1976-02-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of reports by William Bush, a scientific advisor to the Atomic Energy Control Board, that waste material from one extraction process has contaminated several sites in the Ottawa area, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River:
That this House direct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to launch an immediate investigation into the alleged contamination of a number of sites in the Ottawa area by radioactive waste material, and report these finding to the House along with those remedial measures he intends to take to protect the health and safety of Ottawa area citizens.
And further:
That this House direct the government to initiate a public inquiry into the methods by which radioactive material is handled by industry, and monitored by the Atomic Energy Control Board to assure the safety of citizens, not only in the Ottawa and Port Hope areas, but across Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, unanimous consent is required. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe:
That this House reminds the Minister of Veterans Affairs that tomorrow is Thursday, the day he has promised to make a statement regarding legislation respecting Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war, and that we await with hope the statement we trust he will be making.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure all hon. members are agreed that a matter which has been under constant
discussion and which anticipates a statement by a minister is scarcely a matter of urgent and pressing importance, but I am sure that both hon. members will understand their point is being pressed again in another way.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important issue.
Considering that every citizen is entitled to be considered and treated fairly and with deference, considering the aggressive and arbitrary manner of the RCMP officers making inquiries about several citizens who have contributed in good faith to the financing of political parties, as set forth in Canada Elections Act and considering that those same officers have extracted statements with threats, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the government undertake a legal investigation on the manner in which the RCMP conducted the said inquiries.


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 unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, that matter being the federal government's feed grain policy in so far as it relates to the total lack of action in the area of feed freight assistance. The federal government promised over two years ago to take the necessary steps to remove or modify the feed freight assistance program, at least as far as the Montreal area is concerned, but there has never been any effort made to do so. Therefore I
2 1 1.10- 64Vi

February 11, 1976
Oral Questions
move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the federal government move immediately to settle the question of feed freight assistance and to ensure equity between feed freight rates on grain and animals.
A balance in feed freight rates between grain and meat would ensure the development of agriculture according to natural advantages.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Widespread concern by Newfoundland railway employees makes suspect the CNR's intentions with regard to the future of rail freight in the province. Evidence indicates a downgrading of rail movements in favour of road transport, which taxes the present low-standard trans-Canada highway and is contrary to government thrusts in conservation and economic considerations. In order to remove the danger of a repeat of the elimination of rail passenger service in the province, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House orders that the Canadian Transport Commission investigate the CNR freight operation in Newfoundland with a view to determining the future intentions of CNR as it concerns rail freight operations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It arises out of the pretence of himself and many of his colleagues that the government's controls policy does not restrict the scope of collective bargaining. What posi-

tion will he take now that the Prime Minister has admitted on national television that that program does substantially restrict the scope of collective bargaining; and in particular, will the government now have the courage to do its duty and arrange, after proper hearings, for the Anti-Inflation Board to indicate to the parties to the railway dispute exactly what is the maximum settlement that is acceptable to the board and the government?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. It is true, of course, that the Anti-Inflation Board can affect agreements that have been entered into voluntarily. That has always been the case and, so far as I know, there is no intention of changing the procedures or the scope or the methods of the Anti-Inflation Board at the present time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wonder when my hon. friend, whom I try hard to respect from day to day-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -will stop pretending that a program designed to, amoung other things, restrict the scope of wage settlements does not restrict collective bargaining? In view of this, and in view of the important and possibly disastrous effect a railway strike could have, why does the government insist on following this farce through to the end rather than exercising the very substantial powers and responsibilities it recently sought and received from parliament?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall miss the hon. gentleman when he is no longer in the position he is at the present time. I should like to thank him for the co-operation and respect he has shown me, at least in the past. On the particular question he has raised, we have debated this on many occasions. The position of the government is that collective bargaining should proceed and then the AntiInflation Board should make a judgment on the outcome.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the fair-minded Acting Prime Minister whether he will not agree that the present position being taken by the government in respect of wage settlements, and the pretense that free collective bargaining is being preserved and the government will not restrict this, is just as hypocritical as the attitude it previously took toward wage and price controls in general?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, since I want to be perfectly frank and honest with my hon. friend, the answer is no.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker,
my question is to the Acting Minister of Labour. Since the
public demands of the railway union which resulted in a
February 11, 1976

breakdown, or followed with a breakdown in negotiations, seem to far exceed the guidelines imposed by the AntiInflation Board, and in view of the fact there is in essence no free collective bargaining because the Anti-Inflation Board is the final arbiter, is it the intention of the government through an industrial commissioner or a conciliation board to inform the union of the parameters within which they have to negotiate under the contraints laid down by the Anti-Inflation Board?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has suggested exactly what I suggested two days ago. When and if an industrial commissioner or a conciliation board is set up, the chairman or the individual might want to inform or discuss with the AntiInflation Board the parameters of the wage settlement. We are talking about free collective bargaining, and certainly in the case of the railways we are talking of hundreds of clauses that are non-monetary, and in many cases more important than the monetary matters which must be settled outside the Anti-Inflation Board. Certainly the AntiInflation Board imposes a restraint but does not eliminate collective bargaining, because in theory some fair settlements could be substantially lower than the parameters set by or acceptable to the Anti-Inflation Board.


THREATENED STRIKE OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES-POSSIBLE DETERMINATION BY LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL OF ESSENTIALITY OF RAIL SERVICE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but admire the minister's optimism, but since we seem to be heading for a national rail stoppage because of the government's head-in-the-sand attitude toward the situation, and because of the essentiality of rail services to the economy of this country, may I ask the Acting Minister of Labour whether the Canada Labour Relations Council, which is empowered to study specific proposals, has been asked to make a determination as to whether rail services are essential to the national economy, and if such designation or such finding by the Canada Labour Relations Council, which I understand is meeting today, will be made public?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we need the council's advice in order to reiterate that rail services are essential to this country. The question is, how essential are they and when does any particular labour dispute become so dangerous to the economy there must be an intervention. The point is, the hon. gentleman is talking about a strike as if it were inevitable when in fact the normal process of the law has not even begun. There has yet to be the conciliation stage or the commissioner stage, or mediation. What the hon. gentleman is doing is reflecting the usual cynicism he reflects everytime collective bargaining is discussed and anticipating the results of collective bargaining which has yet to begin.
Oral Questions
[DOT] <1420)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. On Monday in the House both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence indicated the government was doing all it could to help the unfortunate people in Guatemala at the time. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question concerning a request made of the government for a civil defence field hospital providing some 200 beds. Could the Acting Prime Minister confirm that such a request was made sometime ago to the government by Dr. Cohn of Montreal supported by OXFAM Canada, and could he confirm also that the government has not yet accepted that request; if not, would he explain to the House the reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government did receive such a request. It has been re-examined in conjunction with the particular agencies which have responsibility in this area and my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs will give a full reply.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is not true that medical supplies have been held up by the government because of red tape as has been suggested in the newspapers. The need at the moment in Guatemala is for cash, food, milk powder and orthopedic equipment. Yesterday the Guatemalan consulate in Montreal issued a statement on clear instruction from the Guatemalan national emergency co-ordinating committee that no further medical assistance could be handled at the present time. A subsequent request was made to the Canadian government to hold any further preparations for sending medical teams either official or voluntary until authorization has been received from Guatemala. The plain fact is we are ready to assist in any way possible as we have been doing but at the moment the advice from the Guatemalan authorities and from the League of Red Cross Societies is that it would be counterproductive at the present time to send in further medical teams.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that part of the answer I say seriously is reassuring, but concerning the specific request for this field hospital of some 200 units, which I understand has support from OXFAM Guatemala and from Guatemala at the appropriate time, I should like to ask the minister if the government is prepared to accede to the request in principle that this unit will be provided when they are able in fact to incorporate it in their plans in Guatemala.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe I can give the assurance to the House that if the Guatemalan authorities and the League of Red Cross Societies indicate that additional medical teams or hospital equipment are required or could be utilized at the moment we would bend every effort to make that available. I can give the hon. member that assurance, but we have discussed the generous volun-

February 11, 1976
Oral Questions
teer proposal made by Dr. Cohn with the Guatemalan authorities and at the present time the advice is it would not be appropriate to add to what seems to be already developing adequate medical assistance when considered in relation to the ability of the Guatemalan government to provide the necessary logistical support.


GUATEMALA-AVAILABILITY OF FIELD HOSPITAL UNIT TO AID EARTHQUAKE VICTIMS
John Edward Broadbent: I have a final supplementary question for the minister and I direct it to him in the absence of the Minister of National Defence. Given the commitment made by the government in its white paper entitled "Defence in the '70s" to have at the ready a mobile field facility for such disasters, I should like to ask the minister if we have now in Canada such a facility which could be transported almost at a moment's notice if so requested.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, without replying directly to what was in the defence white paper, I should tell the hon. member that at the present time a Canada forces Hercules is carrying 18 tons of milk powder to Guatemala, a Canadian forces Boeing 707 will carry additional milk powder arriving today, and another 18 tons will be sent by a Canadian forces Hercules aircraft as well. These three flights have been provided for-


John Edward Broadbent: What about my question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -by the armed forces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, it seems to me that the minister is answering a question that was not asked.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
On a number of occasions I have drawn the attention of the House to the serious problems which increasingly affect the Canadian footwear industry. Since the situation has been getting worse, the Shoe Manufacturers' Association of Canada has been in touch with the minister to ask for a meeting at the earliest possible moment. Could the minister inform the House whether he is aware of this request and, at the same time, clarify the issue by indicating where the case is now resting?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of a request for a meeting and I have indicated that I am quite prepared

to meet with them. I do not have an actual date set as yet but it will be in the very near future.


SUGGESTED LIMITATION ON FOOTWEAR IMPORTS
Léonel Beaudoin: I have a supplementary question.
Since one of the major problems facing the footwear industry in Canada seems to be that imports are allowed to invade our market more and more, while our production declined by 18 per cent in 1975, can the minister inform the House whether he intends to take the necessary steps to restrict these imports in order to support this important Canadian industry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is essentially a question of determining in the first instance whether in fact an added degree of tariff protection would provide the desired result. Of course, that has to be considered also in the context of our general international trading patterns and a whole series of related questions. There is a view being expressed that tariffs alone may not be the solution. In fact we have moved within the past few months to bring the footwear industry, or certain portions of it, within a general policy of rationalization which the government undertook some time ago. But these matters are all ones which I hope to clarify when I meet with the shoe manufacturers. If it is purely and simply a tariff matter, then of course we can look at it from that point of view. But I repeat, there are those who feel that the problem goes significantly deeper than that.


LOCATION OF SITES IN OTTAWA AREA CONTAMINATED BY RADIOACTIVE WASTE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of reports today that there are several sites in the Ottawa area contaminated by radioactive waste material. In light of the gravity of the reports, I am sure the minister has acquainted himself with them and has sought some answers. I wonder if the minister might advise what are the exact parameters of the areas contaminated by radioactive material in the Ottawa area and their proximity to the polluted areas.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that there are a number of assorted sites in the Ottawa area where radioactive levels have been identified. I can assure the House, based on the information that I have received, that there is no public health question involved. As to the precise location of these areas, I hope to be able to make those public when I provide the list which I have already indicated to the House I will do with respect to locations in Ontario and other locations in Canada as well.
February 11, 1976


SUGGESTED INQUIRY INTO METHODS OF DISPOSING OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, when the minister is making that report, would he advise the House how long he and his ministry or the Atomic Energy Control Board or any other agency has been aware of the situation in Ottawa and what remedial action was taken prior to these reports? Would the minister undertake to launch a public inquiry into the way in which radioactive material is handled by industry and monitored by the Atomic Energy Control Board so that the safety of all Canadians, not just those in the Ottawa area, can be assured? I advise the minister that there are other areas in Canada where some of these sites might be located.


Alastair William Gillespie: I already indicated in answer to questions in the past week or so that I have yet to be presented with evidence which would suggest the need for an over-all inquiry. I do not rule an inquiry out, but I have not yet been presented with that evidence. As to the question of the clean up, plans have already been made for remedial action, the removal of the wastes at the sites in the Ottawa area, and that should be completed by early spring.


NATURAL GAS-GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO PREVENT SHORTAGE IN EARLY 1980'S
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The National Energy Board last year forecast imminent domestic gas shortages, the solution to which appears to be the construction of the Canadian Arctic gas pipeline, which requires Prudhoe Bay reserves, In view of Governor Hammond's statement before the federal power commission in Washington yesterday regarding Alaska's endorsement of the El Paso proposal, has the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources alternative means of preventing a gas shortfall in the early 1980's?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will understand, the National Energy Board is completely seized with this question at the present time. It is presently conducting hearings. At the moment they are recessed for reasons of which I am sure the hon. member is aware, but they will be restarted very shortly to consider two applications in Canada.
As the hon. member is probably also aware, the regulatory proceedings in the United States are going forward, and there are two applications there. One is the El Paso route, and the other the Gas Arctic. There are bills in the United States house, and a recent one was introduced by Senator Mondale with respect to the Gas Arctic, so I think the regulatory process is continuing in both countries.


NATURAL GAS-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO SUPPLYING DOMESTIC MARKET
Robert Hylton Brisco: In view of that
response, I ask if there are any studies under way at the
Oral Questions
present time to determine alternate gas supplies if the United States opts for the El Paso route, or is it the intention of this government to provide the Mackenzie Valley pipeline access on the basis of only about a 12 per cent provision for the Canadian market?


Alastair William Gillespie: I have already indicated to the hon. member that the National Energy Board is seized with this question. It is considering the questions of needs, time frame and the competing claims by two applicants.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. They can decide between themselves who will answer.
In light of the constantly escalating cost of housing in this country, placing even modest accommodation outside the reach of most Canadians, and in view of the fact that the cost of land is a very substantial element-a recent survey indicates that the cost of land has escalated at an enormous rate-does the government intend to place any restrictions on the increase in the cost of land?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member asking about restrictions within the context of the anti-inflation program?


Gerald William Baldwin: In any context.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In the context of the antiinflation program, this question has been discussed with the representatives of the provincial governments. The question has been postponed until some of the other more immediate questions facing both the Anti-Inflation Board and the provincial governments could be dealt with, but very definitely the price of land has been an important factor in the increase in the cost of housing in Canada in recent years, and it is a matter of concern both to the provincial and federal governments.


EFFECT OF INCREASED COST OF LAND ON HOUSE CONSTRUCTION
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the rather bland answer of the Minister of Finance, I will turn to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and ask him if it is the view of the government that any restrictions on the increase in the cost of land might be counter productive to the making available of adequate land for the construction of houses.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in response to a rather bland question, I should like to say that I am sure the hon. member appreciates the jurisdictional differences here. This has been a matter of discussion with provincial housing ministers, and it is a matter of great concern to the federal

February 11, 1976
Oral Questions
government. We have assumed our responsibility in many ways by assisting municipalities to service land by granting rather extensive loans, many of which are not repayable, to try to bring more land on stream. However, on the whole question of reducing the cost, one aspect comes within the parameters of the anti-inflation program, and the other one is under provincial jurisdiction, which we are discussing with great regularity with the provinces.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO REDUCTION IN ASSISTANCE TO MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister assure me that the government's efforts to fight inflation will not include cutbacks in projects to assist mentally and physically handicapped children under the age of six? That is to say, will developmental day care projects be continued?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to state unreservedly that the government does not intend at all to reduce its contribution under the Canada Assistance Plan. These contributions will continue in the future as in the past and they will even be larger since I am discussing with the provinces the possibility of extending coverage under the Canada Assistance Plan to the disabled mentioned by the hon. member.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FRENCH MINISTER OF LABOUR
Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the presence in your gallery of the French Minister of Labour, Mr. Michel Durafour, who is officially in Canada for a few days.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance, who seems to be doubling as a spokesman on the new figures from Statistics Canada regarding unemployment. Now that the new method has placed seasonal workers in a statistical limbo, can the minister explain how seasonal workers will be treated in the unemployment figures?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if a worker, though he has been working on a seasonal basis, is actually engaged in seeking additional work or is in the work force, of course he will be within either the employment or unemployment figure.


