me to make a ruling, particularly when coupled with the actual motion itself which is fairly clearly descriptive of the situation.
I have not the slightest hesitation in accepting the circumstances of the problem the hon. member has exposed in his motion and explanation as being of the utmost importance. I have some reservation about the timing, as it would appear that there will be considerable opposition within the United States to this last step described in the hon. member's remarks as the point of no return. There does seem, certainly, to be urgency about that last step taken in the United States in respect of the fate of environmental conditions in Manitoba.
The reason I am not accepting the application for an emergency debate at this time has nothing to do with the importance of the matter or its urgency, but relates, rather, to the other part of the Standing Order which
Non-Canadian Publications
refers to the opportunity of an hon. member for bringing a matter to the attention of the House in other ways. This matter has been raised several times during this session already by the hon. member and by others. The estimates of the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) have now been before the standing committee for some time, as have been and still are the estimates of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen).
The effect of the estimates of both these ministries, as well as perhaps others, being before the standing committee would provide, and continue to provide, the hon. member with an opportunity to question the minister in such a way as to pin him down very specifically on this problem. In light of that opportunity, coupled with the rather high percentage of allotted days which remain in the less than two months-about five weeks-prior to the summer recess, as well as other suggested means of bringing matters to the attention of the House, this would recommend itself to the Chair at this moment as being adequate means in the hands of the hon. member for disposing of this problem, or at least of requiring the minister to give a direct answer either before the standing committee or before the House.
I find, therefore, that while the problem is important and urgent, the hon. member ought to enjoy, within a reasonable time, an adequate opportunity of bringing this matter before the House in other ways, considering the timing of the problem and the opposition to it in the United States.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, May 16, 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. Marke Raines (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to continue my speech in connection with Bill C-58, with amendments to section 19 of the Income Tax Act by deleting from its subsections (2) and (4). Foreign magazines, notably Time and Reader's Digest, can if they wish, and I am sure they will, continue to operate in this country, but Canadian advertisers will no longer be able to deduct the cost of their advertising when dealing with the Minister of National Revenue. I stress that because there seems to me to be a misconception across Canada that if this bill is given third reading, somehow Time and Reader's Digest will cease publication. That is simply not the case. This is simply the withdrawal of a special concession or special privilege, a privilege which perhaps should never have been granted as it was ten years ago.

May 20, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
There has been a great deal of response to this action on the part of the government, some of which has come from Reader's Digest. Its publishers have launched a campaign to persuade its subscribers to, shall I say, pressure Ottawa on their behalf and lobby members of parliament to block the tax act amendments announced by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner).
In a plea to its subscribers, Reader's Digest has said "our fate is now in parliament's hands". That was stated on an enclosure to the Reader's Digest edition of March, 1975. Reader's Digest then outlines its contribution in the 32 years in which it has been distributed in Canada: it goes on to list these major contributions. Reader's Digest probably does have a good history of useful function in Canada, but I submit that is entirely aside from the point. The point is-which I must refer to once again-that this is a matter of special tax privilege and what we have done in the past with Reader's Digest and Time is not a mandatory blueprint for the future.
Our Income Tax Act states clearly that a magazine or newspaper must be 75 per cent Canadian controlled before advertisements placed in it can be considered deductible as a business expense. Reader's Digest and Time are not 75 per cent Canadian owned, yet for the past ten years they have been exempt from this provision. That is a special privilege. It seems to be manifestly unfair that two of the richest and most powerful magazines in the world should enjoy special tax privileges not granted any other major foreign magazine or newspaper.
Phasing out a privilege wherever it may exist should be one of the toughest challenges facing this or any other government. I am pleased that this government has taken decisive action in this case. Reader's Digest states that the effect will be calamitous. I believe, instead of threatening suicide as they are, Reader's Digest and Time magazine should set about the business of planning constructively for their survival without tax privileges; or are we to infer that these magazines are claiming the right to a perpetual privilege? Perhaps that is what happens when a privilege by any group, large enterprise, corporation or large magazine has been held for too long.
I submit that a period of ten years is too long and that the action of this government is overdue. Removal of this privilege from the Income Tax Act obviously is overdue. Some hon. members mentioned mail they have received on behalf of Reader's Digest and Time magazine, but to my knowledge no one has referred to the other side of the picture. A letter I have received from the Canadian Periodical Publisher's Association, whose members have a combined circulation of 1.3 million, states it would like to confirm that it supports Bill C-58. The letter also states:
We firmly believe that with Time Canada and Reader's Digest competing with Canadian magazines on an equal basis, there will be exciting new work for more writers, designers, photographers, printers, typographers and others in the graphic arts across Canada.
They say that Canadian magazines will become bigger and better, sounder financially and more significant culturally. They also say there will be more magazines. I do not know whether there will or will not. I am sure that if Time ceases its Canadian edition we will still read its

international edition. I am sure, if Reader's Digest ceases its Canadian publication, it will still be everywhere in Canada. I am not sure what will happen to our Canadian magazines. I suppose there will be more work for writers, but I do not think it matters. I hope they will thrive, but that is their problem. I hope that Reader's Digest and Time will continue to thrive, but that is their problem.
My problem, and I submit the problem of the government, the taxpayers, and our problem in representing the taxpayers, is to ensure that a special privilege is given to no one. That is my problem at this time, and I submit it should be the problem of all hon. members in this chamber. Maclean's magazine announces that it will begin publishing every second Monday commencing with the October 6, 1975, issue. Good for Maclean's; I hope it survives. But Maclean's is not my problem.
Much has been said in this debate: the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has gone so far as to quote from the Bill of Rights. I have carefully read Hansard and fail to see how reading from the Bill of Rights to substantiate the hon. member's argument is in any way linked to withdrawal of special privileges for some large corporations. I, too, should like to quote from the Bill of Rights as recorded in Hansard at page 5888. There is a reference to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association, and freedom of the press. By all means let us have freedom of the press. Let the publications flourish or go bankrupt. I submit that is not the basic problem. We will give the press freedom to make $1 million, as some syndicates have, and freedom to cease publication, as some have done.
But I stress, again, that there is a misconception across the land that Time and Reader's Digest are somehow being barred or censored from coming into Canada. They have not been, they are not now, nor will they be. It is a simple matter: we are stopping their welfare cheques; we are stopping the special privileges. Neither this government nor any other government, for that matter, has ever told Canadians what to read. This government is not telling anyone what to write. It is simply telling all magazines that in order to take advantage of the tax concession designed for Canadian magazines, they must be Canadian; and if Time or Reader's Digest or any other publications wish to conform to these suggestions, then that is their decision.
We are not telling them how to conform. We are not telling them what to publish or when to publish. What we are saying is that we are giving them special tax concessions which have been going on for ten years, and that ten years is long enough. I submit there is no cogent argument for continuing these tax concessions. I believe they should never have been granted in the first place. We will listen to more arguments when this matter goes before the broadcasting committee, of which I am a member, but I have yet to hear an argument for continuing special tax privileges to anyone.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise this afternoon in a debate that is of considerable moment in the history of publishing in this country. It is momentus because it concerns something very dear to the hearts of our people-their nationalism and their national interest.
May 20, 1975

One feels that the minister, in presenting the bill and when preparing the speech which he delivered a week or so ago, was desirous of making the maximum impact by clothing his words with an authority which he may have felt might escape him. We do not know who was the speechwriter, but one could imagine that when considering an idea that would work, the adviser perhaps indicated that eons ago a great leader had used ten imperatives, and the minister jumped at the idea. Wanting to know where they could be obtained, he was told it would mean climbing a mountain. The minister's being skeptical concerning whether he should attempt that and whether he should take all that much time out of his busy schedule prompted the speechwriter to say that he did not know whether or not the public would go for ten imperatives, and the minister probably said, "Let us try eight." So that cleared away that difficulty.
One suspects that rather than climb the mountain, they climbed the CNR tower in Toronto and from that great height surveyed all the Canadian publishing empire that the minister and his advisers felt mattered, and the minister came down from the tower with the eight that were presented to the House in the debate on May 8. I do not wish to suggest for a moment that these eight are linked in any way with the original ten. I do not wish to suggest for a moment that they have the same force or commandment or that they will remain in the history of this nation as long as the others have remained in the history of the world. I think we could probably call them the eight no-no's of Canadian publishing, rather than refer to them as commandments. They make an interesting list. I shall not read them all but I wish to draw attention to three of them. The third one reads:
Third, we do not want the continuance of a situation wherein the world view of Canadian readers is being influenced by American periodicals the operations of which in Canada are facilitated by a tax deduction provision primarily intended to assist Canadian publications.
I would suggest that there is a difference between the world view and the universal view. The Reader's Digest application to its subscribers for support drew a remarkable response. In spite of the words of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines) whom we have just heard, the response was remarkable. In the brief debate on this bill several hon. members have referred to the size of the response surpassing any similar, mailed correspondence in the history of this parliament.
In the fourth point made by the minister, he said:
Fourth, we do not want the continuance of a practice whereby the stories and articles reproduced in the French language Canadian edition of Reader's Digest are usually translated outside Canada.
If we look at the history of these events we find that Reader's Digest published its first edition at a time when there was not the same sensitivity to "la langue fran^aise vivante" that there is at present in this country. Surely that practice is one that can be easily altered by negotiation between the Department of the Secretary of State and the magazine. In his eighth point, the minister said:
Eighth, we do not want the continuance of a Canadianization progress record which, after thirty years, finds Time in Canada still owned and controlled entirely by Time Inc. in the United States and publishing
Non-Canadian Publications
perhaps 10 per cent Canadian content; and Reader's Digest only 30 per cent Canadian-owned and carrying in its English language edition about 25 per cent and, in its French language edition, about 15 per cent Canadian content.
I suggest that in the eighth point in his list the minister has gone a long way toward separating the two publications, although in all the announcements and pronouncements he and his department have made they have carefully twinned the two publications. Considering the facts presented in his own eight imperatives to Canadian publishers, one could have substituted "but" for "and" preceding "Reader's Digest'' and omitted "only" altogether, because there is a considerable difference between zero and 30 per cent.
Again, I think that this could be a matter of negotiation between the magazine and the department of the minister in terms of increasing the Canadian ownership of the magazine and the editorial direction of the Canadian issue of Reader's Digest because surely the editorializing that goes on in that magazine is considerably different from that in Time magazine which by its very nature as a weekly news magazine is in a considerably different position to influence the world view of Canadians, if the minister feels that their world view is being so much influenced by that magazine.
I find that in the mailing that has come to me from my constituents they have separated the two magazines very sharply. It should be remembered that Time also appealed to its subscribers by way of an insert in the magazine and asked them also to write to their members of parliament. But there is a wide discrepancy between the number of constituents who took advantage of that opportunity with respect to Time compared to the many who wrote concerning Reader's Digest. They wrote their letters by hand with respect to Reader's Digest. They did not fill out a form and sign their name at the bottom; they sat down and wrote to me by hand. They wrote about Reader's Digest as one would about an old friend or a relative. They were not worried about its influence on their world view, but they were concerned about some of the universals in terms of conduct, morality and standards that they feel are important.
They gave a variety of reasons why they felt the Canadian issue of that magazine should continue to exist in Canada. One of the reasons, of course, was its Canadian content. A variety of people pointed to specific articles that they had read which they otherwise would not have had the opportunity to read, articles by Canadian authors, articles on Canada and articles that meant a great deal to them. They wrote about it being one of the few magazines left that is safe to leave lying around the house where young children can find it, because they believe it upholds a level of morality and virtue that is difficult to find being upheld in the periodicals that are being sent throughout the country at present. I suggest that the minister, who is so concerned about the state of Canadian and American publishing and who has made various statements saying he does not want to prevent anything from coming into this country, might do a survey of the newsstands, as some of my constituents have done, and look at the nature of a great deal of the material that is coming into the country in vast quantity.
5924

May 20, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
I agree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour that Canadians would probably buy American editions of these two magazines, so there would be a net loss, not a net gain, to Canadian nationalism because we would lose the Canadian content, particularly in Reader's Digest. I know there are Canadians who are concerned about the nature and state of the material available on our newsstands, always at the lowest level where the smallest child can reach out. These stands are seldom supervised, and there is a real concern about that. The minister might address himself to that question when he is finished with the one with which he is dealing now. My constituents wrote to tell me that Reader's Digest fits into old hands; that is it is of a size that they like to hold; that they can read it comfortably; also, that it can be re-read. The measure of Reader's Digest is that there are not all that many publications that one can return to after a year or two and find them of continuing interest. But over and over again people referred to re-reading the magazine to which they have subscribed for up to 30 years.
As you may gather from my remarks, I have very little belief, personally, in Time magazine, and the pairing of the two magazines in the bill and in the pronouncements made by the minister caused me some difficulty. I suppose I am somewhat prejudiced against Time since the thirteenth year of my education when the teacher I had used to bring it to class and read verbatim from one end of the periodical to the other until the bell went. She swore by it. I was rather skeptical of it at that time and remember taking to class a clipping from a newspaper which said that Time magazine had a great bias. I presented it to the teacher who, not realizing the nature of the clipping and being very glad to have received an offering from a student, began to read it to the class, discovering, too late, that it was knocking the magazine that was so precious to her.
I have had many qualms about my rudeness to the teacher in years gone by, particularly since I became one myself, but I have never had that much doubt about my early judgment of Time magazine, and certainly least of all in 1963 when I bought an issue in Tokyo in the hectic weeks preceding the election of that year. On the cover of that international issue of Time I saw a picture of the then prime minister of this country, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), in a caricature so grotesque that although I was not then a member of the party that I represent now, I was shocked by it, disturbed that a magazine that was, in a sense, a guest in the house could intervene so dramatically and so drastically in the electoral process of this country.
I was struck by something of the same thought in the election just passed when the issue in the week just prior to the election, an influential week when every publication in this country endeavoured to exert the maximum influence on the Canadian electorate. A cover was produced, and I cannot believe that it was entirely by accident that on the cover the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appeared on the ace of hearts and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) appeared on the ace of spades. I resented the inference then. They may have learned something since 1963, but to attempt to direct the voters of

this country does not, to me, fit the nature of a publication that has been a guest in the house and has not moved through the years to alter its nature or to increase its Canadian ownership; and certainly its Canadian content has always been a token gesture in this land.
I am not concerned about the welfare of the Maclean-Hunter empire in this country. I have grave reservations about the editorial policies of Maclean's magazine. I have nothing but congratulations for Chatelaine and its editor, Doris Anderson, who is an inspiration to all the citizenry of Canada for the way she has livened up that magazine and addressed it to the issues of today. I think all Canadians can give credit to Doris Anderson for presenting the Murdoch case to this country, a shocking decision which lacked everything we consider basically just. Bringing it before the Canadian public was important and Chatelaine did important work in that regard.
With regard to Maclean's, and particularly the editorship of Mr. Newman, I have objected to its persistent attack on basic Canadian institutions, particularly the RCMP and the monarchy. Through a variety of subtle and sometimes brilliant covers and articles, this attack has gone on and has been refined by that magazine in a most extraordinary way, because some months after the attack the magazine will refer to its own attack as proof of the fact that the Canadian public is no longer concerned about these traditional institutions which have served us so well for so long. This is a kind of aid and assistance to the promoters of change for the sake of change in this country which I find reprehensible.
The question is often raised whether the bill will revive Canadian magazines. Saturday Night, one could say, has already been resurrected. The cover of the new issue says, "Reborn". I do not know whether that quite fits-I will return to it-but I was greatly heartened, on receiving my issue of this republishing of Saturday Night, to read in it these words:
Driving into British Columbia's Okanagan Valley for the first time- especially in spring or summer-is like hearing for the first time the And ante cantabile from Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 5. It's all so sweet and beautiful and the cynic inside can't quite believe it's real. The Okanagan runs for about a hundred miles, from Sicamous at the north end to Osoyoos on the Washington border. The Selkirk and Monashee ranges shelter it from the east, the North Cascades from the west.
It's particularly astonishing when you drive from the east. For days, you've been travelling across the prairies, then through the Rockies. Spectacular skyscapes and landscapes, but a little overpowering after a while. Turn left from the Trans-Canada at Sicamous and suddenly things begin to resume human scale. Soon you spot an ancient weeping willow, not a very common tree this far north. Then, just south of Mara Lake, the valley opens out to reveal mile upon mile of orchards. Pears, apples, peaches, plums, cherries. Vineyards, too, claimed from the soil by decades of irrigation. Springtime must be fantastic.
Madam Speaker, this is a magazine which will survive if it can be so poetic about such a constituency as the one I serve and can write with that quality. I am sure that it's future is indeed secure. But that is not the only thing which gives me hope that it will survive, because as I looked through the articles I found that the magazine seems to be, if I may use the expression, on the right track. It carries an article by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), and it is well worth reading. I must say the little joke of last Friday afternoon, when the gallery filled during the speech of that hon. member, was a
May 20, 1975

good joke until the point where the visitors departed as quietly as they came. The speech being made at that moment by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona deserves their attention, and the joke would have been much better had they stayed, because their departure left it just a little sour, in the mind of this member at least.
One then sees that there is an article on the premier of the great province of Ontario. This is the feature article. This is, again, an indication of what is important in the land right now. One finds another article on a former member of this House, the great hockey star, Howie Meeker, who was briefly in parliament and sat as a member of this party. With an opening edition like that, there is hope for Saturday Night, because those who wrote to me are not cynical and they are the backbone of Canadian nationalism in this country.
What gives me the most hope for this magazine is one poem written by the Canadian poet, Miriam Waddington- and it rhymes! A magazine which devotes itself in the 1970s to a poem which dares to rhyme is one which has set itself on a path of courage. The poem, too, addresses itself to the people who wrote on behalf of Reader's Digest, and part of it reads:
We never know what's apt to happen and although money isn't everything how will things be, where will they go, when we, our generation, win or lose, fed up with curbing hell at last drops all the reins and everything busts loose?
This is one of the concerns expressed by people who write to me because they look at a world where so much is busting loose and they wonder why the minister is concerned about taking the Canadian edition of Reader's Digest from them; they cannot understand it. Surely, for these people, the justification cannot be Canadian nationalism; and surely, for these people, if Canadian magazines would address themselves a little more to that large reading audience-and with the state of education in this land, it soon may be the only reading audience left-they will succeed, because those people want to see some indication of quality. They want to see some indication of virtue and some indication that the magazine could become, not an intrusion, not an insult as they look at the cover but one with which they would be glad to renew their acquaintance. I feel that the resurrection or rebirth of Saturday Night could perhaps more properly be called the return of the prodigal. Having rooted in the trough of sensationalism for too long until it lost its readership in this land, it has decided to return to a format which served it well for many years when it was a great magazine in Canada.
I am concerned, too, about the question of the 80 per cent different content. That matter has already been raised, and I do not wish to dwell on it. One can imagine a board being set up to determine the content. That would be a dangerous and difficult policy, and surely such an idea should be dropped. While it might be possible to establish a weekly news magazine that would qualify in terms of different content, (in spite of all the minister's brave words I suspect that would be interpreted as Canadian content very quickly) the law could be set down, but people would have to make the judgment. It might be possible to establish a Canadian weekly news magazine-I hope one is attempted in the near future-but I am afraid it would not be possible to establish a Canadian Digest.
Non-Canadian Publications
A lot of government policies have led us to the present situation, Madam Speaker, and not just the question of tax privileges. Other members have spoken about postal rates, taxation and lack of government support; all reasons why the Canadian publishing industry is in its present state. As I look around the newsstands and read the magazines that come to me, I see a revival in Canadian publishing. If the minister's bill has done that, then I think the measures he has in mind for Reader's Digest are not necessary in order to revive Canadian publishing.
There are more negative aspects to this bill than positive aspects, Madam Speaker. I am particularly conscious of remarks made in the speech of the hon. member for Vau-dreuil (Mr. Herbert) on May 8. The hon. member has gained a reputation in this House for courage, clear thinking and an ability to express opinions not laid down by the government. He said, as reported at page 5611 of Hansard:
Close to six million Canadians read and enjoy the Canadian edition of the Digest every month. Reader's Digest material is made available to, and much of it is used by other editions around the world. Some articles receive exposure to 100 million readers in 13 languages. Reader's Digest has made some 32 per cent of its common stock available to Canadians through a public issue, the only Digest company in the world to do so. Shareholders bought their stock with the understanding that the company's operations were not under any threat at the time the stock was issued. Reader's Digest had that assurance from the government.
I hope the government will think carefully about that aspect of the threat against the company. Of course, it is a government that has gone back on agreements before; it is a government that withdrew from the world's fair at Spokane after being the first in. There are other examples of how it does not instil confidence in the Canadian business world. I suggest that the action being contemplated here is as great a threat to nationalism and a sense of pride in one's country-in fact, a much greater threat- than the presence of Reader's Digest in this country could ever be.


