1976-02-19

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to propose under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the urgent and pressing circumstances of which have been indicated by certain recent events and certain decisions in this country and other countries. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That a special committee of the House, to consist of Mr. Speaker and seven other members, be appointed to review the rights and immunities of members of the House of Commons, to examine the procedures by which such matters are dealt with by the House, and to report on any changes it may be desirable to make; and
That the said special committee have all the powers given to standing committees by the Standing Orders.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 43 the unanimous consent of the House is required to put this motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), moves:
That a special committee of the House, to consist of Mr. Speaker and seven other members, be appointed to review the rights and immunities of members of the House of Commons, to examine the procedures by which such matters are dealt with by the House, and to report on any changes it may be desirable to make; and
That the said special committee have all the powers given to standing committees by the Standing Orders.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an urgent matter, namely the proposed increase in power rates in the
Northwest Territories and Yukon. In view of the fact that these proposals are causing considerable debate among residents of the two territories; in view of the fact that this debate is severely limited by lack of adequate information about NCPC's operations; and in view of the fact that the government's only reaction to this widespread public concern has been to institute an in-house inquiry; I move, seconded by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen);
That a full and public inquiry be conducted into the entire operation of the Northern Canada Power Commission in the Yukon and Northwest Territories under the supervision of either a supreme court judge or a public utilities board from one of the provinces. And further, that the findings of this inquiry be placed before the legislative assemblies of the two territories for approval, adoption or otherwise to ensure fullest possible public participation.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 this motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an urgent matter.
Considering that Canada is an independent and sovereign country, that most of its citizens do not wish to maintain our constitutional bonds with Britain, and that this situation can no longer be tolerated, so as to solve the problem of the repatriation of the Canadian constitution, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That a unanimous resolution of this House be sent to the Parliament of Westminster advising it that from now on the Canadian constitution will not in any way come under British legislation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.
11110

National Rhetoric Day


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, in view of today's hostage taking at the B.C. penitentiary, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That the Farris inquiry report on the hostage taking at the B.C. penitentiary last year be tabled in this House immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion moved pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of this government's quick acceptance of the new Communist regime in Angola, and as this country needs necessary assurances and evidence that the MPLA are indeed in control of Angola, I move, seconded by the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs table documents, correspondence and other papers relating to the government's reasons for deciding to recognize the new Communist government of Angola.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* + *


NATIONAL RHETORIC DAY
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to propose a motion pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, requiring the prompt attention of the House. As the nation's capital obviously is in the process of being inundated by legions of well-scrubbed, blue-suited Tories-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: -as the city is now experiencing a superheated atmosphere, and as it is urgently necessary to inform local inhabitants and the people of Canada as a whole of the true nature of this curious invasion, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That Sunday, February 22, the day on which thousands of Tories shall be reaching the ecstatic climax of their activities, be hereby immortalized and renamed as National Rhetoric Day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the concern expressed by the western region representatives of the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities concerning the lack of consultation on the part of the government with regard to the recently announced rail passenger policy, and in view of the resolution passed by the council of the city of Saskatoon expressing apprehension over the effects of the new rail passenger service on some aspects of transcontinental service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to delay implementation of the new rail passenger policy, pending full consultation with officials of cities, towns and municipalities affected, and that the minister make a statement on motions to the effect that the transcontinental service will be continued between Saskatoon and Biggar.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRIBUTES TO RETIRING LEADER OF OPPOSITION
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, may I rise on a point of order or question of privilege? I ask to be permitted at this time to say a few words about our friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This weekend, if everything goes according to plan, the Leader of the Opposition will hand over his job to some other member of his party. Already I feel a little lonely. We have been partners during these past seven years, and in this sense I do feel his departure, and the splitting up of what I suppose could be called "The Odd Couple."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 19, 1976


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Indeed, it is an odd couple, Mr. Speaker, whose fate has inextricably been bound for several years for better or for worse, as the saying goes. Under some parliamentary conventions, we are in a way paid to oppose one another. However, I believe I have been fortunate indeed to have to face the opposition of such a man who has always shown much distinction and competence. [English]
Like any couple living and working in the same house, we have had our spats and tiffs. I have been the object of "Big Thunder" rolling over there, as the press have nicknamed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). He is fortunate in a sense that we can use his nickname in the House. The nickname the press gives me is unparliamentary.


An hon. Member:: Name one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know them all. If I knew of one that was parliamentary, I would be volunteering it at this time. Apart from the occasional disagreement, we have also shared an exchange of good will and of good and bad days. We have had the responsibility of difficult times when it was essential to work together with a common purpose. My hon. friend has made an outstanding contribution to parliament for which all Canadians, not just Conservatives, are very grateful and thankful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: His public service to Canada and to Nova Scotia has spanned a period of some 27 years. I know his decision to change his job will not mean that he will have less concern for, or less interest in, our country. Throughout his career he has been a man of vision and ideas. I should say that I borrowed a few of them in my day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Although I do not have much direct influence on the outcome of the convention of the party opposite, I know they will be looking for a man of equal competence.


Mr. Hees:: Or a woman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Whoever it is, Mr. Speaker, I wish "it" good fortune.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will miss the constant attention of my original partner. I hope that the change in partners will at least permit him to enjoy some time with his family. His family certainly very strongly supported him. They, too, deserve the gratitude of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, although I have only recently joined this menage a trois, I should like to associate myself with the Prime Minister
mil
Tributes to Mr. Stanfield
(Mr. Trudeau) in paying this well deserved tribute to the leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). We are paying this tribute to a man who has graced the House of Commons with his presence for the past 8'/2 years. Those of us who have shared our parliamentary experience with him have shared that experience with a blunt, courteous, honest and witty man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: When I sat down in my office this morning to put together these few words in tribute to the hon. member for Halifax, four particular qualities of his came to mind, in no particular order-I think they stand out equally in his character. They are personal qualities which appeared to me as his particular contribution to the political life of our land. The first is that he has always shown a strong and serious concern about the dual cultural heritage of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: At times when it was not always politically expedient or popular to do so, he took courageous stands in defence of a long tradition of French-speaking rights which had to find new expression in legislation in our generation, just as they had to find expression in earlier legislation. He stood up to be counted when it was required, and for that all Canadians owe him grateful thanks.
The second quality which comes to mind is his sense of compassion. This has been displayed in connection with various legislative matters which have come before the House and, indeed, on a number of issues which have not. I am thinking of his early concern about the need for some form of guaranteed income for Canada's poor, even though it meant doing battle within his own party, as all of us find necessary from time to time. That kind of attitude toward less fortunate people was something which had to be fought for-and he has made this known on issue after issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The third quality is the hon. gentleman's overriding sense of honesty. This came out in the campaigns. It has been demonstrated in the House and it has been demonstrated in all aspects of his life both inside and outside this chamber. Finally, he has demonstrated, as very few of us do, as politicians, his possession of a sense of humour. I think there is one virtue that those of us who run for political office cannot claim to be ours to the same degree, perhaps, as other people in the population, and that is the capacity to laugh at ourselves. If there was ever a calling in human life that ought to bring forth the capacity not to take oneself too seriously, it ought to be the politician's vocation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Stanfield has even been known from time to time to poke fun at some of his opponents as well. In conclusion, for my party, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that in his new role we wish this distinguished Canadi-
21419-1 lVi

Tributes to Mr. Stanfield
an well. We also hope that down the road he will spend more time in the presence of bananas than of footballs.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in joining the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the NDP Leader (Mr. Broadbent) to express good wishes, thanks and congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who will resign as Leader of the Opposition this coming weekend.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that, independently from political ideologies, the House of Commons, every member and the whole population have highly appreciated Mr. Stanfield's qualities as a truly great Canadian. We have noted during these seven or eight years that the Leader of the Opposition has beyond any doubt demonstrated his interest for the people and for national unity, being the representative of all Canadian regions and not only one area to the detriment of the others. He really has the stature of a great national statesman-international, I might even say-since he often looked into matters concerning Canada in its relations with other nations. Mr. Stanfield is an honest man who has stirred up the admiration and respect of the people, though it has not necessarily been reflected at election time. But, at any rate, he has deserved the admiration of the population for his sense of responsibility. He has always been at his post and he has commanded respect from the population and hon. members.
We wish happy days to the Leader of the Opposition and his family. Most of all, we wish him good health and much happiness in the years to come, which we hope will be most numerous. Good luck to the Leader of the Opposition!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the right hon. gentleman and to the leaders of the other parties for the tributes they have paid in initiating this interesting point of order which I am putting into my rule book for future reference. Before the right hon. gentleman spoke, I had considered asking a question. I consulted the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and found a precedent going back to 632 B.C. under the laws of Justinian.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
# (1430)


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. gentleman assures me he was not in the House then, but he is well aware of the precedent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I want to say to my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition with whom I have had the pleasure of sharing this seat, that he came into this House on a great wave of support from ski-jumpers. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that after watching the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) he will now take up the art of wrestling as a very useful and effective means of dealing with the problems of the country.
Seriously, sir, this has been quite a time. A lot of people think of my hon. friend sitting here as Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) while I have been sitting here as House leader, but really it has been an exercise which

we call "the education of Pierre." I may say to the right hon. gentleman that we now have the examination papers. We are marking them, and from time to time we will let him know exactly what his mark is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Let me say through you, sir, to members of the House that it has been a great privilege for me to occupy this seat, and a great privilege for me to have been a member of this party which has had the pleasure of working under the leadership and guidance of my hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I say this only in conclusion: he is leaving this party, as an opposition party it is true, but an opposition party which under the democratic system that prevails in this country is a necessary and essential part of the function of a democracy and a parliamentary structure. It has been honed to an edge. We have had some vigorous arguments from time to time, as people are aware, but it is a united, effective and hard working party, willing and able at the appropriate time to walk across the floor to a more suitable position. That is the legacy which my hon. friend has left to this party and to this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: After all that, Mr. Speaker, a less loquacious man than myself would be speechless.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Before this afternoon and these extraordinary remarks, I had sensed that the country might never be quite the same again, but I did not fully realize the extent of the national disaster.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It may be, sir, that in view of this, before taking this decision I ought to have consulted my friend, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other party leaders in this House, or at least the chief government whip who I can see is obviously devastated.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to thank members on all sides of the House for their friendship to me while I have been Leader of the Opposition.

Our debates have sometimes been quite animated, but never acrid. I have the very deep feeling that we are united by a sense of mutual respect which makes the grandeur of this House.
I take this opportunity to express my warm thanks to the staff of the French Hansard. They have had to be very patient with me.

Mr. Speaker, I feel I should thank you particularly for your courtesy to me and your understanding of my role
February 19, 1976

from your position as Speaker. I hope I have not caused you too many problems, and I do want to thank you for your impartiality and your consideration of the office that I have had to fulfil.
I want to thank the Prime Minister for his friendship, and particularly for his comments here this afternoon. I might have said, I suppose, that he will not have Bob Stanfield's football to kick around any more.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In spite of the Prime Minister's sense of loss, I hope it will be of some consolation to him to see that I am unfolding as I should.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want to thank the leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent), too, for his friendship and for his very generous comments. I recall that when he was thinking hard about whether or not he should seek his present responsibilities he had some real problems in reconciling what he foresaw as the obligations of the office and the obligations of leadership and his wish to have some time to listen to some Bach. I just want to say to him, sir, through you, that anytime he is in my vicinity I hope he will drop in so I can go over a few records with him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would also like to thank the Leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada (Mr. Caouette) for his very kind words and for his friendship over all those years.

I wish to say simply about the leader of the Creditistes that he has always struck me as the sort of man from whom I would buy a used car.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to end on a comment of challenge and a little uplift to all of this. I am, of course, continuing in the House as the member for Halifax, and I want to serve notice on the right hon. Prime Minister and members of the government that as a backbencher I will be even more of a tiger than I have been as leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I had a question prepared today that would bring the government down, sir, but I have decided that in the circumstances I will defer it until next week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I regret I must disturb the convivial atmosphere of the House. I have a question for the Solicitor General. This morning at eight o'clock Mr. Bruce and Mr. Lucas, two of the prisoners who held 15 hostages last June in the New Westminster penitentiary, again seized hostages in the penthouse. Could the Solicitor General tell the House how many hostages were seized, whether they are safe at this moment and what the demands are at the present time.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, this morning at 8.20 a.m. Pacific time and 11.20 our time, three inmates from the B.C. pen, namely Mr. Lucas, Mr. Bruce and Mr. Lowe took three correctional officers hostage in the new segregation area of the B.C. pen. No information is yet available as to how the hostages were taken. So far the only demands are for an outside doctor, some drugs and a radio. I wish to point out to the house that the segregation area and the segregation conditions at the B.C. pen were changed recently following a judgment of the federal court that the former segregation area in the building was considered cruel and unusual punishment under the Bill of Rights. After that judgment we changed the segregation area to the one where the hostages were taken this morning. I have been in touch with the penitentiary officials who assure me that everything is being done to resolve the situation.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General whether there were any weapons of any type involved when these hostages were seized and whether it happened during the time when the prisoners were being transferred or what were the circumstances?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, to the best of our knowledge the inmates have two knives. It appears these knives were kitchen knives which they sharpened in some way or other in their cells. These inmates were in segregation which means they were in a place in the penitentiary where they were not loose but it appears they were outside their cells in the corridor, which is also locked, taking exercise when the hostages were taken, but it is difficult to get all the details because the only witnesses to the event were the men who were taken hostage.


REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FARRIS REPORT
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Would the Solicitor General consider releasing the Farris inquiry report to this House so that we can see the reasons the judge found for the previous taking of hostages? Perhaps that would lead us to some conclusions concerning why this hostage-taking took place.

Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have been ready to release that report for some time. The only reason it has not been released is that the judge recommended we should not release it while the three inmates who took hostages in the last incident were under trial, that it would in some way be in contempt of court or against the traditions of a fair trial. It is for that reason we have not released the report. 1 have been ready to release it. I may point out that these three, Lucas, Bruce and Wilson, are still under trial for the last incident and I do not know whether it would be appropriate to release that report while they are under trial.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that my party released the blueprints for the new section of the pen in this House sometime ago-there was a leak in those areas-and in view of the fact that we have received information from some of the security people inside the pen which involves this group, that is information which was not put before the Farris inquiry, which included information that the director and classification people had been told beforehand that it would happen, does the Solicitor General believe that the House and the country would be better off if we overruled the request of the judge and released that inquiry report immediately so that the Canadian people can know what has happened?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I think the information in the report will be of interest to the members of the House and to the public in general, but I do not see how it will resolve the hostage incident at the B.C. pen at the present time. My first concern is to resolve that incident and then make this information public later.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTED CHANGE IN APPEAL PROCEDURE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday during the question period the Prime Minister said that no worker in Canada could claim there has been an injustice operated against him if he had received a cut-back in pay as a result of the administrator's decision on a matter that had been referred to him. Has the Prime Minister given further thought to that answer and, in particular, would he agree that a worker in such circumstances does have his financial interest profoundly affected, and does so within the law which gives him no right to appeal. If he is in agreement with that I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he would be prepared to consider changes in the law so that there would be a right to appeal along the lines the Minister of Labour indicated in the debate yesterday were being contemplated.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if I may respond on behalf of the Prime Minister, we will indeed be giving early consideration to such amendments to be brought before the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister to be a little more specific. Could he tell us if the kind of

amendment the government is contemplating would be such as to guarantee the right of appeal to either the employee or employer in terms of the decision reached by the Anti-Inflation Board prior to that being considered by the administrator.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not specifically, Mr. Speaker. As has been set out a number of times we do not see the decision of the Anti-Inflation Board to be of the nature of a legally binding decision. We would anticipate, as I said before, that the chairman in the case where the parties have indicated they would not accept the board's judgment would be proposing to make an early reference to the administrator to include in a legal order the provisions with regard to the particular settlement or price. The question which seems to be raised most effectively in this context is whether there might be any further appeal from the administrator to the appeal tribunal and thereafter eventually to the courts. It is that right of appeal which parties might enjoy which should be considered.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the law which now exists makes it virtually impossible for the employee to have an appeal of any matter being raised before the administrator or after would the minister be more specific now in terms of the precise nature, not the detail, of the change in the legislation he has in mind and also inform the House when the government plans to bring it forward.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to debate with the hon. gentleman, but as I have indicated some days ago in the case where either party involved in, for example, a compensation settlement, indicated it was not satisfied with the board's decision the board would refer it to the administrator. So perhaps there is not a meeting of minds between us. So far as we see it the difficulty is from the point of the order on whether the party's ability to establish the right of appeal is broad enough in the act as presently drafted.


INQUIRY AS TO REGULATIONS CONTROLLING SALE AND IMPORTATION OF BLOOD
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
On February 3 last, on Le 60, a television program, it was reported that blood collected by the Red Cross was being sold on a commercial basis by a Toronto firm; photos and pictures were shown. Can the minister tell the House whether his department looked into the matter and, if so, with what results?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, an inquiry was held according to normal procedures. As a result of that investigation, rules were edicted controlling the exports of certain blood products. Those rules came into effect at the end of last year. At
February 19, 1976

the present time, all exports of that type are governed by controls and rules. Additional regulations are now being considered, and I shall soon be in a position to advise the hon. member of the results of that study.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
The minister tells me that exports have been controlled since the end of 1975. Does the same apply to imports? Do companies in Montreal or Toronto import blood from South American countries, for instance, where blood is bought for so much a pint, a half pint, or something similar, and where people are allowed to drink alcohol to increase their blood quantity? I should also like to know if blood coming into Montreal is also controlled?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, with regard to imports, a distinction must be made between two factors: the case where imports are strictly in transit and over which no control can be exercised. We are now looking into specific regulations that could apply to the import into Canada of blood products coming from abroad but intended for export.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to that asked by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister advise if the rules of procedure in connection with the appeal structure of the Anti-Inflation Appeals Tribunal have been approved yet, including the form of notice of appeal, and if so, when will they be published?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As hon. members know, the chairman of the board was only appointed last Friday. This morning was the first cabinet meeting at which there was opportunity to report the rules of procedure as they have been passed by the governor in council. They will be registered tomorrow, after the Governor General signs them, and published in the first Canada Gazette. It is a very simple set of procedural rules of some four pages in length. If before they are registered anyone feels the need to appeal, between now and Friday, I am sure a letter identifying the order against which they wish to appeal directed to the chairman would suffice.


INDUSTRY
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As Statistics Canada has just reported that during the past two years imports of fully manufactured products, which
Oral Questions
are the ones which produce jobs, have increased at a rate three times as fast as exports of those products, could the Prime Minister advise the House when he intends to give the House his long awaited report on what the government intends to do to increase productivity and thereby make it possible to reduce costs and selling prices for manufactured goods to retain a reasonable proportion of the Canadian market?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the question of productivity the hon. member will recall that a couple of weeks ago I indicated that we would, in one form or another, be addressing this question. However, with regard to the fact that we are able to buy more manufactured goods from abroad than markets abroad are able to buy of ours, that merely indicates what this government has been saying for a long time, that this government has kept Canada more prosperous than our trading partners have kept their countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister surely knows from studying these reports, the imports of fully manufactured products have been rapidly displacing Canadian manufactured products which normally would sell in this country, and I hope he understands that. In view of the fact that this government treats productivity in the same way it treats the weather, talking a lot about it but doing absolutely nothing to improve it, I wonder if the Prime Minister would assure us that the statement he has promised to the House will be made in a matter of days instead of weeks or months, because it is very badly needed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the situation is obviously one of concern to the government, and I indicated before on the productivity question that not only had we discussed this in the policy paper of October 14, but that we were going to report further on it. I just suggest that one of the reasons was that we were having an inflationary rate in Canada which was worse than that of some of our important trading partners. That is why we brought in this controls program, and we cannot understand why the official opposition voted against it.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, let me just interrupt the debates for one moment to salute the presence in the gallery of Mr. Ortoli, President of the Commission of the European Economic Community. We welcome him in this Parliament.

February 19, 1976
Oral Questions
[English]	POST OFFICE


AGRICULTURE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the very serious over-supply situation in the dairy industry in Canada resulting from the minister's excessive target support price in his current dairy policy, does the minister intend to meet with his provincial counterparts to discuss a review of dairy policy, which would have as its principal objective the availability in Canada of a ready supply of milk to consumers at lower prices than those prevailing at the present time?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I have always met with my provincial counterparts when requested. I am actually meeting one who is here in the city for another function tomorrow morning, but I want to say that federally we have nothing to do with the price of fluid milk. Each provincial marketing board, utility or whatever it is sets the price.
To put the record straight, the surplus products are not being subsidized one iota by the federal government. The farmers have to look after disbursing that on world markets themselves. The price of skim milk powder here in Canada to consumers, as I said yesterday, is approximately 2 cents a pound cheaper than it is in the United States of America.


SKIM MILK POWDER-SUGGESTED REDUCTION IN PRICE
James Aloysius McGrath: Since the federal government is currently spending a quarter of a billion dollars a year, or approximately $12 for every man woman or child in this country, on subsidizing the dairy industry, and since the minister has direct control over the price of Canadian skim milk powder, which is now selling in Japan for a third of the price Canadian consumers have to pay, will the minister take steps in this area-which is directly within his jurisdiction-to bring down the price of skim milk powder in Canada which would have the effect of reducing the oversupply situation which the minister has created?


Eugene Whelan: As the
hon. member will remember, when another product sold for three dozen for a dollar, consumption actually went down, so price does not have that much to do with consumption. The hon. member should realize that. I hope he learned that much from all the hearings which took place on that subject at one time.
However, the skim milk powder Japan is getting for so much less is not instantized. It is in 100-pound bags and in raw form plus it is for animal consumption because of age. That is available in Canada, and the skim milk powder which is being made available and consumed in Canada is being subsidized to the tune of 34 cents per pound. It is an instantized product, it is cheaper than in the United States and I think the hon. member should realize that.


EXTENT OF JURISDICTION OF INJUNCTION PRESERVING UNION RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General, and it follows up a question asked of him the other day. In view of the moral obligation of the government with respect to the postal employees who have been suspended from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers since the strike last fall, could the Postmaster General be more specific as to the jurisdiction of the injunction issued by Mr. Justice John O'Driscoll of the Ontario supreme court, an injunction which preserves the rights of the employees while they are appealing this suspension?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the preliminary report I have is that the injunction is limited to that particular local and to the particular problems of the people who raised this matter through the courts. I have been informed unofficially that similar action is now being contemplated in no less than 14 other locals across Canada. I know this only from correspondence which has come into my office from a legal representative of these particular people, and it will be interesting to see if this decision of the judge will be used as a form of jurisprudence in coming to a conclusion with regard to the other locals.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Could the Postmaster General indicate that in fact an injunction of this kind does preserve the rights of the employee during the appeal process?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I can only speak for the Post Office. Whether these workers are members of the union, suspended by the union, or even if they do not belong to the union in no way jeopardizes the rights of postal employees in so far as their jobs are concerned. What I said some weeks ago was that the constitution of the union provided ways and means of appeal and provides an outline very clearly of the procedures necessary before an individual can be suspended. No doubt it was the opinion of the judge that the constitution was not respected by the local officers when they suspended certain individuals.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Could he briefly tell the House and the Canadian people how far the negotiations with the European Economic Community have progressed through his personal initiative?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I feel that President Ortoli's visit to
February 19, 1976

Canada represents a very important step in those negotiations. We have heard that the council of ministers of the EEC has approved the principle of negotiations between the Community and Canada, and President Ortoli, my ministers and myself are discussing the exact date when they could begin. We hope very much it will be soon. I am confident that, at the end of the meeting with President Ortoli, we will be in a position to announce the date.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Solicitor General is somewhat supplementary to the questions that were asked concerning the unfortunate hostage incident at the British Columbia penitentiary this morning. Following the Mary Steinhauser incident a special tactical squad was developed outside the penitentiary to deal with this kind of specific incident. It was attached to the co-ordinating law enforcement unit. I wonder if the Solicitor General could advise the House whether in this incident it is the intention to use the special squad that has been trained in terms of hostagetaking incidents which involves people outside the penitentiary.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, officials of the penitentiary service have been in touch with the British Columbia government with respect to this tactical squad and I am waiting for further information on its use.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-POSSIBILITY OF APPEALING JUDGMENT CONCERNING SOLITARY CONFINEMENT-CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIAL UNITS FOR DANGEROUS INMATES
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Solicitor General concerning this new crisis in the British Columbia penitentiary. Since Lucas and Wilson participated in the last fatal crisis in which Mary Steinhauser died, and since they have openly declared repeatedly that they have nothing to lose, could the Solicitor General state whether security was diminished in compliance with that celebrated solitary confinement judgment; will he appeal that judgment; and is he considering a special correctional unit for the 2 per cent or 3 per cent like Wilson and Lucas in the Canadian prison system who are too dangerous to be in the general prison population?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the hon. member that Mr. Wilson is not involved in this particular incident. The three inmates involved are Lucas, Bruce and Lowe. Wilson was one of the three in the last incident but is not involved here. With respect to security, as I pointed out in my earlier answer, these three inmates who have taken the hostages were in segregation and not allowed to leave the segregated area at
Oral Questions
any time. In the last case, they were in the general population.
In answer to the further question by the hon. member we are going forward with smaller, maximum security institutions. We have just approved a site for two maximum security institutions, one in Agassiz and one in Lillooet.


