1976-02-16

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 25 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
21419-lid
Available from Printing and Publishing, Supply and Services, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 16, 1976


Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion with the unanimous approval of the House pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Following the tremendous achievement of Miss Kathy Kreiner of Timmins, at the Winter Olympics, and because her success for Canada seriously challenges our Canadian humility, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert):
That through you, Mr. Speaker, this House express its great admiration for Kathy's ability, courage and dedication, and that this House honour Kathy for her remarkable success, by acknowledging her contribution to the glory of Canada and our athletes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The motion in accordance with the terms of the standing order can be presented only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST FOR DELAY IN OPERATION OF ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER IN IRVING CASE PENDING ESTABLISHMENT OF APPEAL PROCEDURE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43 under circumstances of urgent and pressing necessity which do not require expansion on my part. I would therefore move, if unanimous consent is given, seconded by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that:
This House requests the Governor-in-Council, acting under the provisions of Section 24 of the Anti-inflation Act, to vary his order pursuant
to Section 22 to include reasons for the decision to allow an intelligent consideration of the question of appeal procedure and to delay the operation of the order until appeal procedures have been published.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely the findings of a study commissioned by the Food Prices Review Board that Canadians are paying from 4 to 7 per cent too much for food because of declining competition and corporate concentration in the retail food business. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urge the government to impose an immediate freeze on the retail price of food until it has time to take permanent action based upon the findings of the study.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST THAT CHAIRMAN AND ADMINISTRATOR EXPLAIN DECISION IN IRVING CASE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an extremely urgent matter requiring our immediate attention.
As the recent decision of the Anti-Inflation Board, condemning the Irving Company to a $125,000 fine for having wanted to share its profits with its employees by increasing their salaries, is immoral, repugnant and unacceptable; as that ruling will allow companies to increase their profits without sharing them with their employees under the pretext that they will be fined for so doing, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):

February 16, 1976
Anti-Inflation Board
That this House order the chairman and administrator of the AntiInflation Board to appear before it or one of its standing committees to justify their decision in the case of the Irving company which decision is an insult to all Canadian workers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.

[DOT] (M10)


AIR CANADA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. Considering the many weeks since the report of Chief Justice Estey regarding Air Canada was tabled, reflecting upon the many weeks since the resignation of the chief executive officer of Air Canada, and remembering that the last annual report of Air Canada which members of parliament have been able to peruse and question in committee with Air Canada officials was for the year 1972, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the Minister of Transport cease acting like the Prime Minister's pet rock and instead bring forth legislation to implement at least some of the recommendations of the Estey report and expedite the immediate appointment of an executive officer to take responsibility for Air Canada, and that the standard or criterion not be one of language, religion, or any other consideration save capability for the task.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST FOR STUDY AND ACTION BY BOARD ON FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD STUDY OF FOOD PRICES-MOTION UNDER S O.
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43. It has to do with the report of the Food Prices Review Board which shows that Canadians are paying anywhere from 4 per cent to much more for food because of concentration and lack of competition in the retail food industry. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
[Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve).j
That this House call upon the Anti-Inflation Board to immediately examine the findings of a report commissioned by the Food Prices Review Board into concentration and the lack of competition in the retail food industry, and the report conclusion that this lack of competition results in food prices that are anywhere from 4 per cent to 7 per cent too high, and further, that if these findings are substantiated, the supermarkets be directed to roll back prices forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on an important matter to the agricultural industry in Canada. In view of the statement of the President of the Treasury Board in December, 1975 that there would be a $10.1 million reduction in federal contributions to crop insurance, and according to provincial agreements neither side can unilaterally change its contribution to the program without having given five year's notice, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker):
That this House request that the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Agriculture be called before the Standing Committee on Agriculture immediately, the former to be questioned as to this statement, and the latter as to his commitments under existing crop insurance legislation, and to explain their positions.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



RECOGNITION OF THIRTY-FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE BY ASSISTANT DEPUTY SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

Mr. Speaker:: I know all hon. members will join me in taking a moment before beginning the oral question period. I wish to call to the attention of all hon. members that this afternoon the Mace was carried into the chamber by the Assistant Deputy Sergeant-At-Arms who celebrates 35 years of service to the House of Commons and who is retiring on this day after that rather splendid and outstanding record. Mr. Jean-Gaston Angrignon is in this chamber at the moment, and I know all members wduld like to recognize that fact.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 16, 1976



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising out of the apparent situation that no appeal can be launched against a ruling of the Anti-Inflation Board unless that party risks the defiance of a ruling of the board or the administrator. In order to preserve something like a traditional approach to law, and therefore necessary respect for the program itself, is the government by amendment, administrative order or some other way prepared to assure the right of a direct appeal of board rulings without the necessity of a party defying the board before such an appeal can be launched?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board has made it clear that in a situation where the board arrives at an opinion with respect to either a price or a compensation settlement, the opinion being that they would exceed the guidelines, and the parties indicate that it would not be their intention to abide by that opinion, the chairman of the board would make an early reference of that matter to the administrator for the purpose of the administrator's determination. Of course, the decision of the administrator in that regard can, if any affected party wishes, be appealed through the procedure laid down by the Act.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why is it necessary for the government, through the board, to encourage parties to a collective agreement, for example, to indicate they are not going to comply with the board ruling before they can appeal to a higher authority? In what way does it encourage support for the program, and for what reason is it necessary for a party to a dispute to indicate defiance or refusal to accept a ruling of the board before an appeal can be launched?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman has it exactly the opposite way around. The encouragement on the part of the government, the Anti-Inflation Board and I hope on the part of all right thinking Canadians is that the guidelines which have been set out should be complied with, and that therefore where parties have submitted to the board either a price change or a compensation decision upon which the board has rendered a decision, the emphasis is that the parties should comply rather than the opposite.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why in this democracy in the year 1976 is it not possible for a party in a dispute to appeal a ruling without indicating that the ruling is unacceptable and will not be complied with? The Minister of Finance indicates that it is only where a party to a dispute or both parties to a settlement indicate they will not comply with the board's ruling that such a matter will be referred by the AntiInflation Board. In what sense is that position necessary? In what sense does that help fight inflation in this country?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I indicated, if a party does not agree with a decision of the board, then the board will refer the matter for the decision of the administrator. This does not necessarily indicate non-compliance on the part of the parties. Just to put it in the context of the normal judicial procedure, parties who are satisfied with the outcome of litigation normally do not appeal.


REQUEST THAT REASONS BE GIVEN WHEN DECISION RENDERED
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In light of the fact that the ultimate appeal is to the federal court, which under the provisions of section 28 can review a decision on the basis that there has been a failure to observe a principle of natural justice or that there has been an erroneous finding of fact, will the government arrange to call in its former civil servants who are temporarily acting as the administrator and as the appeal tribunal to the Anti-Inflation Board and the administrator's decision and advise them about the facts of life and the necessity of giving reasons for judgment when a decision is made?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the act has provided for procedure whereby there is the Anti-Inflation Board, the administrator and the appeals tribunal, and in due course appeals can be taken from their particular decisions, if a party wishes, to the federal court. It seems to me that parliament having made that provision, it would be entirely reasonable for the parties appointed pursuant to the statute to carry out their responsibilities without the intervention of myself as the minister.


Gerald William Baldwin: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister during the course of his answer, may be able to explain how you can appeal judgment unless you know the reasons for the decision. In any event, will the minister, in terms of section 17(3) of the Act, at least make a report to this House, get the report from the administrator and give it to the House indicating the basis of the rationale of the decision, why it was made, the circumstances under which it was made so that those people affected and this House will know instead of this decision being made in secret?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that report was tabled on Friday.


Gerald William Baldwin: Oh, nonsense. There were no reasons in it.


DECISION IN IRVING PAPER CASE-REQUEST UNION BE GRANTED RIGHT OF APPEAL
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the order of the administrator reduces the terms of the collective bargaining agreement from 23.8 per cent to 14 per cent as of May 1, 1975 and in view of the fact that the said decision adversely affects the workers of that company who are signatories to the agreement, and since under section 30 of the Anti-Inflation

Oral Questions
Act any person against whom an order has been made by the administrator has right of appeal, I want to ask the minister first of all if he is certain that the union in this case has no right of appeal? I would think under section 30 they have that right of appeal since they are adversely affected. If they have not, however, is the minister prepared by administrative order or the introduction of legislation to give those who are affected by the decision of the administrator, the right to appeal to the appeal tribunal?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is asking me for a legal opinion in the first instance. If its turns out that a person affected by a particular order does not have the right of further recourse, then of course every attention would be given to possible amendment in that regard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the fact that this right of appeal which the government spoke of so glowingly when the legislation was going through the House, is increasingly becoming a farce since the person aggrieved cannot appeal to the administrator except with the consent of the Anti-Inflation Board or the government, and now cannot appeal the decision of the administrator to the appeal board and since they cannot take the matter to the federal courts unless they have been before the appeal tribunal, has the time not come for the minister to introduce legislation immediately to give any person who is affected by a decision of the Anti-Inflation Board the right to go directly to the appeal tribunal and, if not satisfied, to go directly to the courts?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied that the hon. gentleman's two presumptions are accurate and it therefore seems to me that his questions are premature.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if I have not got the facts straight I would certainly be glad to be enlightened. The minister has not been good at that in the past. It may be that I am not very bright or it may be that the minister is trying to evade giving an answer. I want to ask the minister if he is prepared either to state the intent of the legislation or to clarify the legislation so that any employer or group of employees may have the right to take a decision of the Anti-Inflation Board to the appeal tribunal without being denied access to the administrator except by order of the Anti-Inflation Board or cabinet?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, he is not asking for a statement of the facts; he is asking for a legal interpretation of the law which has been passed by parliament. I would suggest to him that the law speaks for itself. It would be for the appropriate legal process to determine the application of it.


Gerald William Baldwin: I agree with Dickens: "the law is a ass" in this case.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Why did you vote for it?


Gerald William Baldwin: I did not vote for it.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the President of the Treasury Board are absent, I shall direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
After the statement of the Treasury Board concerning the opening of two income tax offices in Arvida and Shawinigan, which represent total investments of more than $15 million to accommodate some 1,300 civil servants for the Income Tax Branch, does not the minister think it would be more urgent to complete the organization of the two unemployment insurance offices in the constituency of Roberval promised since the beginning of the year to give justice to the unemployed, which would better comply with the anti-inflation legislation?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will pass these suggestions along to the minister. Perhaps I should add this: the decentralization of the income tax office is part of the general policy with which I thought my hon. friend would agree.


FOOD PRICES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and arises from the assurance he gave the House on November 7, as reported on page 8951 of Hansard, to the effect that the Anti-Inflation Board would be examining, "the gross profit margin" of companies and determining if there are unreasonable mark-ups in food prices. My question is prompted by the news today that a study commissioned by the Food Prices Review Board shows excessive mark-up in food prices ranging from 4 per cent in eastern Canada to 7 per cent in the west resulting from what the study calls lack of competition, and concentration. What does the minister propose to do about this situation which seems to be seriously undermining the government's entire anti-inflation program?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised several points. The AntiInflation Board, obviously, will pay close attention to the immediate impact of the matter, particularly in light of returns anticipated from a number of these companies by about the end of this month. The returns will be submitted for the purpose of determining their gross profit margins.
To affect, in the long run, competition not only in this area but, indeed, in all areas of Canadian business, the government will bring forward at an early date the second stage of the competition policy for the purpose of ensuring better competition for Canadian consumers in the Canadian market. I hope the hon. gentleman and his colleagues
February 16, 1976

will support these important changes to Canadian competition law.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the predictions of the vice chairman of the Food Prices Review Board in January that food prices would continue to rise, especially after supermarkets lifted their voluntary freeze of food prices, which we are experiencing now, may I ask the minister what steps the Anti-Inflation Board has taken to establish clearly to the people of this country that it is doing something to restrain prices, especially food prices? I ask this as it is apparent that this is not being done and as such lack of action is affecting seriously the government's attempt to attack inflation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I point out that the freeze itself, which has been operative for several months, is the first evidence of the impact of the board on pricing in the food distribution sector. There will be variations in prices as the winter goes on because of the importation of fresh fruits and vegetables to Canada. Really, there is little opportunity to avoid variation especially in such commodities, and such variations may occur from time to time.
In general terms, to respond to a point raised in the previous question, the gross profit margins of these firms will be under close scrutiny by the board, particularly after the filings which are expected at the end of this month.