Mr. John Roberts (St. Paul's):: Madam Speaker, I had not intended to enter the debate at this time as I shall have an opportunity in committee to examine the question before the House in specific detail. I am moved to intervene, however, because after listening to some of the speeches, and reading others given at a time when I was not able to be in the House, I was concerned to find a deepening and perhaps studied obfuscation or drift in the view being presented by the official opposition. It seems to me that on this question, which is an important one, members opposite have an obligation to make clear where they stand. They have an obligation to level with the House of Commons, and an obligation to level with the people, on what they believe should be done in the relation to the special tax privileges Time and Reader's Digest now enjoy. Originally, the position of the opposition was clear, and it was strongly supportive of the government. Back on January 23, speaking for the official opposition, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) said as reported at page 2527 of Hansard:
We believee that the move to eliminate the income tax advantage shared mainly by two magazines, Time and Reader's Digest, is a good one.
29561 - 31'/2

May 20, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
That is to say, the government's position is a good one- strong, straightforward, supportive. At page 2528 he said:
-that we would be in agreement with the thrust suggested by the Secretary of State in eliminating advertising that is now being put through foreign broadcast stations.
That is also straightforward and supportive of the government's position. He went on to say:
In summary, we are pleased that the government has at last acted, subject to what I have said, in the fashion indicated in the statement.
Clear, straightforward, simple, strong, obvious support for the government's position. There was no doubt then about where the opposition party stood. What happened by May 8 when the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) rose to take part in this debate in response to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner)? Where was their straightforward, clear, supportive position then? Were the snows of January melted by the time the darling buds of May were in bloom? The hon. member for Fundy-Royal talked about almost everything but what was at issue. He talked about postal rates, about distribution of magazines, about government advertising; he hardly talked at all about the tax privileges held by Time and Reader's Digest.
There is a story about a Scottish philosopher, Madam Speaker. Every time an objection was raised to his philosophy or theories, he said, "That is indeed an important objection; we cannot overlook it. We must stare it full in the face and pass on." That is what the hon. member for Fundy-Royal did every time the question was raised of what we should do: he looked it straight in the face and passed on. On May 8, at page 5597 of Hansard, he said:
A tax policy should apply equally. Time and Reader's Digest could easily fulfil their obligations as Canadian citizens by broadening substantially, over an agreed span of time, their Canadian ownership.
There is nothing wrong with that. Then we got a splendid assertion of principle.
Perhaps application for citizenship could take the form of an increased sale of their shares to citizens of this country.
Perhaps? That is not nearly as clear and straightforward. Later, he said:
-it might be fair to ask that more of the decisions relative to their editorial content should be made in this country.
Might? That is not very strong. Then later:
My party and I are very nervous about this particular provision.
That is about the content rules. Madam Speaker, my hon. friend here says they are nervous about most things, and that is probably true. He continues:
I think that content rules, particularly as they have application to news magazines-
Does that mean Time and also Reader's Digest? Then he continued:
-are repellent to me and to this party.
Straightforward? Clear? Direct? Not at all. Ambiguous! If I could characterize that in a word which I hope is parliamentary, Madam Speaker, I would say those qualifications are "weasel" words-ambiguous-they provide an escape hatch for the hon. member to get out if he so desires. The resolution that had been there in January is now irresolution. In fact, I think one could describe the policy as presented, in so far as one could divine it from the speech of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, as secret;

wrapped in a muddle; hidden in an enigma. I think we should know who is speaking for the opposition and what their position is on these fundamental tax questions. In the last few words of his speech, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal made one suggestion which I thought was uncharacteristic but he did not stress it for any length of time. As reported at page 5600 of Hansard, he said:
Then we are getting into an area that through the years has given tyrannical governments the power that free men have resisted through the ages.
There is a slight suggestion of sincere concern there. I would not mention it except that it was the theme picked up by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) in his contribution to the debate last Friday. He portrayed himself as a great champion of civil liberties: the Bill of Rights is framed on his wall and so is Magna Carta. This concern of his was not much in evidence in debate last Thursday. Last Thursday the hon. member was not on my side trying to resist the encroachment, the censorship, which the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale) wished to place on the CBC. He was not speaking, that great champion of civil liberties, at that time. However, he did speak up last Friday on Time and Reader's Digest. He said:
-I am pretty concerned that by means of a tax measure we have brought censorship into this country.
That is not true. I will explain why in a few moments.
If this bill passes, the Reader's Digest and Time magazine will likely come off the news shelves in Canada.
That is not true, as my colleague from British Columbia indicated a few moments ago.
-it will permit not only this act but the act covering taxation in this field to allow a group of bureaucrats to determine what Canadians will be able to read.
That is not true. He said that when you curtailed the press or tried to curtail freedom of speech, whether by taxation or otherwise, you turned back the pages of history of the country 700 or 800 years. Then he said that this government wants to bring in censorship on what we should read. I was going to say that the whole of the speech of the hon. member for Calgary North was a red herring. It was such a large speech and such a large red herring that I think it might be fair to characterize it as a red whale. I say "a red whale" because the characteristics of whales are blubber and a tendency to spout.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: There is no board to be established under this legislation which will censor the material that will go into magazines, Canadian or foreign. The hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) was concerned about the question of who is to assess what is Canadian content or what is not Canadian content. This is not what the legislation enjoins. The legislation will simply enjoin that a magazine, an issue appearing in Canada, be substantially different in content from that appearing somewhere outside of Canada. One would be able to make that comparison even if one did not read the articles. One could look at them and see whether they were the same articles which appeared in another magazine. One could total them up
May 20, 1975

and make a percentage without applying any specific act of censorship whatsoever. These provisions do not exclude any specific material from appearing in any magazine whether Canadian or foreign. It is true they would encourage, within certain broad categories, the inclusion of material in magazines, but they would not censor out.
Perhaps to make the distinction clear, we could think of it in these terms. If I were to invite you out to dinner, Madam Speaker-which I would like to do some time-I do not think other members of the House would say that I am prejudiced against them by not allowing them to come out with us. On the other hand, if I said that under no circumstances would I ever invite you out to dinner, you might legitimately conclude that I had something against you, that I was censoring you out. The kind of provisions being brought forward in this legislation are inclusive. They are inviting Canadian magazines and other magazines that wish to be entitled to the tax provisions that apply to the Canadian magazines to include content in them which is substantially different from that which appears outside the country. However, there is no censorship.
One could attack this government, one could attack the Secretary of State, one could even attack these provisions ad infinitum and ad nauseam without being restricted by this legislation. This legislation will not lead to control of magazines in any way. For example, magazines now entering the country are not controlled. There will be no censorship of Time and Reader's Digest if they choose to come into this country as foreign magazines, no more than there is now censorship of Playboy, the Economist or Newsweek. They will not be censored if they choose to become Canadian magazines. They will not be censored in any way, just as Maclean's, Chatelaine, Homemaker's Digest, and so on, are not now censored. They will be in exactly the same position.
What this legislation does is make Time and Reader's Digest choose whether to be Canadian players in the periodical press game, or non-Canadian players. At the moment, there is a double inequity. These magazines have a favoured position in comparison with other foreign magazines coming into the country because they receive the same tax benefits as Canadian magazines. They have a special competitive advantage in relation to Canadian magazines because they are able to produce their product for a much larger market outside the country and write down their editorial costs. They can undersell. They can dump editorial material on the Canadian market. That is their advantage in comparison with Canadian magazines.
What this legislation does is make them choose. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a special position above and beyond that of foreign magazines, nor one above and beyond that of Canadian magazines. You have to decide which is your role, and play it effectively. If you want to compete against foreign magazines, do so without special tax privileges which they do not have. If you want to compete against Canadian magazines, do it without having the basic editorial material which enables you to write down your overhead, something which is not available to Canadian magazines. I cannot imagine why anyone would say that placing Time and Reader's Digest on an equal footing with other foreign magazines, or Canadi-
Non-Canadian Publications
an magazines, constitutes a form of censorship. It is an argument which staggers the imagination.
I wish to say a few words about the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), in his participation in the debate last Friday. I do not have a great deal to criticize in his speech. His speech was not partisan; it was moderate; it raised interesting questions which should be gone into in detail in the committee.
I do disagree with his analysis. I think the hon. member is overly fearful that these very profitable enterprises cannot move to meet the requirements of the legislation and still maintain their position in the Canadian market. He overemphasized their difficulties. He has not satisfactorily analysed their true economic situation and its effect on other periodicals in the Canadian publishing industry. On that we can go into detail in committee.
I was more concerned about newspaper reports of the hon. member's comments on Friday. It is often possible that one's remarks are misinterpreted in the press. I cannot go on anything other than what has been reported in the press. I think there are two great difficulties or inaccuracies in his remarks last Friday. In the press report it indicates he believes there is a great lack of resolution on the government side, splits within the government party, about whether or not we should proceed with this legislation.
My response to that, as one who knows the sentiments of the people on this side of the House as well as the hon. member for Cochrane is that that statement, if it is one he made, is simply not true. This is not a party which requires 100 per cent automatic coherent support for every measure which is brought forward. It is a large party with a variety of opinions in it. There are certainly divergences of opinion. It would not be surprising if, after the massive campaign of lobbying which has been mounted over the past few weeks, there were some members on this side of the House with doubts about this legislation. However, I know there is by far a majority of substantial agreement on this side of the House that we proceed with the measure. There are very few people who doubt its desirability and whether we should move forward to discuss this question and bring it to resolution.
I was particularly disturbed by the assertion that somehow the Secretary of State had "snuck in" this legislation to the House of Commons. It makes me wonder where the hon. member for Cochrane has been for the past ten years. This matter was raised by the O'Leary commission over 14 years ago, and the Davey commission. It has been discussed ad infinitum and ad nauseam in the press. It received overwhelming support at two conventions of the Liberal Party. It was discussed when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) was bringing in his budget last autumn. It was discussed again last January when the Secretary of State brought the legislation before the House of Commons. It has been discussed for the past two weeks. It has been a current, topical, running issue in this country for almost 15 years. To suggest that somehow the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has introduced this measure through the back door is not worthy of the hon. member.

May 20, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
I cite these assertions from the newspaper accounts because I think there is some danger of misleading the management of the magazines as to the true situation. So far, Time and Reader's Digest have been unprepared to come forward to suggest how they might meet these legislative proposals. There has been no sign that they are prepared to meet the objectives which the Secretary of State has described. They appear to have an obdurate belief that this legislation will not be passed and that they will not be obliged to change their ways. It would be a great mistake if they were encouraged by the remarks of the hon. member for Cochrane to persist in the belief that they need not make any attempt to meet the criteria set out in this bill. It would be a tragic mistake for them if they believed they could simply wait for the withdrawal of this measure.
There is substantial resolution on this side of the House to push this matter to final settlement. That is what we shall be doing in the committee. Representatives of the magazines will be before us and I hope they will make a sincere effort, as I believe they can, to meet the objectives which the Secretary of State has set out. This, I am sure, is the mood on our side of the House, and I believe the magazines concerned will ignore that mood at their peril.


Andrew Hogan: Madam Speaker, I rise on this occasion to reiterate our party's policy on this question as enunciated in the House on May 8 by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes). There is no need to spend a lot of time rehashing what has gone on in the past with regard to treatment of foreign publications vis-a-vis our Canadian culture, or explaining in detail-because it has been gone over and over-why these two magazines were given special treatment. We need only go back to the Senate committee in 1969. The government has been reluctant to accept fully the implications of what that Senate committee said, but in the bill now before us there is a much better recognition. The committee stated:
It seems plain to us that if Time and Digest are allowed to maintain their present competitive advantage, it will become increasingly difficult for existing magazines to survive, and for new ones to be launched. But we are satisfied that the long-term prospects for the Canadian periodical industry-and probably the short-term as well-would be enhanced by removal of subsidized foreign competition.
We do not want to appear, on this side of the House, as being too nationalistic regarding the cultural infiltration which has occurred from the United States at all levels because of our geographical propinquity. That is part and parcel of our geography and history. But, surely, thinking members on both sides of the House are now prepared to say there are certain limits and that we do need certain controls which can be exercised through our economic policy to try and prevent them from completely swamping us. Some can argue there is not much we can do because U.S. influence is worldwide and affects countries besides Canada.
Surely, though, we are Canadian enough to recognize that the time has come, after over 100 years of existing as a nation, when we should at least be able to say to the owners of Time magazine and Reader's Digest, "The time

has come for you to lose your special status within Canadian law." Whatever reason there may have been in the past for giving them special status-and I do not recognize there was any reason-if there was any reason then, the time is surely past.
It is not a question, as some have suggested privately, of whether you like Maclean's magazine or not. Personally, I do not like it. What I would like to see is the opportunity given to Canadian publishers to be able to get in on some of the advertising, so that the day may rapidly come when we shall not only have one national magazine but competitive periodicals at the national level which will regularly interpret Canada and the world through Canadian eyes. As I see it, Madam Speaker, neither Time nor Reader's Digest can claim that they are Canadian magazines with regard to ownership. Some people may say it is not important, but it is surely important when it comes to the question of editorial content where the principle of fairness and equity dictates that they be treated under the law as foreign publications-which they are; and nobody in the House can deny that.
As a person coming out of the academic community and as part of a relatively small group in Canada, I would much prefer, personally, Atlantic or Harper's or such types of magazine that have some depth in their writing and are not constantly repeating what the line is out of Washington, whether it is the foreign affairs department of the United States or the defence department, and so on. By and large, it is safe to say I think these two magazines, although there has recently been a change in the attitude of Time in this regard, have been largely spokesmen for American foreign policy and for the American way of life.
There is no reason why these two magazines should any longer be given special status by Canadian legislators with regard to their position in Canadian culture. Time for example has a mere five pages, on average, of Canadian news. This represents about 10 per cent of its content. Its editorial content, Madam Speaker, as is well known, resides in the United States in its parent company. Time Canada is wholly owned by Time Inc., of the United States and was one of the principal mouthpieces of the Republican party until the death of Mr. Luce. We have been absorbing much of that cultural flak into this country. No one would want to put a fence around them, but why give them special tax rates in order to do this just because they are Time and Reader's Digest?
I think Reader's Digest has been making a pitch, as we are all aware here, getting constituents to write letters on their behalf. I do not know for absolute certainty if they have been doing this, but my constituents have been writing to me and have been given the impression that they will no longer be able to buy Reader's Digest in Canada unless this legislation is defeated or withdrawn. It is absolutely false, and we all recognize this. As far as content is concerned, we all know that Reader's Digest has only 20 per cent to 25 per cent Canadian content in its English edition, and less than 15 per cent in its French edition.
Here, too, editorial control resides in the United States. Every article published in Reader's Digest-I defy anybody to contradict this-has to meet the approval of the editori-
May 20, 1975

al board in the United States. Only 32 per cent of the shares of Reader's Digest are open to Canadians for purchase. As for the ownership issue, suppose Reader's Digest and Time were to go public and issue shares in Canada. Even if something like 75 per cent of the ownership resided in Canada, to use the expression of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie when speaking for our party on this question, this would be just like "fudging the issue".
The key issue here is not who owns the actual publication, but who controls editorial policy and hence the content of these magazines. Let me repeat my own view on this occasion. While I have been engulfed by letters from my constituents asking me, on behalf of Reader's Digest, to take a different stand, I feel I am acting more in the interest of Canada by agreeing substantially with the content of Bill C-58. I hope most of us recognize that the special pleas made on Friday and today on behalf of two foreign publications are pleas that do not deserve special consideration from Canadians.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have just listened to a very interesting speech by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan), but I think he has fallen into the trap that the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) fell into in terms of drafting this legislation. I do not know whether it was ever presented to caucus; I do not know how things are done over on that side of the House. But as I say, I think the hon. member has fallen into exactly the same trap, which is to deal with Time and Reader's Digest, in terms of this piece of legislation, on an equal basis.
I am a subscriber to both these magazines. I am not so sure whether the hon. member who has just sat down is a subscriber to either, but I subscribe to both and in my judgment both magazines fill a different kind of requirement. On the one hand, Time is a contemporary news magazine. It is as old next week, in terms of its content, as the daily newspaper is as old and out of date the following day. This is not the case, Madam Speaker, with Reader's Digest, and perhaps one ought to consider the point made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) when he discussed the longevity of the articles in the magazine in terms of their interest and the fact that they can be picked up year after year and read. The thrust of the two magazines is different. The difficulty I see in the position taken by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is that he is putting them in the same bag; and this may well be the difficulty in which the Secretary of State finds himself.
The hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Roberts) spoke a few moments ago and said he was worried about the position taken by the official opposition. I am worrying about the position taken by the government on this matter. I have heard two very respected private members on the government side say that this is not a partisan issue, that what we are discussing here is the whole future of the Canadian periodical publishing industry. They said that given the importance of this question, why is the Secretary of State refusing to move? The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) said he was intransigent. The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) asked why he denies the statistics that are apparent, and why he fails to compromise?
Non-Canadian Publications
If this matter is to be treated as a non-partisan issue, why does the minister take this position? If the whips were not on pretty hard and fast, why did the hon. member for St. Paul's come into the House as the messenger boy of the government to give a lecture to the hon. member for Cochrane and to tell him that his remarks, which were given as a member of the House, were not worthy of him?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Is the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Roberts) rising to ask a question?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Madam Speaker. Would the hon. member accept a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Would the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) accept a question at this point?