DATE OF PUBLICATION OF REPORTS ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Several weeks ago the minister undertook both inside the House and outside the House, to release reports on the position of the department relating to various radioactive disposal sites across the country and to give the specific locations of the high radioactive readings in the Port Hope area. Can these reports now be released and if not, why not?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to table these reports following the question period today.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if the government is contemplating an increase in the St. Lawrence seaway tolls as has been mentioned in the press?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the question of such an increase has not yet come before the cabinet for consideration. We are planning to look at the whole question of capitalization of the seaway and its basis of operation, but I do not know how many weeks that will take.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question. In that case would the minister assure the House that there will not be an increase for the 1976 shipping season; in other words, a decision will not be made before April 1, 1976.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member's representations. If any increase is considered, timing is one of the issues to be taken into account.


HOUSING
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs
11118

February 19, 1976
Oral Questions
may I direct a question to his able parliamentary secretary? I understand that the minister has established a 2.5 per cent apartment vacancy rate as his goal for 1976. Considering that housing officials feel this rate must be at least 3 per cent to 4 per cent in order to maintain a healthy rental market, can the minister explain to the House upon which basis he arrived at this figure and why it is so low?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that the rate was about 4 per cent. We are aiming at a rate of about 2.5 per cent. With the hon. member's advice and good work, and with the co-operation of everybody, I hope we will reach that goal.


Stan Darling: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that housing officials and more specifically Bernard Denault, President of HUDAC, feel that the new ten year loans system to finance apartment construction is inferior to the old one year subsidy system, and considering that apartment vacancies even under the old system approached zero per cent in major centres, how does the minister hope to realize his goal of 2.5 per cent?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that under the new program we have offered all builders of apartment buildings a loan of $100 per unit. We are hoping that, as they did last year, they will reach the goal that we have set. The objective will be to the advantage of all the economy.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion relating to the closing of the PFRA community pasture at Suffield near Medicine Hat. A very irresponsible and inaccurate press release from wildlife and fish and game interests that states:
The native grasslands of the Suffield military reserve, approximately 1,000 square miles of what was once one of the ecologically most valuable natural areas left in North America have been almost totally destroyed by the mismanagement of the Canada Department of Agriculture, Department of National Defence and the PFRA administration.
Will the minister give immediate consideration to the full and complete support of his PFRA staff recommendation that this community pasture, a very small part of the total Suffield area, should continue to operate but on a permanent basis instead of the present unsatisfactory arrangement?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, there is no need to say that I do not share the sentiments expressed by the Alberta fish and game association. I am questioning their statement. Our department is still very interested in the Suffield pasture, but we will have to continue the discussion with the Department of National Defence which has been going on for some time to find out the best use to which that land

can be put. I can assure the hon. gentleman and the House that it is a very important question. I am sure my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, and I will pursue the matter for some time.


REASON FOR PERMITTING CHEESE IMPORTS WHEN CANADIAN DAIRY EXPORTS SELLING AT A LOSS
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister arises from the serious financial losses confronting Canada. According to recent press reports, one factor is the Canadian Dairy Commission's debt, which has skyrocketed from $100 million to $300 million during the past year, which means that Canada is exporting butter and milk at a loss. Since the Prime Minister is trying to obtain contractual agreements with the European Economic Community, my question is this: Why should we be exporting dairy products at a continuing loss, when the European Economic Community, through their common market, is shipping 50 million pounds of cheese or more to Canada, at a profit to their component producers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian policy in this regard was announced last year. It is to increase gradually the imports of cheese from the common market. Last year the quota was 50 million pounds. Discussions are presently going on to see if we will increase that quota, or hold it at the present level. I think the Minister of Agriculture will have an announcement to make soon.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In reply to a question asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, as reported at page 9682 of Hansard for December 3, 1975, and later confirmed in a conversation with me, the then Minister of the Environment stated that flood control in the Fraser Valley was of top priority for the government and suggested that the request for an additional appropriation to continue the program was before Treasury Board. Could the minister advise the House whether a request was before the board at that time or has been placed before the board since, and whether a decision has been made on the request?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the request was made to Treasury Board to increase the contribution of the federal government from $31 million. The B.C. government had paid $31 million. I think Treasury Board approved a $6.5 million increase with regard to the Fraser Valley. This will continue for a number of years not determined in the
February 19, 1976

Treasury Board's decision. I intend to make a request to Treasury Board, in an attempt to treat all parties fairly.


TRANSPORT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transport relates to the suggestion that there might be some alteration of ferry rates to and from Prince Edward Island. Has the minister conferred with the government of Prince Edward Island and can he indicate if that government has agreed to possible changes in this regard?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the subject of proposed changes in ferry rates came up for discussion during the meeting I had with ministers of transport of the Atlantic region last week, and has been the subject of messages from those governments to myself, as well. They expressed reservations about increases. We asked them for opinions as to the nature of the increases, that is to say, which items would be least sensitive to increases. I have not received a firm expression of view from them on that matter.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of the question, can the minister say if there will be any reference to the government's anti-inflation program in connection with possible changes, and consultation with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the department which signed recently the second phase of the development program for Prince Edward Island?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of development in the region is of great importance to the government. I assure the hon. member that changes in rates will come fully within the guidelines and the spirit of the anti-inflation program. We specifically reserved for provincial and federal governments the right to make policy changes and the degree to which the general taxpayer shall pay for services, as distinct from the user of those services. There is an inflationary impact, no matter whether one considers increased taxes or increased rates. That is a policy matter and, at present, we have decided in favour of some increase in rates.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I telephoned his office early this morning to give him notice of it. It is this: For some two or three years there have been discussions at the departmental or official level, between Canada and the United States, with respect to implementing a cost-sharing program for improving and paving the Alaska
Oral Questions
highway. Now that the United States has passed enabling legislation, will talks commence at the diplomatic level? If so, when may we expect some announcement about the implementation by the two countries of this program.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question and wish to tell him that most of the outstanding problems between Canada and the United States with respect to that highway have been worked out. Presently, we are conducting discussions with the government of British Columbia on the right of way and environmental aspects of the project. These discussions are not completed but will be completed shortly.
We have under consideration the terms of an agreement with the United States by which that country will undertake the funding of the construction of the highway and Canada will undertake its maintenance and administration.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the agreement contemplated between Canada and the United States in this regard will displace the 1949 agreement, in which the government of Canada undertook those responsibilities, and others, in maintaining the highway as a defence road.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would conclude, myself, that this would be a superseding agreement. I will check, to see in what particulars it differs from the preceding agreement, and whether the preceding one will still be in effect.


CUSTOMS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. River-port, Nova Scotia, had in excess of 300 deepsea ships sailing from the port in 1975. Since the untimely passing last year of the resident customs official, the minister has been studying the amount of business emanating from this port, in order to determine the nature of the replacement required. I should like to know if these studies have been completed. If so, when can Nova Scotians expect the appointment of a full-time officer at Riverport, since the delay in the sailing of a large off-shore trawler for only one day would cause a loss to our national economy in excess of the wages paid for a year to one government official?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the decision is imminent.
21419-I2V2

February 19, 1976
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


CONSTRUCTION OF ALASKA HIGHWAY-PORTION FUNDED BY UNITED STATES
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Ou'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Am I to understand from the minister's remarks that the United States government is funding the building of the highway in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is the construction of the Haines road, the Alaska highway.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the matter is not clear in my mind. Is the actual area which is being financed by the United States government in Canada, or Alaska?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look at my map. I would have to simply say that it is the section of the highway currently being built by the two countries under the terms of the agreement mentioned.


GUATEMALA-ALLEGATION EARTHQUAKE VICTIMS UNABLE TO USE POWDERED MILK-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As Dr. Grace Anderson, an industrial chemist at Wilfrid Laurier University in Cambridge-Waterloo has said that the majority of Guatemalans will not be able to digest the 100,000 pounds of powdered milk which Canada has sent as aid to Guatemala and that only the Spanish, who are basically the upper class in Guatemala, can digest milk, may I ask if the Secretary of State for External Affairs has investigated the veracity of that statement and, if so, can he report to the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, when the statement was made initially, I asked the charge to investigate. He reported to me that the decision, or recommendation, to seek powdered milk for distribution in Guatemala was based on consultations with nutritional authorities in Guatemala. They recommended that powdered milk, in conjunction with other nutrients should be used in the diet. Since then I understand there have been demands form local areas. Orphanages, villages and other areas have asked for supplies of powdered milk. All the evidence suggests that the remarks made by the lady in question are misleading.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Is he now in the position to answer the question asked earlier regarding CBC radio coverage of the final day when voting will take place at the national Progressive Conservative party leadership convention?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure that what they have agreed to meets the full approval of that party. However, I am told that radio programming will be moved forward to three from four, but facilities will be made available to allow that to be moved forward to one thirty, depending upon the progress of the ballotting. Full network television coverage will start at twelve o'clock.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair to point out to the minister and the House that this is a major departure by CBC Radio with regard to the treatment of this party as compared with that of the New Democratic Party during their leadership convention and to the minister's own party when they selected the present Prime Minister. I think this is a shocking and shameful departure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Carman Coates: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I would like to complete my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will see the hon. member again in about seven minutes.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to direct this question to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that other duties have called him out of the House and as the Solicitor General is also absent, I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. With reference to a free vote on capital punishment, the Solicitor General said that in light of the dangers to guards and correctional officers in the penitentiaries, and referring once again to New Westminster, he said, "There will be a government bill to which the government will be committed, but the members of this House who are not with the government will be free to vote on it as they see fit." That is with reference to the bill to abolish capital punishment. In light of the fact the cabinet will have to vote for the bill, does the Acting Prime Minister consider that this will be a vote of confidence in the government?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the views of my colleagues, they will all support this bill voluntarily.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact the Solicitor General said that the government members, meaning the cabinet, would be committed to voting for the bill and only those not in the cabinet would have a free vote, does the Acting Prime Minister now say that this is a vote of confidence in the government?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the Prime Minister said yesterday or the day before, Mr. Speaker, the whips are off of members on all sides of the House including the government. I am telling my hon. friend, however, I do not think there is any doubt about the position of members of the government who I believe will voluntarily support this bill.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since he has now left the chamber, I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. If an answer is not available, I hope my question will be taken as notice. In view of the very short time remaining before the negotiations into the cutoff lands claims in British Columbia begin, has the minister given any consideration to appointing a coordinator to assist in providing information to those arguing the Indian claim, information that can only be obtained from the files and archives of the department?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be meeting next week with Mr. Williams, the British Columbia minister with responsibility for Indian affairs. I believe this is one of the items on their agenda.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of State (Fisheries). In view of the fact that the equipment of several fishermen on the Bay of Fundy coast has been so damaged that without virtually full compensation they will be unable to finance a return to their livelihood, is the minister satisfied that the compensation under existing regulations will permit them to return to the profession of their choice?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, since the disaster formula has been in effect in relation to federal-provincial co-operation in cases of this type, it has applied to fishermen in other parts of the country. I think it has applied with some equity. I am certainly hopeful that these damages will be fully covered.


Fred Alward McCain: In view of the fact that the advertising on this subject indicates the regulations will only permit fishermen to be reimbursed on the depreciated value of their equipment, will the minister investigate and see if in his opinion in this inflationary period this is adequate so that these fishermen may return to their profession?
Oral Questions


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly willing to look into any suggestions of the hon. member. The fact is the formula is well known. It was adopted by the provinces and the federal government. As I said, it has worked for fishermen in other parts of the country in the past.


ALBERTA OIL SANDS-GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO ENSURE CONSTRUCTION OF EXTRACTION PLANTS
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is he aware that plans to construct future plants in the Alberta oil sands are at a standstill or shelved indefinitely? Will he say whether the government really expects those plants to be built? If so, what does he intend to do to see that they are built as originally programmed?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important things we can do is get on with the Syncrude project and prove its viability. I very much hope we will be able to conclude the lease arrangements in particular with the province of Alberta at a very early date.


FINANCE
Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware that the situation is getting worse daily and it now appears that by 1985 some 60 per cent of Canada's oil will have to be imported, costing our country between $15 million and $20 million a day? What effect will this have on our balance of payments? Also, does the minister intend to take any initiatives or will he leave this until after the next election and let the new Conservative government solve the problem?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the last remarks of the hon. member put his question into the realm of fantasy.