GASOLINE-POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION SETTING MILEAGE STANDARDS FOR AUTOMOBILES
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Bearing in mind that the United States has already enacted legislation in the field of energy, the announcement that gasoline prices are to rise next summer and the need for us all to be energy conscious, does the minister intend to introduce legislation during this session, to provide for greater efficiency in automobiles and light trucks?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we intend to introduce some mandatory measures.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the legislation contain penalties, to induce automobile manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles, or is it intended to implement the legislation by way of taxes on the public, which must buy these cars, even though they may be less efficient?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the measures will deal with new gas mileage standards. They will be aimed at increasing, on a fleet average, the gas mileage standards by 1980. The second period will be 1985. Those measures will be
Oral Questions
comparable to those introduced by the United States. Therefore, it should not in any way penalize Canadian manufacturers and their workers.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, might I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In as much as the minister has indicated on a number of occasions that he will be initiating a specific stabilization program for beef in the calendar year 1976, what action is his department and the government taking with regard to the proposal advanced by the minister of agriculture of the government of Alberta specifically outlining a cow-calf stabilization program of which the costs would be shared 75 per cent by the federal government and 25 per cent by the provinces?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, that proposal was submitted several weeks ago, actually before Christmas. As I said before in this House, there is an ongoing committee of provincial deputy ministers and officials in Ottawa. They have not as yet come to a conclusion.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Instead of the minister's continual evasiveness and procrastination, will he tell the House whether in fact he will initiate any kind of program specifically for the cow-calf producers of this country- yes, or no?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I said we would have a program for the calendar year 1976, from January to the end of December, for beef.


REQUEST FOR ALTERNATIVE FACILITIES IN VIEW OF HOSPITAL CLOSINGS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the anguish, fear and dismay caused by the proposed closing of several hospitals, particularly in rural areas, I would like to ask the minister if health care centres or other facilities are being planned to look after those needing care and, also, if any provisions are being made to look after the approximately 5,000 people who will be unemployed.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand the concern expressed by the hon. member. However, as he well knows, the administration of health services is the exclusive responsibility of the provincial governments. I might advise the hon. member that discussions are underway with the provinces in order to try to develop lower
10958

February 16, 1976
Oral Questions
cost alternatives to hospital care in the various provinces so that Canadians will all be well covered with regard to the care they need at a price the country can afford. These discussions are under way. As I said, in a previous reply, my officials will be meeting with provincial officials in March. I hope to then be in a position to call a federal-provincial conference of health ministers in April.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he will be making a statement on motions today or tomorrow to explain his complete reversal of position on the long-range patrol aircraft contract?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not be making a statement. There has been no reversal of our position.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Is the minister seizing upon the difficulties of Lockheed to enable the government to back out of a contract under which the government found, to their surprise, that they were expected to pay part of the production costs for the planes they were buying? With respect to the reply of the Minister of Supply and Services last week that the technical problems concerned long-term financing, is it not closer to the truth that the technical problems are actually short-term financing and that it is the Canadian government and not Lockheed that is unwilling and unable to put up the front-end money?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, at this stage it is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services as the purchasing agent for the government and National Defence, to complete the negotiations and contract with Lockheed. Those negotiations have been made more difficult as a result of the difficulties Lockheed has experienced in recent days and weeks.


CLOSING OF HOSPITALS-SUGGESTED CONSULTATIONS WITH ADMINISTRATORS AND STAFF
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is supplementary to that asked by my colleague from Simcoe North. In these discussions he mentioned provincial authorities. With regard to the more efficient use of health delivery facilities, is he prepared to take into consultation not only the provincial authorities, the administrators, who are the same people as he has, but also senior nursing staff and doctors working in hospitals, and not necessarily only the doctors who put people in hospitals?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the provinces would look very dimly upon any attempt by me to go behind their backs directly to hospital administrators.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the minister misunderstood. I asked that these people be included along with the provincial authorities so that some actual experience on how to efficiently run hospitals could be obtained right in the field.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have had over the years several meetings with the official representatives of these professional bodies, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Hospital Association and the Canadian Nursing Association. In addition, I do not think the provinces would very much like the hon. member's comment that they do not know how to run these institutions.


FOOD PRICES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the report of some 170 pages being prepared by Dr. Mallen for the Food Prices Review Board, the fact that the prime finding of the report is that there is a very high correlation between corporate concentration in retail food stores and excess profits, and earmarks where the excess profits are, what immediate steps will the minister be taking to eliminate those excess prices and profits in those specific markets?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already responded to that question from the hon. member for St. John's East.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact the minister sloughed this off to the Anti-Inflation Board, will he now advise whether the government is considering imposing an immediate price freeze on retail food prices until they have time to evaluate this report and bring in any legislation the report might recommend?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, parliament set up an agency to deal with prices in Canada. It makes some sense to deal through that agency.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the House as to how many and why so many Air Canada flights have been cancelled out of Montreal today?
February 16, 1976

Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I can indicate that when the flights should have started this morning, some ramp employees of Air Canada were not present. The matter is being investigated. I do not have a report or explanation at this time.


POSSIBILITY REFINERY AT COME-BY-CHANCE WILL CLOSE-GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO ENSURE CONTINUED OPERATION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister made inquiries into the future status of the refinery at Come-By-Chance in Newfoundland and can he tell us whether, given the 400 jobs and the 100,000 barrels a day in output which are involved here, the government has any plans, through Petro-Can or whatever, to ensure the continued operation of this facility?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the difficulties at the Come-By-Chance refinery at the present time. I am also aware that Petro-Canada has made it their business to find out what is the problem. I cannot say more than that at the present time.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Can the minister tell us what the effect will be on the supply situation in eastern Canada should this facility close?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact Secretary Butz has made it quite clear that any country which advocates and promotes a controlled production concept will ultimately destroy its ability to compete on world markets as well as destroy man's ability, desire and initiative to produce, will the minister inform the House whether he agrees with Secretary Butz?


Eugene Whelan: I saw the
same program, Mr. Speaker. I asked Secretary Butz last year whether he was proposing control measures. He did say on that program that he had intervened several times in marketing arrangements in his own country and that he would continue to do so as long as he was Secretary of Agriculture.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Would the hon. gentleman assure us that he will acquire a transcript of the production for a showing in the Railway Committee Room and invite all Members of Parliament to review this outstanding film.


MAXIMUM SECURITY PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTIONS-STATUS OF INSTITUTION PROPOSED FOR DARTMOUTH
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Solicitor General or the Minister of Public Works. It has to do with the program for the construction of maximum security psychiatric institutions in various regions of Canada. With regard to the program apparently selected for Dartmouth in Nova Scotia, I should like to ask whether its status is such that consultations have now taken place with the Province of Nova Scotia and city officials in Dartmouth with respect to the location of the institution.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: I will take notice of that question, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In his absence, I will direct it to the parliamentary secretary. When can the House expect to receive the results of the study promised by the minister into the effects of last year's alterations in the fee structure relating to the national parks?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: do not have a direct answer for the hon. member but I am sure the minister will be able to give him a precise date very shortly.


Howard Earl Johnston: Can the hon. lady tell us whether the minister is now prepared to discuss the results of the study and any proposed change in the fee structure with operators of businesses in the parks, interested groups and individuals who have made representations to him, before any new fee schedule is announced?


Iona Campagnolo: The minister has made it clear that he is willing to consult with such people and he has already done so in some cases.


FINANCE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the government's stated intent to hold down increases in its expenditure to approximately 14 per cent in 1976 as opposed to 23 per cent in 1975 and 28 per cent the year before, is it the intention to decrease personal income taxes this year as part of the fight against inflation while at the same time stimulating the private sector of the economy?
21419-2%

February 16, 1976
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman will recognize on reflection that he is asking for the kind of statement about fiscal intentions which is normally made in the budget.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: One supplementary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration having to do with the curtailment of expenditure. As part of its stated program aimed at reducing expenditure, has the government considered unifying the services provided by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and Canada Manpower? If so, when can we expect such an integration to take place?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: This possibility, along with other options with regard to amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act is before us now. I cannot give a definite answer as to whether, or when, such a change will be made. But we are seriously considering the suggestion.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport when the government intends to announce the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer and other officials at the head of Air Canada? Will the announcement be made this week or in the very near future? Can he give us a definite indication of the date?


Otto Emil Lang: A meeting of the Board of Directors of Air Canada is taking place today and I expect to discuss this important question with the board. It may be that after the meeting I shall know more about the exact timing of any announcement.


Jack Burnett Murta: Will the announcement be made in Montreal or Ottawa? If it is to be made in Ottawa would he be prepared to make the annnouncement in the House?


Otto Emil Lang: The location will depend to a large extent on the timing. I will consider the hon. member's suggestion- whether it can be made in the House.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he tell the House whether the Prime Minister's special representative, Mr. Ivan Head, was able on his

recent trip to Europe to make a contribution to a resolution of the difficulties between the MPLA and South Africa resulting from the occupation of certain Angolan territories by South African military forces?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I would not think so, because that was not the purpose of his journey.


ANGOLA-POSSIBILITY OF RECOGNITION OF NEW GOVERNMENT
Francis Andrew Brewin: On Friday last, the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont asked the parliamentary secretary a question having to do with the recognition of the people's republic of Angola. Events have moved since that date and I wonder if the minister could now tell us whether conditions have reached the point at which serious consideration is being given to such recognition.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not concluded that recognition ought to be extended at this time. The matter is under consideration.


MANPOWER
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration which I gave him notice of last week.
Considering the increasing number of applications at manpower centres for adult training and the growing need for minimal requirements to meet the needs of the labour market, could the minister tell the House whether he is prepared to offer more adult courses next year?


Robert Knight Andras: The amount of money allocated to adult training over the last two years has increased very considerably. I would refer the hon. member to the very substantial increase effected in the budget of June of last year. There was, it is true, a modification-some expenditure cuts-in December, but it still adds up to a very significant allocation of resources. I doubt very much that we shall see additional funds made available during the financial year 1976-77, desirable though that might be in certain respects.


OIL-GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO INCREASE EXPLORATION-LEVEL OF PRICE INCREASE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Surveys of the oil industry indicate that for the sixth
February 16, 1976

successive year Canada will experience a deficit in conventional crude oil supplies, that is, production will exceed findings. Will the government be presenting any new plans to forthcoming meetings with the provinces designed to bring about increased activity in the exploration field?


Alastair William Gillespie: We shall be reviewing a number of measures including the question of raising the price of oil by July 1 of this year. Incidental to that, of course, would be a larger share to the producer for the purpose of increasing exploration and development in Canada.


William Gordon Ritchie: Will the government be pressing to raise the price of oil to world levels on July 1?


Alastair William Gillespie: We have always made clear that it is government policy to raise the price toward world levels. I do not want the hon. member to understand that it is proposed to do so in one step. My predecessor and I have always made it clear that we shall be moving toward world levels in a series of measured steps.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, may. I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture? It arises from the critical situation in which the dairy industry in Manitoba now finds itself, and the minister's past statements that because of present surpluses, milk production will have to be reduced and that no increase in financial subsidies will be considered. Will the minister indicate whether at the time marketing shares for each province are being established those provinces that have not met their present marketing share will not be asked to accept further reductions?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the marketing share quota committee operates with very little, if any, interference at all from the Minister of Agriculture. They are the ones who decide among themselves how they will share the quota.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF APPEAL PROCEDURE IN IRVING CASE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Last Friday, the minister announced to the House the important decision to impose to the Irving Pulp and Paper Company a fine of $125,000 for refusing to meet the requirements of the Anti-Inflation Board. However, the procedure the Irving Pulp and Paper Company should follow to appeal that decision has not been clarified or indicated clearly. Since this important case will establish a
Oral Questions
precedent in that area, can the minister now inform the House of the nature of this procedure and indicate at the same time what new developments have taken place?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I believe the Minister of Finance has gone into that very thoroughly. This is a question of following the procedures outlined in the act, and I do not think it would be appropriate for me, as a lawyer or as the minister, to tell him what procedure should be followed.


RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL SITES IN OTTAWA AREA-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it arises from questions I asked last week in respect of radioactive substances in the national capital area. At that time the minister indicated he would be able to make a report on the location of those sites and the disposal involved. Has the minister had a chance to look into that matter and can he give us a report today?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into the matter and have been discussing with my department the list of various locations in the Ottawa region, as well as other areas in the province of Ontario, and I hope to be able to make that list public toward the end of this week.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for that answer. When he is making that list public, will he at the same time be making a statement in respect of the disposal of the material, the methods to be used, the criteria to be followed and other matters that are important on this question?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will see that this particular aspect of the question is covered.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Manpower and Immigration at long last inform us whether he will be announcing this year that the offices of Canada manpower and unemployment insurance will be amalgamated so there can be better coordination between those who know where the jobs are and those who are unemployed?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think I made a comment on almost an identical question asked by the hon. member's colleague just a few minutes ago.

February 16, 1976
Oral Questions HOUSING


GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO IMPROVE NATIVE AND RURAL HOUSING PROGRAM-NATIVE REPRESENTATION AT VANCOUVER HABITAT CONFERENCE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs whether he can report to the House on what plans the corporation might have to accelerate the native and rural housing program implemented two years ago which to date has achieved less than one per cent of its target?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member gets his figures, but two years ago the figure of starts in that whole area was something like 42. I recall indicating to hon. members how much of an effort it was to get the program started. The most recent figures I have are 3500, and if we maintain this level of acceleration of activity I think we will be doing a great deal along the line of reaching our target. I have been meeting with the native people just this past week. This has a high priority in my ministry and in CMHC. We are working well with the native people. It has been much slower getting going than we expected, but I think with that rate of acceleration we are making good progress. We are running into problems of administration but those are better than problems of frustration.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the figures I have quoted in the House of 50,000 homes come from a report from the minister's own department. The houses that have been started and achieved to date are 410. I should like to ask the minister if it is his intention, and the intention of his department, to allow native people to establish a presence during the Habitat conference at Vancouver since it only takes a 15 by 20 piece of property to demonstrate a native housing unit in Canada?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, which is really not a question, certainly I do not know what part of the program he is referring to, but the total impact is on 3500 housing units. In so far as Habitat is concerned, the native people will be represented in the Canadian delegation.


MANPOWER
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and is in reference to media reports over the weekend regarding statements allegedly made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding the future of LIP funding. May I ask the hon. minister how soon he may be in a position to announce further LIP funding because of the high unemployment rate, especially in the Atlantic provinces, and with particular reference to Cape Breton Island where it is now in excess of 25 per cent?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I can hold out no hopes to the hon. member for increases in the allocation of $100 million that is committed for 1976-77. I have indicated to the House, and confirm again, that this is a slight reduction in the allocation from $135 million. There will be an increasing shift of these funds to the high unemployment areas. This may be at the expense of lower unemployment rated constituencies, but the figure is to remain at $100 million on the basis of the information I have as of today.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. This is the time of year when many Canadians are examining registered retirement savings plans, and my question concerns the rule that requires a life annuity to be purchased before the 71st birthday, often resulting in no increase in cash income over the interest that could be earned on existing investments, resulting in the depletion of the estate on death and leaving the unused capital in the hands of the insurance companies. Will the minister give consideration to amendments which would permit registered retirement savings plans to retain existing investments and to be depleted at will, providing of course that the amounts taken out would be included in income in the year of receipt, in order to provide greater flexibility and to remove inequities that exist at the moment?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the operation of this particular program has been under scrutiny. Of course, any change of that kind involving a change in fiscal status would very likely have to be made in the context of a budget.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact it would cost only about $9 million a year to provide the pensions for prisoners of war recommended in the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and in view of the fact that the government has spent sums many times that size, in quite a few cases, since the restraint program was brought in last October, would the Minister of Veterans Affairs give us the assurance that it is not a problem of finding $9 million that is delaying action on this report regarding POW legislation?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the question is concerned, when I finally have the conclusions of the government I
February 16, 1976

will bring them before the House and the hon. member will be aware of them at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will that be this week?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding Guatemala. Can the minister clarify the situation regarding the sending of 100 tons of powdered milk to Guatemala, and whether there is evidence that this milk is filling the nutritional needs of that country? Secondly, can the minister indicate whether Canada will augment this by sending lumber and galvanized tin for the construction of dwellings before the rainy season starts in that country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have a long report from our representative in Guatemala indicating the background of the request for supplies of powdered milk. The requirement for powdered milk was developed in consultation with authorities in Guatemala and in consultation with nutritional authorities. Without going into all the details at the present time, there is a continuing need for powdered milk as an important element in the diet of the population of Guatemala. Continuing requests are being made for powdered milk for rural areas, for orphanages and particularly for nursing mothers.


Douglas Roche: I have one supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister did not answer the second part of my question concerning the sending of lumber this leads to my supplementary. I should like to ask him whether or not the Canadian government would support the 14 principal nongovernment organizations that are going to launch a $2 million campaign for long-term application in Guatemala and whether the government would match that $2 million with $2 million to make a total of $4 million available by Canada for long-range application in Guatemala.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the second part of the first question, as yet there has been no request from the Government of Guatemala to provide building materials, although I understand the Government of Guatemala is attempting to define, in co-operation with the United Nations, its immediate and future requirements so that an international request can be made upon a more defined inventory of needs and we will obviously co-operate with that.
I have stated already in the House that we would be prepared to readjust our own development program in Guatemala to co-operate in the rehabilitation of that country on a short-term and long-term basis. In other words, we will restructure our whole aid program to reach that objective and will consider co-operating with the NGO's.
Irving Appeal



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: That this House shall adjourn at 5.00 p.m. on Thursday, February 19, 1976, and shall thereupon stand adjourned until Monday, February 23, 1976, at 2.00 p.m.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion at this time has been presented, with due notice. It is a debatable motion. I see the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) wishes to participate in the debate. Simply in order to maintain the regularity of the proceedings, I wonder if we might conclude the routine proceedings and then revert to motions in order to debate this particular motion. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   ANTI-INFLATION ACT DECISION OF ADMINISTRATION RESPECTING IRVING PULP AND PAPER DISPUTE
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters) the adjournment of the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 26, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the state reached in the collective bargaining process as signified by the decision of the Anti-Inflation Act administrator in the Irving Pulp and Paper dispute. An agency created by the federal parliament and, accordingly, responsible to that parliament, has become involved in the normal course of the collective bargaining process, but has provided a right to appeal only to the employer and not to the union, as signified by the Irving case. This is creating an inequitable situation which has prolonged the resolution of the strike in the Canadian pulp and paper industry and portends the total breakdown of free collective bargaining throughout the economy, with consequent labour unrest and social dislocations. Therefore, there is an immediate need to debate the decision of the administrator and the process whereby that decision was made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The popularity of this subject has been evidenced not only by repeated applications pursuant to Standing Order 26 but, in addition, through numerous questions raised during the question periods

February 16, 1976
Irving Appeal
that have taken place during the currency of this strike which is now of some six months' duration. Today's question period, of course, was no exception because representatives of all opposition parties put questions. In the past, questions have been put by representatives on the government side. So there can be no doubt about the importance of this strike and its very wide-ranging effect, as well as the desirability that this House might address itself to the problem.
However, there are two or three continuing questions, not the least of which is that it is a strike in the private sector, as I indicated the first time it was raised. I indicated last Wednesday that there was some trouble with the question of jurisdiction. May I say to all hon. members that there can no longer be any trouble with the problem of jurisdiction. The strike existed prior to the introduction of federal controls in respect of wages and prices. However, the operation of the statute, the operation of the AntiInflation Board, and the decision now of the administrator, clearly establish a connection with this parliament vis-avis this particular strike which otherwise would in no way come under the jurisdiction of this parliament. Therefore, the jurisdictional question can be laid to rest now.
That, however, does not eliminate all the problems facing the Chair. One is, that with repeated applications under this Standing Order, it would appear that continued rejections by the Chair begin to draw the Chair into taking sides in the merits of the dispute, which is certainly not what I want to do and, I hope, is certainly not seen in that light by hon. members. The fact is that last week, when the matter was raised, I indicated that the administrator, pursuant to the legislation, was in the course of commencing his duties as envisaged by that legislation. If it was the case that he had been derelict in those duties and had not investigated the situation, or had failed to act or failed to come to a decision which was precipitating a work stoppage, that might be one side of the coin. The fact of the matter is that at that time I refused an application for an emergency debate because the administrator was just beginning his examination of this situation.
In the interval, it is obvious-as is contained in the notice of motion of the hon. member-that the administrator has completed his work and has made his decision. That is the normal function of the administrator as envisaged in the legislation which was, of course, passed by this House a short time ago. I could scarcely hold that the normal operation of the administrator within the intent of that legislation could be constituted as an emergency which should precipitate a debate. Whether that has an effect on the collective bargaining system generally, surely must have been envisaged in the legislation, and if it is a matter of general concern about the collective bargaining system and its welfare that, again, might be a proper subject for discussion on an allotted day. But if there is a situation in the Irving case and its example to the rest of the nation, one of the difficulties is that the workers are at work in the Irving company, and if the rest of the nation were to follow that example, presumably anything but a continuing difficulty would exist and other strikes might be settled-I do not know.
The fact is that I can scarcely consider the Irving example as an emergency, nor can I say that the administrator 
does not appear to be fulfilling his duties within the terms of the legislation as envisaged. If I were to extend the precedent pursuant to Standing Order 26 every time an administrator, pursuant to this legislation, comes down with a decision one way or the other, or is called upon to intervene and make a decision, this place might be looked upon as a court of appeal against his decision. If I were to accept that example of the effect of the administrator's decision in the Irving case, how could I refuse it in a number of other cases in which the administrator might be involved in the near future? I do not think I could: it seems to me it would be extending the precedent too greatly.
On the other hand, again I say that if through the days that follow there is a continuing work stoppage in other areas of this industry, and if in fact there is some breakdown of the understanding of the legislation, or it fails to operate, that might be a cause for reapplication. But the fact of the matter is that the administrator has functioned as envisaged in the legislation, he was put in place as the legislation envisaged, and he appears to have acted, and acted quickly. The workers in the Irving case are at work; the plant is operating. Unless there is some dereliction of duty, a breakdown in the functioning of the legislation, or some work stoppage to which the House could address itself that is clearly important, it would seem to me at the moment the legislation is functioning as was envisaged by this parliament when it was passed a short time ago and, therefore, for the moment at least I ought not to grant a emergency debate.
I again say that I regret the fact that repeated applications under this rule are beginning to draw the Chair into the position of taking sides in the issue. I have tried very hard not to do that and to simply decide whether there are some grounds, with reasonable precedent, upon which I ought to set aside the regular business of the House in order to precipitate a debate pursuant to Standing Order 26. However, as long as the legislation is functioning as it was envisaged when it was passed by the House a short time ago, I fear that, without stretching precedents beyond all control, I cannot consider such a debate at this time.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,581, 3,757, 3,762, 3,782, 3,811, 3,814, 3,820, 3,898, 3,904, 3,916 and 3,936.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount paid in air fares in each of the past three years for which figures are available by the Department of

External Affairs to (a) Air Canada (b) CP Air (c) other airlines including their identity and the specific amounts paid in each case?
2.	What is the name and job designation of every official in the Department who decides which airlines will be used and on what basis are such decisions made?
3.	Has any person in the Department ever been offered any fee, present, reward or inducement of any kind by an airline before or following business placed with that airline and, if so (a) what is the name of the airline (b) what are the names of the persons receiving such offers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The information requested is not recorded in a manner which would facilitate reply. Expenditures for airfares are, in most instances, recorded under the names of the employee(s) receiving the services, not by specific airline. A definitive response would require a review of approximately 9,000 files and almost 60,000 travel claims in addition to an analysis of some 4,200 Post Financial returns. It is estimated this would require some 1,200 man days at a cost of approximately $50,000.
2.	It is not in the tradition of a non-political public service to disclose names of officials who perform tasks in the course of their public duty. Travel arrangements are made in Ottawa by a number of clerks, most of whom are rotational employees, and at posts abroad by administrative. Clerks and officers, either on foreign assignment or locally engaged. Foreign Travel and Removal Service is responsible for travel. The section is part of the Staff Relations and Compensation Division. Whenever practical, Canadian airlines are used. However, the services of all airlines are utilized, as needed, when Canadian airlines are unable to provide the services or reservations required.
3.	Like any large organization whose members are involved in a substantial amount of travelling, the Department is the recipient of occasional offers of various kinds from airlines in the context of their promotional activities. Records of such offers are not kept. In keeping with Government and Departmental policies, employees are not permitted to accept fees, presents, rewards or inducements offered by airlines for the purpose of acquiring Departmental business.