Walter David Baker: I will at the end of my
speech, Madam Speaker; I would be very happy to do so then. If I may continue, I think it is extremely important to note that what those members were expressing were the reservations of many members of this House, because this difference of opinion is not surrounded by the parameters of party discipline; it is a deep and important question about which we are speaking.
I read the speech given by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), and I can be just as selective as the hon. member for St. Paul's. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal spoke on May 8 and put the position pretty carefully in terms of the taxation aspects of this matter. As reported at page 5597 of Hansard, the hon. member said:
Although the minister made a most interesting speech, the amendments he proposes to the Income Tax Act as put forward in Bill C-58 in no way constitute a periodicals policy for Canada.
Pausing there for a moment, that is surely the first issue. What is this bill going to do to advance the periodical press in this country? In my respectful submission, it will do nothing. The hon. member continued:
I think, personally, and I hope most will agree, that it is wrong of a tax policy to differentiate with respect to, say, Time and Reader's Digest as this leads to all sorts of amomalies and possibly unfairness. A tax policy should apply equally. Time and Reader's Digest could easily fulfil their obligations as Canadian citizens by broadening substantially-
These are the important words.
-over an agreed span of time, their Canadian ownership.
In the next paragraph of his speech he outlined what he felt was one consideration among a number of considerations regarding a part of the debate dealing with the principles of this bill. So I do not see why the hon. member for St. Paul's is having the trouble he is having, unless his problem is not with the official opposition but with the hon. member for Vaudreuil and the hon. member for Cochrane, who are from his own caucus, and with the many other hon. members of his caucus who may want to speak in this debate. Indeed, I hope they do because it is an important debate. However they decide to vote, I hope they voice their feelings and reservations. I dare say there are many more members in the government caucus who, like the hon. member for Cochrane and the hon. member for Vaudreuil, are thinking about this issue in depth, even

May 20, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
though the hon. member for St. Paul's is obviously not among them.
I want to deal with another point made by the hon. member for St. Paul's. He said that there is no board of censorship, and he is quite right. It may well be that the word "censorship" or the concept of "censorship" as it relates to the tax aspects of this bill is a harsh word to use. Perhaps it is too strong. But the Department of National Revenue, in terms of its power to make arbitrary decisions, subject of course to the appeal process, is indeed strong and it can have a profound effect on what will be printed and what will not be permitted in any magazine. This is the way tax policy is used, and in those terms let us not fool ourselves in this House: this bill represents an intrusion into the right of publication or the right to put on the printed page what a publisher might like. This happens and is the natural course of events.
Surely the government is not taking the position that when the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) talked about 80 per cent content, he was talking through his hat. He was saying, when he said that, "This is how the government of the day is going to enforce its decision, acceptable or otherwise, and only the future will decide the results within Canada.
It should be clear from what I have said that I view these publications from a different point of view. Let me say at the outset that I think this is perhaps one of the most important pieces of legislation with which we have had to deal in this parliament. It goes a long way in affecting the rights of people who hitherto have been granted certain rights under the law and in terms of those rights have made certain commitments and undertaken certain obligations. Before parliament or anybody else tinkers with these things, for however good the purpose to our country, we must consider each case on its merits. I do not believe the minister has done that when he lumps the two publications together. As a result of lumping the two publications together, I think there could very well be a great injustice done in the one case and I hope to have some suggestions to make in respect of that matter as we continue this debate.
The purpose of the government is laudable. The government has said it wants to aid the Canadian publishing industry and it is concerned about the inundation of our newsstands by foreign publications.


John (Moody) Roberts: Aren't you?


Walter David Baker: Yes, of course. That is what I said. If the hon. member had been awake and listening, I am sure he would have heard me say that I share those concerns. I think the government is attempting to begin some form of policy for the Canadian publishing industry, but this statute can by no means even be classed as a fair beginning to that policy. There are so many things to be done for the Canadian publishing industry, in terms of positive things, that I regret very much the minister has chosen, with all the fanfare of his speech at Trent University and his speech here in the House on May 8, to come forward with one negative proposal for an industry that is crying out for assistance
(Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).]
from its government. I cannot think that the Secretary of State for Canada is so lacking in imagination. If he is, I cannot think that there are people in the public service of this country who are so lacking in imagination they feel they should attack this great problem of an emerging Canadian industry by using the negative, retributive forces of the tax laws in this way.
Because of the magnitude of the problem, there ought to be a willingness on the part of the minister to compromise in this situation. It is that spirit of compromise, and its importance in dealing with something I do not think is really partisan in the traditional sense, which caused the hon. member for Cochrane and the hon. member for Vau-dreuil to say what was on their minds in respect of the matter. I commend them for that and I am rather proud to be associated with them, even though the hon. member for St. Paul's perhaps found their streak of independence somewhat not to his liking. Most members of the House would echo the many sentiments expressed by those two members of the Liberal Party.
Our duty is to examine each of these cases on its merits and examine the law on its merits. We ought to review the principles which should be considered in respect of the application of the law. If we find they are wanting, then the government and the Secretary of State should be prepared to move. For those who view the statements of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), when he was replying to a short statement in the House, as closing the debate on the consideration of this policy, I would ask them to read the statements again. He said very clearly that one of the important aspects that ought to be considered was the whole effect on Canadian employment and those who were dependent in one way or to some degree or another on the continuation of these publications.
The hon. member suggested we should consider the effect it might have on those people if these publications were not allowed to continue in their favoured position. He was concerned, as well, about the monopolistic effect this legislation could have in terms of the benefits it will confer on what has already been acknowledged to be a publishing giant in this country. He was concerned, and I think he said this by implication, very much about the effect, if any, this is going to have on the development of smaller periodicals as well as the development of opportunities for Canadian writers and craftsmen within those institutions.
We are not just legislating here for ourselves. We are going to be affecting these institutions in one way or another. In fact, we are going to be affecting the whole industry in Canada, I respectfully suggest. We must ask ourselves whether in terms of those who are participants now and in terms of those who look forward to careers as participants in the publishing industry, directly or indirectly, including artisans and suppliers, this legislation is reasonable as presently framed, particularly in terms of timing. I hope the Secretary of State is asking himself this question in view of the statements which have been made in the House today, coming as they do from all quarters.
There is one other matter the Secretary of State ought to remember. In terms of the effect or the prospective effect of this legislation, the Secretary of State or anybody else
May 20, 1975

in this government should not fly in the face of public opinion. There has been a tremendous feeling generated about this piece of legislation in Canada, and I venture to suggest that not all of that feeling has been generated by an advertising campaign. As the hon. member for Okana-gan-Kootenay has said, the subscribers of both Time and Reader's Digest were invited to write to their members of parliament. If I can judge by the weight of mail in respect of one, weighted as it was very heavily in favour of Reader's Digest, Reader's Digest does occupy a special position. I think we would have to recognize in this House that we just cannot fly in the face of the Canadian public.
The first question to be asked, I suppose, is whether this legislation will be of any assistance to the Canadian publishing industry as such. Other speakers have mentioned, and I reiterate this for the benefit of the minister, statements which have been produced as a result of some work done by an organization called Canadian Facts. The survey showed that in January of 1975, Canadian advertising executives indicated they felt that the Canadian publishing industry would not benefit substantially from the removal of the tax advantage for advertising in Time magazine and Reader's Digest. It is suggested that only 19 per cent of the revenue freed by this measure will go to the publishing industry in Canada. Of this 19 per cent, 58 per cent would go to Maclean-Hunter Publications, and as such Maclean-Hunter Publications would effectively control at least one half of the advertising revenue obtained by the magazine industry. It presently controls about 42 per cent of the total.
As I mentioned, I think the effect is that most magazines will derive a really insignificant benefit from the move proposed by the minister. This statement is made in the face of the assertion by the minister that smaller, special interest magazines constitute the real problem in the publishing industry. I am not suggesting there is anything sinister in this, but the survey by Canadian Facts indicated who the beneficiary would be. A moment ago an hon. member asked who backed that organization. I hope he will be able to produce other statistics in respect of this matter. I would be willing to listen to them. However, I think these are factors which we cannot ignore.
I wish to call attention to a letter signed by T. Peters which appeared in the Montreal Gazette some time ago. I believe he put the case very well in respect of Maclean-Hunter, one of the largest publishing houses in Canada, being possibly the only real beneficiary in this case. This is what he said:
For instance what will happen to the magazine industry in Canada? First of all the present total circulation of Magazine Association of Canada magazines is approximately 5.6 million while the U S. magazines (over 40,000 circulation) circulation in Canada number approximately 9,000 less. That's not much, but at least it's less. Eliminate Time and Reader's Digest, who belong to the MAC, and we'll end up with 3.6 million MAC magazines and 7.6 million U S. publications on the market. These two publications of approximately two million circulation have through the years built up a faithful readership, and will keep supplying their subscribers with copies mailed from the States. So as you can see, the Canadian magazine industry will not expand but rather decrease in size. There will be two million more Canadians reading U S. editorials and seeing U.S. advertising. And what effect will this imbalance have on advertising reach for Canadian companies?
Non-Canadian Publications
In his next statement, I think he put the case as well as anyone could for those concerned about the Canadian magazine industry. He said:
Canada needs a strong magazine industry to effectively compete with the other media. Without these two publications spending money to support the MAC, and nearly bankrolling all new research for the magazine industry itself, the outlook is gloomy.
I think this is a very sober comment on the long-term effect on the Canadian industry of this particular matter. I ask the minister whether the intention of the government is to make an award to the Canadian giant. Is that the real intention, or is it his intention, as he expressed it in his speech, to stimulate some of our new publications? I wish he would demonstrate to us how this will happen. I wish the minister could produce a study that would indicate how this would happen. Canadian Facts at least has produced something. Some people may have some doubt concerning the propriety of those figures. I am prepared to say I do not necessarily totally subscribe to them, but at least there is an attempt by someone in Canada to consider the effect of this legislation. I think the minister has a duty to consider these things.
The next matter with which I should like to deal is the restrictive aspect of the bill and the failure of the minister to deal with this matter in practical terms as it affects the two publications. I do not think any member of the House who has taken part in this debate so far would be prepared to argue that Time and Reader's Digest are on the same footing in terms of their impact on the Canadian public or, indeed, on the public of the world. The economic commitment and the economic contribution to Canada of Reader's Digest of Canada in relation to the contribution by Time is so much greater as to hardly need further explanation. There is the whole question of the business contribution to Canada, in the amount of $30 million. At least 90 per cent of every revenue dollar remains in Canada. The capital assets in Canada amount to $8 million.
Reader's Digest of Canada provides employment for 1,000 others aside from about 500 direct employees in Canada. It brings business to Canadian suppliers. It has made a substantial contribution to publishing technology in Canada. It has been printed in Canada since 1943 and published in both official languages. In terms of its stock, at least 32 per cent is made available to Canadians. As the hon. member for Cochrane carefully pointed out in detail, the very distinguished Canadians who are directors of the company, I am satisfied, would not let their names stand in respect of any fraud or any other kind of offence against the Canadian public. I think their presence is an indication of the real attempt this magazine has made to become a Canadian citizen in terms of the cultural contribution it has made to this country. I think it is a culture contribution which transcends Time by light years. They are different magazines. They have different purposes. The beat of Time is perhaps much wider than that of Reader's Digest and much more immediate. It is more of a reporting news magazine than anything else.
I mentioned the fact that Reader's Digest is edited independently in Canada in both English and French. I mentioned that there are some 80 Canadian editors and support staff and 80 additional Canadian freelance writers. There have been 140 writers published in the magazines since 1960. The worldwide publication of Reader's
5932

May 20, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
Digest, published in many different languages, provides an opportunity for Canadian writers to show their stuff to the world in other languages. It has a place not just in the hearts but in the minds of Canadians generally. I think we must remember this as we consider this piece of legislation, and consider also whether there has not been a fundamental error on the part of the government, perhaps not in principle in attempting to do away with the differentiation, but in so doing in putting these two publications in the same melting-pot and dealing with them in the same way.
The hon. member for Cochrane, who I would suggest was maligned just now by the hon. member for St. Paul's, put the issue thoughtfully in the speech he made in the House on May 16. He was speaking on what he felt was the central issue in this particular debate. I should like to quote from page 5891 of Hansard, where he is reported as follows:
In my view the central issue before us in this debate is to establish, once and for all, a set of guidelines for the magazine and periodical publishing industry in this country which meets the approval not only of the industry itself but of the advertisers, editors, graphic artists, and perhaps most important of all, the general public of Canada.
Certainly we should be thinking positively in these terms and that is, I hope, the minister's thinking behind this legislation. However, as I re-read his speech, I am not so sure that is his thinking. I do not think that in the speech which he made in introducing the bill for second reading he came to grips with that kind of thing; but the hon. member for Cochrane has come to grips with this matter and I hope that before this debate is over others will indicate that that is their wish as well.
I said at the outset of this speech that I would indicate some things that I think should be done by the government. I am sure there will be an opportunity to deal with this matter a little later if and when this bill receives second reading, but there are important things that go beyond this single, negative retributive step. On the whole question of ownership and the statement made by the Minister of National Revenue that arbitrarily there shall be established a very high level of 80 per cent Canadian ownership, I want to say to members of the government- and I say it with great respect-that ownership is not a sufficient guarantee of Canadian content. Can you imagine that anything would be typically Canadian if it were owned by the Argus Corporation, or Power Corporation? Would that guarantee anything with respect to the Canadian content of magazines owned by these corporations? I say, with respect, that a content ruling should be established which would increase the percentage of Canadian content required by law over a specific period of time. This is something that is not new to Canada; we have the same type of Canadian content ruling from the CRTC.
I think that in dealing with the matter of content and ownership we should be fair and we should do it gradually because of the disruption that any sudden action can cause to these publications. I think that if we handle ourselves in this way, handle ourselves sensibly, we could avoid the immediate dislocation of Canadian employees and suppliers, as the present measure seems to indicate might be

the case. I disagree with the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines) when he said that Reader's Digest was threatening suicide. That is not so at all; they are just saying that an express train with the Secretary of State at the controls is coming down the track; that perhaps it is out of control with respect to them, and they are warning people that it might hit them. There is quite a difference.
I think, also, that we could take a look at the distribution system of periodicals in Canada. Mr. Speaker, 13 of the 14 national magazine distribution firms in this country happen to be American owned. The government should consider assisting the organization of a national distribution company to ensure promotion and circulation of Canadian publications. Canadian magazines should be displayed and sold at federal installations and in Information Canada offices, thus promoting sales in a positive way. Public corporations such as Air Canada and others should be encouraged to provide a greater selection of Canadian publications. I see the Postmaster General (Mr. Mack-asey) in the House. Perhaps he could take a look at the postal rates that apply to magazines. The book purchase program of Canada Council could be expanded to include Canadian magazine subscriptions for public and school libraries.
The government should consider a grant system or a forgivable loan system with respect to the publishing industry in the area on which this legislation focuses. Canada Council would be a reasonable vehicle through which this matter could at least be considered, a vehicle for any system to be put into place. I think the government should consider purchasing a more substantial amount of advertising space in Canadian periodicals, although I would not want them to emulate the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) in his conservation program.
I have spoken about the question of postal rates and services, and while the Postmaster General is in the House I should like to suggest that he might consider the fact that 91 per cent of Canadian magazine sales are made through subscription, so an efficient and cheap postal service is of crucial importance to the well-being of magazines and periodicals in this country.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-External Affairs-Suggested Canadian effort to have North and South Korea resolve differences; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)

External Affairs-Garrison irrigation
May 20, 1975

project in United States-Request for Canadian efforts to secure moratorium on construction.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order No. 8, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). Shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The motion stands at the request of the government. Order No. 34, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The motion stands at the request of the government. This guarantees that it will retain its place.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is general agreement to taking the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), Bill C-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code (loan sharking).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I thank the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre) for that information.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore) moved: that Bill C-203, to amend the Criminal Code (loan sharking), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased that finally Bill C-203, to amend the Criminal Code under the term loan sharking, should be before the House of Commons. What it means, in effect is that the Criminal Code would be amended by adding immediately after section 305 the following:
305.1 (1) Any person who, in respect of any loan directly or indirectly, charges, exacts or receives, or stipulates for the payment by the borrower of a sum of money as a result of the payment of which the whole of the cost of the loan of the borrower exceeds or would exceed twenty-four per cent of the amount advanced, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years.
I point out that there is an error in the bill and that it should read "twenty-four per cent per annum", which may
Loan Sharking
be considered rather low. However, I point this out so that if anyone in replying takes exception to the bill, it will be understood that it is meant to be 24 per cent per annum in so far as this bill is concerned.
If you permit, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a few lines of Shylock's in "The Merchant of Venice", Act 1, Scene 3:
If you repay me not on such a day, in such a place, such sum or sums as are expressed in the condition, let the forfeit be nominated for an equal pound of your fair flesh. To be cut off and taken in what part of your body pleaseth me.
These lines, aside from demonstrating the timeless and universal quality of William Shakespeare's works, underline the fact that usury has existed for a great many years. However, in the past five or six years loan sharking has become an increasingly serious problem which must be faced. Government inquiries into organized crime, both in Canada and the United States, support this contention. Testimony from the Quebec Crime Commission hearings, and from United States commissions at both the state and federal level, have furnished abundant evidence.
It is estimated that loan sharking is the second largest source of revenue for organized crime. However, many feel it will or already has surpassed gambling as the number one source. On Montreal island alone it is estimated to be a $700 million business. This relatively recent but at the same time massive intrusion of organized crime into this field has given the problem an entirely new dimension.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines usury as the charging of interest in excess of that allowed by law for a loan of money or for the extension of the maturity of a debt. However, it is commonly used to define any credit situation where an unconscionable and exorbitant rate of interest is charged. For the purposes of this bill I define criminal usury as charging, taking, or receiving any money or other property as interest on a loan or forbearance of any money or other property at a rate exceeding 24 per cent per annum.
The harmful effects loan sharking has on society can no longer be limited to the financial bankruptcy of a few individuals, but are now a vital matter of concern because of economic and social effects on all elements of society. However, we should not minimize the financial ruin, physical hardships, emotional strain and sometimes suicide and murder suffered by individuals.
An example of this can be found in a front page story in the September 24, 1974, Montreal Star which tells about a woman who borrowed $300 from a Montreal loan shark and repaid, in weekly payments or fines, a total of $3,770 over a period of three years.
Indeed if we are to understand loan sharking, we must attempt to understand the victims of loan sharks. There are three identifiable classes of borrowers: first, the small businessman whose credit position is too poor to support a legitimate loan; second, the urban poor who, even if steadily employed, may be in desperate need of money; and third, heavy gamblers whose propensity for indebtedness is great, regardless of their business or background.
In addition it should be noted that organized crime often chooses victims whose abilities or contacts can be of use to
29561 -3214

May 20, 1975
Loan Sharking
the organization, such as bank employees and public officials.
Two basic characteristics of loan shark victims are an urgent need for money and the inability to obtain funds through normal lending channels, either because they do not have necessary capital or because the purpose of the loan is unacceptable. Another common characteristic of loan shark victims is that they very rarely complain about their plight to law enforcement authorities. The most obvious explanation is the fear of retribution, the threat of violence, implied or explicit, and when threats are not sufficient, the underworld has resorted to severe beatings and even murder.
However, there are other important reasons why victims seldom complain. The hearing into the impact of crime on small business in 1968, before the Senate Select Committee on Small Business, was told that it is generally agreed that most loan shark transactions are amicably conducted with both parties being satisfied. If this relationship remains unstrained, the authorities will never learn of the transaction from complaints. Also victims are sometimes sympathetic or involved in organized crime, and a victim is frequently forced into crime in order to meet payments. Thus he is in too deep to complain. This last point is directly related to the most serious effect of the involvement of organized crime in loan sharking, that is, the increase of criminal activity.
I will quote from Professor Henry Ruth of the University of Pennsylvania law school speaking before the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business in May of 1968:
The activity in each kind of crime bolsters the success in other criminal enterprises; organized crime uses loan-sharking in tandem with its gambling and other operations. In addition, the debor-victim becomes a pawn in furthering other criminal activity of the organization and in broadening the legitimate business base of organized crime's holdings.
It is to be appreciated that organized crime's rackets closely connected with loan sharking, besides gambling, are narcotics distribution, labour racketeering, and disposal of stolen goods. Profits from loan sharking finances these underworld practices, and also promotes other criminal activity. For example, as mentioned, victims are often forced to criminal means to meet demands for payment. It also provides a cruelly effective device for enabling the underworld to expand its interests in legitimate business.
The story in the Toronto Star dated April 14, 1973, concerning the testimony of a convicted racketeer to the Quebec police commission inquiry into organized crime dramatically underlines this point. The racketeer, describing loan sharking operations, said, and I quote:
They will beat up a man for a few dollars. They choke businessmen to death with outrageous interest, then take away their firms.
He went on to tell about a Montreal businessman who lost a $40,000 men's clothing store because he owed a shark $1,200 and could not make the weekly payments. He also told about another man who lost his dry cleaning firm and became a $100 a week employee in the establishment while the shark negotiated its sale to a competitor. Lastly, it should be remembered that loan sharking provides an instrument which organized crime can use in the bribery and corruption of public officials.