FISHERIES
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Fisheries). It has to do with a matter that is critical to the whole area of inland fisheries and in particular to the Lake Winnipeg area. In view of the fact that the fishermen are locked in not only under a licencing system but also a quota system, is the minister having discussions with the province to allow these fishermen the option of selling outside the corporation area, similar to the Lake of the Woods area of Ontario?

February 19, 1976
Oral Questions


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be happy to look into this matter with the hon. member. I remind him that as far as quota and licencing are concerned, the management of the inland fishery is under provincial responsibility.


MULTICULTURALISM
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour who is responsible for the multiculturalism policy in our country, something that seems to be evaporating before our eyes. Will the minister inform the House when he anticipates the cabinet will reach a decision on the direction of the multiculturalism policy in view of the fact that institution of this policy was once regarded as a priority by his government?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may have noticed, at the conference last week I reaffirmed the government's commitment to this policy. I indicated that we may be putting more emphasis on two others, the first and second fundamental tenants of the policy which the Prime Minister announced. With regard to other changes in the policy, the government will be giving consideration to those. If in due course any changes in the overall context of the policy are made by the government, that will be announced in the House.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the conflicting and apparently premature reports appearing in the national press and emanating from the minister's department concerning the long awaited decision on the proposed takeover of Checkerboard Foods by Swift Canadian Company Limited, will the minister clarify the present status of this application?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the decision is that in so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned, and those matters which come within its jurisdiction, there is no impediment to allowing this particular transaction to take place. There is, however, a question relating to a potential offence against the Combines Act-I suppose one might describe it as that-and this is now being considered by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned, they have met the necessary criteria in that regard.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: My supplementary question is directed to the minister responsible for multiculturalism. Will he explain the apparent reluctance of the cabinet to discuss the shift in emphasis within the multicultural program with any degree of urgency? Does the hon. gentleman feel that this indecisiveness indicates a lack of confidence on the part of the cabinet in this policy direction?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. I have detected a high degree of enthusiasm among my colleagues, as well as those on the backbenches for this over-all policy.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has the minister received any request to assist in controlling the spruce budworm infestation of New Brunswick forests which is now reaching critical proportions? Has he made a decision on the matter and, if not, when may we expect one?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, when the officials from my department discussed this problem with the government of New Brunswick several months ago, it was agreed then that my department would not participate in the fight against this infestation because there were other provisions in this regard. We know what happened since then and representations were made at the federal level. There were also consultations between my colleague of the Department of the Environment and myself and they are still going on; but we have not yet reached a decision. We still have to wait before it is made public. I cannot say specifically what steps the federal government will take in this case.


POSSIBLE USE OF UNSPENT FUNDS TO AID NEW BRUNSWICK IN CONTROLLING SPRUCE BUDWORM
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Does the minister not think it would be a good idea to use the funds allocated but not spent in connection with the regional economic expansion program amounting, in the case of New Brunswick, to some $10 million, for this purpose?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly what is the allocated but unspent amount to which the hon. member referred. It is possible that funds allocated for an

ongoing program have not been spent yet. But if this were to happen before the end of the fiscal year, then both levels of government would have to make a decision. However, we must establish priorities and consider the positive effects of such a decision and money transfer from one project to another.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has had to leave the chamber, I will direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. In answer to my question in the House yesterday requesting free admission for pensioners to all national parks, I received the same negative answer as I received in 1973 and 1975. Will the parliamentary secretary inform me whether or not the minister has recommended this proposal to cabinet?


Iona Campagnolo: No, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY AS TO REGULATIONS CONTROLLING SALE AND IMPORTATION OF BLOOD
Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate on a reply that I previously gave the hon. member for Temiscamingue concerning the importation of blood products. I told him that we had no control over products purely and simply in transit through Canada, and this is true. As for importation of blood products for Canadian consumption, there are controls indeed. We are now considering the possibility of additional controls over blood products imported into Canada but destined to be processed and exported to foreign markets.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I shall try to restrain my anger to an extent-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Carman Coates: This is a matter which affects all members of the House and it is a very serious one. The Secretary of State reports to this House for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and he passes on to the Corporation the feelings of members of parliament with regard to matter affecting the Corporation. I realize he cannot tell the Corporation what to do and I appreciate the concern he showed when I asked my previous question in the House by coming over and discussing the matter with me; he indicated at the time that he wanted to see this matter worked out satisfactorily for our party, and I appreciate that very much, as do all hon. members in this party.
Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: A corporation which gets approximately one million dollars a day of taxpayers money should have some feeling for people in this country who do not have the benefit of television and so could not view programs even if they wished to do so. I might name but one example, Sable Island in Nova Scotia. But I am sure that people in such areas have the same right to hear the Progressive Conservative convention from beginning to end as anyone who is able to buy, and use, a television set in this country.
I believe the Corporation should give consideration to the many thousands, even millions, of people in this country who do not have access to television.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: An officer of the Corporation phoned me and suggested to me that they were not broadcasting the whole of the convention because of traditional programming. This is the first time I have ever heard that the CBC is interested in tradition in this country, and that is certainly a step forward. I believe the Secretary of State should go back to the Corporation to ensure that the proceedings of the convention are broadcast from one o'clock onward, the same as television, so that radio listeners in this country can hear it all.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was so moved by the question of privilege raised by my hon. friend that I had almost forgotten my duty today. I should like to ask the government House leader what will be the business for next week. This week has already been disposed of.


Mitchell William Sharp: Today we shall be continuing the debate on third reading of Bill C-58. As the House knows, we shall not be sitting this evening or tomorrow consequent upon the order which was approved. I am hoping we can dispose of the third reading of Bill C-58 simply because I do not wish to bring another order before the House to make up for the time we are losing. In any event, if we were to conclude the debate on Bill C-58 today I would hope the votes could be deferred until next week, either Monday or Tuesday. I just say this in case it might encourage hon. members to conclude the debate on this item.
After Bill C-58 is disposed of we shall return to the discussion of Bill C-68. On Tuesday we plan to give first reading to two bills to amend the criminal law, one dealing with capital punishment and the second with other crimes of violence, gun laws and so on. I should like to have the opportunity of discussing them with the House leaders to ascertain what length of time should be allowed to pass before we begin to debate these measures on second reading. I think a reasonable number of days should elapse so

Energy
that at least one of these bills can be examined carefully before the debate takes place.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Yesterday, the Minister of Veterans Affairs informed us he was hopeful that consultation regarding the legislation affecting prisoners of war would be completed today. May I ask the government House leader whether this hope has been fulfilled, and whether a bill implementing the recommendations of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs having to do with ex-prisoners of war will be introduced shortly?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we had the item on the agenda today, but cabinet did not reach it; nor did we reach a number of other items. It is intended that cabinet will resume again tomorrow morning, at which time I hope a decision will be reached.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I just say that the Conservative convention will be completely worthwhile if our not sitting means that the cabinet can meet tomorrow and settle this important issue.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Two weeks ago I placed a starred question on the order paper. When a member places a starred question on the order paper, it is customary in the House to make an attempt to provide an answer within a week. I have been patiently waiting for two weeks now, and with the House not sitting tomorrow it is possible that I will have to wait three weeks. Not only is this a precedent-setting period of time, but the minister is continually feeding this country with information that he wants the country to hear. I should like answers to questions that I should like the country to hear.


TABLING OF REPORTS, &quot;RADIOACTIVE WASTE LOCATIONS IN CANADA&quot; AND &quot;PROGRESS REPORT ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE INVESTIGATION IN PORT HOPE&quot;
Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2) I am pleased to table two copies, in both official languages, of the following documents: firstly, "Radioactive Waste Locations in Canada, February 19, 1976"; and secondly, "Progress Report on Radioactive Waste Investigation in Port Hope, Ontario, February 19, 1976". Annexed to this report are the Atomic Energy Control Board staff memoranda of July 6 and 16, 1975.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,682, 3,727, 3,861, 3,896, 3,897, 3,918, 3,920, 3,929, 3,930, 3,937, 3,943, 3,953 and 3,970.
The remaining questions stand.


Mr. Jones: 1.	What policies and procedures are established for setting quotas for production and marketing of eggs in New Brunswick?
2.	Did a number of large supermarkets in Moncton, New Brunswick, run out of egg supplies on Saturday, November 29, 1975 and, if so, for what reason?
3.	What organization is responsible for the setting of quotas for production and marketing of eggs in New Brunswick?
4.	Have steps been taken to study and keep egg prices in line and, if so (a) what are they (b) by whom?
5.	Are the prices of eggs much lower in the United States than in Canada and, if so, for what reason?
6.	What steps are necessary to increase the quotas of eggs produced in New Brunswick, particularly in light of the requirements and demands of consumers?
7.	Are any such steps being taken and, if not, on what date will such steps be taken?


Eugene Whelan: 1. As
required by the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act (Section 24), New Brunswick was given the percentage share of the Canadian market it had on average in the five years preceding the effective date of the marketing plan. In 1975 the overall production quota was reduced by 10 per cent except in those provinces with less than 2 percent of the Canadian global quota-New Brunswick quota was accordingly not reduced.
2.	The pre-Christmas demand for eggs was particularly heavy in 1975 and this unexpected demand created temporary shortages of eggs in some localities. Quick action by the local Egg Boards and the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency (CEMA) was able to replenish supplies from areas of surplus stocks.
3.	Original quota established as No. 1 above. The New Brunswick Egg Marketing Board allocated this quota among their producers based on producers' size of operation.
4.	Yes, steps have been taken to study and keep egg prices in line, (a) A provincial model of the farm-gate cost of egg production for the medium size producers was established by an independent management consultant firm in Canada. This formula is used in calculating the monthly provincial cost of egg production by the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. The formula was accepted by the National Farm Products Marketing Council and tabled in the House of Commons by the Minister of Agriculture on July 22, 1975. Public hearings will be held shortly on this formula by the National Farm Products Marketing Council. (b) The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency calculates the average cost of production in accordance with the formula. The National Farm Products Marketing Council conducts an independent examination of these costs. Wherever possible, the cost components are obtained from Statistics Canada, the Canada Livestock Feed Board and/or
February 19, 1976

other independent sources. The Anti-Inflation Board is in place to monitor processor and retail prices.
5.	The U.S. egg industry, without controls, continues to operate through boom and bust cycles. Generally, the U.S. industry enjoys lower feed and labour costs and lower investments, e.g., housing costs. Prices in the U.S. rose in November and December from the 55 cents per dozen level of October (N.Y. wholesale Grade A) to a pre-Christmas high of 73 cents per dozen. The comparative pre-Christmas Toronto price was 76 cents per dozen. These levels of prices exist in mid-January. At consumer level, the mid-January prices in New York and Toronto are respectively 99-105 and 92-94 cents per dozen.
6.	Section 24 of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act sets out the criteria to be followed to increase quotas within a province. In essence, this states that in allocating additional quotas the marketing agency shall consider the principle of comparative advantage of production. Furthermore, within the Comprehensive Egg Plan, certain criteria are set out regarding allocating additional quota. These include: (a) The principle of comparative advantage of production, (b) Any variation in the size of the market of eggs, (c) Comparative transportation costs to market areas from alternate sources of production, (d) Any shortage in production in respect of any given provincial quota be evaluated, (e) The possibility in any given province of increasing the production available to be marketed.
7.	In February 1975, the marketing agency reduced the quota by 10% for all those provinces whose quota was more than 2% of the global quota. This reduction did not affect the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Steps are continuously being taken to ascertain that each part of Canada is adequately supplied with high quality fresh eggs to the consumers.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What is the total amount the government is expecting to pay to publicize its controls programme and to urge the Canadian taxpayer to show restraint?
2.	What are the component parts of the total?
3.	What is the commission or any other fee paid to Vickers and Benson advertising agency for such services?
4.	Were any officials of Vickers and Benson informed of the thrust of the government's anti-inflation policy and, if so, on what date?
Hort. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):
1.	One million dollars for information is included in the Supplementary Estimate A of 1975-76 for the Anti-Inflation Board. The provision for 1976-77 will be included in the Main Estimate for that year.
2.	$100,000 for training seminars; $300,000 for newspaper advertisements; $600,000 for printing re introductory documents including Highlights, the White Paper "Attack on Inflation", the Regulations, various technical bulletins, training and information kits.
3.	Nil.
4.	On October 11th, officials of Vickers and Benson were consulted on a confidential basis concerning technical matters related to the possible preparation of public service
Order Paper Questions
advertising messages to be inserted in newspapers concurrent with the announcement of the policy. This plan was not proceeded with.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	By airport, for each year since weapons detection equipment was installed in Canadian airports, how many people have been (a) refused permission to board aircraft (b) forced to surrender concealed weapons before boarding?
2.	In how many instances (a) have charges against individuals carrying concealed weapons been laid (b) what were such charges (c) how many convictions were ultimately registered?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. (a)
Year	Airport	Number1972	Vancouver	4Toronto	1Kelowna	11973	Vancouver	2Calgary	1Fort St. John	1Winnipeg	1Montreal	11974	Vancouver	2Sandspit	1Watson Lake	1Edmonton Industrial	1Winnipeg	2Toronto	2Montreal	21975	Prince George	1Winnipeg	1The Pas	2Ottawa	1Sydney	1Gander	2St. John's	2Total	33(b) Airport	1974	1975Montreal	2,012	1,245Toronto	1,482	2,756Winnipeg	1,011	2,136Vancouver	9,032	4,350Ottawa	657	542Halifax	145	326Edmonton	412	638Calgary	644	2,854Gander	130	239St. John's	264	288Moncton	287	390Saint John	164	180Sydney	652	98Fredericton	71	104Goose Bay	37	393Quebec	198	183Sept lies	124	621Mont Joli	16	34Windsor	47	277London	28	132Sault Ste Marie	28	76North Bay	68	49
February 19, 1976
Order Paper Questions
(b) Airport	1974	1975Regina	338	375Saskatoon	64	391Thunder Bay	500	445Whitehorse	3	13Penticton	78	164Victoria	297	478Prince George	102	312Totals	17,878	20,0892.	The following information was provided to Transport Canada by the R.C.M.P. (a) Eleven, (b) Three charges Section 85 Criminal Code. Two charges Section 76.3 via 421 C.C. Two charges Section 83 C.C. One charge Section 85 C.C. One charge Section 91 C.C. One charge Section 93 C.C. One charge Section 89 C.C. (c) Eight.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	For 1974-75, in how many instances did a commercial aircraft pass another aircraft in the air with fewer than 500 feet between them?
2.	In each case (a) what were the aircraft in question, including their origin and destination (b) on what date and at what time did the incident occur (c) was an investigation conducted and, if so, what were its results?
3.	Is it required that an investigation take place where near misses of aircraft occur and, if so, what is the procedure followed?