Max Saltsman: Since this change of taking seasonal workers out of the calculations for unemployment figures has taken place in Statistics Canada, is the government now prepared to revise its target, which was originally 3 per cent unemployment, but which included at least 114 percentage points as unemployment for seasonal workers? Is the government now prepared to revise its figures for desirable levels of unemployment down to 1M per cent or 2 per cent?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am certainly prepared to consider that.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but he does not seem to be here, so I will direct it to the minister responsible. Statistics Canada recently submitted statistics with regard to the new labour force survey, and its background paper indicated that data users can and, in fact, are encouraged to formulate definitions of unemployment which are best suited to their particular applications, which to me smells of hanky panky and manipulation, and can call for manipulation with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Commission and LIP. I should like to ask the minister responsible at this time what effect this new labour survey will have on contributions by the government with respect to unemployment insurance, the extension of the benefit period and, of course, what effect it will have on LIP grants?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who unfortunately cannot be in the House today as a consequence of illness, I shall make a note of the hon. member's question. However, I must say that I do not agree at all with the charge against Statistics Canada. I think such a charge is unworthy of him.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There is no attack on Statistics Canada. I am just reading from this report and I will just read it again so that the minister will understand it:
.. . the data users can, and in fact are encouraged to, formulate definitions of unemployment which are best suited to their particular applications.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!
February 11, 1976


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. As the new labour force survey produces lower unemployment rates in certain areas because of the new definition of unemployment, can the minister inform the House whether his department will find it necessary to adjust the grant awarding criteria of unemployment levels to compensate for the structural alteration in the survey or whether DREE grants will be altered in any way?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the hon. member that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is of course concerned with this problem, and we are making our own findings and our own studies about it. DREE grants to businesses in various areas are awarded according to the importance of the jobs created and the products involved. It is clear, with respect to unemployment levels in the Atlantic area as well as in some areas in Quebec, that the department I run is watching very closely the development of the situation and that we will do everything possible within our jurisdiction to improve the situation as we have succeeded in doing so up to now and that we will of course continue to accomplish this task.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services and the Minister of National Defence. Would he use his good offices to find out why instructions continue to be issued by the Department of Supply and Services directing the Department of National Defence not to permit the Port of Halifax to tender on the movement of container traffic, Department of National Defence traffic, from points in Europe to points in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily accept the premise of the question but I will look into the situation.


ALTERNATIVES FOR TREATMENT IN VIEW OF CLOSING OF HOSPITALS-POSSIBILITY DOCTORS ALLOWED MILEAGE CHARGE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address the question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the proposed closing of
Oral Questions
several hospitals across Canada which are cost-sharing by both levels of government over the years and which will leave several thousand people unemployed, may I ask the minister, as a result of the discussions held recently, what alternatives are to be offered for the cheaper treatment of thousands of cases still requiring medical care that have nowhere to go?


An hon. Member:: Ask Frank Miller.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows well, it is a hospital insurance program whose cost is shared 50 per cent by the federal government. However, the decisions concerning that program are made by the provincial governments.
As regards the specific question of the hon. member, I would say that negotiations with the provinces were begun last year with a view to permitting the federal government to share the cost of certain services that are less costly than hospital care. The provinces suspended those negotiations for a certain time, but I am glad to tell the House that the provinces now seem ready to resume these discussions. A meeting of officials is scheduled for the month of March and will be followed, I hope, by a federal-provincial conference of the health ministers at the beginning of April.


Philip Bernard Rynard: May I ask the minister if any proposals were made to allow mileage charges as an incentive to have doctors treat patients in their homes, particularly in rural areas?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, nothing in the Medical Care Act or the Hospital Insurance Act prohibits such a practice. But again, this is a decision strictly incumbent to the provincial authorities, and none of them raised that matter with me last year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since it seems that internal communications is one of the serious problems facing those anxious to distribute emergency aid in Guatemala, and since helicopters would appear to be the best way of overcoming this problem, may I ask the minister whether an offer of helicopters has been made to the Guatemalan authorities or fuel for helicopters and if so, with what result?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have a six man Canadian team in Guatemala working with the Guatemalan authorities and attempting to assess need and evaluate aid. To my knowledge, no request has come forward for heli-

February 11, 1976
Oral Questions
copters but I will investigate the suggestion made by the hon. member as quickly as possible.


FISHERIES
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fisheries. May I ask if, as a result of his meeting with some provincial fisheries ministers last week, the minister will be making a statement to relieve the anxiety of certain fishermen in their preparation for the forthcoming seasons with regard to the freeze on the transfer of licences and the general situation, especially with regard to fishermen who wish to withdraw from the fishing industry and transfer their gear and so on somewhere else?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, the ministers of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island supported the general thrust of the program, although they recognized the difficulties involved. As for the matter of the freeze on licences, when I made the announcement I indicated this would be a temporary freeze. Fisheries officials are receiving applications for transfer, they are putting dates on them and keeping them on a file of pending decisions which could be made in a couple of weeks or more. Meanwhile, the appeal boards are setting up their operations and I hope to meet with maritime members of parliament-my staff tell me it might be tomorrow-but I hope to meet with them soon.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
As the special agreement concerning the development of the Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspe and Magdalen Islands area will soon come to amend, more specifically on March 31, 1976, and as the problems have obviously not yet been solved, would the minister tell the House and particularly the people of that area, who are most anxious to find out what fate awaits them, whether the authorities concerned of the province of Quebec have been in touch with his department, by way of the related agreements to the general development agreement with regard to the completion of the work undertaken under that soon to end agreement, and, if not, would the minister welcome such a request and would he give it his vigorous support in cabinet?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, indeed the officials of the provincial department and those of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion have met several times and explored jointly the possibility of either extending the

agreement, or signing a related agreement within the general development agreement.
We trust that our hopes to that effect can materialize in the near future, and that we will be in a position to announce what a special agreement could contain with a view to continuing and completing, if possible, the development of that part in the province of Quebec.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice on a political safari in British Columbia, I shall direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Before the Prime Minister left he stated that consideration was being given to unilateral action to the patriation-and I say patriation rather than repatriation because we have never had the constitution-of the constitution. I would ask him the simple question, as this is a most unusual suggestion and it has been regarded as an unconstitutional course ever since confederation, has the government had the Clerk of the Privy Council or anyone on behalf of the Privy Council ask the law officers of the Crown whether there could be patriation of the constitution by action other than through a statute in the Parliament of Westminster?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether any such advice has been sought. I will make inquiries.


COMBINES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In December, a couple of months ago, a member of the Conservative party asked the Prime Minister whether he had decided on a conflict of interest or possible conflict of interest and possible removal from the Bryce Commission of Pierre Nadeau because of the fact that he is director of the Royal Bank which has had some intimate ties with Power Corporation. The Prime Minister said he would refer the matter to the chairman of the commission. Has a decision been made and, if so, what has been the recommendation of the chairman?


Mitchell William Sharp: As far as
I know, Mr. Speaker, the chairman has made no recommendation. I will see whether he intends to make one.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: While checking into that, because it has
been over two months since the question was asked by the
February 11, 1976

hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, and in view of the legitimate widespread concern that the commission and staff take a clear corporate line, will the Acting Prime Minister undertake to broaden the commission to bring in people who have a background other than just with corporations?


Mitchell William Sharp: On a matter of this kind, Mr. Speaker, it is important that the people making the inquiries should be very familiar with the problems. The government has no intention of enlarging or dropping any member from the commission.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister in a position to indicate to the House the specifics or conditions of the recent loan by the government of Canada to Indonesia? In particular, do the conditions ensure that the funds or the results of the funds will get down to the people who need them and will not be siphoned off by the powerful elite of that country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, a press release was issued on the details of the loan to Indonesia following a general agreement made between Canada and Indonesia when the president of Indonesia was in this country a year ago. I believe I would be doing the hon. member a better service if I sent him the material directly rather than attempting to recall it now.

Oral Questions
this will be possible since the matter is still being considered in cabinet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since the minister has very quickly come to an agreement with the new government of British Columbia regarding highway expansion in northern British Columbia, something that did not happen with the old government, and since there is not an agreement between the federal government and the government of British Columbia with regard to DREE grants, the only province in Canada that does not have an agreement, when will an agreement be made with the province of British Columbia and what form will it take?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, indeed I had the honour to be in Victoria last Monday and to meet with the minister responsible for development as well as with the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Phillips, with whom I signed an agreement for the development of a road system. We also took the opportunity of this first meeting to consider the development possibilities within this big and magnificent province. I hope that during the next weeks, our officials, federal as well as provincial, will have the opportunity to get in touch and that they will be in a position to make recommendations. The minister and myself agreed to meet again, next May or June, and at that time some decisions will probably be taken. Obviously, we have to wait until such time to announce them.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY MINISTER ON PENSIONS FOR [English] PRISONERS OF WAR

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. In view of the January 28 and February 3 statements in this House by the Minister of Veterans Affairs that he would make an announcement concerning the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs relating to former prisoners-of-war within two weeks of the former date, a period which is expiring, will the House leader give the paring knife to someone who knows how to trim the fat from less essential programs in order to re-allocate funds toward implementation of that report, thus enabling the Veterans Affairs Minister to satisfactorily fulfill that commitment?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should say to hon. members that this question is still under consideration in cabinet. I know it had been the intention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs to make a statement tomorrow. I do not know whether in fact


REQUESTED REVIEW OF GRADE CROSSINGS IN SCARBOROUGH
Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It now being some two months since the fatal train/bus tragedy in Scarborough, will the minister indicate what steps have been taken to review the adequacy of existing safety standards at the 35 level crossings in the borough of Scarborough where grade separations are not yet in place, including the site of the tragedy?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the same standards of safety and review are applied throughout the country, having regard to the kind of traffic that presents itself. Much of the initiative in relation to grade separation, of course, rests with municipal bodies, although we have a facility for assisting in a very major way with these matters. We have, as the hon. member knows, made some progress in improving grade separa-

February 11, 1976
Committee Powers
tions, in this particular area. We are now looking at another one which is important to the hon. member. I hope we will have some news for him very soon.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the minister responsible for the CBC.
While I agree with the CBC's intention to set up a French television station in Vancouver, even if people seem to be opposed, I would like to ask the minister if he would consider the possibility of granting such stations in areas where people are very keen to have one, such as is the case in my constituency of Rimouski which has been hoping for many years for a CBC station?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for the CBC, I can tell the hon. member that indeed discussions are under way with CBC officials in view of setting up another French channel, in keeping with the expressed desires of the people of that area.


REQUEST FOR TELEVISION SERVICES IN NORTHERN NEWFOUNDLAND
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. For many years some parts of Canada have not had regular CBC coverage. I refer to the northern parts of Newfoundland. Will the minister investigate the continuing procrastination of the CBC to extend television services to these people and report to the House on her findings?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly bring the hon. member's problem to the attention of the minister. As he knows, this problem is common not only to areas of Newfoundland, but to other areas of Canada.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
SEVENTH REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE On the order: Motions:
December 18, 1975-Mr. McCleave (Joint Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments):

That the seventh report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments presented to the House on Tuesday, December 16, 1975, be concurred in.
Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relating to the item Your Honour has just called. As it will form the basis of the discussion tomorrow there has been some consultation among House leaders and it might be for the benefit of hon. members if I were to make a short comment, with the agreement of all those concerned.
The report in question, while approving the concept of freedom of information generally, deals with the extension of the powers of the committee into the next session. At the time this report was brought in the committee was confident that the government House leader, with the aid of his colleagues, would so expedite the business of the House that we would now be in a new session. The hon. gentleman has somewhat disappointed us in this regard, and as several months may now elapse before a new session is called, the motion standing in the name of my hon. friend has, by agreement, been extended to include terms of reference for the balance of the present session. That will form the basis of the subject matter of the debate tomorrow. I have given the House leaders of the respective parties copies of the motion in question.


Mitchell William Sharp: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that for reasons that are well known-the difficulty of getting our legislative program through-it is, unfortunately, necessary to extend these terms of reference and I can assure the House that a motion in those terms is acceptable to us.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not clear to me whether the House is of a mind to withdraw or accept the motion of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). In any case, he is not here today.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have before me a motion in terms which include the motion of the member. I could read it now and the House could then make an order. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) has agreed that I could read this motion so that the House would then be put in possession of the details of the subject matter we shall be discussing tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: The motion is as follows:
That the Seventh Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Tuesday, December 16, 1975, be concurred in, and that the committee be authorized to examine the matters referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the said report during the balance of this session.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that the motion which is to be discussed tomorrow, by agreement?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
February 11, 1976

Order Paper Questions


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION
Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to lay upon the table of the House certified copies of the Reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the provinces of British Columbia and Newfoundland, 1976.


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: Nos. 3,347 and 3,627.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Coates: 1.	Since 1970, how many office complexes have been constructed or are being constructed in Hull, Quebec, either by the government or private individuals or corporations that will be used in total or in part for the housing of government offices and employees?
2.	In each case (a) what is the name of the building (b) what was the cost of the building or the estimated cost in cases where construction has not been completed (c) what departments will be using the building (d) how much space will be provided on a square footage basis (e) how many employees are or will be located in the buildings (f) where rentals or leases are involved, what is the (i) amount of the lease (ii) square footage involved (iii) length of the lease and any indexing that might be associated with the leases?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Government, 4; Private Individuals or Corporations, 3.
2. (a)
Name of Building
Place du Portage Phase I
Place du Portage Phase II
Place du Portage Phase III
(under construction) Place du Portage Phase IV
(under construction)
Government-Owned Buildings
(b)
Cost or Estimated Cost
(c)
Tenants


[Stage Direction]
$82 million (estimate)
Consumer & Corporate Affairs Supply & Services Manpower & Immigration National Health & Welfare
Labour
Consumer & Corporate Affairs Public Works Supply & Services National Health & Welfare Agriculture
Unemployment Insurance Manpower & Immigration National Revenue Supply & Services
$63.5 million	not known
(estimate)
(d)	(e)
Area	Number of
Provided	Employees
328,438	1,717
351,681	1,563
894,000	4,000
660,900	3,700
Buildings Constructed or being Constructed by Private Individuals or Corporations
2. (a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)	(f) (i)	(i>) Rentable	(iii)Name of	Number of	Amount of	Square	Building	N/A	Tenants	N/A	Employees	Lease	Feet	Length of Lease and Indexing	Place du	Not yet	1,777	Maximum	410,148	30 years	This is base rentalCentre	identified	3,006,384	fr«ym	rate maximum. Option(per annum)	completion	to purchase at enaof cons-	of 30 years for $6truction.	million dollars.Fontaine	Environment	842	$999,333.36	216,342	Sept. 1/71	Base year for realtyBuilding	Supply and	(per annum)	to Aug. 31	taxes 1972. BaseServices	1981	year operating costsNational	for electricity,Health and	heating and cleaning-Welfare	1973. Escalation allowed on the abovelace Vincent	Environment	1,293	$1,339,111.68	306,836	July 1/73	Base year for realtyMassey	Supply and	(per annum)	to July 30,	taxes 1974. BaseServices	1988.	year for operatingNational	costs for electricity,Health and	heating and cleaning-Welfare	1975. Escalation
allowed on the above.
[Stage Direction]
February 11, 1976
Motions for Papers
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Justice during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: In so far as
legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: 1 and
2.
Branson, C.O.D.	1973 Depart- ment	1974 Depart- ment	Victoria, B.C.	NH&W	$40,009.23	RC-T	$ 364.30RC-CE MOT M&I	260.00 504.20 320.50	Fin	109.50Cox, Kenneth B.	RC-T	988.75	MOT	803.48*'Victoria, B.C.	MOT	4,306.72	CCA RC-T	2,213.82 760.45Hutchison, J. M. Victoria, B.C.	RC-T	128.50	RC-T UIC	1,015.00 75.00Hutchison, R. B. Victoria, B.C. Pearlman & Lind-	EC	1,167.01	EC RC-T	728.09 2,869.80hold Victoria, B.C.	NH&W	[DOT]	NH&W	9,783.96Stewart, Ian H. Victoria, B.C. Sullivan, Smith and	M&I RC-T UIC	566.07 1,026.15 270.25	M&I	*Bigelow Victoria, B.C.	NH&W	1,645.70	NH&W	59,745.04Taylor, Rodney Victoria, B.C.	NH&W	17,630.25	NH&W	1,915.50
*Work assigned during the period in question but no accounts received during this period.
**The previous total here was reported as $6,777.75 and should have been $3,777.75 (Questions 3,096 and 3,265)