In 1967 a United States House of Representatives republican task force on crime stated, and I quote:
The victims of organized crime are the urban poor. A society concerned about poverty must be concerned about organized crime.
We find the urban poor are among the most vulnerable to loan sharking. The urban slums provide an excellent setting for the loan shark operator. A ready market exists because victims most often do not have access to legal lending sources. The poor can least afford it, and are most likely to be pushed to crime to meet payments. The crime rate in the urban slum environment is already too high without this further stimulus. Another factor is that too frequently in this environment the criminal element receives a certain respect, while law authorities lack the trust of the ghetto population.
While I have been concentrating primarily on organized crime in loan sharking operations, we must not forget that there are many supposedly respectable and legitimate businessmen who could be classified as loan sharks. They may not use the threat of violence to collect payments, but the interest rates they charge are criminal. Their victims are the poor, and the small marginal businessman lacking sufficient capital. When granted credit they must pay a premium for it. The poor have to rely on the most expensive source of credit. They are denied credit at lower rates not necessarily because they have a poor credit history but because they are simply less wealthy than other borrowers.
The chairman of the Welfare and Housing Committee of Metropolitan Toronto informed the Senate Committee on Poverty as follows:
So many people are unable to comprehend what they are getting themselves into, first of all... when they buy a car or television set or anything on time. In this country, you know it is rather peculiar that if you go to the bank and you want to borrow money at a reasonable lending rate, if you can afford it, you can get it. If you cannot afford it, you go upstairs and get it from the finance company which borrowed it from the bank in the first place. Too many people get in debt because they do not understand economics.
It is this kind of situation which provides a steady source of customers for our "legitimate" loan sharks. In my view our present laws against loan sharks are inadequate.
Perhaps one of the most telling statements I have come across is from the 1965 State Temporary Commission of Investigation of the State of New York, which found: Startling as it may seem, the commission found, and all official witnesses agreed, that the absence of effective usury laws in this state was a significant factor in the underworld's move into loan sharking.
There can be little doubt that sentences for loan sharking offences are too light. Perhaps the best example for this can be found in an editorial in the Montreal Gazette of September 28, 1974, which said:
One loan shark convicted of 84 counts was fined a total of $3,675, less than $44 a count. Yet he had $75,000 out on loan to 136 clients at rates starting at 25 per cent a month.
For some reason which is difficult to explain there is an attitude of indifference by local officials and the public toward loan sharking operations. As far back as 1951 the
May 20, 1975

Kefauver Commission investigating organized crime found:
Whether out of ignorance or indolence is not clear, but some local authorities insisted, orally and in writing, that there was no organized crime in their jurisdictions, although the subsequent testimony proved them pathetically in error.
In Canada law enforcement agencies attempting to control loan sharking are severely restricted by our present legislation. The Small Loans Act does not cover loans greater than $1,500, nor does it cover vendor credit such as credit cards.
I know the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) intends to introduce legislation which will remedy some of the weakness which exists presently in regard to the Interest Act and the Small Loans Act, and I want to congratulate the minister for his initiatives in this direction. My bill is not intended as a total answer to the problem and associated problems of loan sharking. But perhaps it is a start and will provide a platform for discussion of these problems.
I know one of the main criticisms of my bill will be the ceiling on interest rates and the inherent difficulties. While I agree with some of these criticisms to a certain extent, I would just like to say in closing that I fear that the removal of all ceilings on interest rates may only result in the legalization of loan sharking rather than its elimination.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to extend the debate this afternoon. On this side of the House we feel that Bill C-203 introduced by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) is a good bill and should be allowed to go to committee without further debate. If hon. members opposite wish to debate this bill to the end and talk it out, that is fine, but on this side of the House we think it is an appropriate bill and should go to committee without further debate.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) for presenting Bill C-203 to the House this afternoon. It shows that he has a strong social concern, especially for the working poor and the poor in the large centres.
Any objection that I might express indirectly on behalf of my party would be that the bill does not go far enough. I think the hon. member has corrected the bill and has stated that the 24 per cent mentioned refers to 24 per cent annually. We all know that, besides being hit by loan sharks, the poor in the large urban centres and smaller areas like my own are also hit by high rents and inflation and these things as attacks against the poor are sometimes more difficult to get at, but also it is true that if rent controls were introduced across the nation it might be good for one part of the country and not for another. Surely, however, the federal and provincial governments in co-operation should mount an attack on slum landlords from one end of Canada to the other. I would put these people in the same category of contributing to poverty as the loan sharks.
While I commend the hon. member I should like to suggest that, rather than talking about 24 per cent interest
Loan Sharking
and whether there is a ceiling on interest rates in regard to these special lenders-from an economic point of view the effect would be negligible-we should tackle the basic issue which is a moral one. The question is what this practice does to the poor and its contribution to organized crime in our society.
The hon. member has spoken eloquently and has presented evidence about the contribution of loan sharking to organized crime. 1 would suggest to him that a more realistic figure to give a legal lender an adequate return, while protecting the desperate borrower, would be 18 per cent per year rather than 24 per cent per year. He is right in saying that our present laws are inadequate. A guarantee of 18 per cent would put teeth in this legislation and would allow the provincial authorities, as well as the federal authorities, to undermine the relationships between loan sharking and keeping the urban poor poorer and the relationship between loan sharking and the growth of organized crime.
It is now accepted that credit unions have made an important contribution to our society. I would ask the hon. member to consider whether this is not an area in which we should ask the credit union movement to consider seriously giving a more favourable rate of interest to these desperate people. Perhaps something additional can be done for the poor of this country by this great voluntary organization. Credit unions started in Germany, and came to this country to make a remarkable contribution to our many communities, including towns in my own province. What the Caisse Populaire has done in Quebec is well known by hon. members on the other side of this House.
I want to state that I think the 24 per cent figure is unreasonably high. Considering the people we are dealing with, 18 per cent should be sufficient. The present rates encourage Shylocking, and something should be done about that.
The government is indirectly contributing to an attack on the poor while at the same time saying that through a possible guaranteed income it wants to help the working poor. This is one way it could help the poor, by putting some teeth into the legislation attacking loan sharking. At the same time it would do much in this country to help undermine the subtle, pervasive and complex influence of organized crime and its relationship to money lending in our economy.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset to congratulate the hon. member who introduced Bill C-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code by adding a few extremely important lines that read as follows:
Is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years ...
I would write twenty years and even life imprisonmentany person who, in respect of any loan directly or indirectly, charges, exacts or receives, or stipulates for the payment by the borrower of a sum of money as a result of the payment of which the whole of the cost of the loan of the borrower exceeds or would exceed twenty-four percent of the amount advanced.

May 20, 1975
Loan Sharking
Mr. Speaker, I believe usury should not carry a percentage. Whenever a loan is granted, if it is the outcome of one's labour, it is only normal to get a compensation which we call interest. It is money earned through one's labour. It is normal to own something that can be rented to somebody else at a rate of interest, for a reasonable rent, and not at a rate that may impose excessive conditions on the borrower which would place him in trying circumstances. If someone is being abused in a modern society, in a well-structured and well-organized society, it is only normal that the state step in so as to prevent the exploitation of man by man.
And I believe that such is the objective of Bill C-203, but the hon. member could have gone much further. I should like to make a few remarks. I just said that if one lends something that belongs to one, it is normal to get a reasonable rent back, but if one creates something to be lent to somebody else, that is something entirely created under a privilege, such as it is presently done in this country at the banking institutions' level, as they have the privilege under the law to create money to lend it at absolutely unreasonable interest rates, because after all, it does not cost them anything. It is no more and no less than a permission, a right that is granted them through a legislation enacted by the Parliament of Canada, through a federal charter, the right to make banking operations which in a way empower them to create money in this country in order to get an interest from it. It is the result of a trade in something that did not exist before it was decided to grant a loan to a borrower or to the government under this legislation.
To show you how true that is Mr. Speaker, I have here an answer given in December 1974 to a question on the order paper. I had asked the following:
What was the total money in this country on January 1, 1972 and January 1, 1974? And in both cases the government answered that in 1 cent, 5 cent, 10 cent, 25 cent coins, in $1, $2, $5, $10, $50, $100 and $1,000 paper money, the total outstanding was $5,860,000,000 created by the Bank of Canada.
With question 1567 I asked, and I quote:
1. What was the average total of money in Canada on (a) January 1, 1972 ... (d) January 1,1975?
The answer is very clear and we have proof that indeed chartered banks have a privilege to create money instead of the government. And I think this is a very serious matter. That is why I am very happy that the hon. member introduced a bill to draw the attention of the House to an extremely important matter. And we shall see following my remarks why I feel this matter is very important. We are being swallowed in a financial situation to such an extent that there will be no way out if the same formula is maintained.
So, to the question I asked, what was the total of money, a specific answer was given. The answer is as follows:
There are various forms of money in Canada. These include currency (coins, Bank of Canada notes) and deposit claims on the chartered banks and on other institutions that offer deposit accounts to the public. The most commonly used definitions, which include currency and chartered bank deposits, are shown in the following table. Dates are for the last Wednesday in December because statistics for January 1 are not available. The table also shows the outstanding amounts of
(Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).]
chartered bank credit in the form of Canadian dollar loans and mortgages.
So the proof exists under the act. We have the table. Chartered banks have the privilege to create, mint the credit of this country, make loans to borrowers, and the fact that they make a loan gives them authority to make a deposit on behalf of the borrower.
Automatically money is created that flows throughout the country in the form of figures. And the previous question: how much money is in circulation in the country? $5,860 million. The table shows once again: Total money supply: $5,860 million. But the total money supply in Canada as on January 1st was: $62,145 million.
Mr. Speaker, why the difference? We have just been told that the Bank of Canada has created $5,860 million, but we are told later that the Canadian money supply is $62,145 million. Then, this means that about $57 billion have been minted for lending purposes. This policy applies at the level of individuals, at the level of Canadian taxpayers, of individual borrowers, but it also applies to the Canadian government and to the provincial governments.
No later than last night, Mr. Speaker, I attended a town council meeting with about 50 Quebec taxpayers in my riding who must finance public works for a water and sewer system the cost of which will exceed $1.2 million, and those people have needs that they cannot afford to meet. Then, they shall have to borrow and pay that system three times its actual cost. I pointed out to them that under present financing methods, because of a disrupted monetary system, they shall have to pay three times the actual servicing cost.
The same situation exists, Mr. Speaker, in the field of rest homes construction. I have in my riding several of those organizations and I shall tell you, without mentioning any names, about a typical case dating back to March 1975.
A corporation decided to build a home at a cost of $433,267,000. Since it is to be paid in 50 years, the interest rate is moderate: 6 7/8 per cent. But it nevertheless means monthly payments of $4,232.16. 50 years mean 600 months. Therefore, those people will have to pay $1,815,000 in interest on a total loan of $723,700, which means that once again those people will have to pay the price of three homes to be allowed to live in one only. This does not include administration and servicing costs; how can they be expected to manage? That is called usury, and 1 think that is what the hon. member also wanted to get at.
Let us consider our own debt in Canada. There was an answer to that effect last week in the order paper. The Canadian debt on July 1, 1967 amounted to $79 million and to $55 billion on July 1, 1974. How much does that mean in interests in the 1975-76 estimates? My dear friends and colleagues in the House of Commons, let us together open the famous book of estimates and expenses. We find out that it is going to cost us 3 and a half billion dollars; one billion more than in the last estimates only to pay interests.
We could accept quite a few LIP projects to provide jobs to our unemployed. We would also accept quite a few Opportunities for Youth projects in the various constituencies of Canada to provide jobs to our students, a liveli-
May 20, 1975

hood. The Minister of Manpower (Mr. Andras) keeps shilly-shallying and makes every effort to meet the requests of students and of members on behalf of students in the various constituencies of Canada. He cannot do more. But three and a half billion dollars to pay interest on money created out of nothing for private organizations to get Canadian taxpayers into debt, Mr. Speaker, that is usury.
This is why, times and times again, I suggest to Parliament that it should take the necessary steps. We, members of parliament, are here, sent by taxpayers, by Canadians, to exercise authority in this Parliament, the supreme authority in Canada.
There is nobody above it, and if we really wanted to exercise the authority given to us by the Constitution, we could legislate on monetary matters, on the financing of the public sector, so that the Bank of Canada should be allowed to keep a continuing record of figures, statistics, as well as the gross national product and the work of Canadians, and to issue new credits, as needs be, not at a 15 per cent rate of interest, but at a rate which would offset administrative costs only.
This is in the public sector, and a considerable amount of money would be saved, which would unclutter the money market. We should get rid of an important competitor, the Government of Canada. In a way, we are kind of competitors to private business on the lending market. It is not surprise that the rates of interest raise. It is no surprise that usury should gain ground and that we should accept the situation as if it were normal, while it is not, at least in my mind and in the mind of a former prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King. As I said before, he was right in saying that, when a country does not control its credit, its money, it is vain to speak of democracy, because then you are dependent on those who control the economic blood of the country.
All these agencies who make loans at exorbitant interests are in the hands of the chartered banks in Canada, those financial institutions which are called credit agencies. They are owned by the chartered banks in Canada. This is an indirect way of lending money at higher rates, without any record in their files, without their names being used.
I suggest we should support this legislation because at least it would be a first step towards bringing to account those organizations that live off the people, that take advantage of trying circumstances facing small taxpayers to extend credit at extravagant and unfair rates. For this reason, I wholeheartedly support Bill C-203.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I would first commend the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) for introducing Bill C-203 on loan sharking, to amend the Criminal Code by adding a new provision regulating practices in this area.
Indeed, this is a very serious problem, especially since it was more or less underlying in the last few years. Then came revelations by the inquiry commission on organized crime, and those by the Cliche Commission, which showed not only that the problem was very serious, but that there was a pressing need to legislate in the field covered by this bill.
Loan Sharking
How can loan sharking be defined? This is very difficult in a free market economy as we have here in Canada. Courts of justice have defined it more or less vaguely and, on the other hand, the federal and provincial governments have legislated in this field to see what was the best way to establish the level of usurious rate. However, they were not able to do it.
This is because, according to market conditions, there may be a period in a year where a rate of 18 per cent would be considered usurious. On the other hand, in another segment of the market, in another economic activity, there could be an annual rate of 25 per cent, 26 per cent or 27 per cent which would not be considered as usurious but as perfectly normal by all the people concerned, including both the lenders and the customers.
But the government has realized that in what is called the small loans area, there had been flagrant abuses and that some effort had to be made in order to protect the consumers against these abuses, coming from contracts accompanied by credit, from contracts written and given out by finance companies and from the loan sharks, who lend at usurious rates.
Therefore, the governments legislated. First, in Quebec, for instance, there has been the Consumer's Protection Act which particularly refers to loans at usurious rates in section 21 and which determines this rate by regulation. Obviously, the rate is not determined in the act because if it were, at some times of the year, this rate would not be adequate in view of market conditions. Therefore, it was decided to set the exact usurious rates by regulation.
In Canada, there has been first of all the Interest Act, which tried to put some order in the matter. There has been the Pawnbroker's Act. But, mainly, there has been the Small Loans Act. This was aimed at putting some order in the whole area of loans under $1,500, made by individuals, by agencies, by companies, according to rules which were absolutely ferocious and most often disadvantageous for the consumer. Therefore, it was said: From now on, pawnbrokers must have a license to make loans under a certain amount, penalties are provided and they are liable to prosecution for fraud or for breaking the law.
However, the Small Loans Act appeared to be more or less easy to administer. Indeed, by setting figures and rates, some protection was given to a number of people, those likely to fall back on finance companies. But at the same time, another segment of the population was left completely helpless, at the mercy of sharks, and I refer particularly to those who do not have the advantage of a good financial background, those who do not have a good credit rating, as they say in those circles.
When they go to the bank, those people are told by the manager: Sorry, your funds are low. We have no money for you. Then, they apply to a finance company and when they are asked if they have property that could eventually be sold, they reply: No, we just have a TV set, a couch and one or two chairs. Those people go and see an individual and ask him: Could you lend me $50? They get this answer: No. sorry you have no security. That is the big thing: no security. So, those people who have no security to give to the lender-all the same, those lenders must protect themselves, they are not to be blamed for that- but those people with no security are at the mercy of those sharks from nightclubs and other such places who come

May 20, 1975
Loan Sharking
and say: We have $50. for you. Here is $50. But there is a problem. Every week you will have to give me such an amount of money.
Usually, and curiously enough, the interest rate is reasonably low by our standards, maybe 24, 25, 25 per cent, sometimes 18 per cent, anyway, it is a reasonable rate. But things go wrong when you get to the penalties. For example, you have a $50 loan at 18 per cent which must be repaid, let us say, in five $10 weekly payments. You have to pay $10 every week. If one week you "forget" to pay $10, then you have to pay an extra $10, and the same the week after and the amount of your loan is not reduced for all that. By that time, you have rocketing interest rates. 100 per cent, 500 per cent, 1,000 per cent, even up to 3,000 per cent.
The result of the whole black market, if I may say so, of small loans is $800 millions. That is what has been revealed by the Cliche Commission, $800 millions in circulation and administered by more or less honourable people, illegal organizations of Montreal and the province of Quebec, $800 millions which are used to finance illegal activities. Well, we have $800 millions. What are we going to do? We introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code in order to make shylocking activities indictable. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this is an appropriate way to meet the requirements of that problem.
Indeed, it is always dangerous to include new penal provisions in the Criminal Code, especially when a figure such as 24 per cent is part of the amendment. A 24 per cent rate of interest may be considered as loan sharking in certain circumstances, but not in other situations. Therefore, the important thing is not to say that a rate of 24 per cent is loan sharking, but to protect the consumer. I think the best way to protect the consumer is not to add penal provisions which, let's face facts, will not prevent loan sharking anyway.
What is important, I believe, is to extend the scope of the Small Loans Act, so that all licences be applied to all loans: credit loans, cash loans, large loans, so that the scope of this Act may be extended to all kinds of loans, whatever they may be and that it might be said: "from now on, you have a licence, you must have a contract written very clearly, without any fine print, and a contract where the real conditions of the loan are fully explained, so that the consumer knows what he is getting involved in."
When a consumer takes a loan of $50 at 18 per cent interest, with a penalty clause, he does not think of the penalty; he sees only the 18 per cent and says: It is quite easy, there is no problem. But if the penalty clause increases the interest rate to 50, 100 or 1000 per cent, the poor consumer who did not think it over finds himself in trouble. It is important to make all loan contracts subject to a rule instead of including in the Criminal Code a figure like 24 per cent. To me, it is not proper.
I would fancy a penalty clause to be drafted as follows and which would perhaps meet with what the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) has in

mind: Whoever resorts to any kind of threats or assaults or to any other form of coercion to obtain a loan is guilty of a criminal offence. We then go into another aspect of loan sharking, a quite important one indeed.
In fact, if a $50 loan, for instance, is made and if the man who has been granted it is not paying back every week the money he owes, he brings down upon himself, or still worst upon the people dear to him, threats of a physical, intellectual or other nature.
And I think that this is the most serious aspect of loan sharking because the individual who has been granted the loan is not in a position to defend himself against sharks. He is squeezed in, he has no alternative, he must pay, he must find any way whatever to pay the loan back. A woman might have to prostitute herself, a man might have to steal. There is no alternative since otherwise the borrower's life is threatened. This is, I think, the most serious aspect of loan sharking and it is for this reason that we must pass legislation. I leave it up to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) to legislate so as to see to it that loan contracts are well explained to consumers in order that they may be completely protected.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame, shame!