Ralph Goodale: 1. Transport Canada does not have a category which indicates that aircraft passed one another with fewer than 500 feet between them. In most cases, in view of the speed of closure, it is difficult for pilots to accurately judge the distance in passing. Transport Canada speak of "Air Traffic Services Irregularities" or "Losses of Separation" and they fall into two categories: critical and technical. A technical case is one where a loss of separation was reported but no avoiding action was considered necessary by pilots or controllers, but a report was filed. The critical case could involve a loss of separation where one or both pilots in command took avoiding action, or there was no time to take such action, but the pilots concerned would have instinctively taken such action had there been time. In response to the question the number of critical losses of separation in airspace controlled by Transport Canada during 1974-1975 were six.
2. (a) CF FUS PA 28 Local Flight Edmonton Time Air 37, DHC6, Edmonton Municipal to Edmonton International (b) March 20, 1974, 2015Z. (a) KLM 644, B747, New York to Amsterdam Capital 4902C, DC8, Shannon to New York, (b) October 8, 1974, 0350Z. (a) Pacific Western 415, B737, Vancouver to Port Hardy Air Canada 283, DC 9 Edmonton to Vancouver, (b) November 3, 1974, 1918Z. (a) CF VPK, Aztec Rochester to Toronto Eastern 308, B727 Pittsburg to Toronto, (b) June 11, 1975, 2051Z. (a) Air Canada 290, DC9 Edmonton to Saskatoon Viking 11, Tutor, Local flight at Saskatoon, (b) August 6, 1975, 1529Z. (a) CF HGL, DC3, Moncton to Sydney N7242R, BE35 Sydney to Halifax, (b) August 8, 1975, 1400Z. (c) Following each of the above incidents, the circumstances were thoroughly investigated by an Air Traffic Services Fact Finding Board, and appropriate recommendations were actioned, designed to prevent reoccurrence.
3.	All losses of separation are investigated by a Fact Finding Board, consisting of controller operations analysts from another unit and aviation safety officers. Findings and recommendations are made directly to the Director, Air Traffic Services and the Director General Civil Aeronautics whose offices ensure that appropriate corrective action is taken.


Mr. Fairweather: Will the government consider as a policy that prime agricultural land be officially designated for agricultural use and that such policy govern the use of land for any proposal falling within the jurisdiction of the government?


Eugene Whelan: The government is considering all facets of the Canadian land use issue. The development of policies to conserve prime agricultural land is an important aspect of this issue. The government has initiated negotiations with the provinces and established an interdepartmental task force with the objective of developing mutually acceptable national land use policies. The question of designating prime agricultural land for agricultural use will certainly be considered during this process.


Mr. Marshall: As a result of the announcement by the Department of Transport on a new open access policy for the licensing of car rental services at MOT airports, what car rental agencies were contacted for comment and consultation and which ones replied?


Ralph Goodale: Following the announcement of the new car rental policy at airports, copies of the policy were given wide circulation through MOT regional offices and a press release was issued informing interested parties as to where to obtain copies of the policy. A public briefing was held in Ottawa on January 14 and similar briefings are being held across Canada during the period February 2-17. These meetings were extensively advertised in all regions through daily and weekly newspapers. Throughout, members of parliament and senators have received all information concerning the consultation process. The larger companies have expressed their views both orally and in writing. It is expected that many of the independent operator franchises will make their views known during the meetings.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Department of External Affairs aware of the fact that Canadians, Robert Carter, Greg Sieling, Allan Parfett and Leo Cosset-to, had made of necessity a forced landing by air in Cuba on December 30, 1975 and, if so, on what date and in what manner did the Department receive such information?
2.	Did Cuban authorities advise the Canadian Embassy in Havana of the incident and, if so, on what date and at what time?

February 19, 1976

3.	Did the Canadian Embassy in Havana communicate such information to the Department in Ottawa and, if so, on what date and at what time?
4.	If the Canadian Embassy did not communicate any information to the Department prior to the departure of the Canadians on December 31, 1975, what are the reasons for failing to do so?
5.	Were the Canadians subjected to extensive interrogation by groups of Russians and, if so, has the Department requested an explanation from the Government of Cuba, and on what date was such a request made?
6.	If no request was made (a) for what reason (b) will one be made?
7.	Is it the policy of the government to allow without protest Canadian citizens to be interrogated by agents of the Soviet Union when they are in a country maintaining diplomatic relations with Canada that is not part of the territory of the Soviet Union and, if so, for what reason?
8.	Will this entire matter be taken up by the Prime Minister with his counterpart, Prime Minister Fidel Castro, during his visit to Cuba and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, will the Prime Minister make public the result of such discussions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes. The Department was notified by phone and telex late on December 30, shortly after the forced landing had occurred, by the Canadian Embassy in Washington and by the High Commission in Kingston. Jamaica. These missions had received the information from the civil aviation authorities at Miami and the Bahamas.
2.	No. The Canadian Embassy in Havana received information from the same sources and at about the same time as the Department and immediately contacted the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs to confirm the safe landing of the aircraft, to facilitate its earliest departure and arrange direct communication with the Canadians. The Cuban authorities confirmed the safe emergency landing and assured the Embassy that the Canadians and the aircraft would be allowed to depart. Efforts to make direct telephone contact with the Canadian pilot and passengers were unsuccessful.
3.	The Department and the Embassy both received the information at about the same time on December 30 and were in constant communication from that time onward about the case.
4.	The Canadian Embassy did communicate fully with the Department about this case prior to the departure of the Canadians on December 31, 1975.
5.	According to the pilot, the Canadians were interrogated by Cuban and Soviet personnel. The Department has not requested an explanation on this particular point from the Government of Cuba.
6.	(a) It is within the competence of the Cuban Government to designate whomsoever it wishes to assist in security precautions on Cuban territory, (b) No.
7.	Answered in 6(a).
8.	This matter was not raised by the Prime Minister with Prime Minister Fidel Castro during his visit to Cuba. The Canadian Embassy had already intervened with Cuban authorities to obtain release of the Canadian citizens and the aircraft involved.
Order Paper Questions CBC PROGRAMME "AS IT HAPPENS"


Mr. Cossitt: During the past two years, what (a) Liberal Party (b) Progressive Conservative Party (c) New Democratic Party (d) Social Credit Party Members of Parliament have been interviewed on CBC radio programme "As It Happens" and, in each case (i) on what date (ii) on what subjects?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: For the period in question there have been more than 500 "As It Happens" programmes. Each was one and a half hours long, and it would take an inordinate amount of time, work and expense to provide the requested information.


Mr. Woolliams: With respect to the order of the Supreme Court of Canada in PPG Industries Canada Ltd. and Pilkington Brothers (Canada) Limited v. the Attorney General of Canada that the appellants should have their costs throughout against the Attorney General of Canada and that the award of costs by the Federal Court of Appeal to W.W. Buchanan should stand, what is the amount of such costs, paid or payable, to (a) the appellants (b) W.W. Buchanan?
Hort. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice): The costs in question have not yet been taxed by the Court. It is therefore impossible to give at this time the amount of costs allowed to either the appellants or to W.W. Buchanan.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	(a) What was the total revenue of the Fraser River Harbour Commission in (i) 1974 (ii) 1975 (b) what percentage came from (i) port facilities (ii) rental of fore-shore lots?
2.	(a) How many ships have been unloaded by the new container cranes owned by the Commission since their purchase (b) how many containers does this involve?


Ralph Goodale: 1. (a) (i) 1974, $2,856,913; (ii) 1975, $3,011,130. (b) (i) 1974, 83.4 per cent; 1975, 82.3 per cent; (ii) 1974, 16.6 per cent; 1975, 17.7 per cent.
2. (a) 14. (b) 1264 Units, 95 Containers, 17 Houses. Total, 1,376.


Mr. Johnston: 1.	What is the proposed cost of the new CBC building in Yellowknife?
2.	What will be the cost per square foot of available floor space?
3.	What proportion of the building material expense will be for material imported from outside the Northwest Territories?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows; 1. Tendered cost is $2,156,800.
2.	$87.27.
3.	Approximately 85 to 90 percent.

February 19, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Does Zaire hold an export permit for Buffalo aircraft?
2.	Is Zaire in default in any loan agreements with the Export Development Corporation?
3.	Are export permits being withheld from (a) Zaire (b) other countries and, if so, on what basis?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Export Development Corporation are concerned: 1. On August 25, 1975 a permit to export Buffalo Aircraft to Zaire was issued to a Canadian company. This permit was suspended on January 23, 1976.
2.	EDC does not publish particulars of the status of its loans. It is in relation to the borrower and in a sense to the exporter, in a confidential banker's role. Publication may embarrass both parties as well as EDC, and is not in the interest of Canada's trade. If EDC experiences losses, it is of course its responsibility to report those losses to Parliament. An International Monetary Fund study of Zaire is currently taking place.
3.	It is presumed that this question refers to Buffalo Aircraft. As indicated in reply (1) the export permit to Zaire has been suspended. There are no other export permits for Buffalo Aircraft to any destination that are currently under suspension.


Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Under what condition does the civil aviation personnel licensing section of the Department of Transport forward medical information that pertains to a Canadian citizen who holds both Canadian and foreign pilot licenses to a foreign government department?
2.	Is a Canadian citizen notified when a Canadian government department divulges medical history information to a foreign government department?