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 85 is acceptable to the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 85-Mr. Fleming:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all the original specification requirements of tenders that were awarded by the Department of Supply and Services to Canadian Laboratory Supplies Ltd. for the supply of laboratory furniture and equipment since 1972.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Blais:: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
REFERENCE TO QUESTION RAISED BY MR. MacKAY ON MATTERS SUB JUDICE
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before calling upon the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) with respect to his proposed motion pursuant to Standing Order 26, may I take a few moments on the matter raised by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and others, in connection with the rather important question of matters sub judice-there is a considerable weight of material having to do with this question, and the arguments put forward by hon. members yesterday are most interesting- it is abundantly clear that in any event a decision by the Chair, and I hope all members are agreed that it would be worth while, but it would be difficult at this point for the Chair to attempt to review the matter not only as it relates to criminal proceedings but to civil proceedings as well and try to make a definitive pronouncement if possible.
It is clear to me at this point, however, that in any event no restriction ought to exist on the right of any member to put questions respecting any matter before the courts particularly those relating to a civil matter, unless and until that matter is at least at trial.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, in any event, bearing in mind the customary practices of the courts, it will be some time before any restriction might be visited upon the hon. member for Central Nova. I make this observation at the present stage only because I believe it would permit the Chair to take a little more time to deal further with this matter.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   LABOUR CONDITIONS EFFECT OF INTERVENTION BY ANTI-INFLATION BOARD ON PAPER WORKERS' STRIKE
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the strike of some 20,000 paper workers which has continued for over half a year causing severe hardship to the families and economies of the regions involved, and
February 11, 1976

which is no nearer to a settlement in most regions due in large part to the intervention of the federal government's Anti-inflation Board which has rejected a wage settlement arrived at between the union concerned and the Irving Paper Company of New Brunswick, an intervention which has given paper companies elsewhere in Canada an excuse not to negotiate realistically and in good faith, and which has caused provincial governments, under whose jurisdica-tion labour matters normally fall, to leave this dispute in the hands of the federal board which to date, through the Administrator, has not made a definitive ruling in the Irving settlement, and the necessity that this matter be debated in parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question which has been put forward in the form of a proposed motion by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), pursuant to Standing Order 26, is one which has given the Chair considerable difficulty. The hon. member gave the Chair notice of his proposed motion yesterday, and consequently the Chair has had some time in which to reflect on the consideration which should be given to it pursuant to Standing Order 26.
First, may I say that the subject matter would appear to have all the necessary ingredients to qualify it for consideration under the Standing Order. It certainly is one of extreme importance. If for no other reason than the length of time during which the situation referred to has endured, it certainly has severity of impact. Moreover, it transcends parochial considerations. Its scope extends across several provinces; indeed, over the past several weeks many members have taken occasion to put questions on it. Those questions were not restricted to members from any particular party or to any particular region. In addition, of course, it is well known-and this has been pointed out- that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) raised the question as a possible subject for debate prior to the Christmas recess but the proposition was rejected, primarily on jurisdictional grounds.
As I say, the subject would seem to lend itself ideally to consideration under Standing Order 26 except for two very serious problems. The first is, again, one of jurisdiction. The fact is that the subject matter really concerns a strike in the private sector affecting private companies and private unions. To this extent, really, it is totally beyond the jurisdiction of parliament. On the other hand a new ingredient has now been introduced by the hon. member, one by which he proposes to connect the dispute with the federal jurisdiction-that the strike, which has now been continuing for some time in the private sector, is being prolonged as a result of the introduction of a federal policy and the creation, existence, actions and decisions of the federal Anti-inflation Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: That, I may say, is not an easy question to resolve. It has been extremely difficult and, frankly, after much consideration, I find myself unable to reach a decision on it. If such a proposition were accepted it would be, for example, most difficult to resist the tendency for this
Paper Workers' Strike
parliament to get into a discussion of a decision respecting, for instance, the recent difficulties with the Toronto high school teachers, which is clearly a matter of provincial jurisdiction but which is, or was, affected in its progress by a decision of the Anti-Inflation Board. The Chair has to wonder from a jurisdictional point of view, on the basis of that argument, if this particular strike is accepted for discussion in this Chamber, whether or not it would open up the possibility of discussing every strike in the private sector that might have been affected either by the guidelines or by the board in one way or another.
[DOT] <1510)
That may, on some sides of the House, be desirable, but the fact of the matter is that a precedent like that could be dangerous. As I have indicated, I do not in the circumstances find it necessary to resolve that particular point, at least not at this moment.
I might point out that the changes made in 1969 to the procedures of this House removed by design-and I certainly do not disagree with that removal-debate on the application itself made under Standing Order 26. It is, in other words, no longer possible for the Chair to entertain a discussion of whether or not this House has jurisdiction to look at the proposed motion of the hon. member. That is, I think, a better procedure than the previous one, but in this instance, on the jurisdictional question, it does leave the Chair short of some advice and discussion that it would very much seek from members of the House. Therefore while the matter is under further consideration, in remarks I will make in a moment I propose to invite comment by the House leaders, and in fact by any other members who are interested in bringing to my attention matters or points of view that might affect the jurisdictional decision. Perhaps that might take place while this other matter is under consideration.
I said that there were two very difficult problems. The second is that by the very description of the hon. member's proposed motion the Administrator, pursuant to the antiinflation legislation, is involved in the follow-up, as is the ordinary procedure envisaged in the legislation, after the decision by the board. The intervention of the Administrator, in other words, is in accordance with the legislation.
I would have to take the view at this moment that, if we could eliminate the jurisdictional problem in hypothesis, it would seem to me the situation is very similar to that of a strike, which would fall within the jurisdiction of this House clearly, in which the parties, after a prolonged work stoppage, had agreed on the nomination of an arbitrator or mediator, as the case might be. I think the Chair ought always to take the attitude that while some process within that bargaining system had the capability of resolving the dispute, this House ought not to address itself to the problem pursuant to Standing Order 26. The actions or presence of the Administrator at this time seem to me to be the beginning of the work that is envisaged by the legislation. Therefore, if it has the effect of resolving the dispute, it seems to me that while there exists a reasonable opportunity for success in that particular area we ought not to take the matter under consideration pursuant to this Standing Order until that reasonable possibility has run its course.

February 11, 1976
Tabling of Document
Therefore, as in previous cases, my decision not to proceed with the setting aside of time for debate pursuant to Standing Order 26 at this particular time is entirely without prejudice to hon. members to raise the matter again if the efforts of the Administrator are in fact not successful and the matter remains with us after the efforts of the administrator have run their normal course. In the meantime I have indicated that, because of the rather difficult jurisdictional problem, I will pursue that subject and seek the advice of the House leaders and consultation with them, and in turn the advice of and consultation with any other hon. members who are interested in expressing themselves to me on the subject of jurisdiction.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would appreciate it, and I suspect certain other members of the House would, if you would clarify certain parts of your remarks. You suggested at one point that you would welcome advice or opinion from the party House leaders and other interested members of the House on the issue you raised in connection with jurisdiction. I had understood when you said that that you expected those views to be expressed publicly here in the House. I would appreciate Your Honour clarifying that.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ordinarily welcome the expression of such views in the House for the benefit of the public record. The fact of the matter is that Standing Order 26 was amended, along with a number of other Standing Orders, in the last major revision of the rules so as to eliminate that kind of debate. What in fact took place under the previous Standing Orders was that what was intended to be a debate on the question of whether or not a subject should be debated pursuant to Standing Order 26 turned out, of course, to be a debate on the substance as opposed to the procedure.
In the revision the House, in its wisdom, deemed it appropriate to eliminate that kind of debate. Therefore it is not possible to have such discussion on the public record now, as much as I would take some considerable benefit from that. I am therefore inviting hon. members to communicate with me privately if they have any points of view respecting the jurisdictional matter.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final question on the same point of order. I understand Your Honour is ruling against the acceptability of the motion at this time, or are you simply postponing your decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Again the provisions of the Standing Order indicate that the Chair ought, if in fact it is not required, to delay no more than 24 hours in making a decision. Therefore I am indicating that because of the presence of the Administrator and the fact that he has a job to do which is just beginning, debate is not appropriate at this time. However, I leave open the right of hon. members to re-raise the question at a later time if in fact the efforts of the Administrator prove unsuccessful.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, I have a different point of order to raise having to do with a confusing situation that arose during the last two days concerning a document that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) tabled. Yesterday's Hansard would certainly leave doubt in anyone's mind as to what actually happened.

The minister stated that he had tabled a document, and I have been looking for it. I would like to point out to Your Honour that yesterday morning I asked sessional papers for a copy of the document tabled and they said that they did not have it. Yesterday at 2 p.m. I asked the House officer whether he had seen the document that had been tabled, and he said that it had not been tabled. I therefore asked a question as a point of order concerning that.
It appears that the unthinkable happened yesterday and that the document that the minister handed to a page never arrived at the table, that it went instead to the Hansard reporter and took several hours to get back down here. I would not want left on the record the possible implication that the minister had not in fact tabled the document that he said he had tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I certainly thank the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) for raising the point of order; I had intended to make a comment about it. Our information is exactly as the hon. member for Victoria has described. In the course of his remarks the minister made clear his intention to table the document, handed it to a page, who mistakenly took it to the Hansard office instead of taking it to the Table, under the impression, I suppose, that it was to be printed as an appendix as opposed to being tabled. The minister was under the very clear impression that he had tabled the document, though in fact the Table had not received it. That is the reason for the confusion.
Votes and Proceedings of February 10, 1976, has indicated by way of a corrigendum that that has taken place, and I certainly welcome the intervention of the hon. member for Victoria in straightening up the record for Hansard as well.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, February 10, consideration of Bill C-58, the amend the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, last night I was saying that the government can do anything it pleases if the circumstances warrant. In this regard we have seen how it has flip-flopped with respect to wage and price controls and how it has flip-flopped with respect to Reader's Digest.
We on this side of the House are attempting to give some due consideration to the sound if not ingenious proposals of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) that there be some special circumstances involving KVOS, which is a Canadian subsidiary of a U.S. parent company and which, as I understand it, has contributed some $76 million to the economic development of this country.
February 11, 1976

Even more than that, Mr. Speaker, the motions moved by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock indicate that there is a need to give some credence and acceptance to the needs of the consumer vis-a-vis the province of British Columbia. What is wrong with that type of approach, particularly when the CRTC has ruled that commercial deletion regarding cable and television is something we will have to get used to in the future? As I understand it, such a policy will not be implemented until such time as the whole matter which affects not only border stations but the viewing audiences in Hamilton, Toronto, etc. can be solved equitably.
We have seen an equitable solution supposedly in respect of Reader's Digest, even though it was made through the back door. At least this shows there can and must be flexibility in respect of Bill C-58. All we are asking in this particular regard is a reassessment or a review of the government's position in order that it does not tread, run, or jump hastily into a very precarious situation.
We are talking about a good corporate citizen, and I will not go into the reasons why I can make that statement. It is most unfair for a government to move in such a disastrous way that will unquestionably mean the end of this particular broadcasting station. Surely that is not the way we should operate, particularly after the station has been around for a significant number of years making a solid contribution to the development of our national economy.
We must pause and ask ourselves if there is some possibility of negotiation or arrangement. We must ask whether there is the possibility of a solution being found regarding the particular situation in which we find ourselves, and that is Canadian nationalism versus United States parent companies. I suggest there is a possibility, in that the government found one in respect of Reader's Digest. What I am saying, in other words, is that we should not let this bill preclude the possibility of any plan which may benefit Canada and the Canadian broadcasting system. We are calling for flexibility and I know it can be found because the precedent has been set.
What is the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock trying to do? He has put before this House for the edification of the Canadian people three proposals which are the same in substance and principle but which vary because of the particular circumstances we may confront. His first motion is No. 7 in which he calls for a written agreement, once a plan has been approved by the CRTC and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen), providing compensatory payment by the allocation of funds to enhance Canadian television. Is that not what we are seeking? If that could be accomplished you would then enhance Canadian broadcasting and television, as the case may be, at the same time giving relief to stations such as KVOS.
Motion No. 8 is in the same vein. In the event that the first motion is not acceptable it calls for a written agreement by a particular subsidiary, one similar to KVOS, with not less than 75 per cent of the voting shares being held by Canadians and directing a percentage of the gross revenues, to be determined by the company and the CRTC, to be allocated for the benefit of Canadian television. Is that not a solution worthy of some consideration?
Non-Canadian Publications
I am looking at the minister responsible for the Treasury Board.


An hon. Member:: He has already got problems.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Perhaps he has enough problems, but with the power he holds sitting in that particular portfolio I wish he would look seriously at Motions Nos. 7,8 and 9. I am sure he would come to the conclusion in a minute that these proposals make sense in terms of equity.
If motion No. 8 is not acceptable to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) and that elite group which sits in the front benches maybe No. 9 is attractive. Motion No. 9 is in the same vein. It also calls for a written agreement in respect of approximately 25 per cent of the gross revenue of a particular subsidiary being directed for the benefit of Canadian television, with the utilization of such amount to be determined by the CRTC and approved by the Minister of National Revenue.
The most important aspect of these motions is that the scheme or proposal will be under the direct supervision and control of the CRTC and the Minister of National Revenue. They will set the guidelines and the percentage, and will determine how the distribution is to be made.
I think it is significant to note the problems we have in respect of the acceptability of U.S. television programs in Canada. I should like to quote from the Vancouver Sun of August 28, 1975, from an article by James Nelson under the headline "Why does Canada Buy U.S. TV Shows? It pays!" Bill C-58 is not going to stop that. It will not stop the CTV and CBC from buying U.S. programs, and let there be no misunderstanding in that regard. This article states:
The most popular U.S. television shows imported by the CBC and CTV television network last season cost $2,000 to $4,000 for each episode and yielded the networks $24,000 to $46,000 each.
By contrast, all major Canadian-produced shows were heavy money-losers, of as much as $49,000 a week.
Later in the article it is stated:
But the figures that were revealed showed the disproportionately high revenues from the airing of American TV shows on the Canadian networks compared with their costs, and the high cost of Canadian shows in relation to the revenues they brought in.
The last part of that sentence is important, "in relation to the revenues they brought in". The proposal of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock would provide that a percentage of the gross profits, less advertising expenses, etc., would be directed by the CRTC and the Minister of National Revenue toward reducing those deficits. Surely that is a step in the right direction. Is this not the type of arrangement we are seeking?
I know that hon. members opposite realize the government is wrong in the direction it is moving, trying to kick out, without ceremony, a station that has been operated for years within the guidelines of the law in Canada. Does it not make sense to try to reach some sort of an agreement?
If one of the proposals of the hon. member were accepted this would assist Canadian television program production; it would assist the extension of Canadian television services; it would assist in the development of Canadian talent; it would assist in the furtherance of educational TV, and it would assist in respect of any other broadcasting objectives for the benefit of Canada and Canadians. This is

February 11, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
why I have no hesitation in standing here pleading with hon. members to accept these proposals. I am not suggesting that the minister or the ministers responsible have not looked into this matter very thoroughly. What I am saying is that they should look again.
I compare my point vividly with the situation that existed with Reader's Digest. I realize there was a problem, but three months ago the government said there was no way it could move, and Reader's Digest was out and completely finished. Lo and behold, what happened? We now find the government in its wisdom-and now and again the government does have some wisdom, but not often-came up with a solution, particularly, when faced with the possibility of losing thousands of votes in the province of Quebec.
I do not want to pursue that any further because I pay a compliment to the people in the province of Quebec because they were able to beat the minister, the Prime Minister (Mr.Trudeau), and everybody else over the head and say that this was wrong. They found a solution. Should not equity and justice prevail? What about trying to save another situation, that in respect of KVOS? It is the same set of circumstances.