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend expressed his opinion and if he wanted to show his usual kindness, he would allow me to express mine in the few minutes which I have left.
The bill makes it an offence to grant loans at rates exceeding 24 per cent. Its drafting and place in the statutes raise a number of difficulties. First, the provision, which would come under the section of the Criminal Code on aggravated theft or extortion, does not make any reference to threats, accusations, acts of violence or assault prior to the acceptance of the loan.
What is the real social problem in that case? Is it as a result of threats against them or their families, blows or other doings already considered as offences under the Criminal Code, that some agree to pay excessive interest rates or is it on account of their social and economic situation or their limited ability to borrow that others cannot more readily and on better conditions get the money they urgently need from respectable institutions or organizations?
If, as indicated by the suggested place for this offence under the Criminal Code, it is the first idea to remember in this bill, it should be noted that
(a)	open threats, made to force someone to accept a loan, are already offences under the Code,
(b)	the bill will not solve the matter of "loan sharking", since assault, extortion, threats and so on, are already considered as criminal offences in the Code.
For lack of any form of extorsion as a condition for obtaining the loan or its reimbursement, this bill partakes really of the nature of a loan sharking interdiction. This bill may come up against the current Interest Act which provides that, except otherwise legally indicated, people may agree upon interest or discount rates. The abrogation of this principle, civil in nature, by a bill with penal connotations may seem an extreme step.
May 20, 1975

It is clear that these involve serious social and economic problems which may be solved only by more sophisticated means than the creation of still another offence, a step which may be too simplistic, general and vague. For instance, if the provisions governing loan sharking were reinstated, freedom to enter into pecuniary obligations would be limited by strict penal provisions, while it might be less limited by civil and statutory proposals which would take into account:
a)	the needs and situation of the people seeking loans with high interest rates;
b)	the situation of the credit market;
c)	the use to which borrowed funds would be put.
Thirdly, this bill contains details which could contradict
the intent of its mover.
The fact that the new section would not apply to money lenders under the Small Loans Act could have serious consequences. What is meant here is "any person other than a chartered bank who carries on the business of money-lending" ... Consequently, the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code cannot apply to anyone to whom the definition of money-lender, under the Small Loans Act, applies.
Essentially the bill seems to be intended to reinstate the crime of loan sharking but it cannot be reintegrated into the present federal legislation nor solve what problems it creates. Of course, other economic and penal concerns must be taken into account to understand the spirit in which the problem of loan sharking is envisaged in the bill.
To my mind, the best way to approach the problem of loan sharking would be to propose changes to the Interest Act and the Small Loans Act. I understand that the department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is working on legislation to that effect.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, in the short period of time I have left in this debate, I would like to umphasize that, in spite of all the measures put forward in this House, of legislation on small loans, on pawnbrokers, it must be noted that these measures did not have the designed effect and that loan sharks stay in business; it has even become a well established business in the province of Quebec. If we examine what has been revealed recently by the various commissions of inquiry in the province of Quebec, the victims of loan sharking are always the low-income people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private member's business has now expired. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

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


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, at the adjournment of the debate this afternoon I was attempting to indicate to the minister, and I hope to his colleagues on that side and also to other colleagues in the House, that the object at which I suppose all of us are aiming is so significant and so important that it ought not to be sought by a piece of legislation that is negative in approach to the problem and will really do nothing in terms of the development of the Canadian publishing industry.
What I tried to point out is that the intent of the government in this regard relates to a subject matter that is worthy of some considerably positive approach. I tried to emphasize before the adjournment break some indication of what the positive approaches might be.
I quoted from the comments of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) who discussed this matter. He used the term "guidelines" in the course of his speech. I wish to quote again from his speech because I felt it was a very thoughtful speech. As recorded at page 5893 of Hansard he said, directing it to his own colleagues:
These guidelines extend those already in the act which have to do solely with ownership, directorship, printing, editing and publishing. They ensure that all the economic benefits of the entire corporate operation accrue to Canada, to Canadian employees and Canadian talent, save only that minor portion of revenue that would go to a non-resident investor whose equity Canada was making use of. They would, at the same time, avoid this government getting involved in the highly dangerous art of editorial content and editorial policy. They would give the same rules to all and provide, once and for all, guidelines that would permit the Canadian magazine and periodical industry to work to the cultural, economic and social benefit of the citizens of this country.
I think that is the purpose of each one of us in this House. I believe it is as neat a phrase to coin as one could find on this subject. Unfortunately, however, this is not the objective which this legislation will help us reach in a constructive way.
I ask the government's supporters who feel as strongly as I and many others do about this subject to come forward and speak in this debate. As I said earlier I do not consider this to be a partisan matter. I think the issues here are above partisan politics. I hope this debate and the spirit of it will somehow put under the industry the framework on which it can flourish. As a member of this House I am not satisfied that this, however well inten-tioned it may be, is that kind of legislation.
I hope before this debate is finished the government will reconsider its position with regard to this legislation and reconsider its stance in respect of it. I believe that if the

May 20, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
government does this it will earn the respect of the Canadian people who are beginning to ask questions about the propriety of this legislation, having regard to the objective every Canadian should have, namely, that of a strong, viable Canadian publishing industry. I submit this to the government through you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has extended such a warm invitation to us on this side to participate that I think we ought to take advantage of his invitation. I agree with him of course that this is a matter which is very important for the well-being of Canadians. It is a matter which I do not think should be the subject of political partisanship, and I will pay him the tribute that I think his partisanship on the subject is more subtle and indeed more positive than that of his colleagues.
Bill C-58 is not a bill about Time and Reader's Digest. It is not a bill under which we are here to pass judgment on what we think are the merits of these two publications. I doubt if there are any more avid readers of Time magazine to be found anywhere than among the members of this House generally, and certainly among members on this side of the House. It is our weekly companion. If Reader's Digest is any less read, it can be only by a hair's breadth. These magazines are highly respected in Canada. They are thought well of by the people and by us.
This bill, however, is not a bill about Time and Reader's Digest. It is a bill about opportunity for Canadians. Actually it is a very simple bill. The contentious part of the bill is found in half a page, in two clauses. The effect of it really is merely to remove subsections (2) and (4) from section 19 of the Income Tax Act and restore in slightly different form subsection (1). This is so true that it was clearly realized by the opposition at the beginning. I am sorry I misplaced my next quote for a moment. You will have to bear with me while I dig out January's Hansard, Mr. Speaker. It is in Hansard of January 23.
The utter simplicity of this bill was clearly recognized at the time the initial statement was made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), a statement which takes less than a page in Hansard, and in the statement of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), a really admirable reply in its brevity and in the position which it exposes-a comment which I would not always make about the statements of the hon. member for York-Simcoe. I am sorry he is not here tonight to receive my admiration. On page 2527 of Hansard of that day he is reported to have said:
We believe that the move to eliminate the income tax advantage shared mainly by two magazines, Time and Reader's Digest, is a good one.
That is really the essence of his statement. The statement is simple, his response is simple, and he says that the government's position is a good one.
He raises only two caveats. He is concerned about a monopoly and he is also concerned about the future of the employees, but there is no mention of any worry about censorship, content, or anything of that kind, just two 
simple concerns which the official spokesman of the opposition had in mind at that time.
This was also well appreciated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in a memorandum which he circulated to all members of the House on March 21, in the third paragraph of which he said:
It is correct that the Progressive Conservative Party has indicated its support for the elimination of any special tax status in section 19, but I wish to make clear that this does not necessarily indicate approval by our party of the definition apparently being adopted by the government as to what publications qualify in terms of tax deductibility for advertisers.
That statement was aimed at an interpretation which at one time was thought to be the interpretation of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford), but was subsequently proved not to be so. Our good minister still has an open mind on the subject of what is the proper interpretation of the Income Tax Act. Given the fact that that interpretation is no longer current, the gist of the statement of the Leader of the Opposition is that the opposition had indicated its approval for the elimination of the special tax status in section 19-a very simple statement about a very simple action.
Indeed there is but a single point in this legislation. It has to do, to express it in terms of equity, with the inequity of two non-Canadian publications having a special status over other non-Canadian publications, and the inequity for Canadians of these two non-Canadian publications having the same status as Canadian publications or, as I would prefer to put it, in terms of opportunity for Canadians, the government proposal is to provide an inducement to Canadian business which will provide that kind of opportunity to Canadian writers and editors which has not previously existed.
Unfortunately, this simple proposal by the government has been overlaid by a number of confusions, ones which have been raised, I think not entirely accidentally, by members of this House on the other side. The first confusion is the demand for a total policy on periodicals. That is a proposal which we heard in the speeches of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), to pick only two, but they were among the more embarrassing examples of this genre. This was really an attempt to deflect attention from the issue of the legislation.
The Secretary of State has clearly said that this bill is by no means an attempt to define a publications policy. May I quote what he said on May 8 as follows:
The difficulties facing that industry have for some time been a matter of concern to my department and to me; for some months now we have been engaged, in co-operation with the industry, in the development of a plan of action aimed at finding solutions to certain of its problems. I regard the amendment proposed in this bill as an important element of that plan and one that is essential to its success.
He refers to it later as a stage in the development of a program of effective government assistance to Canadian periodicals. Only last week in the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, the Secretary of State tabled a document which indicates the federal government's response to the federal aspects of the Rohmer Royal Commission. In that are stated the government's policies with respect to such things as book purchase programs, fairs abroad, the Association for the
May 20, 1975

Non-Canadian Publications
Export of Canadian Books, the revision of the Copyright Act, the gathering of statistics, co-publishing with the private sector, aid to authors, aid to publishers, project grants program, translation grants program, special grants, aid to promotion and distribution, the National Library, and so on. All these involve the government in the expenditure of millions of dollars for the assistance of the publishing industry in Canada.
Yet opposition members are saying that this is not a complete statement on the publishing industry. Of course it is not, but it is not a statement which is made in a vacuum; it is a step in the process. Hon. members who have been in the House for some time know it is not always the case that the government comes forth with a complete program at one time. The whole tradition of the common law, one of the geniuses of the British system, has been the growth from step to step of policy. Once you see it in operation you are then able to build a better structure on it. It is within that tradition that my colleague, the Secretary of State, has been developing his program.
Another of the confusions which has been thrown over the simple point of this bill is the use of extreme rhetoric.
I will quote but one example from the hon. member for Calgary North who, we must all admit, is occasionally guilty of this fault.
On page 5889 of Hansard he is reported as having stated:
This government has taken over everything else, and now it wants to tell us what we should read ... To me this is a complete affront and an attack on the freedom of our minds, or freedom in every respect.
Later he concludes his speech, as recorded at page 5890 of Hansard, by saying:
The government is guilty of implementing a bill of censorship. It is the worst form of taxation in the history of this country. It is a disgrace to the Liberal party.
I do not know whether or not hon. members opposite this evening would care to defend that statement, but I must admit that when I see such extremes of speech my mind tends to go back to certain earlier incidents, and I recall that when the original legislation was introduced in 1965 the Winnipeg Free Press published an article of which it is probably not too proud in retrospect.
In June of 1965 the Free Press compared Walter Gordon to King George III "He taxed advertising", to Adolf Hitler "He jailed editors", to Joseph Stalin "He made the press a government mouthpiece", and to Fidel Castro "He exiled editors". It was maintained that censorship of advertising was the same as censorship of editorial news matter, for it interferes with the right of people to inform themselves of what products exist so that they might decide for themselves how to spend their money. This is based on the view that paid advertising has the same rights in our tradition of free speech as pure speech itself. That is not the Liberal view.
The hon. member for Calgary North-I am sorry that he is not here this evening to hear my comments on his speech-was calling for a philosophical redefinition of the Liberal Party. We know what we are about over here, and I propose to tell him tonight, through you, Mr. Speaker, what the position of the Liberal Party is on matters such as this. We welcome the occasion to do this, but it is not because we need the enlightenment.
To come to the fundamental question in this area as to the meaning of civil liberties, which is really what is at stake here, I think reputable authorities will agree that civil liberties in our society are best classified as rights which are at the same time negative and personal. They have these two characteristics. They are ones which are negative in scope. They say "thou shalt not," and at the same time they relate directly to the human person, not to all the activities of the human person but to those which relate most directly to the democratic process.
In fact we might put it this way: civil liberties are those rights which are most fundamentally necessary to the democratic process. If what was in question was an elimination of all advertising in our society or all advertising of a particular kind, there might indeed be a question of civil liberties raised, because one might contend that the elimination entirely of the right to advertise was an unreasonable restraint on liberty which went to the very heart of the question of human liberty in a democratic society.
But when what we are talking about is not that, but is the question of how we are to direct and to limit our advertising, it would be very hard for any impartial observer to understand how this bill could be said to be a detriment to our civil liberties or to be an attack on our fundamental freedoms, as the hon. member for Calgary North has suggested. We restrict advertising, for instance, with respect to liquor, and we limit advertising on television and radio. In fact under the original law in 1965 we put in this same limitation. We are merely applying it to other magazines in this case, three other publications-if there is a third one involved.
But there is nothing new here. This is not a new law. This is a slight extension of an existing law, and the hon. member for Calgary North does not appear to have appreciated the fact that we are already faced with the same situation, and that in our whole society people accept the fact that advertising may be limited and directed by the law in the interests of the public good.
When hon. members such as the hon. member for Calgary North raise a question about what it is to be Liberal, it reminds me of the time when President Eisenhower-I think it was in the 1952 election-said that it was his goal to be liberal in human affairs and conservative in economic matters, but as Adlai Stevenson retorted at the time, the problem with the Republicans was that what they thought was an economic matter, everyone else thought was a human matter. I suggest that the hon. member for Calgary North could well give some further thought to the kind of Liberal philosophy we have on this side.
It has also been claimed that there is retroactive discrimination here, and I object to both parts of that contention. The history of legislation in this area is worth discussing very briefly, because as far back as 1922 the Magazine Publishers' Association requested parliament to impose a protective tariff on foreign periodicals. In 1931 the Bennett government partially satisfied that request by imposing a duty on foreign magazines entering Canada, a duty calculated upon the degree of advertising content in these magazines. The duty proved to be somewhat effective in that 47 U.S. periodicals began printing in Canada

May 20, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
for the Canadian market to avoid payment. I think that is a significant point.
I am not so happy with the next fact, but I am being honest with the House, so I will relate that in 1936 the King government decided to repeal the import duty within the content of a reciprocal U.S.-Canada trade agreement. In 1943 the first publication of the Canada editions of Time and Reader's Digest began. Then, because of the growing problem in the 1950's, the St. Laurent government decided in 1956 to impose a 20 per cent tax on advertising contained in the Canadian editions of 10 foreign periodicals as of January 1, 1957. For other reasons, as this House is well aware, the St. Laurent government was soon replaced by the Diefenbaker government, which rescinded that legislation, but then in turn appointed the Royal Commission on Publications in 1960, which reported in 1961. It was this commission, chaired by a Conservative, a member of the other House, one of the most esteemed members of the other House, Senator O'Leary, which made the recommendations which essentially we are now enacting.
However, in 1965 when the government of that day decided that the time had come to introduce legislation, it decided not to go as far as the O'Leary commission had recommended, and in the legislation passed at that time, Time and Reader's Digest were exempt. But this was a position which was not reached on the basis of principle.
I do not think anyone in Canada at that time believed that Time and Reader's Digest were granted a special exemption from the law because of principle. This was an exemption granted out of the weakness of Canada at that time vis-a-vis the United States with respect to certain very important positions we were taking with the United States. In fact it has been said that the automotive pact, which is of so much value to Canada, might not have come into being if Canada had not been prepared at that time to make this concession. The government at that time made the best decision it could in the context of that time, but this was not a decision which was made because it was the best decision. It was made because it was the best decision possible in the circumstances.
Obviously any company which relied on this was relying on it at its own risk. As so-called Canadian publications, Time and Reader's Digest were supposedly as well aware of Canadian political experience as any other Canadian companies. They could see the situation, and they knew that they were relying at risk. The compliance of Time with this legislation has been as minimal as possible. It could have decided to increase its Canadian coverage-and it did add a page-but still only 4 per cent to 10 per cent of the content of Time magazine is Canadian. It could have hired a few more Canadians, and indeed it did hire a few, but only a few. It could have sent Canadian correspondents to other parts of the world to report, but it decided not to. In short, Time magazine was living up to the judgment which Henry Luce himself made about it in his appearance before the O'Leary committee, that it was in no sense a Canadian publication. It was strictly and always an American publication.
The compliance of Reader's Digest with that legislation was much more wholehearted, and here I recognize that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) certainly had a point when he differentiated between the way

Reader's Digest had established itself in Canada and the course Time has chosen to follow. Reader's Digest is 32 per cent Canadian in ownership, whereas Time is still wholly American owned, and it has, arguably, as much as 24 per cent or 25 per cent Canadian content. In addition to that it has followed the guidelines for non-Canadian corporations which were set down by the Hon. Mr. Winters at that period.
I think it can be genuinely said that Reader's Digest has been a good corporate citizen of Canada, and we commend it for that. We give it the same kind of commendation we would give to any Canadian citizen or corporation acting in full accordance with the law. Reader's Digest has received its reward. It has received a financial reward. The very fact that it has 1.5 million subscribers and has made them faithful, as we know from letters we have received, the very fact that it has this kind of support indicates it has received a commercial reward for its policy of Canadianism. But this is not to say that when the parliament of Canada decides, as I hope it will be deciding in the course of disposing of this bill, that the time has come to establish a new and more stringent policy, that the rules have to remain as they were.
We are not saying that Time or Reader's Digest do not have the right to comply with this legislation. Of course they have the right to comply with it. What we are doing is setting more stringent requirements for all publications which would call themselves Canadian. If they can comply, so much the better. Then they will be much more genuinely Canadian than they are now.
Another confusion that has been drawn over this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the notion of censorship or content control. This is entirely a misreading of the bill-a misunderstanding of what the bill is about. What we are concerned with here is not content control but copy control. It is analogous to dumping, in the manufacturing area.
Magazines such as Time and Reader's Digest which are subsidiaries of magazines in other countries have their editorial content largely provided by those countries. In the case of Reader's Digest it is claimed that the roughly 76 per cent of non-Canadian content is re-edited and typeset in Canada. I do not doubt that but that is certainly the least expensive part of the process. If this were not so, Reader's Digest would not be able to state in their briefs and submissions to us how hard they have tried to develop a pool of Canadian writers. If re-editing were the difficult and expensive part of the process I do not think they would make that kind of claim.
In addition it would appear from published reports that the licensing agreement Reader's Digest has with its parent requires out-of-country approval of the editorial content in the Canadian edition. I do not personally believe that this right to editorial control is actually exercised. From what I have seen I believe that not only are the Canadian editors and publishers admirable people but they generally try to make their publications as Canadian as their owners allow-and perhaps more Canadian than their owners wanted, as a result of previous legislation-but they have also stood up for their editorial independence. The fact remains, however, that the editorial agreement,
May 20, 1975

or the licensing agreement, allows the American editors to control the magazine if they wish.
The penalty of the bill is not extinction for those magazines; the penalty is that they are forbidden to copy. If Time and Reader's Digest wish to comply, they may become genuinely Canadian. We would welcome this. They would become as Canadian as any other Canadian publication.
The situation is very much like that of a child in an examination who is copying from the student in front all through the test. The teacher who finds this child copying does not object to what he is writing. We are not objecting to the content of Time and Reader's Digest; what we are objecting to is the fact that it is being copied. The fact that the child is not exercising his own creativity, has not done the work himself, and has not borne the cost of preparing his own examination is what the teacher objects to, and that is exactly what we are objecting to through this legislation-the fact that these magazines are copies, almost carbon copies, of magazines which are essentially American. If these magazines cease to be copies, if they become genuinely Canadian, the problem will cease to exist.
I do not doubt that members of the opposition are troubled about this because they have apparently misunderstood the legislation before us. Section 19(5) (a) (F) of this legislation says that to get the tax advantage a periodical has to be:
not... substantially the same as the contents of an issue of a periodical . . . that was or were printed, edited or published outside Canada;
This means that it must not copy from one single foreign publication. If it is going to be an eclectic publication or a copier which copies from a whole series of foreigners, whether it be Reuters, Associated Press, or any other news agency, this is not forbidden by the legislation. In fact one might say that the legislation does not go far enough on this point. The fact is this legislation will be sufficient to handle the problem, we believe, as long as the whole thing is not copied from one single foreign publication. If they are prepared to choose their content from French or Italian publications, or even two or three different American publications, there is no problem. That is what the legislation says.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, come on.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) says, "Oh come on". It is right there in the legislation, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Do you agree with that, Ron?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I am sure the Minister of National Revenue will give an accurate interpretation of what is written in the legislation.
As the Secretary of State has said, a magazine could be considered Canadian even if its contents were entirely written by foreigners living outside Canada provided those contents were not "substantially the same" as the contents of a single foreign magazine. That is all we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, whether Time and Reader's Digest are to copy their contents from a single foreign magazine. If they are prepared to meet the ownership requirements and if they are prepared not to copy from a
Non-Canadian Publications
single foreign magazine, not to allow their parent to dump their editorial content into Canada through a form of cutural dumping which should have no place in the publishing industry of Canada, and will have no place if this legislation is passed-if they are prepared to become as Canadian as their Canadian competitors, we will let them, and be pleased to have them continue.
The final confusion that I would refer to, Mr. Speaker, is the one raised by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) about the state of mind of the Liberal caucus. I want to state unequivocally-


Mr. Fairweather:: Can't you wash your linen in your own caucus?