Ralph Goodale: 1. Transport Canada does not as a matter of policy, forward medical information to a foreign government department without the authorization of the licence holder or applicant. However, a statement of medical fitness is provided on occasion to assist a licence holder in obtaining a licence in another state.
2. Transport Canada does not divulge medical history information to a foreign government department, without the authorization and formal release by the licence holder or applicant concerned.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in order to correct an answer that I gave the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka when answering his question about vacancy rates. I think I said "common knowledge". I meant that the common objective of all those concerned is to reach the goal of a 4 to 5 per cent vacancy rate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Faulkner for the third reading of Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act.
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, it is just over a year now since Bill C-58 was introduced into the House. I am sure many government members would like to be quick to accuse the opposition of delaying passage of the bill, but before they do so I should like to point out to them that it is the government itself that has been very slow in taking action on the bill. The bill was first introduced, I believe, in January, 1975. We did not see it again until June or July when it was before the House for a short time. Then we did not see it again until December. So lest some government members want to point an accusing finger at the opposition for being slow to adopt this measure, I would suggest politely to them that obviously there are members within the cabinet who are not very anxious to see the bill passed. Otherwise it would have received a much better priority rating within the legislative calendar of the government. Perhaps the opposition is doing some members of the cabinet and some members of the government a favour in continuing to press the government for further explanations concerning the weaknesses of the bill.
When the bill was first presented to parliament I had at least a mild, if not more than mild, interest in it. I am always interested in legislation that has a reasonable and wholesome approach to the repatriation of industry to Canada. I believe the provision in the bill calling for 75 per cent ownership within the year is a little precipitous and does work somewhat of a hardship on the companies concerned. However, obviously this is something we can live with. The companies have already agreed to it, so therefore we can accept it.
When we began second reading, some of the glaring weaknesses of the legislation quickly came to the surface. I realize that not only could I not support the legislation, but that I had vigorously to oppose it. As we began to debate the bill, the government became impatient with the progress we made and invoked closure. At that time it was obvious that the government did not appreciate too close a scrutiny of the legislation, so they invoked closure and moved the bill into committee.
One of the things that was striking, even to the casual observer, at that stage was the changes made in the personnel of the committee. Some of the regulars were no longer there even though they had had a perfect or near perfect attendance in the Committee. They were strangely missing from the committee; and that in itself was disturbing. To find that the government used its majority to adopt a modified version of the guillotine in committee was equally, if not more, disturbing.
February 19, 1976

Whereas the caucus chairmen were allowed ten minutes for their opening remarks and questions, each succeeding member of the committee was allowed but five minutes to examine a witness. I suggest that five minutes is an inadequate amount of time to do any thorough investigation of what the legislation is all about. It seems to me that if the government is serious about bringing forward good legislation, it ought to be interested enough in the process of the committee proceedings to make sure that legislation comes out of the committee in the very best form it could possibly take. If that is to be the case, there must be wholesome discussion and give-and-take in the committee. I also recall that the committee stage enjoyed obvious public and media interest. This was one of the few occasions in the history of the committees that there has been standing room only in a committee. Most of those who attended were members of the media and obviously they knew that their livelihoods were being threatened by this legislation.
I also recall that the members of the committee were honestly trying to grapple-I was going to say "wrestle" but I think that is an overused and misused word in this House-with the terms of the bill. We were having a difficult time because although the bill is a tax measure, the operative part of the bill, the critical feature of it-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) is rising on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I should like to ask the hon. member a question, but if not a question I should like to raise a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A question is not a point of order, but since the hon. member has interrupted, would the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) give consent?


Benno Friesen: I would gladly permit a question, but I would prefer it at the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is the prerogative of the hon. member who has the floor to decide whether or not he will entertain a question. The hon. member cannot ask his question unless he has that consent. So unless the hon. member has a real point of order-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I believe I do have a point of order. The fact is that the members of the committee could always request a witness to come back a second, or even a third time if necessary. Members did have such an opportunity. There were numerous members of the committee, and five minutes were allocated to each of them for questioning of the witnesses. The fact remains that they could have been asked to return on a subsequent or on a third occasion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member is now getting into a matter of debate. After the hon. member who has the floor has completed his remarks, the hon. member can then stand and the Chair will recognize him if he wishes to make a speech.
Non-Canadian Publications


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, obviously the chief government whip is a little sensitive about how he conducted the affairs of that committee.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You don't seem to know how it was conducted.


Benno Friesen: The whip will know for certain, if he examines the records of that committee, that the only witness who was permitted to come back a second time was the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner). We would gladly have entertained the president of Reader's Digest on a return visit but, again, the government used its majority on that committee to forestall that kind of move. The government whip ought to know better than make the kind of suggestion he has just made in the House.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It is a real and an honest one.


An hon. Member:: That is a powerful word, Joe, so be careful.


Benno Friesen: Before I was interrupted by that "Guay" statement we were discussing a theoretical tax measure, but the operative measures are outside the confines of the bill, and how does one deal with a bill when the most effective parts are not among its clauses? Nevertheless, that became the dominant area of discussion in the committee and in the House concerning the 80 per cent content rule brought down, not by the Secretary of State but by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen), and the implied, if not direct, censorship it invokes on the press. The Secretary of State, who appeared several times before the Committee, repeatedly took an adamant posture on the 80 per cent content rule. There was absolutely no conciliation on this point and his position remained totally firm. The 80 per cent different was the rule for all foreign-owned periodicals, including Reader's Digest.
It was suggested to the Secretary of State and others that Reader's Digest, because of the nature of that publication, could no longer function in Canada under that kind of rule. The Secretary of State seemed to think that was rubbish. We questioned him on that and we questioned representatives of Maclean-Hunter on the point. They testified that they had meetings with members of the staff of the Minister of National Revenue, at which time they said they would like to have a 100 per cent rule but could live with the 80 per cent rule. They stated they could not live with a less than 80 per cent content rule.
The 80 per cent rule referred to those articles issuing from a source of continuing relationship with another country and those articles would have to be re-edited within Canada. Those were the terms, and that is what the Secretary of State continuously reaffirmed before the committee and, again, repeatedly in the House. He made it very clear, as did members of the staff of the National Revenue Department, that re-editing was not simply changing prepositions, synonyms, but meant substantial re-editing of the material. Then departmental officials appeared before the committee and we wrestled with them as to how this particular rule was to be measured in respect of each of the articles.
The important fact that I want to bring before members of this House is that there was absolutely no turning from

Non-Canadian Publications
this position in the mind or in the statements of the Secretary of State. He was totally adamant on this point. Then the first week in February, presto changeo, there was an about-face in that position of the Liberal party. Previously, the 80 per cent rule also applied to Reader's Digest, and now, all of a sudden, it did not. Those articles which had been digested in precis form from a foreign source no longer had to undergo revision when they came into Canada.


James Hugh Faulkner: Of course they do. You are confused.


Benno Friesen: The Minister of National Revenue stated in the House, in unequivocal terms, that a publication like Reader's Digest could not function in Canada under what was commonly called the Cullen rule as outlined in October. He said in the House that the Cullen rule would make an operation like Reader's Digest defunct. It is noteworthy that the legislation again was brought forward by the Secretary of State, but the rule and the change in the rule were brought forward by the Minister of National Revenue.
The question is, how did this come about? What happened between the time the committee hearings ended in mid-December and the first week in February which brought about this absolute and total reversal in position? Something happened in the back rooms of the caucus, or the Department of National Revenue. Somebody visited the Minister of National Revenue and gave him a sudden flash of inspiration or insight which made him concede he was being unfair to a publication like Reader's Digest. The question that lies before us in this House is, what went on in the recesses of the chambers of the Minister of National Revenue? What kind of deal was made between the minister and officers of this one publication? What is it that made him change his mind? The minister said in this House that under the earlier version of the Cullen rule Reader's Digest could not operate. Now we see the 80 per cent different rule in respect of those materials from sources of continuing arrangement suddenly changed so that Reader's Digest qualifies.
In view of the fact that representatives of Maclean-Hunter insisted in October it needed the 80 per cent content rule in order to function, it would be worth while to ask what Maclean-Hunter is going to do now that Reader's Digest will be able to function in Canada. What is going to happen to that poor, distraught, undernourished company? What will happen to that tender flower, as it has been referred to in this House? Is it not going to be able to function now that the 80 per cent rule has been changed?
Members of this House, and members of the committee particularly, have a right to know what went on during the negotiations between the board of directors, or the president of Reader's Digest, and the Minister of National Revenue. The parliamentary committee, whose function it was to discern and ascertain what the best solution was in respect of legislation like this, was bypassed, overlooked and ignored regarding those negotiations. It was not advised until the day the press release was issued, and I believe the standing committee has the right to know what went on. Indeed the minister has an obligation to tell the standing committee what went on. It is a responsibility of that minister to deal fairly, honestly and openly with the

members of the standing committee so that they may be apprised of the negotiations which went on.
The overriding question which stands before the House today is do we now have the best possible legislation in the form of Bill C-58 as it is presently before us? Obviously if there have been negotiations in the back rooms it is not the best possible legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather):
That Bill C-58 be referred back to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts to enable the committee to hear evidence about arrangements made after the committee reported Bill C-58 to the House which will enable the Reader's Digest to qualify as a Canadian periodical.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must bring to the attention of the hon. member that his motion was meant to be seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) who is not in the House at the present time. Perhaps the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) would second the motion.


Mr. McKinnon:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I am sure most if not all members feel as I do about Bill C-58 at this point in time. On the one hand I am grateful that this charade is finally coming to a close. On the other hand I am still as much in the dark as I was several months ago when the government first launched its vendetta against two of the finest publications in Canada. We still do not know, after weeks of deliberation, just why the bill was tabled.
When my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) rose to speak on this bill a couple of weeks ago he opened his remarks by saying that everything that could be said had already been said about the substance of Bill C-58. He added that he was compelled to speak on the bill on behalf of his constituents, more than 90 per cent of whom were in favour of leaving these two magazines alone. I am sure the same applies to many people in the great riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. I know also that many of my colleagues have received great numbers of letters in respect of this bill.
The remarks of the hon. member echoed the sentiments of most members of this House, although many of them did not put those sentiments into words. Like my colleague, I would like to commend the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) and the other members on the government benches who had the courage to speak out for their constituents on this vital question. As my colleagues are aware by now, I tend to be a sort of quiet and retiring person, and so I greatly admire scrappers like the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway who proved right from the beginning that she had the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) figured out right to the "T". She showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that, while he professed to be some kind of an expert on the publishing industry, he was simply parroting the phrases provided to him by the Toronto publishing clique, the barons of mediocrity.
It should be interesting to see the Secretary of State in the next general election campaign flip-flopping, squirm-

ing, and equivocating all over the riding like the infamous generals of Hitler after World War II. He will probably complain that he was only following orders from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Well, we all know what happened to those generals; and I would suggest that the Secretary of State will get some of his own back in the next election. The road to electoral defeat is paved with those members who thought, going into a campaign, that people never remember what happened a few months or a couple of years before.
The worst effect of Bill C-58 will not be the demise of Time and Reader's Digest. No matter what we do here with respect to those magazines, both Time and Reader's Digest will survive, not only in the United States but in the multitude of countries around the world where there is still freedom of the press, and where people still have the right to decide what they will read. The total effect of this bill will be, in the long run, the denial to the people of Canada of right of access to the periodicals of their choice.
If the real purpose of Bill C-58 is the protection of the Canadian periodical industry, then there are two reasons why this bill is out of contact with reality. In the first place, magazines such as Maclean's will not be made better or more prosperous for their owners by the act of eliminating their chief competitors. When I spoke earlier on this bill I described Maclean's as a tender flower which needed much nurturing in order to survive. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I now have had some cause to change. I think this tender flower could be more aptly described as a carnivorous man-eating or plant-eating plant in the sense of devouring its smaller and less successful competitors.
It may be that Maclean's will be the octopus of the Canadian periodical industry. Time and Reader's Digest have never been any real competition to Maclean's for the simple reason that they are not even in the same league. In my view that is like trying to protect the egg market in Canada by prohibiting the importation of apples from Oregon.
In the second place, because the bill cannot possibly affect the economic health of these two magazines, the real effect of the bill is to introduce censorship of a section of the media in Canada. I do not believe this censorship will end with these two magazines. I believe, and other members including the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway believe as I do, that if parliament allows the government to exercise censorship in the case of Time and Reader's Digest, we will be opening Pandora's box.
We will see this same censorship being exercised again and again by the Secretary of State, or perhaps by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen). This is simply too much power to place in the hands of a minister, any minister, and especially a minister who has proven that he would use this power to work out a grudge against a particular magazine. Will it be a particular newspaper next or will it be Maclean's, the very magazine that Bill C-58 is designed to promote? Maclean's has lately adopted a policy of publishing laudatory articles about the Liberal government and pages of profiles of Liberal ministers. What if Maclean's should begin to write articles that tell the whole truth about the government and its ministers? Would the Secretary of State lower the boom?
Non-Canadian Publications
The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton revealed another flaw in Bill C-58 when he pointed out that under both federal and provincial law 51 per cent or more ownership in any company in Canada or any kind of property constitutes ownership. He pointed out that even in the case of the recent laws governing foreign ownership of Canadian corporations the law states that ownership is Canadian if 51 per cent or more of stock in such company is owned by resident Canadians. If this is so, Mr. Speaker, then why is it necessary to single out two magazines, or why is it necessary to single out a particular kind of industry and say that the law does not apply?
Why is it important to us to insist that Time and Reader's Digest show 75 per cent or 80 per cent Canadian ownership to qualify as Canadian? I still have not been given the answer to that question, and I still have not found out what happened to the motion moved by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton.
Speaking of answers, I would like the Secretary of State to come clean on at least one aspect of this mess and tell us about the sweetheart deal the government made with Reader's Digest-or possibly it should be the Minister of National Revenue. I would like to know exactly what was arranged between Reader's Digest and the ministers in question. We have already heard the Minister of National Revenue say on national television that if Bill C-58 does not kill the Canadian edition of Time magazine, then perhaps he would have to consider bringing in much stronger legislation. We have been told that the sweetheart deal made with Reader's Digest could not apply in the case of Time. Why? I would like to know the answers to these questions, and time is running out-no pun intended.
The plain fact of Bill C-58 is that it is directed against the majority of Canadians, people who have expressed their wish to have Time and Reader's Digest remain as they are. Those people know what they like, they know what they want, and at this point in time they are well aware that their wishes are not important to the Secretary of State or the government as a whole.
In conclusion I should like to refer to a statement made in 1760 by Edmund Burke, one of the greatest of all parliamentarians and a staunch foe of oppressive government. In a paper he wrote in support of the repeal of the Popery laws he said, and I quote:
A law against the majority of the people is in substance a law against the people itself. It is not particular injustice, but general oppression.
That sums up my opposition to Bill C-58. It provides me with two excellent reasons for voting against the bill. First, the bill denies the majority of Canadians the right of access to periodicals of their choice. Second, it opens the door to government censorship of the press in Canada. I challenge hon. members on the benches across the floor to find as good a reason for voting for Bill C-58. I challenge them to vote against the bill and fully support the amendment of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen).