An hon. Member:: But it is not in the interest of Canada.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I would not want to say that. But surely someone other than myself may think this is unfair treatment and is discriminatory.
I do not know who the member is across the way who just interjected. What is his riding? I would like to refer to him. If he wants to get into Hansard I will see that he does. He is a nice chap. We are all here trying to do our duty. Some of us know where we are going and know what we want, but some others on the other side do not know where they are going or what they want.
I am glad the hon. member mentioned our American friends and not our American enemies, because the way I look at it the government is hell-bent on trying to see how much further it can antagonize, as my friend over there said, our American friends.
With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I think I have made the position quite clear for those on the other side who have difficulty in understanding positions. I can understand that these things are technical and difficult, but I ask hon. members to accept the argument the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock has placed before the House, and to accept with some compassion the arguments I have sincerely placed before the House. I hope it will be accepted that these proposals are worthy of consideration to the extent that this particular aspect of the bill should not come into effect.
Once this bill is passed it will be rammed down our throats. Let us at least withdraw the particular clause which applies and re-word it so there can be some sense of equity and relief. Or let us do what many of us over here really think should be done which is to refer the whole bill, in light of the several new matters and concerns; that have come before the House, back to the committee for consideration.


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to spend a few moments addressing myself to some of the points made last evening by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), in fairly specific terms in reference to the amendments he has put forward.
In the early moments of his speech the hon. member pointed out that the Maclean-Hunter organization, which has come under considerable discussion in this debate with reference to the other parts of the legislation, in fact owns and operates a United States Cable Company, and asked if indeed Canadian Companies can go down to the United States and operate that kind of broadcasting or communications system why do we suggest disincentives for Americans here. Certainly these motions refer to what would be a special deal for an American station to operate from the United States into Canada.
I think the answer is very clear, if the hon. member and his colleagues will listen to it. First of all, the Federal Communications Commission in the United States, which is the counterpart of the Canadian Radio Television Commission in Canada, forbids the owning of broadcast outlets by non-Americans.
When we talk about the specific case of KVOS, to which these amendments apply, we are talking about a broadcast outlet. In the United States you cannot own a broadcast outlet if you are not American. So certainly I think it is a bit of a red herring to get into the cable situation because cable is quite different from an actual broadcast outlet. If, however, one wanted to say there is not that much difference I would simply argue that the FCC is now seriously considering taking action to prohibit ownership in the United States of cable by foreign interests. We may find very soon that Maclean-Hunter is not able to carry on with that operation. In the United States they are thinking exactly the same way we are thinking here. Thus I suggest the first argument of the hon. member simply is not valid.
The hon. member went on to say we should consider the situation of the Detroit-Windsor market place, or in fact one particular radio station operating out of Windsor which beams into the American market place and calls itself a major Detroit station. Again let us tell the whole story, which is that last fall the CRTC asked that station to stop attempting to solicit United States advertising. I must say we have not quite had the FCC doing that on our behalf.
The Canadian Radio Television Commission, having acted in an honest and proper fashion by saying that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, I want to go on to say that we also have a situation where the FCC, the American counterpart of the CRTC, has ruled that the Windsor-Detroit area-Windsor the smaller area with the potential of getting to the Detroit area which is larger-in fact would be classed as a total American market place. As a result we are not allowed to play in Windsor any of the programs we buy from the United States for some $25 million a year even at the same time as they are played on the Detroit stations. The FCC clearly has acted to protect its own market place while a smaller Canadian market place might otherwise threaten the larger American market place. Do we not have the same situation with Buffalo and Toronto? Of course we do.
February 11, 1976

Hon. members cannot argue out of both sides of their mouths. I hope hon. members will consider that when they talk about the situation in Detroit and Windsor. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock went on to say that this is in effect a tax bill to update the Broadcasting Act. Of course nothing could be further from the fact of the matter. It is indeed for the very reason it is a tax bill that it means to give incentives to Canadians to operate in Canada, and to encourage Canadian businesses to deal with other Canadian businesses to which they interrelate. It is precisely for that reason we are presenting this action here in the form of a tax bill.
That is also precisely the reason why none of these amendments make any sense because if we accepted them we would be doing exactly what the hon. member tried to attack us for doing. If we took his amendments we would be saying, "OK, let us through a tax bill make a special exemption which would change the whole purport of the Broadcasting Act." Surely that is the fundamental reason why these amendments cannot be given serious consideration.
It was also suggested by that member in presenting his motions that we were using a tax for the development of cultural policy. Well, no more so than we have tariffs in some cases for the encouragement of agriculture or industry, and no more so than we have tax forgivenesses and deferment in order to aid and assist our own businesses in competition around the world and here at home. There is nothing unusual in an attempt to encourage our own industry within its own market place, and especially to encourage broadcasting where in the private sector it is heavily harnessed by responsibility to the Canadian public in programming and content.
I was somewhat disappointed to hear the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock attack both the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines) for not having addressed themselves to these amendments when they were discussed in the committee. Quite frequently on this side we had had discussions in committee. I certainly had discussion with those two members of parliament, since I am the parliamentary secretary dealing with this area.
It was agreed that since these motions were so outlandish, were contravening the Broadcasting Act, and were inappropriate to be brought into a tax bill, that only one person would address himself to them, and that was me. That is why they did not address themselves to that point. It is unfortunate that they cannot defend themselves because they are in their constituencies working with and for their constituents for the next couple of days, and we all have those responsibilities. But the fact of the matter is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I seem to have touched a responsive chord. The fact is that both these members were active in committee and thoughtful about this legislation. They reached their conclusions after considering them fully.
During the committee stage the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts heard a
Non-Canadian Publications
spokesman from British Columbia, specifically a spokesman for the major private sector, an entrepreneur in broadcasting, a senior executive of CHAN-CHEK television. Not once during the time he was before the committee, nor in any formal or informal conversation, did I hear him suggest as a private businessman from western Canada-members opposite say they have a real interest in private enterprise and competition-that he thought it was fair competition to continue with the current situation with KVOS in Bellingham. He did not think it was best to support the kind of motion that is put forward here. There is a specific reason why it is difficult for CHAN-CHECK, because to compete with KVOS the CRTC awarded him with a licence after he made application, following which he was faced with certain heavy responsibilities over a period of years, the kind of responsibilities to which members opposite object from time to time.
I should like to refer to a statement I made specifically on CHAN-CHEK, what they have tried to do, and what the CRTC has pressured them to do because they are responsible to a Canadian institution of government. First I should like to read part of the committee proceedings on December 4 of last year as recorded at page 31:97. I said at that time:
First I want to point out that BC-TV which is CHAN-CHEK did not declare a dividend for its shareholders in the first ten years of its operation. I think of your criticism that perhaps they have not been- with all fairness, I listened and I want to reply. I do not think you can too often expect private enterprise to quickly leap forward and hand off the profits they have been making. However, in those first ten years they did not declare a dividend. When they became profitable they were required by the CRTC to undertake an expansion program and in five years they have extended service to the Okanagan. They have undertaken as well to off-set what that competitive situation might do in the Okanagan by giving the established TV stations in the area a payment of $500,000 per year currently, and they have extended service up to Prince George, with a financial protection, although a smaller amount. In the next two years they will go into the Kootenays with a total cost of $2 million to $3 million. They have future plans, and of course the CRTC has played a role in muscling for those-I do not deny that-in terms of kilowatt. Then in the Vancouver Island-Mainland area they have gone from three to 30 broadcast transmitters.
When you are in Canada under Canadian control as a private enterprise trying to survive in broadcasting, that is what you have to do. They have done all that in improvements. Tell me what KVOS has done in the 15 or 20 years to expand programming and to get T.V. to more Canadian viewers in the interior. Not a thing. They have had no news and public affairs demands on them, although 90 per cent of the advertising revenues from broadcasting came to KVOS from Canada, in news and public affairs programs the budget for CHAM-CHEK television last year was $1 million and, as I understand it, KVOS admits to an expenditure of about $100,000. Who is living up to the obligations, and who must face the licensing and competition? Obviously Canadians. We have an unfair situation when KVOS is allowed to continue to carry on business in Canada as it does.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock said that if you put together Bill C-58 and cable deletion you will destroy KVOS. If that day should come, and I honestly hope that a happy and an acceptable resolution of the cable deletion issue is reached between the United States and Canada in the talks that are taking place now, I would not feel overwhelmingly unhappy about that particular company

February 11, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
when I consider the tremendous competitive advantages they had over the years they have operated and the massive revenues they have gained as a result. So far as the continuation of the kind of programming that has been available to the Vancouver market place is concerned, as it was discussed in the committee, it clearly will be.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock said last night that in the early days KVOS took risks. Of course they did, as any business venture does. They took risks to profit, and they profited far better than could their Canadian competitors who did not spend $100,000 on news and public affairs programs, little of it Canadian, but instead spent ten times that amount. They did it to profit, and that is fair enough if your competition is fair.
You have to remember they had the massive advantages of not having the Canadian content requirement and not having the public affairs or news requirement. They also had the advantage of moving fully into that Canadian market place without any comparable demands. OK, but are we being fair? Watch out, the United States will get angry if we keep on plugging them in the nose. Let us be very careful. We have been good friends with them before, let us continue to be good friends with them." I find it interesting that there are two Mexican radio stations currently broadcasting into southern California and at present the FCC is trying to find ways of shutting them down. What is the difference? The U.S. is trying to protect its industry in the same way that we are trying to protect our industry.
KVOS made a proposal to the CRTC which was described at some length in debate last evening. I only want to ask, if I may, why we did not hear about that in 1955, 1957, 1959, 1962 or 1965. I understand that it was presented only in the last couple of years. It was put forward in the terms it was presented to the CRTC in the last couple of years. I have read the argument last night.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I seem to be touching a responsive chord in members opposite, but they will have a chance to speak shortly. I simply want to point out that while the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) argued that they have been a good corporate citizen, we must recognize that if 90 per cent of your revenue comes out of Canada and you are operating in the United States and if you do not have the requirements that your competitors have, and as a good corporate citizen you make an arrangement with the Canadian government that you will give it 50 per cent of your proceeds, why should you be considered such a good corporate citizen when 90 per cent of your revenue comes from Canada in the first place? I think that is a nonsensical argument.
The hon. member for Hamilton West said also that we should think this over, that we should be careful, that we should wait for a while. My only caution there is that we have the Western Approaches television going on the air next fall and it will be very important that they be encouraged to operate in that market. That is one reason why we should continue with this. In Toronto we have both Global and City television, especially City television, trying to do some progressive and positive programming. But they are having a hard struggle because of the com-

petitive situation they face with Buffalo which is acting, if anything, in a less responsible way than KVOS, Bellingham.
I want to make some specific points as to why I do not believe these motions should be supported. They propose to give certain foreign broadcasting undertakings a special status. The Broadcasting Act allows no status to foreign broadcasting outlets, so through a tax bill we would be contravening that. It would contradict the government's policy that broadcasting stations should operate financially only in the country which licenses them, and we know that the FCC has much the same attitude. Furthermore, these amendments are unsound in principle because they provide for exemption from a taxing statute and would create a special legal status for advertisers in one region. No matter whether you have special broadcasting requirements or circumstances in a particular region in Canada, surely our federal law should apply equally across the board.
Finally, there is not the slightest reason in the world to believe that these amendments could result in any real advantage to the Canadian broadcasting system. There is no guarantee or assurance that they would be of real advantage to the Canadian broadcasting system. But there is every reason to believe that by entrenching foreign broadcasting outlets in our system we would threaten its entire future.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on this bill and its amendments has been taking place, off and on, since January of 1975. That is really a very long time to examine what is essentially a page and a half of legislation which comprises amendments to the Income Tax Act. A great deal has been said about censorship, and freedom, and the press, and the great principles which are involved, but the fact is that this legislation is to amend the Income Tax Act. It immediately affects people who are advertisers, publishers, and broadcasters, but our constituents will continue to read the same publications and watch the same broadcasts. Therefore this great agony of filibuster we have experienced seems strangely misplaced.
In this House from time to time we make changes in medicare and do some very important things with regard to individuals in our ridings, and I wish the House would spend the time on those issues it has spent on this issue which, as I say, immediately affects only three groups of people, but not the average constituent because the average constituent, in spite of all the rhetoric in this House, will continue to read Reader's Digest and Time, and will continue to watch KVOS.
I will try to support that argument a little bit, but before I do I should like to look back at some of the philosophy with regard to broadcasting, because we are dealing with broadcasting in these amendments. I want to quote from a notable Tory authority on broadcasting who has provided much input in terms of Tory policy, a man called George Grant. He is fairly well known in this country, and this is what he said about the national broadcasting system, which was sponsored by R. B. Bennett and which was a Conservative approach to broadcasting:
February 11, 1976

It was forgotten that the CBC had been established by a Conservative government under Bennett, in order to maintain national control over broadcasting and to prevent the airwaves being used simply for private gain. The encouragement of private broadcasting must be anti-nationalist: the purpose of private broadcasting is to make money, and the easiest way to do this is to import canned American programs appealing to the lowest common denominator of the audience.
George Grant had much to do with the development of the Conservative broadcasting philosophy over a long period of time. However, that theme was followed in January of 1975 when the announcement was made concerning the question of removing the tax exemption for the two publications, and when the broadcasting statement was made. When this initially came before the House the response by the hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), who is engaged in other pursuits at the moment, was as follows, and I hope his colleagues will take note of what he had to say at that time:
Mr. Speaker, in responding to the statement just made I would first like to say, on behalf of the official opposition, that we are pleased the government has clarified this matter at long last. We believe that the move to eliminate the income tax advantage shared mainly by two magazines, Time and Reader's Digest, is a good one.
Later on with regard to the broadcasting provisions he said the following:
I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that we would be in agreement with the thrust suggested by the Secretary of State in eliminating advertising that is now being put through foreign broadcast stations.
That was the purpose of the legislation. Many of us were bitterly disappointed by the decision of the minister to make a sweetheart deal with Reader's Digest. Now in this ingenious amendment there is the possibility of another sweetheart deal with KVOS.
I should like to say a word about KVOS because the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) suggested that somehow I do not like KVOS. I like KVOS. I watch it. It is a very good station. It is a station which began very early. I think it was the third station in the Vancouver area. It carried a duplication of programs which channel 7, the first channel in the area, carried, and of necessity it tried to be a good corporate citizen, since the majority of its revenues were derived from the lower mainland market.
Therefore, in an understandable burst of enthusiasm, KVOS developed production facilities in Canada to protect itself. However, I do not think the argument that somehow if this bill passes we will not see channel 12 bears serious examination. The cable system in the lower mainland shortly will have the capacity to carry 36 separate channels. There is no indication that channel 12 will be replaced on any of the existing cable systems.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Who is going to buy the converters?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We will deal with the convertors. Don't get excited.
Dealing with the question of freedom of choice, which is the theme we have heard so much about in terms of broadcasting, the lower mainland now has available to it on the existing cable system channels 4, 5, 7, 9, and many have channels 11 and 12. Those are all United States channels.