Mr. Cossitt: What was the total amount of public funds spent by all departments for extra advertising made necessary directly or indirectly as a result of the recent postal strike?


Mitchell William Sharp: 


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In 1975, what was the (a) total budget (b) actual expenditures of Parks Canada?
2.	What percentage of such expenses were recovered from tolls and fees instituted during the year?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	(a)	$143,114,000;	(b)
$142,485,000*.
Order Paper Questions
* Includes actual expenditures for eight months to November 30, 1975 and four months projected expenditures to March 31, 1976.
2.	8.1 per cent.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	(a) How many TOW weapon systems have been purchased by the Armed Forces and are on issue to the troops as of December 1, 1975 (b) what fraction or percentage of the total order for TOW weapon systems does this figure represent?
2.	What is the cost of the TOW weapon systems that have been purchased and issued up to December 1,1975?
3.	(a) How many TOW missiles have been purchased by the Armed Forces and are on issue to the troops as of December 1, 1975 (b) what fraction or percentage of the order for TOW missiles does this figure represent?
4.	What is the cost of the missiles that have been purchased and issued up to December 1,1975?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. (a) 149 systems are being purchased. However, none have been issued to the troops as of this date, (b) Not applicable in view of 1(a) above.
2. Total program cost including Launchers, missiles and ancillary items is estimated to be $30,097,000.
3 and 4. See 1 and 2 above.


Mr. Marshall: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,174 regarding the ACCA Programme (a) what were the (i) names (ii) type of firms that applied (b) what was the amount requested (c) what were the results of each such application?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: (a) (i) The Department of National Revenue advises that in accordance with Section 241 of the Income Tax Act, the names of firms submitting ACCA applications may not be released, (ii) The 11 applications were submitted by the petroleum industry, (b) The total amount requested was $88,247.	(c) Six applications for $54,893 have been
approved; Two applications for $21,926 are under review; Three applications for $11,428 have been withdrawn.


Mr. Howie: Are entrance requirements in terms of scholastic attainment for English and French speaking students uniform for entrance to (a) the Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario (b) CMR, St. Jean, Quebec and, if not, what is the difference?


James Armstrong Richardson: The entrance requirement to RMC and 1st year CMR is senior matriculation standing based on provincial secondary school standards. There is no preparatory year at R.M.C., however, entry into CMR for the preparatory year only requires junior matriculation standing based on provincial secondary school standards.

February 16, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	What was the total amount paid by the Department of National Defence for Armed Forces recruitment ads on French-langUage television in the Province of Quebec in (a) 1974 (b) 1973 (c) 1972?
2.	How many unilingual (a) French (b) English speaking persons entered the Armed Forces in (i) 1974 (ii) 1973 (iii) 1972?
3.	How many unilingual (a) French (b) English speaking persons were accepted into the officer training programme in the Armed Forces in (i) 1974 (ii) 1973 (iii) 1972?
4.	What was the total number of unilingual French speaking persons in the Armed Forces in (a) 1974 (b) 1973 (c) 1972?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. (b) FY1973/74, $177,782. (c) FY 1972/73, Nil.
2.
(a) Francophones*
(i)	FY	1974/75	2,876(ii)	FY	1973/74	2,983(iii)	FY	1972/73	2,343
(b) Anglophones* 5,773 5,118 3,744
3.
(a) Francophones*
(i)	FY	1974/75	472(ii)	FY	1973/74	422(iii)	FY	1972/73	528
(b) Anglophones* 974 742 557
4.	(a) FY 1974/75, 6,038. (b) FY 1973/74, 3,018. (c) FY 1972/73, 1,856.
*Note 1: Francophones and Anglophones denotes primarily French and English speaking respectively, not necessarily Unilingual.


Mr. McKinnon: What is the (a) military (b) civilian strength of National Defence Headquarters as of December 18,1975?


James Armstrong Richardson: Statistical data on strength is compiled at the end of each month and is not readily available for each day of every month. The data given below is as of November 30, 1975. (a) 3,100, (b) 4,169.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	With reference to the speech of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on November 28, 1975, what are the names of the thirty parks and sites to be developed in the Province of Newfoundland?
2.	How much remains to be spent out of the future years estimates on the Gros Morne National Park in the Province of Newfoundland?
3.	As a result of the government's reduced spending under Indian Affairs what, if any, reductions will affect the development of the Gros Morne National Park and what are the details under Parks-capital $13.5 million and operating costs of $6.4 million and/or other?
4.	Where it is feasible, what are the details of the government's plans to introduce low intensity recreational activities at national historic parks and sites?
[Mr. Richardson.)
5.	What plans are being made to upgrade and improve the interpretation programmes at the Gros Morne National Park in Newfoundland?
6.	Has the government discussed with the Province of Newfoundland a commitment to develop linear land and water systems under the ARC Programme and, if so, what are the details?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. This speech refers to 30 National Historic Parks and Sites which will be developed across Canada within the coming three years. Of these 30 priority sites one, L'Anse aux Meadows, is located in Newfoundland.
2.	The following are the proposed 1976-77 capital estimates and 1977-82 capital program forecast for Gros Morne National Park. 1976-77, $2,569,000; 1977-78, $3,754,000; 197879, $3,660,000; 1979-80, $2,404,000; 1980-81, $2,264,000; 1981-82, $4,076,000; Total: $18,727,000.
3.	The only capital project in Gros Morne National Park affected by the $13.5 million government restraint program is the reconstruction of highway 430. $800,000 was taken out of the 1976-77 estimate year and deferred one year. Of the $6.4 million reduction in operating costs only $34,600 for goods and services was taken out of Gros Morne National Park.
4.	Where feasible, it is the intention to increase the visitors enjoyment of our larger National Historic Parks and Sites by introducing various complementary facilities. Such facilities may include picnic areas, nature trails, beaches, interpretive kiosks and period restaurants as in Louisbourg. These low intensity activities will only be permitted where there is no conflict or encroachment upon the historical integrity of the site. It is our belief that the natural features of many of our larger National Historic Parks and Sites are an important part the historical experience which should be enjoyed by the Canadian population. As for L'Anse aux Meadows, paths and visitor circulation will be developed for the viewing of building remains. Picnic facilities are also being recommended because of the isolation of the site.
5.	Two significant basic steps have been taken which will help develop and maintain a high quality program at Gros Morne: (a) a Chief Park Interpreter has been hired, (b) an Interpretation plan of the Park has been completed. Currently, the staff of Gros Morne National Park contribute articles to the regional media in order to raise awareness of the Park. This effort will be continued. To supply information and orientation on arrival, a new Visitor Reception Centre is being designed. This new centre will provide significantly improved exhibit and theatre capabilities. Steps have been taken to acquire improved resource material from which high quality programs can be developed. Among these steps are: (i) a Human History bibliography of the Park has been completed, (ii) photographic resources have been enlarged to supply material for exhibits and displays both inside and outside the Park, (iii) two detailed interpretive story area plans will be ready for this summer. This plans will state where and what kind of media will be placed in certain sections of the Park. Several new interpretive facilities and programs have been instituted. These will contribute to the Park experience of many Park users. Among these facilities and programs are: (a) a new car caravan route and brochure are now available. Each visitor stopping for information
February 16, 1976

upon entering the Park will receive the brochure along with other material about the Park, (b) a new exhibit for the Lobster Cove Lighthouse is in the design stage, (c) a new interpretive trail has been established at Lobster Cove, (d) several hiking trails have been extended and will be available for interpretive purposes. Contact with local people through interpretive programs keeps the community informed of Park activities and provided information on a significant community resource. Park personnel are available to visit local organizations and present programs about the Park. In addition, Park staff will, upon invitation make presentations to school children and youth groups to enrich their knowledge of the Park and its story. Gros Morne also hosts many groups who make special arrangements to visit the Park. Several groups such as nature federations and birding groups have already made arrangements to visit the Park this summer.
6.	Negotiations have begun with the Province of Newfoundland to determine the potential of the Avalon Peninsula as a corridor under the ARC Program. A joint planning process, including a joint planning team, has been outlined and discussed by both governments. Subject to the approval of the Government of Newfoundland, a joint feasibility study will be undertaken and should be completed within three months.


Mr. Wenman: What was the total cost, including but not restricted to the costs of design, printing and distribution, of the National Health and Welfare brochure To Save A Life (FA/OAS-0975)?


Marc Lalonde: With respect to the brochure "To Save a Life", the total cost of the design/art work, mechanical production, printing, through the Department of Supply and Services, and shipping was $56,064.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	What was the cost of the publication Is There a Place For Horror Films in Canada's Film Industry?
2.	How many copies were produced in (a) English (b) French?
3.	In what locations was the publication circulated?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Member is referred to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules 4th edition, citation 171dd.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I ask that questions Nos. 3,496, 3,504, 3,525, 3,569, 3,579, 3,642, 3,693, 3,721, 3,765, 3,792, 3,793, 3,795, 3,797, 3,857, 3,860 and 3,862 be made orders for return. I also ask the consent of the House to table
Order Paper Questions
immediately the information which has been already submitted. The balance of the information will follow as soon as it is submitted to me.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Fortin: Since 1970, were any expenses or contributions made by a department for the (a) Toronto (b) Vancouver exhibition and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?
Return tabled.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Since 1968, what was the annual return on invested capital for each proprietory Crown corporation?
2.	In each case of a return of less than 7%, what action did the corporation take, or plan to take, to cope with the situation?
Return tabled.


Mr. Brisco: What were the government expenditures in each year 1963 to 1975 in the Constituencies of (a) Restigouche (b) Kootenay West by the (i) Department of Transport (ii) Department of the Secretary of State (iii) Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (iv) Department of Manpower and Immigration (v) Department of Regional Economic Expansion (vi) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (vii) Industrial Development Bank (viii) Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?
Return tabled.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	For the years 1972 and 1974, what was the total expenditure for the Department of (a) Agriculture (b) Manpower and Immigration (c) Industry, Trade and Commerce (d) Labour (e) the Secretary of State (f) Transport (g) Energy, Mines and Resources (h) Indian Affairs and Northern Development (i) External Affairs (j) Consumer and Corporate Affairs for (i) publications (ii) audio visual presentations other than film presentations (iii) film feature presentations?
2.	Which departments have (a) television production facilities (b) film equipment (c) radio production facilities and, in each case, what is the (i) nature (ii) dollar value of the facility?
Return tabled.


Mr. Oberle: What contracts were awarded (a) by the government (b) on behalf of Central Mortgage and Housing to Canada Consulting of Toronto in (i) 1973 (ii) 1974 (iii) 1975?
Return tabled.

February 16, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	What alternative services are being used by each department and agency during the current postal strike to deliver written communications within Canada and what is the estimated monthly cost to each?
2.	In each case where commercial delivery services are being employed (a) what is the (i) name of the company (ii) rate or cost of the service (b) by what process was the company selected?
Return tabled.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Did the government grant money to Canadian universities in 1973, 1974 and 1975 and, if so, what were the amounts involved?
2.	(a) What are the names of the universities (b) how much was granted to each?
Return tabled.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total cost involved in the last year for which figures are available for providing at public expense transportation of any kind for Deputy Ministers including specifically (a) chauffeur driven transportation (b) wages of chauffeurs (c) mileage allowances (d) meal allowances (e) total wages including overtime, etc.?
2.	Of the total amount of public funds involved, how much was applied to each department?
Return tabled.


Mr. Matte: 1.	From January 1, 1975 to date, how many persons have taken the bilingualism test in the Public Service in order to obtain the 7% bonus?
2.	How many (a) English (b) French speaking employees (i) passed (ii) failed such test?
3.	What are the assessment criteria?
4.	Is the test valid?
Return tabled.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On January 1, 1971 and January 1, 1975, by department, what were the number of persons employed on a (a) term basis (b) contract basis (c) casual basis by (i) classification (ii) salary range?
2.	For the same dates and in each case, what benefits were payable to such employees by (a) classification (b) salary level (where applicable)?