Mark R. MacGuigan: -that this legislation has gone through the normal process in the Liberal caucus. It has followed exactly the same pattern as every other bill. I think the best indication of that will be found in the words of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), who was opposing the legislation. At page 5613 of Hansard he said;
... I shall abide by the majority wishes of this party which have been clearly expressed in caucus ...
This was from a member of the caucus who does not agree with it, Mr. Speaker, but recognizes that the will of the party is expressed in caucus. He continued:
. .. and I shall vote to send this bill to committee.
I think that should dispose of those considerations that seem to have stirred up the opposition. Obviously when it has such confusion in its own ranks and is spreading confusion in the minds of the public, its easy strategy was to attack the government and try to exploit any imagined weakness it can find in government ranks.
I wish finally to speak of the positive purpose of the legislation. Up to this point, while I have been speaking about this indirectly, I have been speaking more particularly about the confusion drawn both by the publications involved and by the opposition across the consideration of this bill by the country.
Almost 50 per cent of the advertising revenues received by the 14 consumer magazines affiliated with the Magazine Association of Canada is received by these two magazines. That was something like $19 million in 1974. Even if we were to take the survey by Canadian Facts Incorporated as accurate-and we on this side are far from granting that because obviously it was commissioned by an interested party-that would mean that something like one-fifth of $19 million would have gone to Canadian consumer magazines other than Time and Reader's Digest last year.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal will recall that he and I, and a number of other members, met with the publisher and editor of Saturday Night. They said that while they were not counting on the new legislation- because it was not yet passed-to sustain their magazine, as much 1 per cent or 2 per cent of the amount spent on advertising in Time magazine alone would make a clear difference for them between life and death. That is the kind of difference we are talking about when we are dealing with the survival of Canadian magazines. We are talking about smaller amounts of money, even percentages

May 20, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
of the $19 million, that could make a difference between life and death for many Canadian magazines.
We on this side recognize that there will be some losses as a result of this legislation. If Time and Reader's Digest conform, the losses will be largely on their part in the adjustments which they will have to meet. If they decide not to conform and to cease publication, the losses will be in the form of unemployment for the people involved. It is not a large number, but we on this side of the House are very concerned about unemployment for anybody. If our hopes are fulfilled there will be a great deal more employment for a great many more Canadians than at the present time.
We also recognize that in a sense we are taking a chance. No one knows with absolute certainty what is going to happen. We had a royal commission and a Senate investigation into this problem. They both came to the same conclusion. They are the only two governmental studies that have been conducted. Both felt there should be encouragement for Canadian publications, with deductions for advertising in Canadian magazines alone and not for non-Canadian publications such as the ones in question. If any further proof is necessary, a book on cultural sovereignty was recently published by two professors from Columbia University and with no allegiance to Canadian nationalism they came to the conclusion that our cultural sovereignty demanded that we press forward with a more vigorous policy than we had before this bill was introduced.
I would conclude by bringing to the attention of hon. members the words of the O'Leary Commission as follow:
A nation's domestic advertising expenditure should be devoted to the support of its own media of communications, and-a genuinely Canadian periodical press can only exist if it has access to a fair share of domestic advertising.
The same great Senator, a member of the Conservative party, also said:
Only a truly Canadian printing press, one with the feel of Canada and directly responsible to Canada, can give us the critical analysis, the informed discourse and dialogue which are indispensable in a sovereign society.
As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said, this is not a partisan issue, or at least it should not be. It is an issue in which the Bennett government took action and the St. Laurent government took action. The Diefenbaker government appointed a royal commission. The great Senator Gratton O'Leary himself recommended we should pass this kind of legislation. It is true to the original impulses of the Conservative party in their response to the announcement by the Secretary of State earlier this year. It is in this spirit we hope this legislation will be proceeded with. We hope members opposite will be true to the historic commitment of their party and their own initial commitment to this legislation, and that they will join us in seeing it pressed through so that this new form of national policy in the cultural area becomes an important building stone for the Canada of the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Before recognizing the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), I believe the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) wishes to put a question to the parliamentary secretary.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan).
Since I gather from what he has said that he establishes a clear distinction between Time and Reader's Digest, could the hon. member tell the House whether he would be willing to accept the status quo with regard to Reader's Digest and that the bill in its present form be applied rather to Time, considering that, if I understood him well, he established a marked difference between these two magazines.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to say that emotionally I have a genuine rapport with the publishers and editors of Reader's Digest. I think they genuinely tried to be a Canadian company within the limits that were allowed by their owners in the United States. However, that is not a substitute for policy. I believe the public interest takes priority over any feelings which I may have about these people as good fellows. I believe that this step forward requires us to give the maximum assistance to Canadian publications. We must force them to become even more Canadian than they are at the present time.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should like to ask the following-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I would advise the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) that the time of the parliamentary secretary has now expired. This exchange can only continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the situation being extremely serious, I cannot deal lightly with matters of such importance to Canada and its neighbors to the south. Would the hon. member be willing to recommend or suggest to his colleagues of the cabinet that those matters be dealt with in two different pieces of legislation in order to allow all the hon. members to perceive clearly and draw a dividing line between the respective position and activities of the two magazines, in order to do justice to both according to their respective merits?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, probably the shortest and clearest answer I can give to that question is that I am supporting the bill before us. It does not introduce a new principle. The principle was introduced in 1965. This is merely the logical extension of that principle which the government at that time was not able to give effect to, Mr. Speaker.
May 20, 1975


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is amusing to listen to members on the government side trying to make an issue out of the grudging statement of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) at the time this legislation was introduced by the minister. The fact is that this legislation is much worse than was anticipated by the hon. member for York-Simcoe, other members, and even the minister. At the time the minister introduced this legislation he did not realize it was going to include newspapers in western Canada, newspapers that are fulfilling a function for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: The trouble with these ministers is that when they bring in legislation, they do not realize how bad it is. Once we begin to debate it, the faults are brought to their attention. At that time, however, they will not change their position.
It is interesting to watch the manoeuvring on the government side. This afternoon the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Roberts) tried to save face. On Friday the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) in a forthright manner honestly criticized this legislation. The hon. member for St. Paul's said there was no division and that they were a coherent party of resolution.
I am sure most members of parliament have received letters from all parts of the country concerning this bill. I have one letter here I should like to put on record:
Thank you for writing to advise me of your reaction to the announcement by the Honourable J. Hugh Faulkner, Secretary of State, that he intends to rescind Section 19(2) of the Income Tax Act and its effect on Reader's Digest.
I have been openly opposed to this step. It is discriminatory and unjust-a threat to the life of a first class landed (corporate) immigrant for more than 30 years. Not only has Reader's Digest provided jobs and writing opportunities to many Canadians within a small industry-magazine publishing-but more than any other magazine published in Canada, it has provided features and news (mature and well researched) each month from all parts of Canada, linking this country.
I will continue my fight against the proposed action when it comes before the House of Commons, and if it comes before the Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts Committee.
It goes on to say:
There has been an attempt by certain people-in some cases misinformed and in others, deliberate distortion-to convince the public that Reader's Digest is subsidized by the government. This is not so. It is simply a case of allowing free choice of advertisers in Canada by which to sell a product.
Obviously, if they are penalized because they want to advertise in the magazine of their choice, they will not necessarily turn to a news media; many could send it out of the country to Digest, U.S.A., or to newspapers, television, Maclean's and Chatelaine already overweight with advertising, as opposed to news and feature content.
I also feel that as citizens, we all have the right to choose the magazine we want to buy. I appreciate the fact that Reader's Digest provides Canadians not only with a good balance of national material, but with universal and international subjects.
I also prefer Time over Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report etc. for the same reason; Time provides a good, concise, objective record of international news along with well-written, depth, packed reports of Canadian interest.
Non-Canadian Publications
Personally, as a writer, I fear the action to eliminate a market for writers and allied industries, especially beginners in this field. If Reader's Digest closes out in Canada, this could eliminate jobs in Vancouver and Montreal, lose $5.2 million in salaries for 450 Canadian employees (including $700,000 in fringe benefits and $600,000 in profit sharing); $22 million in trade with Canadian suppliers; $1.6 million in taxes; $3 million in first class postage (not counting the magazine distribution itself). The company has $8 million invested in office, printing presses, and other capital equipment in Canada.
Unfortunately, a small pressure group under the guise of a "Committee for an Independent Canada", with vested interest in the publishing industry are using this to eliminate competition. Without such competition, and the quality this publication presents, certain magazine publishers will continue to sustain their mediocrity, if not deteriorate further. The Committee for an Independent Canada began with what seemed-on the surface-excellent objectives. However they are now distorted, more anti-American than nationalisitic. In either case, I think cultural nationalism in our present Global Village is foolish and immature in the last quarter of the 20th century.
I have opposed and will continue to oppose any attempt to end the life and public responsibility of Reader's Digest in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, that letter is signed "Simma Holt, M.P.- Vancouver-Kingsway".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Yea, Simma!


Thomas Gordon Towers: If the hon. member for Windsor-Walker-ville (Mr. MacGuigan) wants to be enlightened he does not have to look to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams); he can turn around and look behind him and get the message. I just hope the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has an opportunity to express her views in this chamber.
Let us consider the following statements which have been made in this Chamber:
The government did not arrive at the decision to present this bill easily ... I rather suspect that a good number of ministers were not present when this decision was made ... there are an awful lot of people on our side of the House who do not go along with it... the minister snuck it in.
These are not words of a news commentator; they are not the words of a representative of the Red Deer Advocate, of Reader's Digest, or the Time magazine, nor are they the words of legal counsel for these publications. They are not the words of an opposition member of parliament, but rather they are the words of an elected representative of the people of Canada on the government side of this House. I have to pay tribute to his fortitude in standing up to speak in a forthright manner, regardless of the consequences, especially when he sees a minister of the government make what he considers to be a mistake.
I hope other members on the government side will also get up off their hands to express their opposition, in spite of the fact that the minister said this bill is going through. In the light of what the member for Cochrane said, I wonder if there is unanimous support for this legislation within the cabinet.
I find it difficult to understand why we are debating legislation of this nature at a point in time when the economy of our country is in such dire straits. Why are we not dealing with legislation to solve some of our labour disputes; why are we not debating some of the many difficulties relating to our postal service which is confronted with disaster after disaster? This is cover-up legis-

May 20, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
lation with which the majority of Canadians do not agree. Even those who do not express interest in the publications affected are not in favour of this type of restriction being placed on our economy as well as on freedom of opinion.
In view of these circumstances, we have to ask why the bill has been brought forward. The reason was certainly not because of pressure on the government by Canadians as a whole or we would not now be swamped with protests from across this country. In such a situation we can but look to some other source as being responsible for prodding the minister to formulate this bill, or question whether there is some benefit accruing to the minister or to the government. Either the minister or the government is suspect if this legislation is proceeded with now in its present form. I challenge the minister, or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to stand up and tell Canadians who is putting pressure on him or on the government to propose this distasteful measure.
Over the years the publishing firms affected have proven to be good corporate citizens; yet all of a sudden the government is telling them they are no longer wanted in Canada under existing regulations. England has been closely related to and good to Canada over the years, and will continue in the same way if we as Canadians treat her with courtesy. Are we to tell one of her citizens: "We do not like you any more; we do not want you here; please go home"? The same goes for the United States. I am as pro-Canadian as any member of parliament, but let me impress upon you Mr. Speaker that being pro-Canadian does not mean I am anti-British or anti-American; neither is it necessary for anyone else to be negative toward them.
We have heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) say time and time again in this House that we require foreign currency to keep our economy healthy. The minister has stated we will need between $4 billion and $5 billion this year to balance our payments deficit. Making loans of $500 million to Russia is not going to solve that problem. If ever I saw a back-paddling government, we have it in this thirtieth parliament. Why cannot the government take a positive approach?
Situations such as we now face with Reader's Digest, Time and the Red Deer Advocate are government-created. I mention the Advocate because it is the only daily newspaper involved. It is a good publication run by Canadians for the benefit of Canadians. Two million dollars have been spent by this company in Canada, much of it in the Red Deer area. Its facilities have been made available to neighbouring newspapers. The same facilities are required in the Fraser Valley. Why in the world the government wants to treat a good corporate citizen in this manner, I have no way of knowing. Why not spend time in this House trying to resolve some of the existing difficulties instead of concocting new ones?
Certainly it would be to our benefit to continue to be associated with these publishers in the future, as we have for many years. If the government wants to change the rules of the game for new ventures, fine and dandy, but why change the rules now for those who have established themselves as good corporate citizens? It could be likened to the immigration department telling an individual from

another country who had not become naturalized but had lived here for years to go through some unnatural exercise every day of the week, and twice on Sunday, or to pick up his marbles and go home. If such an incident did occur, large numbers of people would be crying "discrimination" with a loud voice, but is this happening in this case? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker.
If we tell these people to pack their bags and go home, we have no guarantee that a Canadian publication will replace them. Many of us remember when Maclean's magazine was of much greater significance on the Canadian scene than it is today. At one point its articles were used in social studies classes, but in latter years it has lost that significance and impact on Canadian society. Some people seem to be of the opinion that there are special tax privileges granted to Reader's Digest and Time which are not available to Maclean's; but everyone should realize that the same rules apply to all three. I have never been one who believes that you can build up the weak by tearing down the strong. Let us, therefore, not be torn apart because of that fallacy.
While recognizing there could be magazines other than Maclean's that might come to the front, I use Maclean's merely as an example. In my opinion, the downfall of that magazine can be attributed to two factors; first, accelerated distribution costs by the federal government some years ago; and second, managerial decisions made by that magazine not to print articles and stories of interest to the average Canadian. Fortunately, Reader's Digest and Time survived in spite of these hurdles, and that is why today so many Canadians appreciate them and want us to ensure they will continue to be available to them as presently published.
I understand that both of these magazines will be available to Canadians regardless of the outcome of this bill, but we have to ask ourselves in what form? First of all there will be a loss of hundreds of jobs to Canadians, a decrease in the amount of Canadian content, and a loss of millions of dollars of revenue to our postal system. I would think that the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) would have something to say about that. In addition, subscription payments will go to the United States and remain there.
Another point we must not overlook is the fact that, due to sparsity of population in this country, there are facilities not yet available to us here, because of cost, which are available in the United States. I am referring to the quantity of printed material that comes to Sunday schools and churches in Canada. No doubt as Canada's population increases this will change and we will be able to supply our own requirements, but until then why cannot we enjoy the best of both worlds? Cannot the minister who is sponsoring this bill forsake his arrogant, uncompromising approach and at least lend an ear to the Canadian public? If he is not about to do that, I hope the members opposite rise up in rebellion and continue to debate this issue until, as the hon. member for Cochrane intimated, "The house leader will withdraw the bill and let it die on the order paper."
This issue is too important to be settled by partisan politics. The social wellbeing of Canadians is at stake here. Surely the minister is man enough to stand up in his
May 20, 1975

place and admit that bringing in this legislation was a mistake, and withdraw it. If he did so he would certainly enhance himself in the eyes of the Canadian public. If he does not he deserves to suffer the consequences. He should be dropped from the cabinet. I would suggest to him that other ministers have lost their portfolios for less, and that if he remains adamant in his position on this bill he should receive his just dues.
I would hope that members opposite would accept their responsibilities as elected representatives of the people, disregard the party whip, and vote the way their electors requested on this issue. To express opposition to this bill, and then say they will vote for it on second reading, hoping it will be amended in committee, is nothing but hypocrisy and a farce. They will be reminded of their weak stand when some of the employees of Reader's Digest and Time, if they close out their operations here, are looking for jobs among the long line of unemployed.
No consideraton whatsoever has been given to those who wish to advertise in these magazines and deduct the advertising cost for income tax purposes. In view of all these circumstances I would hope that the Secretary of State would take a second look at what he is proposing for Canadians, and perhaps even at this late date change his mind.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the shame is not that this bill is being brought forward; the shame, in my opinion, is that this bill has taken so long to be brought forward. Before I became a member of parliament I remember reading, from government to government, how this issue had been brought up either in the Senate, in this House, or in committees, and how all parties agreed that in order to be just the law had to treat all periodicals in the same way. I remember reading the report of the O'Leary Commission. Hon. gentleman in the opposition had their opportunity in 1960 to do Canada a great service by making the law equal so that all periodicals were treated equally.
Having witnessed the debate on this issue going on for so many years, it is an honour to be part of the thirtieth parliament, the parliament that is finally going to pass legislation that has been asked for by the Canadian people for so long. On this basis it is an honour for a new member especially to support the bill, and I thank the minister for bringing the legislation forward. It is my sincere hope that the measure will receive speedy assent.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), several months ago tabled a notice of ways and means to amend the Income Tax Act by deleting section 19(2)(4) permitting certain foreign periodicals to be defined as Canadian publications for tax purposes. These exemptions have permitted advertisers in these non-Canadian publications to deduct the cost of their advertising, in the same way as advertisers in Canadian publications.
At that point, Mr. Speaker, the debate began, and I have followed it with a great deal of interest. Being a new member I sought guidance from those of more experience in this House. And what have I seen up to this point? Instead of discussing the amendments to section 19(2) and (4), I have heard hon. members discussing censorship, I
Non-Canadian Publications
have heard them discussing Hitler, I have heard them discussing Stalin. The only thing I have not heard them discussing is the actual bill.
Some hon. members might feel this is a harsh indictment of others who have spoken before me. I cannot in all seriousness believe that any member of the House regards this measure as anti-American, or that it is a bill that is attempting to censor what the Canadian public reads or does not read, because whether the legislation becomes effective on January 1, 1976, or does not become effective at all, the Canadian people will still have the right to choose which periodicals they will read. I say that for the simple reason that the bill does not intend to make a value decision as to what editorial comments people should or should not read, because it deals strictly with an inequality in the present tax law in that two foreign periodicals are given an exemption over other foreign periodicals.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), who spoke a few moments ago, did not answer the basic question, and that is that the legislation which has been in existence since 1965 has been unequal, unfair, and discriminatory. Those who have a legal background, which I do not, surely would not propose that this House enact legislation in the future that would be discriminatory in nature such as the legislation passed in 1965.
The very existence of this legislation is perhaps an indictment against my own party of that time. It was not a fair piece of legislation when Newsweek, and various other magazines which I think are equal in content to Time, were not given the same consideration as was given to Time. If hon. gentlemen were in the magazine business in the United States I think they would wonder about the sanity of a parliament that would pick out certain periodicals, give them special concessions, and then wait 11 years before making a change.
Surely our problem is not related to the fact that we are making a change but rather to the fact that it has taken us so long to realize that a change is required. Let us make the law equal for all foreign periodicals whether they are from France, Germany, England, the United States or elsewhere. The law, in order to be just, must not be discriminatory but must be the same for all parties involved.
The suggestion has been made by many hon. members, including the last speaker, the hon. member for Red Deer, that this legislation is somewhat anti-American. Why is it that in order to have a feeling for something Canadian we must put a label on it as being anti something else? Can we not have respect and pride in our own magazine industry and in our own news media without having to label this as being anti something else?
I think all of us in this House realize that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) recently stated that NORAD in Canada would soon come under the control of the Canadian forces. I know of no objecting voice in this House. No one stood up and said that western Canada should not have control of NORAD operations in Canada with headquarters in the western provinces. Not one member stood up and said this was anti-American, or that we are against the United States because we are for