Mrs. Holt:: Why not?
Non-Canadian Publications


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We have channels 2, 6 and 8 available to us.
I do not object to those being available, and I am sure they will remain. If the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and others would closely examine what the cablevision companies themselves propose, a great deal of the hysteria which has been whipped up over this subject would simply subside. Let us read what Premier Cablevision has to say about the question of replacing any of the existing channels available on the lower mainland. This is an advertisement of January 21 of this year, and it reads as follows:
... open the door to an almost unlimited freedom of choice in the future, all present stations plus Tacoma plus new local programming will be on the cable. As some of these developments get closer we will keep ...
-you informed. There will be no loss of any program of any kind. Clearly there will be a loss of revenue to KVOS if this bill passes and the amendment does not. As I indicated earlier, the amendment is an ingenious one, and I congratulate its drafter for attempting to meet what the purpose of the bill was in terms of developing revenues for Canadian production and maintaining advertising in Canada.
However, the argument which has not been dealt with, and which has not been met in this House is simply this: if we are going to make a sweetheart deal for KVOS, where is the sweetheart deal for CHAN, for CBC, and for all the Canadian channels broadcasting into the United States? Why are we looking only in one direction on this subject? Why are we not looking in the other direction in terms of the treatment Canadian stations are given by FCC regulations and in terms of the way they are carried on the American channel system? Until we have an across the border convention on broadcasting, there is not much point in passing these special amendments for special cases.
I have some sympathy for KVOS, but I am also aware that KVOS could cut its revenues in half and continue to broadcast the same kind of programming, although perhaps with a little less Canadian content. The KVOS channel will continue to be available to my constituents in the area. There probably will be more advertising revenue generated to the existing stations. They then will have the opportunity of going into Canadian production and expanding programming for the province of British Columbia. It seems to me, therefore, that unless or until and appropriate international agreement is developed with regard to the treatment of our stations broadcasting to the United States and United States stations broadcasting to Canada, this amendment is premature and should not be supported.
What do Americans do in terms of Canadian television channels? I am going to read an item from a pamphlet issued by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters where the subject is discussed by question and answer as follows:
The Americans have cable television. Does the FCC protect American off-air broadcasters?
Cable TV operators in the United States are required by the FCC to protect local broadcasters in their communities by deleting whole programs, not just the commercials, from the signals of non-local stations brought in by cable.
The Canadian Radio-Television Commission provides for simultaneous substitution. If a Canadian local station is broadcasting a program and non-local stations (including foreign) broadcast the same

February 11, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
program at the same time, the Canadian cable operator substitutes the Canadian local signal on all the cable channels with the same program. The FCC procedure provides for simultaneous and in some instances, non-simultaneous "black-out" on American cable systems to protect the local station. Thus many "distant" stations cannot show the same program by means of cable in a community where the local American station already has the same program.
We cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. If we are going to give special exemption to American stations broadcasting into the Canadian market we have to give consideration to Canadian stations going the other way. That has not been the case to date.
If we look at the nature of public policy in public broadcasting and understand that this country is a string of small communities huddled along the United States border, as we can see when flying across the country, we realize that our chances of maintaining any cultural identity have a lot to do with the way we communicate from one end of the country to the other. If we decide to take the easy free enterprise route on broadcasting we can kiss goodbye to any hope of there being a Canadian identity.
We must consider another aspect of freedom of choice when we talk about whether American channels should or should not continue. I am arguing that we should continue to have flexibility. You cannot tell me it is freedom of choice to have Mary Tyler Moore at eight o'clock on KVOS, at eight o'clock on channel 2 and eight o'clock on channel 7. That is not freedom of choice.
People want a variety of programming, different things to suit individual tastes. That is what public broadcasting should be all about. If we are to zero in on the free market approach to this kind of thing we will not get more variety, but less. What we need today are more options open to people who watch. No country worth its salt would substitute foreign programming for its own. I do not believe that any country would give serious consideration to that proposition.


Simma Holt: They buy it cheap.


An hon. Member:: CBC does it every day.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce):: So what?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We have spent a lot of time in this House on two short amendments to the Income Tax Act when there are a lot more important things with which to deal.
KVOS can present further proposals in regard to that station and the lower mainland market, but I think they should be proposed not to the CRTC but to a joint meeting of the United States and Canada to consider the whole problem of broadcasting. You cannot isolate the problem to the lower mainland. We need an across-the-border dialogue on the question of television broadcasting to either area.
There is no question that what we are really debating is the conflict between Canadian nationalism and the use of broadcasting in a free market. An inherent principle is involved that somehow the air waves are the property of the advertisers or owners of television stations. I do not think any party in this House has ever adopted that principle in convention.
The fact is that the public airways are public property. The public must have licensing procedures for those prop-

erties, and those licensing procedures must take into consideration the national interests of the country. If they do not, we might as well pack up, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin and end my remarks with the same statement. The thing I am concerned about is that the Canadian interest will be best served through the passage or rejection of Bill C-58. With many other members of this party I am convinced that will not be the case. Testimony given before the committee showed very clearly that the national interest would not be served and the outcome would not be more Canadian writers, more production and more revenue, if the bill were passed.
I want first of all to talk briefly about some of the things that went on in committee and then comment on the remarks of the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) and of the parliamentary secretary in this debate. I should compliment the parliamentary secretary for at least having a grasp of what he was talking about, which is more than can be said for the minister. Perhaps she can be forgiven because of her newness in the job and the fact that she was not able to attend committee meetings. But I wondered if she had read the minutes.
The intent of clause 3 of Bill C-58 is clearly to promote the creation in Canada of a broadcasting system with a strong Canadian identity by ensuring that all Canadian advertising revenue is channelled to Canadian stations, thereby repatriating the substantial portion of this revenue which currently accrues to American border broadcasters. Were there even the most remote possibility that this legislation could achieve that goal, my colleagues and I might be persuaded to support it. There is, however, no such possibility.
Testimony given before the standing committee by the American television stations involved and by the Association of Canadian Advertisers made it abundantly clear that the enactment of this clause will not aid Canadian broadcasters, especially those most in need of additional advertising revenue. Even if more revenue were made available it would not necessarily flow to the weaker television stations that require assistance.
The central point, which was emphasized repeatedly by Mr. Blakely and Mr. Hopkins of the A.C.A., concerns the purchase of advertising time on Canadian outlets. They put it this way, that it:
... is and will continue to be based strictly on the ability of those outlets to attract Canadian audiences. This bill will not induce advertisers to buy time that does not have adequate audiences. Advertisers will, however, of their own accord, buy time on programs and stations that have a high level of acceptance by the Canadian public.
On the larger issue I am sure the parliamentary secretary is only too well aware that the listening choice of 56 per cent of the viewing audience in the lower mainland of British Columbia is for American television stations. This 56 per cent represents a majority choice. Hopefully the parliamentary secretary still believes in freedom of choice-certainly freedom of choice of the majority.
The parliamentary secretary would attack that freedom of choice, and I should like to speak again on this subject at third reading. He would have us believe that British Columbians do not know what they want to see. He is
February 11, 1976

somehow going to tell us, "We will switch off the dial and put something on here that you do not want." The choice is abundantly clear. In effect, if you have cable deletions along with Bill C-58, you wipe out KVOS-TV along with all the American stations. Hon. members know that is true. All British Columbians know it is true.
If the minister has his way it is only a matter of time until all American channels are wiped off. If the minister does not believe that, he has his head in the sand and it is about time he pulled it out. Mr. Hopkins illustrated this point in the situation in the Toronto area. Briefly, he said:
It might be helpful, Mr. Chairman, if I were to expand a little more on this concept of effective time because I think there is some misunderstanding on occasion on this. When an advertiser is planning his advertising campaign he has an objective of delivering messages to his customers and he wants to deliver his message to a substantial number of customers, and this is normally looked on in terms of being a reach objective. He wants to reach 50 per cent of his potential customers or 60 per cent. If we look at the Toronto market, if I may take that as a good example of the issue, there are a limited number of stations that are in a position to deliver to him the reach of that market. I think if we look at CFTO television, for example, and here I am referring to some BBM Bureau of measurement data, BBM reports that CFTO on a weekly basis reaches 75 per cent of the people in the Toronto market, and averagely it has about a 19 per cent share of the viewing in that market. That is an effective station for reaching Toronto.
I will not go through every station, but if we look at CFTO and CBLT and CHCH, those are effective stations at reaching that market. The same is true of the three Buffalo stations which reach 68 per cent of the market in a week, 65 per cent in the case of WKBW, 62 per cent in the case of WGR.
The developing stations in those markets, however, have problems in this regard on their own. If we look at Global-and I am referring to fall 1974 data-in the fall of 1974, only 36 per cent of the people in the Toronto central area had tuned at least once to Global; that is to say, 64 per cent had not. In the case of City, we are looking at very similar numbers: 35 per cent had and 65 per cent had not. So while there is time available on those stations, they alone cannot deliver an effective campaign to an advertiser who had something more than a very, very modest reach objective.
It is clear then that the Association of Canadian Advertisers does not believe that the provisions in clause 3 of Bill C-58 will in any significant way improve the financial situation of the less prosperous Canadian broadcasters. The results of this legislation, as they see them, are largely negative-an increase in the advertising rates on those Canadian outlets which are already effective and largely sold out in terms of available advertising time and the continuation of advertising on American border stations, even at an increased rate, to take advantage of this continuing wide appeal to Canadian audiences. That relates to the earlier point. The reach objective for the advertising is what people are seeking. They will pay more for that rather than use a less effective advertising media. They also see the diversion of substantial amounts of advertising revenue to other media, particularly radio and newspapers.
Compounding this problem is the fact that the American border broadcasters have indicated their intention to maintain their Canadian advertising clients by reducing their rates to compensate for the loss of tax deductibility of advertising expenditures as a result of this legislation. Obviously there is not going to be more money to divert to other aspects of the Canadian advertising media. When this occurs the final nail will have been driven into coffin
Non-Canadian Publications
of this bill as an effective means of supporting Canadian broadcasters. The government will have succeeded in reducing the revenue of the American stations without benefiting in any way the Canadian television broadcasting system.
It is precisely to avoid this result that my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), has moved the amendments to clause 3 which we have before us. These amendments will ensure that, at least in western Canada, this legislation will result in some improvement and benefit to Canadian broadcasting.
As I stated first, and now in the middle of my speech, the objective is to benefit Canadian broadcasters, audiences, writers and producers. If Bill C-58 does not accomplish these objectives, we have to rethink it. If in fact we can find an alternative to benefit Canadians in any or all of these capacities, along with preserving this freedom of preferential choice as demonstrated by the ratings, should that not be what we are trying to do? This amendment will ensure, at least in western Canada, that this legislation will result in some improvement and benefit to the broadcasting system of that area.
They recognize the fact, which the government seems intent on ignoring, that foreign broadcasting operations can be of significant benefit to Canada and Canadians. Why is the government so persistent in insisting that if it is American, it is bad, wrong, corruptible, and there is no way that it can be of any benefit to Canadians? Why is that assumed on that side? There are many fine things that have come and will continue to come from the United States. We have more in common with that country than we have that are different. I do not think hon. members opposite should have this great fear.
What would be the result if these amendments carried? In the words of Mr. Royce Frith, counsel to KVOS-TV, before the standing committee, and I quote:
The proposal we have discussed is to allocate a minimum average of $2 million a year to Canadian program production,-
Will that $2 million be there next year if Bill C-58 passes? The answer is no. If that $2 million will not be in that market place for Canadian writers and producers, where is the improvement or benefit to Canada? It is some ethereal concept that cannot be defined by anyone on that side or, in fact, by anyone in this House. I continue the quote:
-the extension of Canadian television service, and the training of Canadian talent. These, or other objectives equally to the benefit of Canadian broadcasting, can be worked out under a plan to be approved by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission.
I challenge the parliamentary secretary or any backbench member opposite to explain to me how this proposal could fail to be of significantly greater benefit to Canadian broadcasting than the provisions of clause 3 of this bill as they are presently constituted. Anybody with that kind of reasoning can say we do not have any money to do it, we do not have a vehicle to do it, but we are going to do it anyway. It is some kind of pie in the sky wishful thinking. That is very unfortunate.
I also ask that hon. members opposite, in considering these amendments, bear in mind that Bellingham is not Buffalo, just as Vancouver is not Toronto. The government, in reaching an accommodation with Reader's Digest,

February 11, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
has demonstrated its recognition that legislation aimed at one magazine may not be applicable to another. I ask that this same willingness to differentiate specific cases be extended to the broadcasting provisions of Bill C-58. We ask only that through these amendments good citizenry is recognized and that we recognize Canadian interest, as I have previously described it in the form of development facilities and good corporate citizenship.
Although I have spoken at some length in support of the amendments in the name of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock to clause 3,1 trust the House will not sense any contradiction if I address myself now to my own motion which asks that Bill C-58 be amended by deleting clause 3 entirely.
While the amendments we have been discussing so far would indeed, if adopted, mitigate some of the damage done by this legislation, especially in the west, the net result for the whole of Canada would still be negative and destructive. If the government is sincere in its desire to strengthen Canadian broadcasting, the way to do that is not by inserting isolated clauses in a bill such as Bill C-58 which is primarily concerned with the medium of print. What is called for is separate legislation dealing with the entire complex and confusing issue of the Canadian television system.
The absurdity of trying to deal with this measure in isolation from the rest of the government's television policy was illustrated by the opening comments of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts at the hearings on December 1, 1975. He recognized the futility of such an attempt when he said:
There is one other important point I would like to make before proceeding. Bill C-58 does not deal with commercial deletion. I want to try to limit the discussion to the subject referred to us by the House, namely, Bill C-58.
It might interest the committee to know that the sub-committee on program and procedure even decided to refuse to allow an important witness to appear before our committee because he wanted to speak about that very subject.
Later the chairman underlined the point by saying:
I shall try to prevent anyone from using the expression "commercial deletion".
In response to this ridiculous statement, my hon. friend from Kootenay West had this to say:
I think I understand you, Mr. Chairman. I just wonder how on earth the committee can separate the intrusion of the CRTC into this situation when it is such a one package sort of deal...
Is the steering committee suggesting to us that we must listen to the presentation by the Buffalo stations without regard to the CRTC involvement through their ruling . . .that the Buffalo stations continue to broadcast to our cablevision companies but without having the commercial content? Is that your recommendation to us? I just wonder how it is possible.
Of course there could not be any response from the chairman because he knew how right the hon. member was, and the subject was more or less dropped. The hearings continued in this emasculated fashion, forever skirting the real issue of Canada's over-all approach to U.S. border broadcasters. No one, least of all those foreign broadcasters whose future hung in the balance, came away