Return tabled.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On January 1, 1974 and January 1, 1975, by department, how many (a) information officers and (b) support staff were employed by (i) job classification (support staff, trainee, IS 1-6) and (ii) salary range?
2.	For the same dates, by department, how many information officer positions were vacant by (a) job classification (b) salary range?
3.	By department, what duties and responsibilities were handled by each information officer as of January 1, 1975?
4.	By department, what is the total amount to be spent in 1975-76 on information services, including salaries and wages?
Return tabled.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For each department, departmental corporation, agency corporation and proprietary corporation, how many employees whose headquarters were in Canada travelled outside of Canada and submitted travel expenses in each fiscal year (a) 1970-71 (b) 1971-72 (c) 1972-73 (d) 1973-74 (e) 1974-75?
2.	In each fiscal year and for each department or corporation, what was the total amount expended on employee travel outside of Canada?
Return tabled.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	By department, Commission and Crown corporations, etc., how many public servants earning over $18,000 in the past year received overtime pay?
2.	How many received overtime pay (a) up to $1,000 (b) between $1,000 and $2,000 (c) between $2,000 and $3,000 (d) between $3,000 and $4,000 (e) between $4,000 and $5,000 (f) $5,000 and over?
Return tabled.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	During the present fiscal year, how many former Deputy Ministers were on the government payroll as consultants?
2.	(a) What are their names (b) what was the nature of their consulting assignments (c) what will be the total amount paid to each and what is the breakdown?
Return tabled.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	For each Minister currently in the Cabinet, how much has been spent since 1970 for (a) renovating (b) redecorating his office in (i) the department (ii) the House of Commons?
2.	How much has been spent by the government in the last year to supply briefcases to government employees?
3.	What categories of government employees and how many, except for Cabinet Ministers, have governmental (a) cars (b) drivers supplied
February 16, 1976

for them at public expense and what is the total estimated cost of this practice during the current fiscal year?
Return tabled.


Mr. Halliday: 1.	What were the names of all programmes under which the government made grants to individuals, groups, organizations or corporations and, for each programme, what was the amount granted in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974?
2.	In each case, is there a catalogue or brochure showing details of such grants?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with an earlier agreement, the House will revert to motions. The motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), seconded by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), has been put. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) in the debate.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak on this motion. As I go through this little talk this afternoon, perhaps we may all gain something from it no matter what side of the House we are on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard C. Jones: Very early in life, amongst other things, we are all taught to say at least two words "Yes", and "No". As we grow older we are taught what these words mean, when to say them and when not to say them. This is one reason why nations and governments in this world find themselves in such difficult circumstances. Leaders in all sectors of society have been reluctant to make positive use of the words "Yes" and "No", but have been more concerned in obtaining and retaining office and power.
On Thursday last, in response to a request by Mr. Speaker for unanimous consent to entertain the motion in question, I exercised a right, a right to dissent, a right which any member of this House has. From certain corners there was grave despair. Be that as it may, I have made it clear on several occasions that when unanimous consent is required, if those who are desirous of having the motion passed quickly want my consent, they should at least have the common courtesy to ask me for consent or consult with me. The leader of the party which is holding a leadership convention this weekend, obviously on misinformation and poor advice, forced me to become an independent and abused all Christian and democratic principles to make certain that I be rejected and refused admittance to that party and candidacy for his job. He has been assisted by others in this conspiracy.
Motion to Adjourn


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Balderdash!


Leonard C. Jones: In view of the fact that the real reason this motion has been introduced is to accommodate members of parliament from that party so they can attend and participate in that convention, I could put on record the history of the so called "Jones affair" since May, 1974.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Order.


Leonard C. Jones: It is very interesting and would prove to be a real horror story. It points up some of the abuses that can, and are, practised under the political party system in Canada today. It indicates how injustices, inequities and undemocratic procedures can be, and are, followed by the backroom boys and by those at the top echelon of the political party for the sake of keeping control of a political party. But today I am not going to relate to you that story except to say that one can be duly nominated by a constituency association and unduly rejected by a national leader; duly elected by the people, undemocratically rejected by the executive, but endorsed again by the people at the grassroots level.
Political parties in Canada must be for, of, and by the people-all people-people from the base of the triangle or pyramid to the apex; from the grassroots level up; from the first rung in the ladder to the top; from the lowest plain to the highest peak, regardless of their status in life. Yes, political parties must relate to people. If this philosophy and thinking is not followed, then Canadians will continue to be cynical and distrustful of political parties, the party system, governments, parliamentary democracy and the institution of parliament itself.
Leaders of this nation should be preaching and practising productivity and efficiency at home, at Work and even at play. Each and every member of parliament would do well to practice productivity and efficiency right in this House. Certainly we should oppose poor legislation, but support good legislation. If we oppose or support legislation, we should say so, say it quickly and get on with the business of this House and with the business and problems of the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Simplistic.


Leonard C. Jones: One serious problem is that the members of this House are kept in the dark with respect to several of the operations of government. Millions of dollars are spent annually and this House has little or no control. This must stop. All political parties must clean up their acts. The people of Canada are awaking from a deep sleep only to find that the democratic institutions established over many years are being eroded and watered down. Parliament must clean up its act, and certainly government has the duty to clean up its act. People must not only become involved in the political process; they must be permitted to share in the party process itself.
Incidentally, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is to be commended for going to British Columbia along with a

Motion to Adjourn
number of his cabinet ministers. This is an excellent precedent. But I would suggest that trips of this kind should not be conducted when the House is in session. Annual cabinet sessions could very well be held in each province, and every member of parliament from that province, regardless of his political or non-political affiliation, invited to participate and share in the work. A great deal more could be accomplished on this non-partisan basis. I have always felt that full cabinet meetings should be held outside Ottawa occasionally on a regional basis, and I would now suggest that the Prime Minister arrange for such a meeting in Moncton as soon as possible. I would be pleased to assist in any way. This is taking government and parliament to the people. It is a grassroots understanding of these problems.
After I said "No" on Thursday last, one person said, "That wasn't very sporting of you". I smiled, because I never thought that the business of this House should be taken lightheartedly: this is no sporting event or even an athletic happening. It should not be a mutual admiration society-but maybe it is. Like you, Mr. Speaker, I believe that as a member of parliament I have responsibilities. My responsibilities as a member of parliament are first to my constituency, then to the nation generally, and then to my conscience; and if I belonged to a party, I suppose that then my allegiance to my party would come next. I sometimes wonder if this is the priority followed.
I wish to point out quite clearly and emphatically, and in as explicit and clear terms as possible, that if the proponent of this motion had had the common courtesy to come to me prior to its introduction, I would have been more than pleased to go along with unanimous consent. I would even have consented to allowing the House to have Monday, February 23, off because I feel certain that the Progressive Conservative Party is going to need all the time it can obtain to get a leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard C. Jones: However, the fact of the matter is that no one,-not one soul-had the courtesy to come to me and discuss unanimous consent; and, incidentally, no one has yet had the courtesy to come to me. This House has many serious and important matters to handle. There are problems arising from inflation.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Leonard C. Jones: Is there someone on this side who wants to speak after me? There are high interest rates to deal with, Anti-Inflation Board decisions, unemployment, housing, social problems, capital punishment, abortion, defence, and government waste. The list goes on and on. The question of taking time off for a political convention is a doubtful one. Possibly we should have passed the Heritage Day bill and let them have that weekend off.
Since I have been in this House as a member of parliament, duly and regularly elected, I have endeavoured to conduct myself with a sense of fairness, justice and fair play. But I have made it clear on several occasions that in view of the fact that I have been forced to sit as an independent, I intend to exercise my rights and privileges and also to assume my responsibilities to the fullest. Until

such time as I become a member of a recognized political party, I have no alternative but to use my own good judgment.
Hon. members will have to admit that there has been a total resistance by the recognized political parties to cooperate and permit me to become a member of any standing committee of this House. I ask: Is that fair? Does it discriminate? Is that parliamentary democracy? Is that morally right? Is that the type of justice meted out to members of this House? Does that type of action pass the four-way test?
In like vein, every other hon. member of this House belongs to a recognized political party whereby 75 per cent of donations up to $500 can be acknowledged with receipts and can be used as a deduction from income tax. This is an even better deal than that given to churches and charitable organizations; but that is the religion of politics. I ask, again: Is that fair? Does it discriminate? Is that parliamentary democracy? Is it morally right? Is that the type of justice meted out to members of this House? Does it really pass the four-way test?
When I first came into this House, I believed many hon. members had ill-conceived and preconceived ideas, for some reason or another, as to my views on several subjects. One of them was bilingualism. I trust hon. members now realize that my suggestion of a nationally-integrated, nonseparate, uniform educational system in this nation is the only way to provide harmony, understanding and unity. I said this to the B and B Commission in May, 1964, and I will continue to repeat it because it bears repeating. The present system for the implementation of bilingualism is not working. It is a mess. It is going pretty far when the chief of the defence staff comes to my constituency of Moncton and says, in effect, that the decision with respect to a French language unit at Greenwood, Nova Scotia, was his move and no one was going to make him change it. That is arrogance, and I do not think we in this House have to accept that.
By not accepting my views, and by not permitting me to have the same rights and privileges as other members of parliament-as a certain political party has done-is not only rejecting me but is rejecting my constituents and the views of a large percentage of good, decent-thinking Canadians. I am an independent, not by choice but by compulsion. But I am a member of parliament as much as any other hon. member who sits in this House. However, the difference with me is that I have no party affiliation, and the system-improperly-does not permit my membership on standing committees. Therefore, my forum for dissent or consent has to be right here in the House of Commons, in the parliamentary chamber itself, and I must make full use of this opportunity to express my right to dissent as well as my right to consent.
Recent events certainly indicate that I have been excommunicated from and rejected by the Progressive Conservative Party. Perhaps now that both Liberals and Progressive Conservatives are more knowledgeable of my views on bilingualism, the other path for me to follow for admission into the PC party is to follow the route adopted by so many other persons who have gained admission into that noble party, namely, through the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 16, 1976


Leonard C. Jones: Even the recently departed former minister of finance-a fine fellow, mind you, but as a minister of finance I question his success because of his last four or five budget failures-received a personal invitation to lead the Tories out of the wilderness. It makes one think. At this point I wish to make it abundantly clear that I am going to make my presence in this House felt even more from now on, and if unanimous consent is required at any time I believe my vote for consent or dissent is as valid as that of any other member of parliament.
In closing, I want to issue a caveat-which I expect every hon. member of the House to read in Hansard- regarding standing committees, donations to my organization and the obvious injustices perpetrated upon me, a member of this House, and consequently upon my constituents and other good-thinking Canadians. Therefore, I ask hon. members to co-operate by assisting in having two private bills which I presented on these matters enacted immediately.
I have no obligation whatsoever to the House leaders or to any leaders of any party, and in particular to the Tory party now. Any relation or connection now is purely coincidental. If the new Tory leader is not a member of the caucus, his caucus will be in no different spot than I am. They, too, will not have their leader in the House. I could expand on this, but I leave hon. members to think of other combinations and permutations of the results.
I express the grassroots-level views of a large percentage of Canadians. These views, ideas and thoughts, are important to me and I trust they are important to every hon. member of this House. I find myself in the position where I have the large support of the people of this country, and not just in my own constituency-but, for better or for worse, not from the top brass of any political party.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you very kindly for permitting me to speak on this motion. I believe it has given me the opportunity, briefly, to put a few important views on the record without unduly wasting the time of this House, as has been done on other occasions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) has raised a number of matters which deserve consideration and which could be discussed with considerable interest.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Are you inviting him into your party?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has already invited himself to go into the Liberal party, and from there to the Tory party. I think the point which most of all deserves consideration is that when we are seeking to do things by unanimous consent, if the hon. member is here on those occasions he should be asked if he gives consent as well.
However, it seems to me that what is now before us is a very simple motion. All it calls for is for this Thursday evening and all day Friday to be taken off for a purpose which I think is fairly well known. I do not think this motion lends itself to discussion of the whole parliamentary system or the trials and tribulations of the Progres-
Non-Canadian Publications
sive Conservative Party. I think it is a matter of common courtesy. This House has taken time off for Progressive Conservative leadership conventions in the past, for Liberal leadership conventions on previous occasions, and recently for the leadership convention of this party. I think it should be done now. Maybe no more speeches will be necessary. I am sure the Progressive Conservatives will vote for the motion, and on this occasion I think I can speak for the Liberal majority in this House as well. In other words, it is unanimous. We are all prepared to vote for the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is the
House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 13, consideration of Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and the amendment to motion No. 7, I must say that I generally and largely support the intent and the principle underlying Bill C-58 in connection with the deduction for advertising expenses in that they should not be available to advertisers who advertise on a foreign broadcasting station whose primary market is directed into Canada. Until recent days we have not questioned the validity of this policy because, on the face of it, its merits have been self-evident in the terms of national interest.
Bill C-58 has been largely viewed by the public and parliamentarians as a bill whose primary thrust, if not its whole thrust, was in the area of periodicals, and the controversy surrounding the Time and Reader's Digest question became the preoccupation of everybody connected with the bill. My view changed somewhat while I was flying westward on January 13, 1976, to Victoria to attend the funeral of my former colleague, David Groos. While I was going out west, I took advantage of the opportunity to