May 20, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
ourselves and think we should have control in certain areas. I suggest this same argument could be used in respect of NORAD.
Surely we are not against a particular country or a particular form of thought because we want to foster an industry in Canada. Surely magazines in Canada could truly reflect our national posture better than magazines from France, Germany, the United States, or any other country.
I do not think this minister's proposal has gone far enough in some respects. I see a similar situation occurring in our schools where the textbooks, whether they be on history or on literature, come in from the United States rather than being printed in Canada. Who can interpret Canadian history or Canadian social mores better than Canadians? Why do we have this inferiority complex which suggests that everything done in Canada is somehow second best?
It has been suggested that by making the law equal for all foreign periodicals we are trying to create a monopoly for Maclean-Hunter, or whoever it may be, or that there must be a diabolical scheme because we want to foster a Canadian industry. Why do we have to torture ourselves by suggesting that we must be doing something wrong when we are rejecting something from another country? Surely in the 1970's we have reached the point, as evidenced by this bill, that we can become a nation on our own and we do not have to rely on the thoughts and editorial comments of those in other countries. We have very intelligent people here in Canada.
I support this bill and I trust many of the members in this House will support it, contrary to what some speakers have suggested. I repeat, as my closing statement, that the shame is not that this legislation is being brought in, but that it took us so long to bring it here in the first place.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill as I would not want my silence on the issue to be construed as an acceptance of the terms of this legislation. With the exception of the debate we had a few years ago on capital punishment there is no other issue that I can recall that has so disturbed the people of my constituency. The flood of letters I have received would indicate the average Canadian citizen is opposed to Bill C-58, which seeks to amend the Income Tax Act aspect that relates to Time and Reader's Digest and in respect of advertising placed on United States stations directed to Canadian audiences.
Let us consider what this legislation proposes. According to the minister's statement in the House on January 23, 1975, sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 19 of the Income Tax Act are to be deleted by amending legislation. The minister stated:
The intent of Section 19, in the first place, was to support the Canadian magazine industry-then, as now, weakened by the virtual domination of the market by American publications. Instead of legislating against the entry of the American material, which would have been an interference with the free flow of information and ideas, the framers of Section 19 legislated an advantage, or incentive, for actual and potential Canadian magazines. However, the addition of sub-sections 2 and 4, now to be deleted, vitiated the intent of the section by exempting from its requirements the two main competing foreign magazines. The proposed amendment to the Income Tax Act will, as of January 1, 1976, restore to Section 19 the force and intent which its 
authors had in mind. I am confident that the enterprise and skill of the Canadian magazine industry will seize this opportunity. It is my hope and expectation that this decision of the government will result in the creation of a Canadian news magazine.
I have no special brief for Time or Reader's Digest. I have been a subscriber to both magazines for a period longer than I would care to admit in this House. I enjoy reading these magazines for they give me a thumbnail sketch of what is going on in the world; not just in Canada, but in Washington, Viet Nam, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Paris, London, or you name it. Generally speaking there will be an article of interest in these magazines on a worldwide scale.
I presume my literary tastes compare with the majority of my constituents and those of other Canadians, which obviously account for the popularity of these two magazines in Canada. In response to the minister's charges against these magazines, what has the Reader's Digest to say in its defence? To the charge that the Digest has special tax privileges the editors and the owners reply that this is just not so. They state in a special edition put out in May, 1975, certain facts about the Digest status in Canada. They state;
The effect of Section 19(2) has been to put the Digest on exactly the same footing as other publications in Canada by allowing companies that advertise with us to deduct the cost of their advertising on the same basis as any other business expense when computing income taxes. The Digest pays corporate income tax at the same rate as other companies; it has no tax advantages that other magazines printed and published in Canada do not have.
This provision of the Act was passed by Parliament ten years ago in recognition of the fact that certain publications-among them the Digest-had a prior history of corporate citizenship and publishing in Canada. Thus, if Section 19(2) is rescinded, it will not remove "special tax privileges" since they do not exist. Instead it will create special penalties which apply to no other Digest edition in the world.
It will class the Canadian Digest with magazines which have never published in Canada, have no editorial or service staff in this country, make no attempt to select and edit their contents for the Canadian reader, and have made no investment in, nor commitment to, this country. In addition, it will, in effect, impose a penalty on Canadian advertisers who have found that the Digest is useful to them in their business.
The minister in addition has charged the Digest with what he calls editorial dumping. To that charge the owners of the magazine replied:
This magazine, it is sometimes said, has unfair advantages over Canadian magazines because it has access to editorial material at nominal cost which is dumped in Canada. By definition, dumping is the importation and sale of a product, virtually unchanged, at a price lower than in the originating country-so enabling a firm to undercut local competition. But the Digest sells for the same basic price in Canada as in the United States, and for a higher price than either of its major competitors, Maclean's and Chatelaine. Its Canadian advertising rates are proportionately higher than in the U.S. and competitive with Canadian magazines (while having a smaller page size). Moreover, it is fully edited for Canada, with a different selection of material than that used in the U.S. edition.
In fact, the Canadian Digest's method of paying for its foreign material is no different in principle from that of Canadian newspapers which subscribe to foreign and domestic news services at less than the cost required to produce the material.
I have sent many, although not all, of the letters I received from my constituents to the minister's office. I did not want to burden him with all the letters. The minister in his reply to me as of March 19, 1975, stated among other things:
May 20, 1975

I would like to emphasize that the key element in the Canadian character of a magazine, as set out in the law, is where the control resides over its editorial policies. If that control lies outside Canada, then, in view of the government, the magazine should not be considered Canadian and should not benefit from tax exemptions intended for the Canadian segment of the industry. In the case of Reader's Digest, there is a contract between the American owners and the 'foreign' (Canadian) publishers that says the 'editors' of the Canadian edition may make no change in the content without the written consent of the American owners, nor may it use any material not approved by those owners. They are instructed to uphold morality and ethics as defined by the American owners. If they fail to meet these 'standards', their license to produce the magazine can be revoked by the owners.
This is what the minister said, but in reply the Reader's Digest under the signature of Mr. Zimmerman states:
Even with majority ownership in Canada, the act (Section 19(5)(a) (ii) (E) and (F) would preclude us from publishing the Reader's Digest in Canada, even though it is entirely edited here and had 30 per cent Canadian content (equivalent, incidentally, in major Canadian articles to the content of both Chatelaine and Maclean's today).
The reason is that, to protect (a) our international copyrights for the material we publish, (b) the trademark "Reader's Digest", and (c) the rights of our authors to prevent pirating and plagiarism of their work, we publish under the protection of an international licence that covers all our 28 international editions in 13 languages. This protection would be denied to Reader's Digest in Canada under subsection (E). Under subsection (F) we would be precluded from publishing our normal international content from other Reader's Digest editions and, further, each time other editions published Canadian material prepared by us, we would be further entangled in the substantially-the-same clause. As you will see from consideration of the entire Section 19, the problem is a difficult one. We must consider the implications for similarity not only with the American edition, but also with all other editions of the Digest which are similar in size and format the world over. This problem is not shared by any other publication. Indeed, the act was written to preclude precisely what you are proposing. Rescinding 19(2) does not alter this condition.
I will soon be finished quoting, Mr. Speaker. The minister in the final paragraph of his letter went on to say:
If the two magazines wish to continue in business in Canada, they will be entirely welcome to do so on the same footing as any other foreign magazines. Even if they decide not to continue in business, their U.S. editions may, and doubtless will, continue to enter this country with complete freedom and no content regulations as do a great number of magazines published in the United States and elsewhere.
Well, what do the owners of the Digest say about that. This is what they say:
If the Canadian editions of the Digest are forced to close, readers will still be able to obtain the U.S. edition freely. This statement omits a number of factors of overriding significance to Canadian readers. For example, our French-Canadian readers-we have some 1.3 million of them-will lose ...
They do not say "may". They say "will lose".
... an edition published since 1947 in Montreal, printed in their own language, edited by French-Canadians.
This puts the minister on a spot because in a speech he made in this House on May 8 he stated:
. .. we do not want the continuance of a practice whereby the stories and articles reproduced in the French language Canadian edition of Reader's Digest are usually translated outside Canada.
Somewhere, sometime, I hope the minister will clear up this little bit of misunderstanding because here he states one thing while the owners of the Digest state something entirely different:
... will lose an edition published since 1947 in Montreal, printed in their own language, edited by French-Canadians. For them, a subscrip-
Non-Canadian Publications
tion to the U.S. English-language edition is no real alternative. Nor is a subscription to the Digest editions produced in France, Belgium or Switzerland-all are European in emphasis and naturally do not reflect Canadian concerns.
Similarly, English-Canadian readers will lose ...
Here I again repeat that they do not say "may". They say "will lose".
... a 27-year old edition which is fully edited by Canadians, contains a substantial core of material written by Canadian authors on Canadian subjects, and offers a selection of international articles chosen specifically for their appeal to a Canadian audience. Our own reader surveys demonstrate clearly that Canadian readers would be gravely disappointed if the Canadian editions ceased publishing and would find the U.S. edition a less than satisfactory substitute.
Then there is a short note at the bottom which says:
In 1974, 24 per cent of the material in the Canadian Digestor originated in Canada. Our target is to increase Canadian material to 30 per cent by 1976. This will mean that the number of major Canadian articles the Digest carries will approach that carried by leading Canadian magazines.
Let us think for a moment, Mr. Speaker, of the market this provides for Canadian writers. It is entirely one thing to write an article and have it published in Canada in Maclean's or Chatelaine but certainly once an article is accepted by Reader's Digest this gives the writer of that article an eminence he would not otherwise obtain. This is a factor which should be taken into consideration when considering legislation.
The part of this legislation which causes me the most concern-and I am not speaking now as a politician but as a Canadian-is its totalitarian aspect. Over half a million copies of Time are circulated in Canada, a very large circulation by any standard for a country like ours. These copies are printed in this country, althrough the largest by far of the editorial content I must admit originates at the Time office in the United States and around the world.
Time provides a window on the world which no Canadian publication can duplicate, and which unfortunately no Canadian publication may ever emulate. Certainly they have not to date. We need Time's type of journalism at least as much if not more than the type of thing Maclean's offers us. I subscribe to Maclean's magazine, I expect out of sheer patriotism. Obviously they do not know I am a paying subscriber because they send me a free copy every month, which costs money. One might wonder about the efficiency of Maclean's and their manner of keeping control over their list of subscribers. Certainly they could cut down on expenses because if copies are sent to all members of the House of Commons although this might increase its circulation it certainly also increases the cost substantially.
A monthly comparison of the content between Time and Maclean's, I submit, leaves much to be desired in respect of Maclean's. All anyone need do is read Time's account, for example, of the United States government's recent problems in Vietnam or in respect of the Watergate scandal and compare the coverage of these two major events with the coverage given by Maclean's. It is so easy to understand why so many of us reach for Maclean's when we wish to be informed about what is going on in the world.

May 20, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
The government's position is that Time, in order to qualify as a Canadian publication, would need, I believe the minister said, to be 75 per cent Canadian owned. For Time this would obviously mean ceasing to exist in Canada. The government would be totally remaking the magazine so that it would be impossible for it to continue in the form which makes it acceptable to us. This is a type of government censorship, which, I believe, we should view very seriously. We are already exposed to many extremist voices in this country, and what the government is doing by this legislation is making us more susceptible to them.
Rather than giving the privilege of easy access to publications with a worldwide viewpoint, this legislation is simply opening the door for a narrower kind of idealogical Canadian journalism which is already too common in this country. I am not opposed to Canadian publications or Canadian journalism, but what I would like to see is some kind of publications offering something worthwhile to Canadians, publications that can stand on their own two feet rather than continually leaning on the government.
One fact that is frequently overlooked is that Time and Reader's Digest have not had special advantages. They have competed in the Canadian marketplace like any other publication. The way this issue has been presented by the government, many Canadian people believe that advertisers in Time and Reader's Digest have had tax advantages which advertisers in Canadian publications did not have and this is simply not the case.
What is happening under this legislation is that both Time and Reader's Digest are being placed in a position of tremendous competitive disadvantage in the hope, as expressed by the government, that advertisers will decide to take their advertising out of these publications and place it in fully Canadian owned publications. This is, of course, a doubtful assumption, but it is exactly what the government is planning Canadians will do. The minister has stated this in his speech. In his list of what he wanted to have done, he said:
Second, we want the diversion of a proportion of the advertising revenue now earned by Time and Reader's Digest to Canadian-owned consumer magazines.
How can you legislate culture? I wish the minister would answer that question. Some time ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that we should keep the government out of the bedrooms of this nation. I suggest that we should keep the minister out of the publication houses of this nation.


James Hugh Faulkner: What about the bedrooms?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I will leave him to decide that, Mr. Speaker. This type of manipulation of the press, I believe, we should view with the utmost seriousness. The free movement of the press should be one of our most cherished possessions and it should be jealously guarded and defended. Under this legislation Canadians in a very real sense are being deprived of the freedom of choice in a manner which is much more reminiscent to me of a totalitarian regime than of something that could happen in a truly open democracy.


James Hugh Faulkner: This is not like me.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The minister had not yet heard what I will say. I am only getting to the theme of this speech. The fact that the Canadian government would even entertain the thought of introducing this type of legislation is abhorrent, and it causes me a great deal of concern.
I cannot help but look for a deeper meaning behind this legislation aside from the reasons given by the Secretary of State. In fact it is this type of legislation that brings into question the government's entire external affairs policy. We seem to have set our ship of state on a direct course-whether or not the Liberals like this-of anti-Americanism, of which this legislation is only a very small part.
I say this for very serious reasons. I say this because of the views expressed by our Prime Minister when he gave a press conference in Moscow on May 20, 1971, when he stated:
But from our own point of view, it is quite clear that we have a great deal to learn from the Soviet Union. It is one of the two super powers in the world today; one of the poles of influence, not only a military, but an economic, technological, cultural pole of great significance, and it is moreover, Canada's neighbour across the Arctic seas.
I suppose we do have a great deal to learn from the Soviet Union, but the strict controls and strong regulations laid down by Marxist Communism are not something that I wish to see imported into Canada.
Unless I have been misinformed, it is not possible under the Communist regime to travel freely, to criticize or publicly condemn the government, and freedom of speech as we know it simply does not exist. With all their weaknesses, the freedoms that I mentioned are the freedoms of democracy and we must be ever on guard if these freedoms which so many of us cherish are not to be taken away.
Later on in the same interview the Prime Minister, speaking about Canadian-U.S. relations, is reported as
saying:
Canada has increasingly found it important to diversify its channels of communication because of the overpowering presence of the United States of America, and that is reflected in a growing consciousness amongst Canadians of the danger to our national identity from a cultural, economic and perhaps even military point of view.
The question of the United States militarily dominating Canada is ridiculous in the extreme and one that, I submit as a Canadian, should never have been raised in Moscow. However, when I look at this legislation I cannot help but wonder whether the fine hand of the Prime Minister did not fashion this bill. In view of his belief that Canada has found it increasingly important to diversify its channels of communication, is the Prime Minister worried about the truth of the articles in Time and Reader's Digest? Is the Prime Minister worried about the cultural impact of Time and Reader's Digest on the people of Canada? Are he and his government worried about the truth? Are the lights now starting to go out in Canada? These are the questions Canadians are asking in their letters, and these are the questions which require an answer from this government.


James Hugh Faulkner: Nonsense!
May 20, 1975


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Let the minister come to South Shore and tell my constituents that this is nonsense. Then he would get his answers from those people. This is not nonsense, this is truth, and the minister cannot face up to the truth.
These are the serious questions that I pose to the minister tonight. The likely outcome of what is proposed in this bill is that Time and Reader's Digest will, for all practical purposes, be legislated out of this country. By the use of economic levers Canadians will have been deprived of two means of freedom of choice in their reading material. In my opinion it will be most unfortunate and I agree with some of the Liberal members who have already spoken on this bill, Liberal members whom the minister would wish out of this House. Nevertheless, it is on this type of Liberal member that the future of Canada depends because they alone are the ones who can defeat the government, the worse one we have ever had. By the use of economic levers Canadians will have been deprived of these two periodicals which they thoroughly enjoy.
In my opinion it will be very unfortunate if the bill is approved by the House for, if it goes through the House, a further step will have been taken along the road of repressive action without in any way guaranteeing to Canadians a Canadian magazine industry with a strong economic viability. In my opinion the Canadian government's only concern should be that publications be willing to print and circulate their material from within Canada in order to enjoy the tax benefits under Canadian law. For all these reasons I hope the government will reconsider its actions, and I sincerely hope it will withdraw this bill.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps by now I should be accustomed to the failure of the government to respond to the temper of the times with legislation which reflects the current mood of the Canadian people. But even recognizing the collectivity opposite as a government of missed opportunities, both for itself and for Canada, I still marvel at the inadequacy of Bill C-58.
Given the chance to expect support from those of us who stand for a strong and positive Canadian nationalism, the government comes forward with a bill which is haphazard and incomplete. Given the opportunity to introduce measures which would provide solid underpinnings for the Canadian periodical publishing industry, the government opts for gestures, the effects of which we cannot even be sure will not ultimately be detrimental to this area of Canadian publishing.
There is no doubt that the direction in which the government intends this proposed legislation to take us is the right one and, in so far as that intent can be realized through the measures set out in Bill C-58, I personally feel that the government is to be commended. But there is considerable doubt as to whether the measures in the bill would create the conditions in which a Canadian magazine industry could flourish. Indeed the bill raises questions, among other things, about its implications for one of the fundamental institutions of a free society, freedom of the press. Its inadequately articulated reference to substantially Canadian content raises questions about the economic viability of any new Canadian enterprise which
Non-Canadian Publications
tries to enter the publishing field, and it raises a number of other questions which I will deal with in a moment.
But first I should like to make it clear that my concern about this bill arises not only out of my support of a positive Canadian nationalism. It arises as well out of my profound feeling that we have an opportunity today to forge new legislative instruments which will be as potent in welding this country together today as the CPR and the CBC were in meeting the demands of our peculiar geography in their day. At different periods in our history, Conservative governments of the times, imbued with vision and foresight, created the CPR and the CBC-two vastly different institutions with strangely similar objectives-to unite the various regions of this country.
Today national unity is once again a major concern of the Canadian people, national unity in the cultural sense as well as in the political and economic fields. Such a time is not the moment for half way measures such as Bill C-58 represents. It is instead a time for positive measures which will merit strong support from those of us concerned with Canadian nationalism, rather than acquiescence to that which must be accepted simply because it is better than nothing.
The history of the Canadian magazine industry is indeed a sad one. Of the 542 consumer magazines in existence since 1920, less than 200 presently survive. Commissions created by both Liberal and Conservative governments over the past 15 years have well documented the inability, from a business point of view, of Canadian enterprises to compete with foreign periodicals dumped on to the Canadian market.
It is certainly not for want of trying. Canadians started 250 new magazines in the 1960's, and less than half of them survived. There is a dearth of management talent in the Canadian periodical industry, but this is certainly not the main cause of the problems of the industry. Young, interested, and talented managerial personnel cannot be attracted to an industry which is barely able to survive. The terms of competition must be changed to give potential publishers in Canada a fair chance of turning a profit while fulfilling the needs of the country.
I fully concur with my colleague, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), that the government is without a publications policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The hon. member has outlined much more far reaching proposals which cover distribution, postal rates, management training and a capital fund. I support my colleague's global plan for revitalising an essential industry which is the lifeblood of an independent and prosperous country.
Let us make no mistake about how vital the magazine industry is to our country. In a country as large as Canada newspapers can never be truly national in scope. Magazines can, and one needs only to look at other federal countries like Germany and Italy to see the vital role of national unification played by magazines.
I would like to return to the inadequacies of the policies of the government. The minister should not only assist the development of managerial talent in the publishing indus-