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, having spoken before, my fear over content control and the ramifications of such tampering and manipulation of regu-

February 19, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
lations regarding content is well known here. I have also expressed my deep concern about the morality and the reflection on us as a nation over the manner with which we are treating those who were welcomed here one third of a century ago and who now are being ejected in a manner worthy of a banana republic, not that of a free, mature, and democratic nation such as Canada.
The one major concern in this whole debate, the reason I have participated with such vigour, and the reason I rise again on third reading is fear for the fundamental freedom of our country. This fear has been expressed by the most responsible and able people in the media across this nation. We all see it threatened under this tax legislation. We see freedom threatened by giving bureaucrats the power of cultural police, and courts being stripped of the power in this case that should wholly be held there.
There should not be a final decision by anyone in a democracy other than a court. This is a threat to freedom itself. The foundations of democracy, not only freedom of the press but use of law and the court as final arbiter, are being lost in the regulations which are part of all this.
This is all happening as our world grows smaller and the number of free societies is diminishing. It is obvious that the first sign of trouble and emerging tyranny is erosion of a free press. Freedom, so precious but with such fragile underpinnings, is constantly in crisis. It should never be tampered with or treated lightly, because it can quickly collapse. Freedoms throughout the world were virtually lost overnight when a despot took over nations when he could not stand up to the scrutiny of the masses. The first act was inevitably to remove those who exposed him to scrutiny, that is, the published and, today, the electronic media. That thus eliminates freedom of the press, and then there is the freedom to do whatever is desired with the people, and any atrocity is acceptable.
I use this illustration because to understand the normal we must understand the abnormal. The extreme is always a possibility and a danger when freedom is so delicate. Those who watch and report to the citizenry, and those who are known as the fourth estate of society must be with us whether they are good or bad. A free press is our protection. It does not matter that the style of reporting might not make us all happy. I wish it were better in Canada and that there were more self-discipline within the press so that there would never be danger of control over it. Our system of justice, our system of parliament, and our agencies of government must be watched, just as the courts must be watched, by the press. Bill C-58 could be a dangerous step and could shatter the fragile underpinnings of our whole system of public communication.
All of us here, though devoted to our country and our democracy, could share in our own demise. Many here sincerely believe in some high minded objective, some hope of national growth and superiority and, frighteningly enough, national purity against the entry of outsiders. That has happened often in history, and history must be our lesson.
Some of my hon. colleagues express concern and even some disgust that this bill has struggled so long through gestation. It should never have been conceived. Perhaps the parents of this bill are mismatched, and the product can only be a warped, deformed monster. I think there

would be greater cause for worry if Bill C-58 had been taken as lightly as some of the committee members wished, or if it had been handled with the casualness of what some have described as a simple tax bill. It is much more than that. It is a twisting of regulations to fit the plan of a cultural assassination to silence certain periodicals because they are not purely Canadian.
Freedom was lost in another country in the search for a pure Aryan quality. The first move there was to silence the press. Once the press or the media was no longer free, the most horrendous atrocities could occur. Millions of lives were destroyed, and no one was there to report that or to account to the nation or the international community, because the nation itself was no longer free. Perhaps that will not happen here, but it was always maintained it could not happen in Germany. After all, Germany was one of the most culturally advanced societies of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. However, it did happen, and thus there can be no guarantee that it cannot happen elsewhere, even in Canada. When any group abuses freedom there is the danger of losing it. Whenever people fail to use self-discipline in their profession or business, the state inevitably moves in and opposes it.
It has been said by the leader of this side of the House that before the anti-inflation program was introduced, big business, big industry and big unions would not use selfdiscipline; they would not co-operate to solve the problems of this nation, and so controls were imposed. It frightens me to think that controls could ever move into the cultural field. Some of the most democratic people in this country are actually saying this without awareness of the tyranny into which they can lead all of us, and despite their well-intentioned and seemingly high minded principles. Some members of parliament talk of imposing codes of ethics on journalists.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) talked casually in the committee of a cultural plan for Canada. It is possibly because of what is happening in other areas in Canada that reinforces my fear at this moment. Judy LaMarsh in her commission on violence in the media discusses the possibility of censorship. The CRTC has ordered CFCF Montreal to show cause why it should not lose its licence for doing what is one of the jobs of the media, drawing attention to controversial issues, including the actions, good or bad, of government. The issue of the language bill, Bill 22 in Quebec, and the reaction, a petition with 600,000 names, seem to have angered powerful forces close to the government.
CRTC chairman, Harry Boyle-one of the great Canadian electronic media experts and an eminently just man, one who understands freedom and the delicacy of its life and knows the press as well as any Canadian-explained his reasons for the CRTC threat to the CFCF licence by saying the reporting was not balanced. Surely that is a journalistic judgment and not one that should concern the CRTC. But CRTC power has become almost greater than the government that has created it. It is because of this that I am so concerned about this one other and major step toward diminishing freedom in communications.
February 19, 1976

Perhaps members of the press have distorted and exaggerated issues and in many cases lost their credibility. Thus at this time, when their voices are loud and clear and uniform on Bill C-58, few in this House, in these seats of power, are listening. It is as though they cried wolf too often, and unfortunately they are not being heard right now.
Virtually every major and minor newspaper and columnist is attacking Bill C-58 as a threat to the basic freedom of communication in our society. They are stressing the inherent danger of control of content and the use of tax legislation to drive publications and the border television stations such as KVOS-BC Ltd. out of the country. But now members of this House will not listen. That in itself is frightening. It means they have contempt for the press or lack of confidence in it; therefore it could be expendable in the hands of ruthless government. It is basic that even a bad press that is free is essential to a free society; when your press is no longer able to watch, no longer able to report, even if the reportage is bad, then your society is in jeopardy.
It has been said that parliamentarians and the press are natural enemies. I think at the present time this can be a very dangerous enmity since parliament seems determined to take unto itself, through Bill C-58, the power to control content in one segment of the media and remove the court's right of final arbiter in the question of content control and manipulation control. This will ultimately, if the law is enforced equally as it should be, affect the whole media. It only needs a small start to spread.
If we were to lose our liberties, the liberty of the press would bring them all back again. The liberty of the press and the liberty of the country must stand or fall together, as one writer said. The loss can spread once it starts with the speed of an infectious disease through the entire body of publications. When this happens, and it can happen, freedom is lost.
As long as the press is free and democratic, a type of love-hate relationship will exist. I think it is healthy that it exists between parliamentarians and the media. It is based on a reliance on each other and the need to work together; the one to enact legislation, and the other to tell it to the public.
For the politicians in parliament there is a fundamental ambition; that is to use the press, the media, to help them get re-elected. And the press, feeling this power only during elections, is inclined to subtle arrogance. But when freedom goes there are no elections and there is no need for those in power to maintain a friendship with the press. There are those dangers.
There is a thought that is passing through my mind as I read the history of democracies that have died. In every case the first action in their demolition was elimination of the press. It has been said so often, I have said it before and I say it again, that even a bad and irresponsible press that is free is better than no free press.
There has never been a time in our history when a responsible and dedicated press dedicated to this nation could be more useful and important to our sociological and economic health and the national well being. The good messages that are coming out of this House, the good
Non-Canadian Publications
things that are happening despite partisan politics in the front rows here, and the debate that goes on across this great hall, all the good things happening here are not being told across Canada. The psychic depression is more devastating, I would think, as a result possibly of press failure to tell the good as well as the bad. It is probably more serious than the economic pressures and worries.
That is not the issue at this time, however. No matter what the press does here it must be held free. Perhaps it may have to use self-discipline, but that is another debate. Even if parliament is not listening to the message about Bill C-58-perhaps because of annoyance-it changes nothing. The vindictive and punitive power used by parliament is dangerous. What is next after Bill C-58?
It is interesting to note that the Toronto Sun, a unique publication that survived and asked no quarter, asked no handout, asked no protection from the government of Canada in fighting the giants of Toronto, the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star. The Sun's survival is something of a media miracle. The spirit of those who worked on the Telegram moved to the Sun when that paper was demolished in a sense, or taken over by the two giants.
The Sun points out, as many of us have pointed out repeatedly here, that the newspapers of Canada are jammed with material from the New York Times, the London Observer, The Economist, the Los Angeles Times, etc. If the C-58 content rules were applied consistently and as they should be in law, not one Canadian newspaper could meet the 80 per cent measure, a measure that would be made by ruler and probably a pocket calculator in the hands of officials of the Department of National Revenue. It would also mean that Canadians would be deprived of foreign news because the words "essentially different" and the other words "continuing arrangement" which govern this whole bill would ban entry of outside information.
On October 30, 1975, the Vancouver Sun wrote:
If there are tears to be shed they are not for two magazines that will, without doubt, continue to provide many of their two million Canadian purchasers-and at least twice as many readers-with a different American version.
Rather, they are for a country that would allow its laws to be twisted by bureaucratic redefinition to apply to two specific publications, whatever the publications ...
The article continues:
Whatever else it is, it is not freedom of the press, that "fundamental freedom" enshrined in that limited, neglected and for the most part ineffective act known as the Canadian Bill of Rights. Perhaps it is time that "fundamental freedom" was tested in a courtroom.
In the Montreal Gazette of November 27, 1975, John Meyer wrote, "Thoughtful Canadians have every reason to be apprehensive". He discussed the extremes to which the government is prepared to go, and said:
That government should be willing to bring its authority to bear to destroy competition as distinct from equalizing it, ought to cause other foreign subsidiaries in Canada to ask when they will be found no longer acceptable.
The list is endless. The Secretary of State repeatedly relied on the Canadian periodical association to support his position. This organization was formed less than three years ago in order to push this bill through for vested interests, not in the interests of Canada. Certainly if I

Non-Canadian Publications
know periodical publishing it is no help to the publishing industry.
The prestigious Canadian Authors Association, an organization of about 850 author members, probably every author in Canada, which fought since 1921 and obtained improved copyright laws and other protections for writers, came before the committee, was given a polite hearing, and that was all. What it said seemed to be ignored. Although the resolution it put before parliament of Canada is not included in the minutes of the committee hearings, may I put part of its resolution on record? It is resolved, in the second paragraph:
... that the intended establishment of content guidelines for periodicals published in Canada as a minimum requirement for determining the "Canadian-ness" of these periodicals is anathema to the principles of freedom of expression upon which this country has flourished and without which it will quickly diminish in stature.
They go on to make this next point:
... that the Government of Canada immediately rescind its current actions in seeking to amend the Income Tax Act so as to restrict any periodical-including our daily press which does not, nor could not, meet such requirements-from publishing whatever content it deems most acceptable to its own readers in the firm belief that Canadians are sufficiently mature to reject those ideas and concepts that hold no appeal for them and in the further belief that maturity can only grow- as the nation itself grows-through the people's own powers of choice.
They wanted to make it clear to the leaders of our government that the growth of Canadian culture can only be inhibited by censorship and unacceptable ownership guidelines such as are currently being considered by the government for such periodicals as Reader's Digest and Time and, in fact, that only by exposure to all Canadians of such vehicles can an indigenous culture develop and flourish.
That statement was ignored, as was the statement by the ad hoc group of 27 authors who wrote a letter to the committee asking the comrriittee not to move in the direction indicated by Bill C-58. Among the authors were included Sydney Katz, Bruce Hutchison and Robert Collins, who are prominent Canadians and good writers.
The national fervor, obviously greed for more and more, is exemplified by Maclean's, that great, multinational conglomerate, and Southam's, which has vested interests in periodical publications and owns its own television and cable companies. Incidentally, among the top 200 Canadian corporations Maclean's ranks as 143rd and Southam's as 88th.
The most interesting example of the motivation for this cultural nationalism is the amusing irony in the recent story about book publisher Mel Hurtig, Edmonton's resident nationalist, the man who headed the "Committee for an independent Canada."
Hurtig, who is perpetually heard crying "foul" about American intrusion into Canadian books and periodicals, provides jobs in Japan and other foreign countries rather than in Canada. He can get his books printed more cheaply abroad. On January 1 of this year Hurtig lost his lucrative Guinness Books of Records. The outcry was horrendous. While he does not want foreign subsidiary houses operating in Canada lest they jeopardize his income, he cried "foul" because the Guinness best seller had been lost to