February 16, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
visit the Canadian subsidiary of KVOS in Vancouver whose transmitter is located in Bellingham. I must admit that I was quite impressed with their operation, and particularly with the amount of work that was done in Canada by their Canadian subsidiary. For instance, they employ an average of 150 part-time and full-time Canadian employees, the majority of whom are professional and technical people in the broadcasting and program production field.
There is no doubt that those directly involved as Canadian employees of this subsidiary find it almost impossible to believe that their own government would bring forward legislation that would relieve them of their employment. I am not saying we have to adjust laws in this country or make laws that take into account, in every given instance the well-being of every individual employed in Canada. There can be no question, however, that when the Government of Canada and parliament act in such a way as to adversely affect individual Canadians, they must only do so for very, very important, substantive reasons.
The Canadian subsidiary of the Bellingham station to which I have referred sells in Canada all the broadcasting time to Canadians, which represents about 80 per cent of the total air time of that station. The money from these sales substantially remains in Canada, and taxes on this income are paid to Canada, which means that KVOS is the only border station that operates in this manner. There is no parallel between their operation and those of Buffalo border stations with which I am more familiar. In addition to this, the KVOS production company, Canawest Films, Vancouver, and Canawest Master Films, Calgary, between them are the largest full-line film production entity west of Toronto. They are all subsidiaries of KVOS, B.C., Limited which in turn is the subsidiary of KVOS Television Incoporated, Bellingham, and all its employees are Canadian. These companies operate one of Canada's largest animation studios producing prize-winning, animated commercials for clientele not only in western Canada but in eastern Canada and the western United States. Their exports into the United States and abroad brings into Canada annually an additional half million dollars' worth of business.
The main distinction to be made is that many of us, as parliamentarians, are under the illusion that this aspect of the bill effectively prohibits the draining of funds from Canada into the United States-and with that principle I think all of us would agree-whereas in this case it appears to me that quite the reverse may be true. Canada, in economic terms alone, appears to be a net beneficiary of KVOS, B.C., Limited.
We have legislation called the Foreign Investment Review Act which effectively allows foreign purchasers to take over Canadian industries if it can be demonstrated that such a takeover would be "of significant benefit to Canada". Perhaps, within this act, we have a key to dealing with this unique situation. Surely all parliamentarians would agree that we do not, as a group, want to minimize benefits to Canada and to Canadians. Therefore, it might be considered as advisable to insert a clause in respect of this aspect permitting such border stations as KVOS to continue their Canadian operation providing it is of significant benefit to Canada. Such a provision would not 
permit them to continue to operate, but it would make it possible for them to continue if a decision were made that such continuance were in the national interest.
In light of the fact that I have only recently become aware of the factors that I am referring to in this speech, it is perhaps unreasonable to expect that an amendment dealing with this complex problem can really be dealt with adequately at this stage or our deliberations. Perhaps this provides a classic example as a case for sober second thought by the other place on the questions I have raised.
Many Canadians question the validity of the role of the other place from time to time, but those of us who know its genuine function realize-I am confident, having been exposed to the wisdom emanating from that place-that they will, indeed, take a genuine look at this broad question of broadcasting, not in any way to change the principle underlying this bill, which I strongly support in respect of broadcasting, but to make sure that nothing we do, will in fact, be contrary to the public interest. Perhaps we should also give direction to the kind of provision that exists in the Foreign Investment Review Act and provide that Canadian subsidiaries of foreign stations may operate in Canada if it is in the broad public interest for them to do so.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment now before the House. In so doing, I should like to commend the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) for his outstanding contribution to this debate. I do not do so in any partisan way. Lucidly and eloquently, he put his finger on the nub of the matter which concerns many in this House.
Nobody quarrels about the plight of certain Canadian broadcasting companies, especially those located near the United States border. No one denies that we must protect Canadian broadcasters from unfair competition from U.S. border stations broadcasting television, AM and FM signals. Neither would anyone quarrel over the government treating Reader's Digest as a special case during this debate. Arguments in favour of such a special case have been put forward by members on all sides of the House and the government, to its credit, acquiesced. Obviously, it was moved by the force of arguments emanating from all sides of the House.
I appreciate the concern of the broadcasting industry in Canada, a concern voiced for a number of years. We know that millions of advertising dollars go to U.S. border stations for advertising directed at essentially Canadian audiences. We see it happening in Ottawa. We receive signals from upper New York state television stations. Indeed, one television station in that state to all intents and purposes is an Ottawa station. We see the same thing happening in Montreal. That city is served by stations in upper New York state. Broadcasting stations in that state send their signals to that major market. We see this especially in southern Ontario, the so-called banana belt around Toronto and Hamilton, sometimes known as the great golden horseshoe. The Buffalo stations are gobbling up millions of Canadian advertising dollars which should be directed to Canadian stations. That money should be paid
February 16, 1976

to Canadian stations which provide Canadians with good broadcasting service.
In broadcasting, as in the magazine industry, there should be exceptions. Reader's Digest is an exception. Similarly, as the hon. member for Ontario argued forcibly, an exception could be made for television station KVOS. I come from the eastern seaboard, and have never seen the KVOS signal. I have never experienced that station's television fare. The station has its transmitter based in the United States. It is licensed by the United States Federal Communications Commission. I have been much impressed by the comments of the hon. member for Ontario and of hon. members from British Columbia on my side of the House, and I have been favourably impressed by the sensible recommendations made to the committee by representatives of station KVOS.
To all intents and purposes, KVOS is essentially a Canadian television operation. The difficulty is that it operates under a licence from the United States government. I read the material provided by the company and heard evidence adduced before the committee. I am satisfied that although the company operates under a United States government licence, it subscribes to all Canadian broadcasting laws. That, obviously, is in its interest. It subscribes to the code of ethics of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, although it is not a member, and to the code of conduct relating to advertising directed at children which is endorsed by the CAB and broadcasting stations in Canada. Station KVOS does this although it is not a Canadian-based operation. More importantly, the station operates in Canada, employs Canadians and has spent millions of dollars in this country. Those are compelling reasons for making KVOS a special case.
The same cannot be said of the Buffalo stations. Neither can it be said of the Plattsburgh, New York, stations or for the Watertown, New York, stations. These stations essentially aim their signals at the larger Canadian market to their north. On the other hand, I submit that a special case could be made for that unique operation, station KVOS, which came into being not to serve the small town of Bellingham, Washington state, but essentially to serve the larger Vancouver market and the market of the lower British Columbia mainland. It has been providing the Canadian audience in Vancouver and on the lower British Columbia mainland with good television service and good public service. It has been a good corporate citizen and has been employing, directly, 150 Canadians in highly-paid jobs. It has pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Canadian entertainment and film industries.
I find this debate somewhat strange, something of a paradox. Here we are, debating legislation which would deny Canadian advertisers the right to advertise on U.S. border stations, legislation which would put a good corporate citizen like KVOS, to all intents and purposes a Canadian station, out of business, when we operate under a broadcasting policy which licenses and encourages Canadian cable operators to bring into this country U.S. television signals. I find that a paradox.
We are debating a bill aimed at the U.S. content of Time magazine and at preventing Canadians from advertising on KVOS, a U.S. border station, when at this very time we license Canadian cable companies to bring into this coun-
Non-Canadian Publications
try U.S. television signals generated by the three major networks. Those signals are directed to major Canadian markets.


An hon. Member:: Only provided they delete the advertising.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the city of Regina is a long way from the nearest U.S. city.


An hon. Member:: Cable companies have to delete U.S. commercials.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, St. John's, Newfoundland, is many hundreds of miles from the nearest U.S. station in Bangor, Maine. It is far from the major markets of this country. Yet it is obvious to me that the government's cable policy has troubled Canadian broadcasters deeply. We talk much about Canadian content. While we plead with the CRTC to enforce regulations to do with Canadian content, that commission, operating under authority delegated by parliament, is undermining the very existence of television stations in this country. It is doing this by adhering to a cable policy which not only licenses but encourages cable companies to bring the signals of U.S. networks into this country. Pick up your TV Guide here for the city of Ottawa. What is the major station serving Ottawa? It is not the CTV station; it is not the CBC station: it is the station in Watertown, New York, the signal of which is brought to the city by a cable company licensed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. I find that a paradox. We can talk all we want, but the fact remains that the CRTC now realizes its ludicrous position.
One hears of directives being given to black-out U.S. advertising on the cable system. What kind of cheap, buccaneer policy is that? On one hand, the CRTC licenses Canadian companies to bring in U.S. signals. On the other hand we say, "You must black out the commercial signals." In other words, we are to get the benefit of the programs those stations broadcast, without having to pay any part of the price. That is unfair and unjust, and this situation is becoming one of the major sores affecting Canadian and U.S. relations at present.
People who have had experience with the U.S. government and U.S. congress know of the impact and the strength of the U.S. broadcasting lobby-and don't think our action has been lost on them. Congressmen and influential senators from the state of New York and the New England states have made their views heard in Ottawa through the U.S. state department. I say that our present cable policy makes no sense to anybody. I suspect that the cable policy, the brainchild of Mr. Juneau, now carried into effect by his protege, the present chairman of the CRTC, is not a good policy for Canada. In fact, it is a bad policy for Canada. It operates counterproductive to the policy of encouraging Canadian content. For me, it represents a paradox.
Far from trying to make it difficult for a station that can reach this Canadian market without cable, we should have in front of us today a bill that would really do something for the broadcasting industry of this country. It should be possible to operate on an equal footing, without having to

February 16, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
compete in areas that are far from the receiving signal of the U.S. stations, by a policy that encourages cable companies to bring these stations into these areas. I have already referred to the city of Regina which is now awaiting the implementation of a licence for a cable operation. There is the city of St. John's, Newfoundland. Cable is going into Edmonton, hundreds of miles away from the nearest station.
The cable industry in this country is a big industry-a $120 million industry. It functions solely on the importation of United States signals. Without these U.S. signals there is really no justification for this substantial expenditure of Canadian funds for the cable industry. One certainly cannot say very much for the community channels which are a condition of licensing of every cable operation in the country. The programming is abysmally bad. It is so terrible that these community channels have a viewer audience of practically zero. They exist because they have to as a condition of licensing.
I say the cable policy of this government is bad; it makes no sense. I have the greatest respect for the present minister, a woman who has a background in broadcasting, a woman who understands the broadcasting industry in this country by virtue of her experience as a professional broadcaster. I hope she will bring in policies that will help undo the very serious damage that has been done as a result of the Juneau policies on cable in this country. More particularly, I hope this House will come to its collective sense.
We were able to make a special case for Reader's Digest because the people of Canada want it and it made sense to make a special case in this instance. I believe we should make some kind of provision to allow Time magazine to continue to provide us with the Canadian section, even with all its shortcomings, because we will continue to get Time anyway. We made a special case for Reader's Digest, and I submit that the same arguments are just as compelling, logical and rational for a special case for KVOS, a good corporate citizen of this country that is providing good television to the city of Vancouver.