from our committee hearings with any feeling that justice had been done or, indeed, with the belief that any effort had been made to ensure that justice be done. I think this is completely agreed upon by all members of that committee. I would be hard-pressed to imagine that any member of the committee from either side of the House could bring himself to stand up and say that a democratic committee had given a just hearing to all the witnesses who were called. I do not think they would have the audacity to say so.
Recently I had another experience of the same kind when I presented an intervention on behalf of my constituents at the CRTC hearings held earlier this month in Vancouver. The surface issue involved was an application by the CBC for a licence to operate a French language television station in Vancouver. The real issue, however, was another aspect of the CRTC's cable television regulations. I refer to sections 6 through 8 of those regulations which empower the CRTC to dictate which stations may or may not be carried by cablevision operators.
The intent of these regulations is to ensure that local Canadian broadcasters, and particularly the CBC, shall have access to exposure on cablevision. In practice, however, they ensure that only Canadian stations will be seen in the lower mainland of British Columbia. As a result it will soon be the case that the 83 per cent of Vancouver residents equipped with cable will no longer have access to American programming which constitutes the viewing preference of 56 per cent of the citizens in the area.
Not surprisingly, there has been widespread resistance and hostility toward the policies of this government agency, policies which constitute nothing less than a severe infringement on the right of freedom of choice. Indeed, these rulings by the CRTC amount to out and out censorship and appear to be part of a concerted effort by the government to remove American programming from Canadian television screens. "If deleting their commercials doesn't work," they say, "why then, we'll just cut off their advertising revenues. And if all else fails, we'll simply bump them right off Canadian cablevision systems."
In my view this can only be seen as an expression of a particularly narrow-minded form of nationalism, the expression of a sense of national inferiority. The suggestion is inherent here that Canadian broadcasting can succeed only in an atmosphere free of competition or even of influence from any outside source. This is the suggestion which I view with abhorrence. It is an idea which I reject, and one moreover which has been rejected by the vast majority of Canadians who value their freedom of choice, who value the free flow of information, and who welcome the inflow of other cultures and ideas. It is a policy which has been rejected by all who feel that culture and taste cannot, and should not, be legislated, and who believe that no government, and no agency of government, has the right to control what Canadian citizens may view or read.
This is not an issue I intend to discuss at any further length today. I wish only to make the point that clause 3 of Bill C-58 does not stand alone but is a component of the government's entire approach to broadcasting in this country. It is an approach which meets with greater and greater resistance every day in all parts of Canada; it is an approach which raises serious questions about censorship
February 11, 1976

and the freedom of choice; it is an approach which must be fully debated in this House, not as part of a bill such as the one before us which deals primarily with the publishing industry, but as an important issue in its own right.
I would say the best expression of the need for this part of the legislation to be deferred is the intervention of the minister herself. The hon. member for Ahuntsic (Mrs. Sauve) will, I think, be a good minister. I believe she has the competence and the ability to be a good minister, given time. I think she has the competence to make fair, equitable, and just decisions, but how can anyone expect her to make decisions on the basis of the little time and information she has had since assuming her portfolio? I think we are crippling her by imposing this legislation upon her at the present time. Instead, we should give her an opportunity to bring her ideas to bear on her department, to bring her proposals on broadcasting to the House, refer them to committee and there have a full and fair discussion. This opportunity will not be afforded her. If it were to take place after this legislation is passed it would mean we would have to bring this bill back in order to wipe out this particular clause. It would be necessary for us to start all over again.
The minister said her greatest concern was that Canadians might never have the value of truly Canadian productions made with Canadian funds, by Canadian workers, and under Canadian producers. This indicates her complete lack of awareness. I do not believe the hon. lady has been west of Ottawa. If she has I would be surprised. She obviously has not been to British Columbia; she obviously has not been to KVOS-TV; she obviously has not been to Canawest Films.
I want to say to the minister: this will destroy, not create more. In 1974 there were 173 employees with Canawest Films, part-time, full-time and free lance. Who were these 173 employees? Were they some villainous Americans from the south coming to corrupt Canada? No, these were just the kind of people to whom she was referring. They were Canadian workers and producers. They were engaged in a Canadian production, even made with Canadian funds. They exported Canadian culture throughout Canada, the United States and the world.
What will happen to these 173 people? If you dry up the source of revenue that is subsidizing them, obviously they will cease to operate, or their operations will be considerably reduced. Is this desirable? Hardly. Ask the employees of Canawest who are writers, artists, and producers working in western Canada. Ask the would-be employees who are now hired part time. If the government would but give KVOS an opportunity to be heard by the CRTC, this would mean the potential employment of 200 additional Canadian writers and employees during the next year, with more to follow. In other words there would be massive expansion. If we pass this bill obviously this cannot happen because we have dried up the source of revenue flowing from Canadian advertising. The very thing we are trying to do is to get Canadian advertising dollars flowing to Canadian producers and writers.
As I make these points and throw them across the way, if
hon. members have been listening I just do not understand
Non-Canadian Publications
how they cannot see their simple logic. The only alternatives that seem to be in place are rather unpleasant ones. What else is the government trying to do? Sometimes I feel that the government is more interested in a mini-confrontation with the United States, in trying to slap the United States in the face, than it is in our own Canadian interests, such as jobs, Canadian culture, and, the development of Canadian writers and producers. I would ask the parliamentary secretary through you, Madam Speaker, whether he has been to KVOS-TV and seen the facilities there. Has he seen what the situation is? Has he been to Canawest and talked to Canadian writers, artists, producers, film makers? He cannot even shake his head to indicate the answer is no.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, on a point of order I simply want to make it clear that nodding my head in any direction is not going to be recorded in Hansard. If I choose to indicate my views on any subject I shall do so properly by taking the floor.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member does not get a chance to answer when I am finished, I hope he will answer that one to the press. I think he is destroying something that he has not seen, that he does not know anything about, that he does not even care about. He is like the minister who said "We stand on what we do, no matter what retaliation may come, and we accept that". No matter what happens, the government does not care about writers and producers and that kind of programming. She might as well have added "We don't care what may come or what the negative results may be for British Columbia".
This is sheer arrogance. It is why we have a big delegation of ministers visiting British Columbia. The government refuses to listen and understand and the west is getting sick and tired of it. We asked the government to make a minor amendment, yet it does not even look at it and find out what it does. As a western representative it is very tiring to have this arrogant bouncing back and forth and to listen to statements like "We don't care what happens". We do care in British Columbia, as do many of the government's own backbenchers; and it is about time the government started to listen to them.
The parliamentary secretary said that one of the reasons why this bill is so appropriate, just, and fair, is that the majority of the members of the committee were from British Columbia.
An hon Member: No, that is not so.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Well, certainly there were a lot of members from British Columbia on the committee. However, Madam Speaker, having sat through the committee hearings as one member from British Columbia I can assure you that I was not given my full opportunity to speak and to ask questions, but was cut off time and time again, as were members on the government's own backbenches. I want it recorded in Hansard that my time was limited, restricted, and cut off; that there was no just and fair hearing.
Hon. members talk about BC-TV, and here we have agreement. Perhaps I can just mention some of the matters upon which we are agreed. I want to see British Columbia television grow. I want to support British Columbia televi-
21 1 30-65

February 11, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
sion and see it expand. I want to see new television stations operating in British Columbia. I want to see the dial expanded and British Columbia move toward converter systems so that freedom of choice is enlarged and there is full and adequate outlet for the cultural expression of Canadians. Certainly I support this move, but I have demonstrated very clearly that this is not going to happen if this bill is passed. As a matter of fact exactly the opposite will happen because the money will not be available.
The parliamentary secretary also made some misstatements. He talked about apples and oranges and tried to compare them and make them the same. He compared KVOS indirectly with a Mexican station.


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) on a point of order.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Madam Speaker, it seems to me the hon. member who now has the floor is discussing many topics which are not germane to the bill now before the House, and I know how strict you are in that regard. That is why I wish to draw your attention to the fact that he could perhaps discuss the bill instead of the provinces, one by one, the parliamentary secretaries and so on.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. Might I remind the hon. member that we are now studying Motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 which deal with radio and television broadcasting. The subject if very broad and I feel the hon. member has stayed within the scope of the motions before the House.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Might I commend Madam Speaker for her ruling. I have always found her to be just and fair, and she has demonstrated once again that I was answering the comments made by the hon. member's own colleague, the parliamentary secretary. I was commenting on what he had said. If I am irrelevant then he is even more irrelevant for bringing those matters forward. It was he who brought forward the question of the Mexican television station. The point I am making concerns the difference between a Mexican television station and KVOS. In one case you have a corporate citizen. There is a vast difference between a corporate citizen such as KVOS-TV, which develops Canadian talent, and a Mexican station. I think he should recognize that.
Then the hon. member talked about the unfairness of the FCC in the United States. Every time that the FCC has made a ruling and developed some new policy, it has followed that policy firmly. It does not destroy existing institutions; I defy the hon. member to find one example where it has. It would write in a grandfather clause for a good corporate citizen. That is the sort of thing we should look at, but we only have the right to be heard.
Then he said, "KVOS-TV, where have you been? How come all of a sudden they are on the scene?" I am afraid that the reason he does not know that they were on the scene is that he was not on the scene. They were on the

scene. They were here in 1971 with a major presentation, but the problem was that they could not be heard. The CRTC said, "We are sorry, we are not able to hear your proposal". They came but they were not heard. The hon. member asked where they were, and I am telling him. Yet in spite of not being heard they have stated they have faith in Canada and in its artists and writers, and they went back and created a company known as Canawest with their advertising revenue. They did so without anyone telling them they must. They did so because they were good corporate citizens. They subsidized it and it continues to be subsidized, and I think that is very much to their credit.
We have heard talk about the FCC and the CRTC in this regard, but let me point out that the FCC goes by the law of the market place and competition rather than by arbitrary rules and regulations such as we are attempting to establish.
There are many things that need to be said about this and I would like to take much more time, but there will be another opportunity.


An hon. Member:: You are lucky.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Yes, opportunities are getting shorter, fewer, and further between. I hope the government is listening and still believes in the democratic process. Obviously it does not believe in its backbenchers, and that is pretty clear. However, this is not on the bill, Madam Speaker, and I should get back to the bill.
I started and will conclude by saying the objective of this bill is somehow to increase the productivity of Canadian writers and producers. It is to develop Canadian culture through the infusion of capital, and capital infusion is to come from the advertising world. We have evidence to show that capital will not come as a result of this bill. We have evidence to show there will be more unemployed writers, producers, and others associated in this field because of the non-growth or the cutback or destruction of Canawest. We know at the same time that there will not be an expanded market next year for 200 more of these people. We are talking about less, and I say this is injurious.
This clause should be struck from the bill at this point and the whole matter referred to the next parliament. We have a parliamentary secretary who is keen and enthusiastic. I am sure this parliamentary secretary and his colleagues here in this parliament, along with his minister, want to do the right thing, but they need time for consideration. I should like to give them that time and that is why I know they will support my amendment, and that is why I have moved it today.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to Standing Order 37, if that is the correct reference, I want to take about 30 seconds to correct two facts I referred to in my speech. First, I should like to say it is not the FCC, but the United States program producers who refuse to allow programs purchased from them to be played in Windsor in competition with the same programs on U.S. stations. Secondly, it is the Windsor TV station and not the radio station which has been ordered by the CRTC
February 11, 1976

to desist from soliciting advertising in the United States. It is the same argument, but it is TV rather than radio.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, my intervention in this debate at this stage is prompted by a couple of important considerations, and these considerations were rather underlined by a comment I am almost sure I heard from the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais) to the effect, "if you are lucky". That comment was in relation to something which did go on the record, as said by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), that he would be intervening to complete his argument on another occasion. This suggested to me that there was a slightly threatening tone to this comment "if you are lucky", and that is one of the considerations which prompted me to enter this debate.
One of these considerations directly concerns the wishes of my constituents as expressed to me in letters, and through the press, and the second, closely related to the present issue, even if of a general and more indirect nature, is related to the attitude of the government toward parliament, the parliamentary process, and members of parliament, whom we have heard described by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as "nobodies". Parenthetically, I suggest if we allow things to go on unchallenged and unchanged this is exactly what we are going to be, and we will merit that designation of "nobodies".
Even the first of my reasons has an element of the second in it. I have been deluged over the past month, as I am sure all my fellow members from the island and the lower mainland have been, with letters from constituents expressing their opposition to developments that seem designed to deprive them of their TV viewing enjoyment, or at least to inhibit it-specifically, moves that will inhibit to a considerable extent their ability to see TV stations with transmitters in the United States over the receivers they now have in their homes.
What baffles me about the government, with all due respect, is its attitude toward citizen participation in the governing process. We have had dished out to us grandiloquent phrases referring to the just society. We hear little about what that just society is or was intended to be, who defined it, and how it is to be brought into being. Perhaps we have passed beyond the just society, and maybe there is no possibility of bringing it into being. We are now hearing about the new society. If that is so, we need all the help we can get to preserve the society we want, by whatever name it is called. We are not getting much justice from the government.
The whole purpose of the government, my experience both as an administrator and as a parliamentarian demonstrates clearly to me, is that with the advent of that just or new society, by whatever name it is to be called, Canadians are being told, "You just wait, you will get the society we design for you since you really do not know what kind of a society you want". This government is Edmund Burke stood on his head and transposed from the individual to the party context. This government, in its own view, was returned in the last election on the basis of specious promises and campaign slogans, not to represent those who sent it here but rather to devise what the master minds within the party feel is good for the Canadian people.
Non-Canadian Publications
This attitude can be seen in the government's every move. Take the death penalty debate, the debate within the Canadian community and not the one we can expect here in this House. There is no doubt in my mind on the strength of polls taken by fellow members of this House and by the press, and just by reading the press and my correspondence, that the general public wants the death penalty retained as part of Canada's law. My correspondence is full of such demands-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am afraid that the motions we are debating do not touch on the death penalty. Perhaps the hon. member would limit his remarks to the motions.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I rather anticipated being called to order. I am using this simply as an illustration of the manner of the government in devising policies which the rest of this parliament is expected to concur in, and with which Canadians must live.
My next comment is, what has all this to do with the amendments to which I address myself today? Madam Speaker, you anticipated my notes. It is simply this; if the government is not aware that the people on the west coast, the lower mainland and the island anyway, do not want to lose the ability to watch the programs available on KVOS with the convenience now available to them, but will have to buy some sort of an attachment, then the government is not listening to what the people are saying.
The same applies, of course, in point of volume demand-popular demand-for the continuation of the Reader's Digest, with which we have been dealing. I have been deluged with letters on that matter.
The government forces through measures on simply this inverted concept of Edmond Burke's definition of a parliamentary representative. It is also of course a manifestation of the Liberal party's self-satisfied assurance-the overweaning arrogance of power-that it knows better than the general populace. A just society indeed! If this is the new society, God help us! Now who has been had? A just society by any definition I can think of should rest on government action that takes into account the needs and concerns of the public, and as the public itself defines those needs and concerns. This brings me to the point at issue today.
What I am urging in citing these various examples is that in this debate, and in many other debates, we should have a free vote. This is not a matter on which the government should stand or fall. The government must have its supporters to support it when it brings forth its legislative proposals, but I urge through this medium, with examples I shall cite further, that the government must take action to allow a free vote, and if it did the other parties would certainly follow suit.
This brings me to another attitude of the government which I find so unacceptable. It claims to be innovative in stimulating consideration of new ideas and in encouraging debate on these public issues. It also claims that it responds quickly and readily to the consensus arising out of this debate. I defy anyone to cite one issue that found
21 1 30- 6SVi

February 11, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
legislative form as a result of this process so proudly proclaimed but so arrogantly denied by the government. My experience, both here in the House and in my previous career, tells me that the very opposite course is followed. Cabinet decides the policy to be followed. The gesture of consultation is made in one form or another.
We have heard a lot about Burke. I think there is another part of Burke we sometimes forget. A little further in that statement of his he says:
But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and, what sort of reason is that in which the determination precedes the discussion;...
That is this government's attitude.
... in which one set of men deliberate...
That is us.
... and another decide;


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. [Translation]
Madam Speaker, I merely wish to invite the hon. member, if he wants to discuss the legislative process, to take part in the debate tomorrow, at which time part of the legislative process will be discussed. Today, we are dealing with television and Bill C-58.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Indeed, I was about the call the hon. member to order for the second time but I was waiting to see if he would tie in his remarks with the motions before the House.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, the connection between the comments I have just made I think should be obvious to all in this House. I have said that many letters have been received. I have not given the exact number but I suggest all of us have received innumerable letters urging that this legislation be not passed. Therefore I call for a free vote so that all members in this House may respond in the manner in which Burke urged we respond to the representations made to us by our constituents.