him. It may be the first response to Canadian cultural protectionism, called nationalism.
Hurtig lost one quarter of his income, his "seed money", by the Guinness action. Jamie Portman, reporting for Southam News service, described Hurtig as "hopping mad". Hurtig is reported to have said, "Here it is, happening to me, a Canadian nationalist who has long argued about the way in which we can be affected by decisionmaking outside our own borders. I never dreamed I would be faced with such a situation myself." Instead of realizing he had created his own disaster he turned his attack on the foreign publishers. They probably knew what he had been doing and were giving him some sort of message. Even the Secretary of State sent a personal letter, I understand- according to Portman's report in the Citizen of December 17, 1975-warning Norris McWhirter of the "serious implications this action could have for the future of the Canadian publishing industry." What a strange argument.
Hurtig wrote:
Your decision, to the Guinness group, means that our publishing company will have a substantial drop in sale thus affecting our ability to publish Canadian books. It will mean more of an outflow of profits from Canada to United States each year.
He was writing this letter to a British book company. He went on:
In general, it will be highly detrimental to both Canadian book publishing and the Canadian market as well.
If Guinness books were looking for the world's record for the greatest distortion of nationalism in the world, that would be it.
Let me return to the serious question of this bill and the danger it represents to the entire body of freedom, not just the freedom of self-serving nationalists.
As quoted by Leonard Lyons of New York Post, April 1, 1959, Nehru said to Khruschev in a meeting:
You do not change the course of history by turning the faces of portraits to the wall.
While we cannot change history's course, the patterns of past history have a consistency which warn we are headed on a collision course with freedom. It begins when a state starts tampering with content of publications, with freedom to publish, and the whole business of censorship, which often goes as far as the assassination of publications. How often have I heard that this bill is not censorship! I don't know what censorship is, if this is not censorship.
The most recent and significant demise of a free press in a democracy occurred in India. When Indira Ghandi's troubles began one of her first actions was to manipulate, then totally control, freedom of the press, thus putting India's newspapers under permanent censorship. The bill she put through her parliament last June was described as so far-reaching that no paper will be able to say, for example, that poverty has increased in India. Banned from publication will be accounts of anti-government demonstrations, arrests, opposition activities, and even speeches in parliament.
Yes, it can happen here-and the Secretary of State announced in committee that he had a cultural plan for Canada. That has happened before, with nationalism as the
February 19, 1976

driving torce, the most notable example being the German cultural plan announced in Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. It outlined complete monopoly control of public communications-press, film, wireless, exhibitions-by which public opinion is created.
In the fall of 1933 Dr. Goebbels, the propaganda minister, set up his cultural power structure with a government act. It was to be the Reich Culture Chamber, which would exercise strictly centralized control. Then, on October 4, 1933, the inevitable happened. The journalists act was passed. It expressly repudiated the liberal notion of the freedom of the press. Said Dr. Goebbels:
Such an idea proceeded not from people collectively, but from the individual, and in its exaggerated form it has increasingly made it evident that freedom of opinion, the more it was conceded to the individual, the more it reacted to the prejudice of the general good of the whole people.
He said:
. . . we want no opinionated nonsense. We want frank and honourable utterance.
Entry to the profession was confined to those on a restricted list possessing German citizenship. They had to be Aryan, not foreign. This was a combination of nationalism and socialism. Hitler called it national socialism. Those entering the profession, Goebbels said, had to show all the characteristics "demanded by the task of spiritually and intellectually influencing public opinion. Consciousness of responsibility to state and people, and personal purity, shall decide the entry to the profession of journalists."
And they said it could not happen there; but it did.
Just one year before the journalists act was passed-and I am saying this to show what can happen-there were 4,700 newspapers in Germany, of which 70 per cent were dailies. More than 100 different parties or group ideologies were represented. The largest of these was the Berliner Morgenpost, claiming a circulation of 600,000. It had been founded in 1898 by the House of Ullstein-a father and five sons. When Hitler became chancellor in January, 1933, he immediately caused President Paul von Hindenburg to invoke article 48 of the constitution in order to cancel the guaranteed freedom of the press. Some papers were immediately silenced. Within three months 200 were suspended, and within a year 600 papers were dead. The House of Ullstein, being Jewish, was driven out.
When Germany seized Austria in 1938, publications were again among the first target of the Nazis. Many old papers died including the Wiener Zeitune, founded in 1703. The rest of Vienna's newspapers were melded into one Nazi organ.
I have a Viennese friend who escaped and now lives in the west. She recalls the day that this all happened. She said, "No one can understand what it means to go to bed at night in a free society and wake up the next morning to find that you no longer have police protection or a free press". Every erosion of our own freedom of choice, freedom of publication, can clear the way to despotism.
Can anyone in this House guarantee that when content control and manipulation are handled by bureaucracy, not by editors or journalists, that we are safe, that we will not see freedom of the press in general jeopardized?
Non-Canadian Publications
Most of us here only know Czechoslovakia, with all its artistry and beauty, through the magnificence displayed in its pavillion at Expo 1967, the year before that nation was invaded and enslaved in 1968 because it dared to be free. It lost its freedom in the Nazi deal with Chamberlain in 1939, and then again in 1968 when the Russians invaded. The first victim besides Dubcek, who had been emancipating the country and the press, was the media. The Czech Journalists Union Review reported that, between 1968 and 1972, 1,222 journalists had been expelled.
I feel very strongly, as do many Canadians, about what happens in a nation that is not free. Across this country are descendents of people who fled to freedom. My parents knew the pain and suffering of tyrannical government. They seldom talked about it. They fled as children. My mother first fled to the United States. She recalls fleeing from the Cossacks as a girl of 13 and hiding in a graveyard with her sister-in-law, who was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. She delivered the baby in that graveyard and they managed to flee.
As a boy of 13 my father fled and came to Canada. He came to the prairies shortly after Alberta joined confederation. He only talked of this once, but he recalls with great pain how his little cousins were held up by their feet and chopped in half. I feel very strongly about freedom. Every Canadian whose ancestors fled to this free country should be concerned about erosion in our free press and our free society.
In Viet Nam, while the Americans were there, the press reported American activities freely-mostly the bad news. There was no freedom in reporting the Viet Cong. Thus their atrocities may never be revealed. Once the Americans left Viet Nam, the free open society disappeared, and today a watchful press is not there to inhibit those who use secrecy and privacy to conceal atrocities. Who is complaining now? Who is talking? Who is worried about what is happening in Viet Nam?
In Cambodia's Phnom Penh only 20,000 of its three million residents were left in the city after the Khymer Rouge drove the millions out into the fields. No reporters were there to report the massacres, starvations, tortures and murders. We do not know yet. A young doctor who happened to be in this country visited my office. He is searching for his young wife and three year old baby. He will never find them. They probably died of starvation outside Phnom Penh.
The free press goes, and so does freedom. The slightest interference with regard to content or the control of content, and any kind of dictatorship with regard to what can be written, published and heard, are a threat to our freedom.
The condition of the press in Russia is well known. My parents recall the silent press that would not help the Jewish people. Today medicine is used by the state to imprison and destroy. Insane asylums are used as a device of torture and punishment. There is no freedom of religion, free right of movement, or job opportunity.
The Jews throughout history have been the barometer of lost freedoms, and no place more exemplified this in twentieth century history than did Germany and Russia. Once the persecution begins for them it spreads to others first

February 19, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
along religious and political lines, and then indiscriminately. It was said by Heinrich Heine in 1834 that since the Exodus, I presume from slavery in Egypt, freedom has always spoken with a Hebrew accent. Perhaps I feel differently about this bill than some here because I have a different heritage.
This legislation, drafted to set a percentage on content by regulation and with no recourse to the courts for a test of its legality, is designed in the name of nationalism. I still say freedom itself, and the structure of democratic initiative and control by the justice system are threatened.
We probably will survive this, but when and what steps will be taken next in the cultural plan? I return to government interference with the right of the public to buy, to read, to watch what it wants, whether the parent company is Canadian or American. That is a step away from freedom.
And that phoney line: "We'll still get Time magazine" is specious. We will not get it in the way 500,000 Canadians have enjoyed it because content is controlled. Somebody said four Canadian pages. I do not care if it is four or six pages. I thought it was seven or eight. However, it is a balance of national news. There are 500,000 Canadians who have enjoyed its balance of content. If we do not want it manipulated and controlled so as to drive it out of the country, we will get an all-American edition as we do with the other imports.
The jobs in the west will go. Time says that it may keep some jobs in Montreal. It is possible that they will take their magazine and with it all the materials bought in Canada, move across the border and export in the same way as Newsweek and other magazines.
Both Time and Reader's Digest have said that they do not seek special exemptions, special status, or special privileges of any sort. It is the right of the people to advertise where they choose. Lest there be any doubt about the matter, they do not seek a competitive commercial advantage.
I would like to see Maclean's put out a quality news magazine that can compete. I would love to see it become such a good magazine that Reader's Digest would lose some of its circulation. That would be great. However, all they are into is a vindictive, narrow, Toronto-based nationalism that ends on Bloor Street.
In any case Bill C-58 is an assault on the right of the citizen. If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose that freedom, said Somerset Maugham. And the irony of it is that if it is money that is valued more than freedom, that too will be lost. We can only be losers in this attempt to push through Bill C-58 which represents a start toward an objective we can only fear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to say that this will be the last time I shall speak in this House under the leadership of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), who legally, I suppose, will cease to be the Leader of the Opposition in

some five or six minutes time. I am delighted, however, that he intends to retain his seat in the House and I hope he will carry on in public in future the way he does in private, so that the country at large will be able to benefit from his wisdom more than it has in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I should also like to compliment the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) on the well-prepared speech she has just delivered. She shows an independence of spirit which is very rare. I do not say it is very rare only on the government side. It is very rare on both sides of the House. I compliment her on this, but I warn her that if her philosophy develops along the line it has taken in the last three or four weeks there will be other issues on which she will find herself at odds with the government. From reading her speeches closely I would say there is very little in common between her and, for example, the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner). Freedom is not limited to the printed word or to the electronic media. So I suspect the hon. member will be joining with members in various corners of the House in future in opposition to other legislation of a nature similar to the bill before us today.


Mr. Blais:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but perhaps I might obtain some information from the deputy House leader of the Conservative party. There was some indication at the time negotiations were going on between the parties to offer the Conservatives the extra hours, this evening and tomorrow, that debate on the bill before us would be terminated by five o'clock and the Conservatives could hold their convention in peace. All members would now agree, I imagine, that for the past week at any rate the debate has been repetitive and superfluous.
I would point out that an amendment has been presented which was not contemplated earlier, and this indicates some reluctance on the part of the opposition to make an effort along the lines suggested. I wonder now whether it is intended that the debate should be wound up before five o'clock. Should this not be the intention of the opposition I can only say that the government will seriously consider moving to obtain extra time in the immediate future to make up for the time which has been lost as a result of the agreement.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member should raise at this point, a few minutes before five o'clock, a matter which he and I in the course of our duty as deputy House leaders had been discussing previously. I recall that I was once chastized, very rightly, by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) for making a statement in the House with respect to a matter which had been discussed among House leaders. I felt so strongly about breaching what I considered to be the traditional protocol which governs these matters that I went to the President of the Privy Council and apologized profusely to him for my breach of etiquette.
I want to say with respect to what has happened today that this is an equally bad-tempered breach of parliamen-
February 19, 1976

tary etiquette. I do not know whether I ought to say anything further now with respect to the matter. But I hope we all understand that, though the government is anxious to get this legislation through, there are very strong feelings about the bill, not just on this side of the House but on both sides.
If there had been an understanding between House leaders such as the one to which the parliamentary secretary has referred, and if I had had knowledge of such an understanding, I would have indicated as much to the hon. gentleman when he was over here to see me.
Non-Canadian Publications


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Walter David Baker: I have to say, in response to his intervention, that I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to go further in the circumstances.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Five o'clock!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. Pursuant to special order passed on Monday, February 16, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, February 23.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, pursuant to Special Order.

Monday, February 23, 1976