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in support of the subamendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) to remove the government objective regarding CRTC involvement in this revenue deal. I endorse the remarks just made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). He said that if you can make a special case for Reader's Digest, there is every reason in the world to make a special case for KVOS.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: I also endorse the remarks about the cable position and the commercial deletion question. It can be said, in the words of the underworld, that cable is a fence for the CRTC to sell stolen goods. It is totally immoral. That is just an aside from the points I would like to make.
I heard the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve), her parliamentary secretary and the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) speak on this subject. The CRTC were recently in the west. They were ready to take four American channels off the air. We were briefed ahead of time

that this would happen. The members from British Columbia were told, not consulted. They do not have to account to the public! We were told on November 25 and on December 16 that four American channels were coming off the air. They have great power, power that I never suspected parliament or my country would give to them. It is time that people here learned that we in the west are different. KVOS is different. People here should stop planning for us as though we do not exist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Possibly we should develop a western nationalism so that these people would learn about the west. Maybe we should narrow ourselves off and show what greatness we have. We are not Ontario, nor are we Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Nor are we so immature that we require our cultural supplies, initiatives and dictates to come from that quarter. We have different geography, different sociology, different life-styles, tremendous untapped talent that is bypassed by the Toronto and Montreal cultural clique, and we have great strength and quality that easterners neither understand nor accept. They simply pass through the west. If we have an Olympic swimmer, Maclean's does a token article. It just does a wrap-up type story. It names one or two westerners, one or two far easterners, and calls itself national. Perhaps it is envy, and with that the attendant resentment at our great qualities and great blessings. Perhaps the great physical divider, the Rockies, has isolated us from them and them from us. That is very unfortunate. I believe in a federal nation, a nation undivided. In many ways, we have greater compatibility in the north-south direction than we have with the chauvinistic and parochial east, that harbinger of narrow nationalism that extends about as far as Bloor Street in Toronto.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: People here do not realize that the west is different.
I will now speak about KVOS, the CRTC, which is primarily eastern-oriented, and my colleagues whom I really respect. I respect the minister very much for her background in the media. However, she may not know what KVOS means and gives to us in the west. KVOS-TV has been a good corporate citizen since 1955, not quite as long as Reader's Digest and Time. They pay their taxes in Canada and have been in Canadian business since that time. Substantial amounts of their profits have been reinvested in Canada. Canada, has employed Canadians in the production industry from 1955 to the present. There are a few of my colleagues who say they are getting hot-to-trot to do something now that they are in trouble. However, they have been producing. They tried to get production going. They have won international awards and sent a product produced by Canadians all around the world. They have been doing this since 1955.
In 1971, KVOS wanted to start a huge production studio, but the CRTC turned them down. Is the CRTC the government of Canada? This company has subsidized western Canada's largest film and animation company both in
February 16, 1976

Vancouver and Calgary. Look at the jobs and untapped talent, the opportunities Canadians will never have. We now have that opportunity. It is like Reader's Digest. Reader's Digest now has a special privilege, but is it to advance Canadian talent and culture? No. They can rip a page out of Harper's down in the United States and rewrite it in Montreal. KVOS has employed more Canadian writers, artists, actors, musicians, film technicians, animators and other production people throughout the years than any independent English TV stations based in Canada, except for Toronto.
The Government of Canada seems to have had respect for this television station. It has recognized it, because Canada Manpower has worked with Canawest to help in the training of these people who are working in Vancouver. In the nine years from 1965, company reinvestment has been made possible and funds have been put back into B.C. in the form of taxes, payrolls and other public and private expenditures to the tune of $26 million-$76 million in nine years, That is hardly peanuts. KVOS is different. The west is different. It isn't a border station out of Toronto. But because of the myopic outlook in the east, they can only see the west in relation to what fits their pattern in the east.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: We are different. We have a different world. It is not fair to compare a corporate citizen of British Columbia who has lived in the spirit of what Canada wants of Canadian subsidiaries with all the other border TV stations. I cannot argue the case for Buffalo, though I suspect that they probably have a case too. That is for responsible Ontarian people to decide.


Mr. Collenette:: Rubbish.


Simma Holt: I do not say whether it is rubbish or whether it is not rubbish. That is for you to decide. I will take the care of the west in this case because I know the west; I am a westerner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Let us at least leave an opening in this bill, through this amendment, so that if KVOS can come up with a plan which is better for broadcasting in B.C. than the punitive effect of this bill, it will have an opportunity to do so. And the bill is punitive. George Bernard Shaw said-and I repeat this over and over again-that when you set out to kill, that is assassination, and assassination is the extreme form of censorship. We are out to kill these corporate landed immigrants. Let us find a better way to handle this issue. All right, let's Canadianize them, help them to Canadianize, encourage them to Canadianize. It is a tax bill, it is not a content bill, it is not a game you are playing; and any time you handle law in the way this law is being handled, you are allowing the law to fall into jeopardy and to be destroyed. It is time those who seem to control so much legislation in the House-they and their agencies-learned about the west. I repeat, we are not Ontario and we are not Montreal.
Non-Canadian Publications
Incidentally, I wonder what would happen if the Americans were to decide they would not let us have their shows at low cost. What would happen if they said to us, "Okay, you will pay the same price for our shows as we expect from Americans." I believe a half-hour show costs $150,000 in the United States and $2,000 in Canada; for an hour, $250,000 in the United States and $5,000 here. What would happen to poor old Kojak on CBC and CTV? What would happen to our advertising? There would not be enough advertising revenue to keep our own networks going. The CBC and CTV sell tens of thousands of dollars worth of advertising around these shows. We are willing to take this material when it makes money for us. Is this nationalism? We won't allow the same thing for Reader's Digest. Well, we have allowed it in a way, but it is hardly Canadian content. Or for Time. Canadian networks and stations could not produce Canadian programs if it were not for the profit made on U.S. shows.
The dishonesty of Bill C-58 is exemplified by the fact that we juggle it around to make it fit what we want to achieve. I hear we have now allowed another exemption in respect of some newspapers in Alberta. Mr. Speaker, each time we allow another exemption the intent of the law becomes more apparent. It is determined to kill border stations like KVOS, or debilitate them and destroy Canada's editions of Time. I am from the west, in the far west, and I like to get those eight pages together with the rest of the international content. If we debilitate the border stations, we debilitate a lot of our own taste, our culture and our advertising. Let me point out that it will only be the big advertisers who will be able to afford the local networks because they are going to raise their prices-and they have contributed very, very little to cultural development in the west.
I wish to refer now to justice in the contents of this bill. There is no justice in the bill, and once justice is violated it can be destroyed. The same can be said of freedom. If freedom in the media is violated, the danger is apparent: it, too, can be destroyed. Justice and freedom are delicate pillars in a democracy. The slightest erosion can cause the collapse of our free society.
I think this bill is an extremely serious matter. I am not sure that everybody is with me. Indeed, I am positive that my colleagues are not with me. I cannot understand why they fail to see the magnitude of this issue. Every journalist in the country, every editorial writer in the country has been saying the same thing. There is only one paper which has taken a different view, and that is the Toronto Star which seems to be a bedmate with Southam's which has an interest in some of the cable and television companies which are now being protected by this legislation.


An hon. Member:: That's incest.


Simma Holt: I don't know. It may be a queer relationship. Now we see bad law being adjusted, manipulated, changed. We see exceptions made and introduced. And when exceptions are made, what kind of law is being created? This law has been drawn up to meet special interests, adjusted and juggled for reasons of political expediency, it seems. I would hate to think that was so, but when this happens it is not the law of a just society but the law of tyranny, the

February 16, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
measure of whose design is individual profit or punishment.
To design law in order to get rid of one you dislike, whether it is Time, Reader's Digest, or human beings, is an act of despotism, and I would hate to see such a law passed through the parliament of my Canada. A law of this sort is in great danger of being held up to ridicule and contempt if it is not consistent and, God knows, what has happened in the past week has shown that it is not consistent, that it is without plan and without structure except to destroy several corporate citizens. It has become a ludicrous mass of contradiction.
In the periodical publishing business we cannot have continuing arrangements. The electronic media and the newspapers are totally dependent upon continuing arrangements. Instead, we are putting a knife in the back of small businesses. Our combines bill, C-2, was designed to ensure that competition is not impaired by powerful cartels and monopolies as exemplified by the big three who control newspapers in Canada, specifically, Southam's and the Maclean-Hunter Publishing Company, a multinational corporation which just so happens to have its base in Canada. Hardly nationalistic. All this in the name of nationalism-not patriotism, but nationalism. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his great and remarkable wisdom which we all admire so much, in an interview with Peter Newman-would you believe, Peter Newman, the great nationalist-on September 29, 1975, had something to say about nationalism. These are the Prime Minister's words, not mine:
My feelings about nationalism and ... prejudices against it lie in the very history and meaning of the word. I never thought the nation should have preponderance over the individual...
I am against nationalism in the broader sense, it is a rationale for the establishment or the governing classes or those who have power with it to bring in solutions which are deleterious to individual freedoms-
I would repeat that for emphasis-"to bring in solutions which are deleterious to individual freedoms". Let me continue with the Prime Minister's words:
The word nationalism-particularly economic nationalism, though it applies to cultural nationalism too-is very often a vehicle of the ruling classes to transfer wealth to themselves.
Bill C-58 does just that. It is a bill to transfer wealth from the conglomerates to themselves, to keep out all competition and to deny the whole thing the government is intending to do; that is, protect the right of citizens to a free choice.
In this whole plan called Bill C-58 as it involves KVOS, Time and Reader's Digest-and I think Reader's Digest is still threatened regardless of a contemporary concession- MD, Canadian Medicine, etc., there is absolutely no understanding of the isolation and difference that exists in the west. Time provides us with the only in-depth Canadian news as well as a marvellous insight into the whole world. Yes, we can continue to buy Time, just as we can buy U.S. News and World Affairs, Newsweek, Playboy and Oui but none of the latter has Canadian content. They are not published in Canada. The centrefold of Playboy only once had Canadian content, as far as I can remember.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Was it 80 per cent different?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: It was "substantially the same." If you have seen one centrefold, you have seen them all. We hear this over and over by the proponents of this bill, that we can still get Time, Reader's Digest and all these other magazines. They still maintain we have all the freedom in the world to buy these United States magazines and watch these American shows. But there is a big difference. These American magazines do not provide jobs in Canada. They do not provide opportunities to writers and the allied trades. We have settled in respect of Reader's Digest so that takes care of Montreal. But the Time people are going to lose jobs out in the west. Perhaps these people who say we can still get these magazines are too naive to understand what the difference is between importing them and having them home-developed, and I maintain that Time and Reader's Digest are home-developed.
Canadian writers, editors and printers work for Time and Reader's Digest, and in the case of KVOS there are animators, cartoonists, artists, writers and actors who are getting, very often, their first and only opportunity to use and develop their talents. Let this station fold, and where will these people go? I suggest that they will go to Hollywood and other places. They already have contracted out of Vancouver for Hollywood.
These people already have done such things as 52 segments of the "Abbott and Costello" cartoon series, plus work on the "Beatles", "Moby Dick" and "Samson and Goliath". In 1972, they had additional subcontract animation work for "Gidget" and "The Last of the Curling". In 1973 and 1974, they producted 13 half-hour segments of "Wait Till Your Father Gets Home", an adult cartoon series, and two segments of "Count of Monte Cristo". Those are just a few of the things which are being done in the west. These opportunities for the people in this trade are going to be lost.
I cannot tell whether the proponents of this bill who say we should receive Time and Reader's Digest, U.S.A., in the same way we do other American imported magazines are deliberately telling us falsehoods or just do not understand what is being discussed here. I am also tired of the misconceptions being peddled by those who say that these media groups have been receiving special privileges. That is not true. It is the advertisers who receive the privileges and the right to advertise wherever they want. If only Canadians could understand the principle so deeply involved here! I wish I could convey this to my colleagues, because I feel so very much alone.


James Aloysius McGrath: You are not alone, Simma; we are all with
you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member, but her allotted time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
February 16, 1976


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, I thought I still had four minutes: I have been watching the time.


An hon. Member:: You have more time now.