An hon. Member:: It won't work because they have no conscience.


Donald W. Munro: I suppose that is the situation. I am sure that if we all went through our correspondence and archives and counted the number of letters we have received, certainly from British Columbia, in opposition to this particular legislation, we would find that the number is considerable. I include members from the opposite side, some of whom have had the courage to stand up and defy the party whip. We should all be able to stand up and defy the whip when we are here to represent the views of our constituents.
This is the connection I am making. I am using this particular material simply as an example of the sort of legislative process that would be meaningful to the Canadian people who sent us here, because I am satisfied the Canadian people are becoming more and more disillusioned with parliament. They have asked us to come here, look at the problems which concern them, and try to find solutions. We are not doing this because of the over-wean-

ing confidence of a government which refuses to listen to what the populace is saying.
We have dealt with the Reader's Digest. We found there was a shift in parliament. I do not think it was in response to any appeal from the public. I do not remember any 80 per cent notion being brought to my attention. There was merely a desire to continue to have Reader's Digest. It is the decision of this particular government that it knows better than anyone else, and that the people do not matter. I insist that the last election which put the government into power offered no five-year mandate to the majority party to force its will on the public.
The public will can express itself differently on different issues at different times. Let that be reflected by members as they respond to what they hear from their ridings. They should vote on issues that are of concern to their ridings and if they should be wrong more often than right, then let them live by the consequences of that when they face the electorate the next time around. They should be good parliamentarians and should not be a bunch of sheep or seals. If the government wants to be truly innovative it could begin with this bill and allow a free vote and abide by the consequences. I should like to see a start made in this direction now.
With regard to the bill itself and the amendments and what they provide, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) has introduced a number of amendments which reflect truly the correspondence he and I have been receiving from the listeners and watchers in southern British Columbia asking that they be given ready access to programs of their choice. I support these amendments.
The UHF attachments that would be required to capture these transmissions may, in the course of time, become unnecessary. New developments may occur in television technology which would permit a wider spectrum of listening capability, but likely there is an attachment which is required, and which is almost more expensive than the sets themselves. I think we should respond to the demands our electors make upon us. The suggestion I have made is that here is a starting point in terms of a free vote. It cannot be carried through to all legislation obviously, it cannot be carried to the budget, it cannot be carried to the speech from the Throne. There are a number of matters that the government should put forward on which it should say, "We stand or fall on this." If it can get the whips on and keep them on, fine, but let the members stand up, speak for their constituents, and live by the consequences.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Madam Speaker, it was once said in this country by a person uncertain of his stature that the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. One would be amazed to learn now that the same government which made that statement now feels it can tinker with the minds of the citizens.
To make an analysis of what is happening with the bill which might be amended, one might simply say that the bill as it now stands without amendment is heading in the opposite direction to the one it should be taking. Certainly one of the things we no longer hear about is people getting scurvy when travelling across the ocean from the old world
February 11, 1976

to the new. You can make that trip now in less than a few hours. The Concorde has it down to about half the time it used to take. We live in a world that is condensed and shrinking, and I submit that if we are ever to have peace or understanding in the world in which we are living we need not a constriction of communications but in fact an expansion of them. As a nation we should be trying not only to extend to the United States but to virtually every country and culture which exists in this world.
I submit that if there is anything that we need in our living rooms it is a bigger dial on our TV sets. To take a position, for whatever reasons, that we ought to be cutting back and watching fewer programs is simply a step in the wrong direction and does not take into consideration the world in which we are living.
On that theme I would like to express some thoughts which demonstrate that in the last couple of decades we have been living in a world that is different. Let us take, for example, the resistance in the United States of the young people to the Viet Nam war. We see here a very unique and interesting concept. It was the first war in history against which the citizens of one of the combatting nations rose, the first war which was the cause of opposition to a government which was trying to tell its people that they should involve themselves in that war. It was also the first war in history which the people watched day by day and night by night in the living rooms of their homes.
I submit that what has happened is a cultural change and a change in attitudes which took place because of television. I also submit that one of the things that should be happening in Canada is that we should have more communications coming in, not just from the United States, not just from Canada or from the north European countries, but from virtually every corner of the world.
Let us take a look at some of the situations at present. I suggest that the government has no business trying to restrict, control or shape the minds of its citizens. If we take a look at the border stations that are giving service to Canada-I think we have to underscore that it is a service that they are providing-we find that we are getting a service which we are purchasing in the same way in which we purchase products or any other services that are imported from another country. One of the agreements we have when we bring in products or services from another country is that one pays for them. We also have an agreement under GATT that we should not tax a product once it is imported. But that is in effect what this bill is doing.
Under this bill we are importing a service from another country, and then when it gets here we propose to apply a tax to it. It is inconsistent to suggest that Canadians who have the privilege of living next to a friendly and important country should simply overlook the spirit of GATT, bring in a service which is supplied to Canadians, and then place a tax on it. I make that statement in the sense that I think there is a marked difference between a government which questions where we are going and one which is intent on destroying the traditions that made up the fabric of our past.
It is one thing for any government to say that it may
want to change the direction in which the country was
going, but that is not what is happening. This government
Non-Canadian Publications
is saying "let us destroy what we had." In effect what would happen is that irrespective of the feelings of many people who have watched, in some cases for more than two decades, programs with which they have become associated, irrespective of all the traditions in the past, stations such as KVOS in Vancouver, or other border stations in Canada, will be destroyed.
It is the wrong position for the government to take, even if it is of the view that things should be changed in the future. One might respect the notion that one should look at the situation and make recommendations for a new and different future, but it is quite different to cancel out and take a hard line on all that has gone on before.
So we have a situation where we need to broaden our scope and our understanding of the world. We note that television should be a service like any other service in the spirit of GATT, but I wish to put forward the view that there is an inconsistency in the government's position which is so striking that it really confuses me to think that in good conscience it can take a position against the border stations while at the same time allowing its own CBC stations to commit the same sins for which it is branding others. In effect it is saying that KVOS, to be specific a station which has a gross income of around $22 million per year, 20 per cent of which stays in Canada, which means that $17.6 million goes to the United States, is not acting in conformity with the regulations and the government will pass legislation to prohibit that station, when in fact the government's own CBC imports $35 million worth of American programs into the country.
The government may look at the mirror, but all it will see is its hypocrisy not only in this legislation but in other pieces of legislation. The truth of the matter is that all TV stations in Canada spent considerable amounts of money bringing foreign products into this country. To take the position that some of the border stations should be condemned for doing what all of us are doing is simply inconsistent, especially when we note that stations such as KVOS have made such an effort to be good Canadian citizens. It was that station which put many Canadian programs on the air.
It was that same station which established-and in part in my home province of Alberta-Canawest, a film company which not only makes animated films for Canadian advertising but also sells them into the United States and into other countries of the world. It has also done a tremendous job as a good corporate citizen, yet the kettle is calling the pot black, or vice-versa, on the notion that it is of the opinion that it wants to kill, censor, and stop border stations from doing the same thing that its own government-run operation does with regard to other Canadian television stations.
I should like to refer to something which has previously been referred to, and that is that in many cases the citizens who listen to these stations do so because they want to listen to them. It amazes me that any government would say, "We do not care what you want; we know what is good for you." It is amazing that any government dealing with matters affecting the minds of people and what they choose by way of entertainment should try to make those

February 11, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
matters subject to the government's position that, although people might like something else, the government really knows what they ought to have.
The amendments put forward simply stop us from overstepping or overstating the position. It might be one thing to take a new direction for the future, but it is quite another to cancel out all the institutions and traditions of citizens. The government should take a second look at this matter, not necessarily at the principle it has put forward, but at the notion of uprooting. Obviously there is a difference between pulling people out from their traditions and changing the direction which affects our future, but the government has not recognized that.
Irrespective of the feelings of the people, the government will do what it thinks is right. If that is the attitude of the government, then why does it not be honest with the Canadian people and tell them to save their eight cent stamps, to quit writing and phoning, because the government does not listen anyway? Why does the government not simply take the honest approach and say that it makes the decisions and the people should not bother writing? If the government were at all sensitive it would know that the vast majority of people, especially in southern British Columbia, are extremely opposed to the bill in its present form.
It would be a simple thing to pass an amendment and achieve the desired result without destroying the principle of what the government is intent on doing, that is, to change the direction for the future. But the government need not uproot the trends of the past. I say that because some of these stations have proved their corporate citizenship to an immeasurably high degree.
There is an inconsistency with regard to how the government has treated publications as opposed to broadcasting. With regard to publications there is a clause which says that, if publishers meet certain requirements, they are accepted as Canadian; yet there is a blanket condemnation of the broadcasting industry. When did the government obtain the wisdom, the right or the privilege to say that certain principles exist for the publishing industry, but there will be different principles for broadcasting? That is an unacceptable position.
If some sense of policy and direction is to be put forward for the nation, one of the factors ought to be consistency. Publishers are told that if they meet certain requirements they will be accepted. The government took it upon itself to say that even though Reader's Digest formerly did not meet the requirements, it is now accepted. Then with regard to the broadcasting industry the government said that United States border stations cannot broadcast into Canada, irrespective of how much they pay in taxes, how well they have performed as corporate citizens, or how many shares are owned by Canadians. That is a blanket condemnation.
I challenge any hon. member on the government side to tell this House where the government gets its guiding light to make decisions which have so many internal conflicts, and why, while one position can be taken, another cannot.

That must be answered, and it certainly has not been up to the present.
Even if the government were strongly bent on its intent that there be no broadcasting into Canada from the United States and that it will curtail such broadcasting, this approach will not work because people choose information, listening, and entertainment according to their personal preferences. They will continue to listen to the stations of their choice and to buy advertising on stations which have the largest audiences, be it KVOS in Vancouver or the border stations here in central Canada. Without the amendment and leaving the bill as it is the government still defeats its position because the citizens will still listen to the same stations. That has been established. Surveys have demonstrated they will. Therefore advertisers will pay because they will buy where there is a market.
On the one hand we have a piece of legislation which is inconsistent and which suggests that no attention be paid to the wishes of citizens, and on the other hand, even if implemented with all these evils attached, this legislation does not achieve the purpose it set out to do.
Canada and the United States share the longest free border in the world. This country has a history of continually agitating our most friendly partner. We have trade agreements and many associations, and yet here we have another piece of legislation which does not seek to extend a spirit of co-operation, but seeks to clash directly with the nation with which we should be seeking to be the most friendly.
It was mentioned earlier by an hon. member of the New Democratic Party that there is not enough broadcasting into the United States, and therefore why should we be accepting American broadcasting into Canada. I agree with that position, but I think it is wrong to say that we ought to be cutting the Americans off. We should be doing just the opposite. We should be lobbying and doing everything in our power to ensure that in broadcasting and in the extension of our culture we reach more and more of the American market.
If the Liberal government is really intent on developing artists in this country and on extending our publishing and broadcasting activities, should we not extend our market from 20 million people to something near 250 million people? If we really want to extend opportunity and allow Canadian television corporations, companies, and influences to grow, then we should not cut off the market and make it smaller; we should make the market bigger, and that is just the opposite to what is proposed by the bill.
Whatever the intent of the legislation might have been, the fact is that it achieves the opposite. If the government wishes to have legislation that protects the broadcasting industry in this country it ought to do everything possible to open up the border and make arrangements with the United States for them to accept considerably more Canadian productions.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I
regret I have to inform the hon. member that his time has
now expired.
February 11, 1976


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak this afternoon in this debate on broadcasting and television on the west coast and on the border between Detroit and Windsor, and Toronto and Buffalo.
Those of us from the west coast cannot think of television without becoming immersed in the debate that is going on among our constituents as to the advisability of the course of action to be taken by Bill C-58 as well as the recent CRTC hearings on the west coast. As we all know those hearings have been left in a state of suspended animation awaiting the outcome of an appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Dube concerning the right of Capital City Co-operative to challenge Victoria Cablevision Company, the present holder of the franchise for cablevision in Victoria. Everything on the west coast appears to have come to a halt pending the result of that appeal, as far as changes in cablevision, television, and radio are concerned. I would have preferred the CRTC to continue its hearings as I believe this bill is tied in with them.
When one speaks to people on the west coast about the loss of the channels they are accustomed to watching from Portland, Seattle, and Tacoma the conversation usually gets around to KVOS. People invariably say that the government is going to look after that with Bill C-58. This is the kind of flying in the face of public opinion which leads to our constituents feeling they are not being considered, and this bill is an example of that.
I was interested in the answers given by the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) during question period the other day to my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). She seemed to think the entire problem was in Vancouver, but the CRTC difficulties concern Victoria cablevision. I do not think it is any secret that Victoria is in a prime position regarding two things in Canada-one is good weather and the other is good television.
This good television on the west coast is a blessing and that did not come about because of the free broadcasts of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; it came about because Canadians wanted to watch stations other than the CBC. On the west coast, without cable we can watch channel 2, the CBC station in Vancouver; channel 6, a station which broadcasts largely CBC programs in Victoria, and CTV on channel 8. If these are the great disseminators of information and entertainment that they pretend to be, one would assume that a cablevision company would have had a hard time getting people to pay, but this is not the case. Cablevision in Victoria and Vancouver consistently presents 10 or 11 good channels for viewing, and the programs offered are the ones that the people in the area want.
There was a time when I was a proud supporter of Canadian television in that I thought it was usually in better taste than the television that flowed across the border into the Toronto area, or the Niagara Peninsula or Windsor areas, and some into the area of Vancouver. That is no longer my opinion. By chance, as I was listening to the debate earlier this afternoon, I was trying to sign some correspondence and came across a letter from a constituent dated January 25, 1976. This is what she says:
Dear Mr. McKinnon:
May I ask you to protest on our behalf the program re contraceptives
Non-Canadian Publications
on TV-CBC news Saturday night, January 24, 1976. This disgusting program beamed into our homes was paid for by our money! It is absolutely impossible to understand the mentality and dishonesty of the program's producer, i.e., CBC and we wish to make our objection fully known.
Yours truly,
I get many letters like that. The point I am trying to make is that the plan of the government appears to be to give us less and less choice of what we watch in our homes. If Bill C-58 should pass without amendment it would limit us even further.
There are many things that bother me about this bill and I should like to mention one of them now. That is the very integrity of this House and of Canada. We are debating the broadcasting portion of Bill C-58. If this were to pass without amendment we would destroy services enjoyed by Canadian citizens for over 20 years. I am not saying it is all good or all bad, but there should be a reason to do so in Canada's best interest.
No one in this House can say that the Time and Reader's Digest portion of this bill has not so obscured the broadcasting section that no in-depth analyses of broadcasts have been made by members of the House and the press.
Again and again we hear in the corridors, in the caucus, and read in the newspapers descriptions of Bill C-58 as the publishing bill, or Time and Reader's Digest bill. In some circles it is known as the Maclean-Hunter monoply bill. But I say to you, Madam Speaker, that this portion of Bill C-58 will affect more directly the lives of millions of Canadian citizens than the publishing side ever will.
I spoke of the integrity of Canada and this House. Let me list some points. First, we are accepting a service from the United States stations that our citizens want. This has been amply demonstrated in British Columbia in recent weeks and at the CRTC meeting in Vancouver. As a citizen of Canada I say that if we take the service we have to pay for it; otherwise, we have to turn down the service. Then what howls we would get from one end of the country to the other! That is how important our constituents think this is.
Second, has anyone from either side of the aisle taken the time to analyse this bill and this portion of it from the trade point of view? I do not think we have, and we are remiss in not doing so. There is a basic difference between publishing and broadcasting. Publishing, that is Time and Reader's Digest, is clearly a Canadian industry. The publishing, printing, and circulation is done within Canada. In publishing we are dealing which an internal tax. Broadcasting is an imported service. It is imported into the Detroit area from stations in Windsor, and into Toronto and Vancouver from stations in Buffalo and Bellingham.
Again I refer to our integrity. Have we analysed the Canadian signed agreements under GATT? We have agreed as a sovereign nation that we will place no tax on imported products, which can be defined also as services, to the detriment of the imported product over a domestic product. The broadcasting portion of this bill is not imposing an internal tax, but rather under agreements we have signed it is a subverted tariff. That is what the British Columbia lumber industry has been trying to tell the Canadian parliament this week when it speaks of retaliatory legislation. When we give up our integrity we can expect a reaction from any government involved. We in this House, and Canada as a whole, would do the same.