May 20, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
try, but the government should begin by correcting its own lack of appreciation of the problems faced by Canadian publishers as an industry and as a business.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has rightly used the word "dumping" to describe the distribution of the Canadian editions of Time and Reader's Digest. No more than 15 per cent of the articles in the French edition of Reader's Digest and 20 per cent in Time originates in Canada. Yet the government meets an industry-wide problem with one proposal only, namely, to put and end to one of the two special privileges allowed these foreign magazines. It is estimated that something over $3 million of advertising revenue presently going to these publications will be diverted to Canadian magazines. Yet I ask how about the second privilege Time and Reader's Digest receive, namely, millions of dollars in postal subsidies paid for by Canadian taxpayers? The minister has invited these magazines to send their American or international editions via the Canadian Post Office after December 31, 1975, at enormous expense to the Canadian public.
Last year the Canadian Post Office subsidized magazines and newspapers sent via the second class postal rate to the tune of over $50 million. The total circulation of U.S. magazines in Canada in 1974 was close to 200 million. The total circulation of Time was just over 29 million of that, and the whole Canadian magazine circulation was just a little more than the circulation of Time. It is a shocking fact, but American magazines must have received most of the $50 million postal subsidy paid for by Canadian taxpayers.
There are numerous Canadian magazines which do not receive the postal subsidies which go so generously to many foreign publications. In the legislation amending the rates in 1968, magazines published by Canadian associations lost their rights to second class postal rates. It was a drastic blow to many publications, as their postal rates at least tripled in price. For example, the United Church Observer was seriously affected. The Canadian Manufacturers Association was forced to suspend publication of Industrial Canada, and many others faced serious turmoil.
I do not want to go into the merits or demerits of postal subsidies to association publications, but I do believe that is an example of the government's fumbling and contradictory approach to our magazine industry, when it approaches it in such piecemeal fashion. Here we have Canadian magazines losing their subsidy and being forced to be mailed out at a cost at least three times that of foreign publications. These latter have the right to use up millions of dollars of the Canadian taxpayers' money. Does not the Post Office have enough problems without such lavish gifts of its money to foreign periodicals?
A clear case of the government's half measures and inability to view the magazine industry's problems in a global sense is evidenced by its concern which seems limited to periodicals which depend on advertising revenue. But many of the small circulation magazines in Canada depend on subscription fees and not on advertising revenue to cover their costs. It is they which are hardest hit by the government's willingness to give postal subsidies to foreign magazines merely printed in Canada.

The government will not be generating more revenues for them by this legislation, as it is for those dependent on advertising. I would say to the minister that unless the former system which gave small circulation magazines in Canada a preferential postal rate is re-established, as was suggested by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, these small magazines will be left to face the same postal rates as those allowed to foreign periodicals.
A recent example of this is a foreign magazine which entered the Canadian market this year to compete with Nature Canada. This latter periodical is a delight to all who receive it. Its circulation, after three years of existence, is over 20,000. Last year it doubled its paid circulation. Many Canadian naturalists and photographers have finally found an outlet for their talents. Many Canadian subscribers are having the pleasure of learning about our wildlife and outdoor wonders from coast to coast through this delightful magazine. Now an American magazine has entered the market; its editorial control remains abroad, and its Canadian content is minimal. Neither magazine receives much advertising. This current legislation will not affect their situation in the slightest. Yet the American magazine is dumping its foreign material at a lower unit cost while it receives the same second class postal rate as does Nature Canada.
What makes the government's position even more ludicrous is that to amend the situation covering the millions of dollars going to subsidize foreign magazines mailed in Canada requires no act of parliament. The Post Office Act as amended in 1968 defines a Canadian periodical as one which is typeset in Canada; one which is printed in Canada; one which is edited in Canada; one that is not published in Canada under licence from someone who produces or publishes a periodical outside of Canada, and finally, one the contents of which are not substantially the same as some or all of the contents of one or more issues of a periodical which is not first edited, printed, and published in Canada.
These are some of the terms according to the act which a magazine must meet to obtain the second class postal subsidy, yet the government in its regulations only requires that a periodical qualify under one of these five criteria, namely, that it be printed in Canada. Material typeset abroad, edited abroad, first published abroad, can be dumped on the Canadian market at the Canadian taxpayers' expense. I would urge the government to direct its attention to the disadvantages incurred by Canadian publications because of inequitable postal rates.
Another of the factors that contributes to my concern about whether this bill is anything more than a relatively hollow gesture in the direction of a solid Canadian magazine publishing industry is the minister's description of a Canadian publication as one in which the content was "not substantially the same" as that of a foreign publication.
Where, Mr. Speaker, is a Canadian news magazine- particularly a new and financially uncertain Canadian news magazine-supposed to get foreign news content that is "not substantially the same" as that carried in foreign publications? Presumably, from a Canadian news service is the answer. On occasion that may be possible, but for the most part how realistic is that assumption?
May 20, 1975

After all it is well known that the major Canadian wire service, the Canadian Press, maintains few correspondents abroad, and relies largely on United States and British news services, such as the Associated Press and Reuters, for its foreign news coverage. Frequently, perhaps most often, this material is rewritten by CP's own staffers, but the perceptions on which their stories are based still are not those of Canadians. Is it realistic, then, to apply the "not substantially the same" test in these circumstances? Is it not likely that Canadian news magazines, forced by economic realities to rely on Canadian news services for foreign coverage, will simply be providing foreign images of the world, couched in the Canadian idiom to meet some unrealistic content ruling?
One might ask what is wrong with Canadian news magazines running foreign perceptions of world affairs rewritten by Canadians? After all, Canadian news services cannot afford to maintain more than a few Canadian correspondents abroad.
If I were asked that question, Mr. Speaker, I would have to admit, sadly, that it is true that we are not likely to find large numbers of Canadian correspondents abroad. It is true that we will likely have to rely heavily in future, as we have in the past, on the perceptions of non-Canadians for our views of world affairs. That being the case, why invoke a Canadian content ruling that can most aptly be described as a sham?
I am just about finished, Mr. Speaker, but I would reiterate that I have some grave reservations about the efficacy of the measures in Bill C-58 in fostering a viable and truly Canadian periodical industry. As I have said, the intent of the bill is one that I feel deserves the support of anyone interested in the concept of an independent Canada. I suppose in supporting it one would be saying that it is better than nothing. But is supporting something that is better than nothing good enough in times that call for strong affirmations of Canada's faith in itself?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, probably in my lifetime here I shall never have an opportunity to make a more important speech than the one I propose to make now. It is also probable that I shall never be as pessimistic as I am about making this speech.
As a news man I followed events in Indochina from the days leading up to the fall of Dien Bien Phu years and years ago. I take no satisfaction in the rout of refugees along the trail out of Saigon any more than I took satisfaction a number of years ago in the bombing of Hanoi. I am
Adjournment Debate
really pessimistic about the situation, and regrettably I think that I share that pessimism with fellow members of parliament.
A year ago it was my privilege, occupying the position that Your Honour now occupies as a Deputy Speaker, to have been head of a parliamentary delegation to Seoul, South Korea. As a matter of fact we did not confine ourselves merely to that capital city. The delegation consisted of Mr. Harold Danforth of the Conservative party, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) of the Liberal party, Mr. Gleave of the New Democratic Party, and Mr. Tetrault of the Creditistes. We were aided and abetted by Mr. Jacques Vermette, then of the Deputy Speaker's office. He is now with Mr. Ian Imrie's branch in the Confederation Building. So well did he look after our affairs that the only piece of luggage that was lost, strayed, or mislaid for a moment was his own. Our own got through nicely everywhere we went.
What we saw in South Korea was rather fantastic. For example, we saw a shipyard capable of producing ships much larger than anything than can be produced in any Canadian shipyard. It was situated alongside rice paddies that had been in existence for thousands and thousands of years. We saw a very old part of Asia, a very new part of Asia, and a very interesting part of Asia.
We were treated royally by our parliamentary hosts from South Korea. For example, we had 30 minutes with the president. We met with opposition parties. At that time, which was a year ago, we had opportunities to sit down and discuss democracy in South Korea, whether there should be opposition parties and the like. I think that situation has probably altered itself within the last few weeks, particularly since the fall of the government in South Viet Nam.
It is probably only known to very few people in Canada that the president of North Korea antedates all other rulers, with the exception of Generalissimo Franco of Spain, in his tenure of office. He goes right back to the forties. With his relatives on the payroll and with his egotistical style of living, the president of North Korea makes the old family compact of ancient days in Ontario look rather humble and small indeed. This has to be a megalomaniac. Everybody in this chamber is familiar with megalomaniacs in the Canadian political scene, I am sure. This fellow is ten times anything that has occurred or is occurring in Canada.
The government of North Korea is not recognized by any government in the free world, if I may use that expression, with the exception of Australia. In turn, none of the communist countries recognizes the government of South Korea. We are caught in this dilemma. The North Korean government and the South Korean government regard each other rather viciously. Indeed they do. The incidents between them are a recurring part of the political scene in that part of the world.
I see my time is running out. However, I have to make these points if my speech is going to make any sense at all.
The Canadian delegation went to the demilitarized zone. If I had time I could tell you of a third world war that almost broke out of there about a year ago. It was kept out

May 20, 1975
Adjournment Debate
of the press. Thanks to the coolness of an American colonel, nothing really happened. However, there were many people in hospital. Soldiers from both sides flooded the demilitarized zone because of one particular incident.
I am afraid that the pressures of international communism or the pressures of the international cold war are going to turn themselves to Korea. Be that as it may, and without trying to relate blame in any way, shape or form, I simply suggest, as I did to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) the other day, that Canada try to play some role to get the two sides to sit down and talk over their differences. The only way I can see that this can be profitably and usefully done is to get them outside the Korean boot, the Korean peninsula.
There is no chance at all of resolving the differences of both North and South Korea if they are locked in some meeting in the demilitarized zone. It has to be tried in an international gathering. I know we do not recognize them and they do not recognize us. The Canadian position, as I understand it, is that Canada will not object to meeting with North Korea at some table at an international gathering. This being so we have a golden opportunity to take the initiative in trying to talk these two sides into resolving their differences.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government shares the hon. member's concern over the recent rise in tension on the Korean peninsula. Indeed, it is the government's view that recent actions and pronouncements by North Korea, in particular a decidedly belligerent statement by North Korea's leader during a recent visit to Peking, represent a grave threat to the continued maintenance of international peace and security on the Korean peninsula. These developments are of course more alarming for having followed so closely the recent events in Viet Nam and Cambodia. In consequence, Canada has been discussing the Korean situation with like-minded friends. We appreciate, however, that there is very little Canada alone can do about the situation other than to continue to support efforts to achieve progress in the current dialogue between North and South Korea.
With respect to the hon. member's proposal that North and South Korea be brought together in an international forum, there already exists, in our view, no lack of forums in which the two sides can discuss their differences, including the North-South Co-ordinating Committee talks whose terms of reference provide for discussion of virtually all issues holding up unification between North and South Korea, the Red Cross talks aimed at re-uniting families separated by the division of the peninsula, the Military Armistice Commission talks to ensure the maintenance of the 1953 armistice agreement, and discussions of the Korean question at annual sessions of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. We recognize that there appears to have been little progress achieved to date in any of these four forums but some useful proposals have been tabled by both sides on outstanding questions separating them.
One major problem, however, is still North Korea's apparent unwillingness to accept that re-unification can take place only if each side is reassured about the peaceful intentions of the other, and only on terms which are

acceptable to the peoples of both Koreas. Until an understanding on these issues is reached, we believe the process will be a slow one, and that talks between the two sides in any forum are likely to be inconclusive.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-GARRISON IRRIGATION PROJECT IN UNITED STATES-REQUEST FOR CANADIAN EFFORTS TO SECURE MORATORIUM ON CONSTRUCTION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I rose to propose a motion under Standing Order 26 in order that there might be a full and open discussion of the Garrison diversion project. Although Mr. Speaker did not allow my motion he was very sympathetic and suggested I pursue it at another level. I am doing so this evening in the adjournment debate.
I am suggesting that the Canadian government contact the United States government and demand an immediate halt to the Garrison diversion project and stop turning Manitoba into a sewer or a toilet for this undertaking. I should like to point out that according to recent news reports, one dated May 17 of this year, the Ohio representative, Mr. Charles A. Vanik, stated that the Garrison project was environmental and economic madness. He added:
The Bureau of Reclamation has tried to do everything in its power to push the Garrison project ahead. Nothing can hide the fact, however, that it is an environmental disaster.
He further stated that the United States House of Representatives should place a moratorium on the project, and I am asking the Canadian government to support this moratorium tonight. I hope the parliamentary secretary will give me an answer in this regard. We can no longer put this off and say there will have to be more studies and research, and then pass it on to the IJC. This is simply stalling. While that is being done, the bulldozers and construction equipment are at work daily in North Dakota completing the Garrison diversion project. I hope that the parliamentary secretary will give me some confirmation tonight that the government is going to take firm action to have this whole project stopped, since people in the United States are also asking that a moratorium be placed on the project.
Speldon Meyers, director of the Environmental Protection Agency federal activities, has stated in a letter that the study of a private group, the Institute of Ecology, had done a much better environmental assessment of the project than had the Bureau of Reclamation, and had "accurately pointed out many of the deficiencies". The Environmental Protection Agency agrees with this institute's concerns about the adverse effects of the project on Canada.
Richard Madson of the U.S. Audubon Society has stated that court action must be taken immediately if the project is to be stopped in time. During this interview on May 14, 1975, he further stated that the report of the International Joint Committee on the project would not be completed for a year's time, that the Lonetree reservoir would be completed and the project could not be stopped. Also, the
May 20, 1975

commission cannot order the project stopped, only a court order can do that.
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the state of Minnesota is taking court action against the state of North Dakota to stop this project. I understand the state of South Dakota is also entering into litigation with the state of North Dakota.
If the Lonetree reservoir is to be completed, then this will be the point of no return and the project cannot be stopped. Manitoba will be turned into a sewer. This is why the project must be stopped. Unfortunately the premier of Manitoba is taking no decisive action. He is being commended by the North Dakota legislature because he is going to take no action at all to have the project stopped.
I should like to point out that the Manitoba Environmental Council has stated that the United States Bureau of Reclamation is trying to bring work on the Garrison diversion irrigation project to the point at which the project would be unstoppable, regardless of its effect upon Canada. Ken Arenson, chairman of the environmental group, said Monday that the recent acquisition of land for the project's Lonetree reservoir is an indication that the bureau intends to complete the original project plan in spite of the fact that all available data indicates such a plan would pollute Canadian waters in violation of the boundary waters treaty between the two nations.
James Petrik, chief of the planning division of the Bismarck office of the Bureau of Reclamation in North Dakota, said the bureau was proceeding along guidelines set by the interior department. I hope the parliamentary secretary is getting the message tonight showing why we must call for a moratorium to stop this project.
The recommendations of Project "Garri", which was funded by the federal government to investigate this Garrison diversion project, included this recommendation among others that I have not the time to read tonight, that "all legal questions be answered before construction of the Garrison diversion unit continues". As I say, this project was funded by federal government moneys and we cannot ignore that. Another recommendation was that all bills concerning environmental protection should be given special consideration in all levels of government.
The Deputy Minister of Mines, Resources and Environmental Management for Manitoba stated that Manitoba would not have any say in the matter if this project were passed on to the IJC to make a decision. That is why we have to make a decision tomorrow to make a protest against this project. Manitoba will be eliminated completely from any decision at all if this is placed in the hands of the IJC. This is clearly stated by the minister who has made some suggestion that it has been passed on to the IJC.
In addition, the Garrison project may jeopardize the quality of the waters of Lake Winnipeg. A top United States scientist warned that Canadian limnologists must study the effects the Garrison diversion project will have on Lake Winnipeg before irrigation from the project begins. That scientist was Dr. Dale Henegar, chief of fisheries for the North Dakota State Game and Fish Department. He said in an interview that the possibility exists that the water quality of Lake Winnipeg will be
Adjournment Debate
dramatically changed and the lake might become a second Lake Erie.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member as his allotted time has now expired.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the effects on Canada of the proposed Garrison project in North Dakota have been under active study by officials of the federal and Manitoba governments for some time, and have also been the subject of a number of exchanges by the governments of Canada and the United States.
Since 1969, by means of a series of diplomatic notes and meetings, the Canadian government has sought information on this proposal by the United States Bureau of Reclamation to irrigate up to 250,000 acres of land in the Souris and Red River basins with water from the Missouri. These efforts culminated in October, 1973, with the presentation of a note to the United States State Department in which the government of Canada expressed the view that the project as proposed would violate the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909.
In the note the Canadian government sought assurances that the United States would honour its obligations under the treaty to protect fully Canadian property and health from being adversely affected by transboundary pollution from the project. In February, 1974, the United States government gave assurances that the United States would honour its obligations under the treaty and pledged that no project construction potentially affecting waters flowing into Canada would be undertaken unless it were clear that these United States obligations under the treaty would be met.
Following on this exchange of notes, and a further exchange of technical studies undertaken by both sides on the potential effects on Canada of the Garrison project, Canadian and United States officials met in Ottawa on August 28, 1974, and again in Washington, D.C., on January 16, 1975, to discuss this subject. The Canadian position at these meetings was that the Garrison diversion unit, as currently envisaged, would have adverse effects on the Souris, Assiniboine and Red Rivers, and ultimately Lake Winnipeg, which would cause injury to health and property in Canada. The United States officials reiterated the assurances set forth in the United States' note of February 6, 1974.
Hon. members will recall that in the January, 1975, Canada-United States meeting in Washington Canada put forward the informal suggestion, on an ad referendum basis, that the issue be referred to the International Joint Commission for study and recommendations. Following further exploratory talks with the United States, and with the full concurrence of the Manitoba government, we are now discussing with the United States the possibility of a joint reference to the commission under Article IX of the Boundary Waters Treaty on the basis of a Canadian draft. If this proposal is to be pursued with the commission, it will have to be on the basis of language acceptable to both countries which, on the Canadian side, clearly recognizes that significant modifications are required to the project as now conceived. Any final decision by Canada on the
5956

May 20, 1975
Adjournment Debate
question of an IJC reference will depend on a satisfactory outcome to our current discussions with the United States on the proposed text.


A. Daniel McKenzie: While you are talking the bulldozers are still working.


Herb Breau: I can't do anything to stop them in the United States.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Wednesday, May 21, 1975