February 11, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
I would also caution the members of this House to read the U.S. Trade Reform Act of 1974, an act of the U.S. Congress. It has made news in Canadian newspapers over the past weeks in various pieces of correspondence referring to the broadcasting portion of Bill C-58, with correspondence between the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee and the U.S. Secretary of State bringing up the very points I am making here.
I wish to read an excerpt from a letter addressed to the Hon. Henry A. Kissinger, Secretary of State, Washington, D.C. It is signed by Warren G. Magnusen of the United States Senate and Henry M. Jackson of the United States Senate. I do not intend to read it all. There is one paragraph, however, that is pertinent to the amendment before us. I quote:
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Thank you for your recent acknowledgment of our correspondence regarding the harm experienced by United States television stations situated near the Canadian border caused by governmental actions taken or contemplated in that country. Unfortunately, we do not believe the Department of State's response to this problem has been adequate to date.
Your letter of September 29, 1975, failed to give an opinion on the four points we suggested in our letter to you of September 9: (1) Actions which injure United States broadcast stations carried on Canadian cable systems injure Canadian viewers; (2) United States broadcasting interests are indirectly subsidizing current Canadian domestic television production; (3) Canada is injuring its own business community by discriminating against United States advertising media; (4) the Canadian policies are trade discriminations against United States exports of advertising services.
When the bill has doubtful benefits, when it clearly contravenes existing commitments, and when retaliatory laws will naturally flow between two of the world's largest and closest trading partners, I think we need at the very least to leave an opening for mature negotiation, which is all these amendments do. It is what we would expect of our friends and what they have a right to expect of us.
How much money are we talking about anyway? It is $22 million, of which 20 per cent stays in Canada through agency and sales commissions to Canadian firms. That leaves $17.6 million. Do hon. members realize that we buy and sustain our Canadian broadcasting system on $35 million worth of U.S. film shows every year? If the U.S. put a 100 per cent excise or export tax on those films we would still have to buy the shows anyway-they are cheaper and get more audience than most Canadian productions-but we would negate the effects of this bill, costing our broadcasting stations an extra $17.5 million rather than getting that amount back. Believe me, most of the money now going to U.S. stations will not go to Canadian broadcasters just because of C-58.
This is the time for sober last thoughts. Our integrity and good sense are at stake. Let us accept the amendment to clause 3, non grandfathering anyone into any situation, but merely permitting negotiation where, if the negotiated settlement is better for Canada than the punitive effects of Bill C-58, Canada is not precluded from accepting the negotiated settlement.
I wish to speak for a few minutes on the use of United States material. One of the bizarre effects of Bill C-58 is to be able to double-think. One can pick up this ability from

the book "1984" by George Orwell. If you study that bill you might better understand what I have to say about U.S. material.
We condemn Time Canada because they bring in editorial matter from the United States and we say that is bad because this makes for low cost competition to Canadian periodicals that must research and write all their own material, yet at the same time, in broadcasting, the Canadian broadcasting industry exists on U.S. product. The Canadian cable industry exists at a $120 million plus gross purely on the importation of U.S. signals. Without these signals there would be no reason for the Canadian cable industry to be in existence.
The independent Canadian stations and the CTV network exist on the exploitation of American programs already paid for by the networks and the stations against whom this bill is aimed. Canadian Trade and Commerce Magazine 1975 has some interesting facts on this. I quote:
The business of private television is to make money. This is less a concern of the CBC which has been supplied with a key to the public treasury.
And the fiscal facts of life are these: all the popular U.S. imports make money for the two Canadian networks: all major Canadian produced shows are heavy money losers.
"All in the Family" cost the CBC network $2,000 a week last season and brought in revenues of $24,000. "Rhoda," "Mary Tyler Moore", "Maude," "Chico and the Man," and, "Mash," all pull in the revenue.
The CTV network paid $4,000 a week for "Ironside", and "Harry-O" and each produced revenues of $46,000. The highly popular, "Kojak", cost the network $4,000 a week and yielded revenues of $46,000. "Marcus Welby", "Streets of San Francisco," "Medical Centre" and "Nakia", brought similar returns.
The CBC's most popular Canadian produced show ran up a weekly loss of $72,000 a week. "The Beachcombers", dropped $41,000 a week. That's the price the taxpayers pay for Canadian content. The CTV's Montreal-based situation comedy, "Excuse My French", cost $30,000 a week and returned revenue of $16,000 a week.
Canadian content.. . has little value in the market place. Advertisers shun it like the plague and viewers switch channels. Mediocrity is just not a saleable product.
It is a question of how much we are willing to pay our local artists. I am willing to pay a certain amount, but I do not think it should be at the exclusion of what we wish to see, laudable though the aim may be of supporting Canadian talent. The avenue of supporting Canadian talent should not be by depriving listeners and viewers of what they want to see.
I wish to point out a few programs regularly carried over KVOS which will likely be severely hampered if not put off the air by this legislation. First, there are the children's programs during the day. Most kids in British Columbia have grown up on these. From four o'clock until 5:30 every afternoon, there is "Funorama". Other shows include "Merv Griffin," "Mike Douglas", "Dinah Shore", "Candid Camera", plus all the top CBS programs including NFL football and NBA basketball. Why should we object to those programs? NFL football is one of the mainstays of the CBC.
The popular hour shows on KVOS are "All in the Family", "Rhoda", "Phyllis", "Maude", "Doc", "Bob Newhart", "Carol Burnett" and documentaries such as in CBS Reports", "Channel 12 Special", "Page 12," "Anchor" and "Outlook", all the CBS specials, which average two or
February 11, 1976

three a week, plus news and news specials. This is not all. It is just a smattering of what B.C. citizens want to view.
These amendments seem to be well-founded. I see no reason why we in British Columbia should not have an opportunity to watch the kind of television we want to watch.
We are having other difficulties there. Somebody in government or one of the agents of government, the CBC or CRTC, have plans for the viewing edification of people on the west coast which are extremely unpopular.


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


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself specifically to the amendment to Bill C-58 concerning television I find myself obliged to address myself to the speech made last evening by the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve).
I must say I listened with stunned amazement to the words of the minister. I felt there was only one course of action I could take, and that was to seek an opportunity such as I now have to respond to the some of the specious and shallow arguments she presented-I feel, by the way, that I am dealing with her remarks in a most generous manner.
Perhaps it would be best to deal with her address piece by piece. I begin by referring to her words in the first paragraph-"all these amendments aim, more or less, at granting special status to a foreign radio station." Apart from the fact that the word foreign is used to constitute a minor but insidious put-down-and I think this has all been very carefully orchestrated-let us talk about what KVOS has done with reference to taxation. If any special status was granted, why was the federal Department of National Revenue so pleased to participate in arrangements for such special status?
Why was the treasury so keen to obtain some of the revenue which was generated, funds which could just as easily have gone to the United States? No. KVOS is a Canadian subsidiary and during the period from 1964, I think it was, to date, it has contributed some $76 million to the revenue of Canada. I would say, Madam Speaker, that this particular station granted a special status to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen). There was an arrangement worked out between the Canadian revenue department and the United States revenue service. And that is special status! Other examples of a similar kind could be cited.
The minister then went on to say:
All the measures which are included in each of these amendments make possible the exploitation of the Canadian market by an American station-and this is precisely what is happening in the situation we are now discussing: American stations are coming here to exploit the Canadian market.
Well, really! If we are going to talk about exploitation I suggest that the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) address himself to certain facts which he was careful to avoid mentioning in his speech today, and advise the House of just how much money the CBC has taken out of
Non-Canadian Publications
the United States through its radio station facilities in Windsor. If we are going to talk about exploitation, I would say that $5 million is exploitation. That is a pretty fair chunk of money. But the hon. member was very careful to avoid mentioning that.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: The owner agrees not to do it any longer.


Robert Hylton Brisco: If the parliamentary secretary wishes to speak he will have an opportunity to do so. I am calling attention to something he failed to mention. Later on in her speech the minister said that the measures proposed by members of the opposition would certainly be contrary to the purposes of the Broadcasting Act. Madam Speaker, as late as last week the provision of the Broadcasting Act were infringed upon at a hearing of the CRTC in Vancouver. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
We also saw last week an application by the CBC to establish a television station in Vancouver. That government body, the CBC, violated the regulations, violated the Criminal Code, and violated the Broadcasting Act by erecting a tower three months in advance of that hearing without ever applying to the CRTC. If we are talking about violations of the Broadcasting Act, let us consider the whole scheme of things. The CRTC violates its own regulations every day, and so does the CBC. The trouble is that members on the other side never bother to notice these things.
Look at pages 14 to 17 of the information presented to those members who are interested in what happens to KVOS. Consider the responsibilities of this station with reference to codes of ethics, the amount of advertising allowed during children's programs, and so on. This is the big, corporate, rip-off giant, this foreign company to which the minister referred.
Immediately upon receipt of information that Canadian-based stations would be under new regulations to program less commercials per hour in programs aimed primarily at children, KVOS-TV (B.C.) Ltd officials advised the CRTC in writing that the station would voluntarily adhere to these regulations . .. We are now programming under those guidelines.
Hon. members opposite may say: so what? Well, they could have acted quite differently.
KVOS-TV has for 20 years voluntarily followed all restrictions that Canadian-based stations have in the broadcast treatment of Canadian elections and election news.
Now, with regard to the wording of commercials.
When writing for and/or filming commercials for Canadian or Canadian-distributed products or services, both federal and provincial laws, regulations and codes are adhered to.
The station adheres to the stricter of Canadian or United States codes. For example, it schedules a minimum of two minutes less commercials per hour in the 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. period than do Canadian privately-owned stations. This is the nasty menace which has been referred to by the Minister of Communications. The hon. lady then went on to refer to tolerance. She said:
In practice, because of our tolerance, those TV stations operate in a country where, we must admit, they are not even licensed.
I ask; what tolerance? Tolerance to KVOS? Perhaps we should set the record straight. This afternoon the hon. member for York West made some high-sounding statements which do not stand up under close scrutiny. He said
10864

February 11, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
that U.S. cable discriminates against Canadian television signals. He takes this from the CAB brief. If that is the type of research the CAB has done, I wonder about the rest of their submissions. The fact of the matter is that the FCC does not discriminate against Canadian television signals, and I challenge any member of the House to prove to the contrary. It treats all signals, U.S. and Canadian, alike. I think that had better be underlined, Madam Speaker. It treats all signals, U.S. and Canadian, alike.
It is indeed unfortunate that if this bill passes without amendment we will not be in a position to say the same thing. It is indeed unfortunate that the words of the minister last night imply that it will not be the same. The FCC sets rules for local and distant stations, protecting in a very limited form local stations from distant United States or Canadian stations. The protection is exactly the same. That is a sensible thing. I accept it and I think anyone who applies any reason would accept it. Of course the local station should be protected.
Let me put it another way. If I were the operator of a television station on the U.S. border I would want the Canadian government and the CRTC to treat my signals in exactly the same way the United States treats Canadian television signals. That would be all I would ask. Frankly, that is all KVOS is asking for, but I am afraid the message has just not got through to those on the other side.


Mr. Paproski:: Never will.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Precisely. Their mind is made up and they don't want to be confused with the facts.
The minister went on to state:
Traditionally our country has no frontiers and obviously, when dealing with air waves, it is still more difficult to mark the boundaries.
I could not agree with the minister more. That is a tradition that Canadians are proud of and should be proud of. I think it is a tradition many Americans are proud of. In a very real sense the people of Kootenay West are very much aware of this, perhaps more than many members of the House, because of the close liaison we have and enjoy with our American neighbours. After all, the southern boundary of my riding forms the 49th parallel.
Before we had the benefit of any signal from the CBC we received television from the United States. We did not have the CBC prior to the U.S. station in Spokane. We asked for it and we are still asking for it. Heavenly days, half of my riding, geographically speaking, receives no television signal! I asked for service in Vancouver but the CRTC and CBC, working in collusion, concern themselves only with one thing, which is establishing a French language station in Vancouver and to hell with the rest of British Columbia and those people who have no television or radio. They could not care less; they have their blinkers on. The same is true here.
I ask, where are the government's priorities? I have no objection to a French language station in Vancouver. Indeed I would welcome it. Perhaps it would help me learn our second language in Canada. Well, perhaps I should say one of our official languages in Canada. I am sorry I referred to it as a second language because it is not; it is
one of the two official languages, but I am a westerner and I suppose I think as a westerner.
Perhaps I am digressing for a moment, but let me make this point. Does the House not think that the government's priorities are mixed when it wants to spend $3 million on a television station that the majority of the people of British Columbia do not want, when it wants to force it down their throats, yet the government is not prepared to spend the same amount of money on the provision of radio and television services for the hamlets and small communities of British Columbia that have no signals? These communities are then jumped on because they establish their own pirate stations. What kind of blind thinking is this? This is the reason why the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is in Vancouver with his cabinet today. They are trying to straighten out the way they have alienated western Canada, and the chickens are coming home to roost.
To get back to this bill, what I am trying to point out is that simply because there are U.S. television stations sitting on the border is no reason why the government should suddenly be so concerned about these horrible monsters. Quite frankly, we have been damned glad to have them. Heavenly days, if we had not had them the birth rate in Kootenay West would have multiplied out of hand!
With regard to motion No. 7, the minister said that the Canadian television and radio industry is in a precarious situation in many ways. Once again the minister made a statement with which I heartily concur. But I have only just reviewed one of the reasons why Canadian television and radio is in such a precarious position. It is not that it has not got the dollars; it is the manner in which those dollars are spent. This is what inflames and irritates so many Canadians. Until the government, the CBC and the CRTC get their priorities straightened out, that inflammation will continue. It will be a boil on the side of the federal government that can only be cured by a darned good lancing.
The minister spoke last night about protection. She said that above all there cannot be any possibility for us to protect the income of the many Canadian actors, artists, and artisans involved in the professions related to television and radio. That is precisely what we are trying to do, protect the jobs of people working for a Canadian company in Vancouver. But this bill would deny them the right to work. The government wants to cancel the whole thing out and start all over again with its own grandiose schemes which have never worked. At the moment we have something that works. It is paying good tax dollars to the government and employing Canadians who are happy with their jobs. Yet the government is not satisfied. It wants to remove them and to start all over again with its own ball of wax. We have seen this happen before with the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), and quite frankly he just messes his nest. I should like to call it six o'clock so that I can continue, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question
put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 12, 1976