Simma Holt: What is being debated here is the right of choice by corporate citizens, small business of large, to advertise wherever they choose, and to use, if they so choose, the marvellous resource of a long-time landed citizen in Canada. It is the right of the advertisers to advertise in a magazine that to all intents and purposes is Canadian in that it has been a resident here for 32 years or, in the case of KVOS, here on invitation and eagerly welcomed into this country some 20 years ago.
We were happy to get them in the west. They came there after the CBC, and before the CTV. We in the west have a need, and also a right, to read about our country in objective style and in depth and in detail as a part of the entire world scene. We also have the right to watch KVOS and the American networks from across a border, only 30 miles away from Vancouver-just as we have the right to see American network stations on CBC and CTV. If we could find other stations that can give us this programming, we would watch them. When the satellite and converters come into operation, we will be able to get this programming from all over the world.
Will we have cable deletion then? Will the CRTC become the fence, then, for selling stolen goods to Canada? Is that what commercial deletion is? Our cultural diet seems to be forced on us from this part of the world in Toronto, both in the published and the electronic media. I have said this before, that no one has the right to use the law in the wide reaches of this huge country to deprive us of the choice to read and to see and hear what we wish, nor the right to force us to rely on the mean, cynical, parochial and narrow nationalism of the Toronto-controlled media.
This bill, quite certainly, was intended and designed for the assassination of Time, Reader's Digest, MD, Canadian Medicine, KVOS and other border stations. Once more I repeat, because they are so appropriate, the words of George Bernard Shaw who said "Assassination is the extreme form of censorship".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if we should have a minute of silence so that members on the government benches can put band-aids on their backs to stop the flow of blood.


An hon. Member:: They need more than band-aids.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I have a few things to say to the minister, and I hope she will start listening. Obviously, up to the present time she has not made a habit of listening to other people.


Mrs. Sauve:: I will listen to you, chum.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is a step in the right direction.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Non-Canadian Publications


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, every time I get up to speak, it seems the deputy whip over there wants to make a speech sitting down. Perhaps he might like to change the procedure and get up and make a speech on his feet.


An hon. Member:: He can't speak on his feet.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Perhaps he cannot stand and speak at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: If you have something to say, say it or sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Have you got something to say? We are listening.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I can understand that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) would not be too pleased with the preceding speech, but I am afraid he will not have any more luck in what I am going to say, either. He is obviously rather touchy, so this must be getting to him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Would the hon. member address his remarks to Bill C-58.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that I now have the attention of the minister and may proceed. During the hearings held by the committee, most of the concentration on the provisions relating to television was concerned with the Buffalo operation and KVOS, Bellingham, Washington. I do not wish to spend too much time on that aspect. I am pleased the minister is in the House this afternoon because I shall try to point out the effect this bill would have in a very restricted local area. After this presentation to the minister, hopefully some positive change might be effected. The hearings regarding the two areas I mentioned, Buffalo and Bellingham, involved the CRTC regulations and the proposal that KVOS placed before the members of the committee by which it is willing, in order to expand the industry it started in British Columbia relating to animation and film production, to have "X" number of dollars, to be decided by the CRTC, plowed back, so to speak, into the operation.
The minister shakes her head, but I think this is a proposal which goes much beyond any proposal made by any other television station. I think it bears research and re-examination. KVOS beams into the lower mainland of British Columbia. At the recent CRTC hearings in Vancouver it was revealing to those who live there to discover that members such as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Holt) were completely supported by most residents of British Columbia in that they want KVOS to remain on the air. I believe the representations that were made to the CRTC, regardless of what the minister or the members of the government might feel, made it obvious that most people in British Columbia who now receive KVOS service do not want that service reduced or eliminated in any way.

February 16, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
It is rather astounding to one who does not live in British Columbia to discover that members of the committee from British Columbia, such as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines) did not support an accommodation for KVOS in order that it might continue to operate, but in fact seemed very often to be in the forefront of the effort in the committee to have KVOS destroyed and taken off the air.
After the CRTC hearings held in Vancouver regarding the expansion of CBC television in that area, I do not see how members of the government, having fooled their constituents regarding this matter, could be in the forefront of the committee hearings making comments which seemed to fly directly in the face of the views of the people who elected them to this House. Surely it is their function to determine what their constituents feel about such an issue and to make their views known during debate in this House. They have not done so. In fact, they have been in the forefront of the fight against the service which is desired by the people of British Columbia. It is absolutely astounding, to me, that members from British Columbia could make the comments they have regarding the future of KVOS, such as the statements made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour.
I wish to point out to the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) the effect Bill C-58 already has had on television coverage in southern Manitoba. During the twenty-ninth parliament a number of applications were made by Manitoba cable companies to the CRTC for cable expansion. These hearings were convened in Winnipeg by the CRTC. The applications were heard at that time. It was felt by a number of residents in my riding, specifically in the Pine Falls area, that in view of the fact that they are some 80 or 90 miles from Winnipeg and have very marginal service from the CBC television station in Winnipeg, they should be able to have cable coverage in the Pine Falls area so there would be improved television service in that area.
They had received the support of a cable company in Winnipeg. This company was willing to move into the area to provide the desired service. So the cable company made the application, with the backing of the local people, in the hope that the application would be approved. All they were asking was that the same cable service be granted to a rural part of Manitoba that is presently being offered in Winnipeg. That was the essence of the application. In view of the attitude of the former minister of communications and the former chairman of the CRTC in respect of cable applications, that application is still pending. That occurred during the twenty-ninth parliament. We are still awaiting a ruling on that application. Every time we make an inquiry we are told that the application has neither been approved nor disapproved. We are told they are awaiting a cable policy announcement by the government.
Having heard the application and having deferred the decision, the CRTC, in essence, to the present time has made a negative decision because the service these people had hoped for has not been forthcoming. The people in that area ask why, when they are willing to pay for it, they cannot have the same type of service that is available in metropolitan areas such as Toronto and Winnipeg? I would

appreciate the minister giving an explanation at some time, when she feels it necessary to intervene in this debate, in respect of this question which I believe is fairly straightforward.
In the debate on Friday last, the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas), a co-operative and active member of the committee, as recorded at page 10930 of Hansard for February 13, 1976 said:
In a brief answer, Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member-
He was referring to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Wise).
-will look at the accelerated program that has been introduced in this House to allow places of 500 population or more to receive programming.
I want to point out to the hon. member for Bruce-Grey that we also have difficulties with the so-called accelerated plan. What has happened in respect of Bill C-58 is that for a number of years there has been a so-called border station-or private station as some people are in the habit of calling it-KCND, Pembina, North Dakota. This station, which is close to the forty-ninth parallel, but located in the United States, was beaming generally into the Winnipeg market as well as the surrounding rural area. It was providing for southern Manitobans a third English language television station with the proposals in Bill C-58. I am not trying to say to the minister that it was simply because of Bill C-58 that it happened, but it was part of the package, I feel. KCND felt that if advertisers advertising on KCND could no longer use money spent on advertising as tax write-offs, they would have to stop operations. They did so, and the assets of KCND, Pembina, North Dakota, were sold on the provision that with a successful application to the CRTC by Canawest television, these assets would be sold from KCND, Pembina, North Dakota, to KCND, Winnipeg, associated with Canawest.
Furthermore, KCND is presently associated with the Global network, and so far Winnipegers-I am not speaking of cable users, but viewers in general-now, again, have three English speaking networks, namely, CBC, CTV and Global. Residents living in fairly close proximity to metropolitan Winnipeg are also recipients of those three English television networks. The result is that in the so-called remote areas the CBC-and I chuckle when I hear the word "remote" when I talk to CBC officials, because I am not talking of great distances from metropolitan Winnipeg but, rather, of the towns and villages 50, 60, or 70 miles away from Winnipeg about coverage of CBC in the extreme southeastern part of Manitoba-can supply very few, if any, satisfactory answers.
What happens is this. When KCND went off the air and Global came on, we lost television coverage in southeastern Manitoba in places such as Sprague, Piney and the surrounding areas. The people in this area at least receive KCND, Pembina, North Dakota, extremely well and the coverage is good. The CBC or CTV coverage in that area is virtually non-existent. It depends where you live. In some areas it is better than in others, but on balance the coverage is not good and people have resorted to buying boosters and television antenna rotors in an effort to pull in at least a marginal signal in that area. With the removal of KCND
February 16, 1976

in this area, people have been deprived of the only good television coverage they receive. I am speaking now of the quality of the signal, rather than of programming.
It is an obvious fact that CBC's purpose is, first of all, public service rather than to show a profit, and these people being Canadian citizens, being taxpayers and contributing to the annual budget of the CBC, should have the right to CBC coverage. Petitions in the area have been drawn up-I think we are at number three both for French and English CBC television coverage-in an effort to bring to them Canadian coverage which is taken for granted in Canada's metropolitan areas-and not only coverage which is added through cable and through the other networks. People in that area, myself included, approached the CBC asking them to start telecasting in that area under the accelerated coverage plan, or ACP. After a number of petitions and a lot of good work from the CBC, the only thing that the CBC has now told us they will do is make an application to CRTC some time in 1978. No one knows when that application will be approved, much less does anyone know when we could expect CBC coverage in that area if the application is approved.
I want to express to the minister, in very clear terms, the effects of Canada's cable policy and of Bill C-58 in a small area, one might say, but nonetheless, an important one. Surely Canadians there are entitled to the same coverage by CBC as any other Canadian in other areas of Canada. For example, we see great expansion under ACP in northern Canada; there is no argument about it. But I find it somewhat difficult to understand, when an area is 60 miles away from a large metropolitan centre like Winnipeg, that we should have to wait until 1978 before an application is made by CBC, much less a decision reached. The lack of coverage is partly due to the fact that we have lost one television station which was giving us a quality signal. Whether or not we want to talk about nationalism, it behooves the ministers responsible to take a look at situations brought before the House by members. We have brought forward these cases in letters, also. I am trying to be difficult about the situation, but I believe our concerns are real.
If the effects of the government's decision were fully understood by the minister, and a clear decision and commitment was made, there would be a lot less opposition to the provisions of Bill C-58. Regarding television coverage at present, all I have seen in my area is a negative result. We have not received the commitments which the people in my constituency deserve as Canadians.
I feel that three things are needed. Possibly they are not that startling, but I believe they bear repeating. First of all, a national broadcasting policy is needed in areas such as I have mentioned. People in these areas will then feel they are part of the national broadcasting network, that they are not second-class, and that they should not have to wait until 1980 before they might get signals when other areas in Canada have had them since the early 1950s. We are speaking about a time lapse of 30 years. Surely that is not acceptable. Second, I hope that the various ministers will use their influence to get the cable matter decided once and for all.
The decisions that are pending before the CRTC, where individual companies, with the support of the residents in
Non-Canadian Publications
various areas, want to expand cable, should be made as soon as possible. I do not think we should simply say that the urban areas should have cable and that the rural areas are not entitled to it. If there are private entrepreneurs and subscribers who want to pay for that service, the area should have it. We have spent much time on this question, and I think that in order to resolve this matter, officials of both the Canadian and the U.S. government should meet. I know that one meeting has taken place. They should meet to discuss the problem of border television on both sides in a mutually co-operative fashion in an effort to solve this problem so that we can move forward.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong the debate, but I want to correct some erroneous impressions put forward by hon. members of the opposition in the Conservative party, and particularly by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) about what good corporate citizens KVOS and other border stations are.
Let us quickly look at the history of KVOS and how it hopes to benefit from the amendment before us. The KVOS television station first began broadcasting in June, 1953, and its market was Bellingham, in the state of Washington, and northwest Washington. However, after a year of operation it became apparent that this television company would not be able to make a grand profit or a booming success based on that very limited market. So in 1954, KVOS moved its transmitter to Orcas Island so that it could beam more clearly into the Vancouver area. The intersting thing is that it made that move with the approval of the FCC, the American equivalent of our CRTC. The FCC, that same agency, now deletes not just commercials but whole programs from coming into American areas in order to protect local stations.
The FCC realized that to make a television station a success, a certain maket had to be guaranteed, and boundaries are set up to prevent competitors from entering that market to the point where neither television station can survive on the limited commercial revenues there. The FCC accepts that principle. It is realistic and understands the logistics of television advertising revenue, so the FCC does not allow non-local stations to beam into an area which has been licensed to another station. Yet here we are talking about a serious problem for Canadian stations which face the problem of American signals in their areas, which is allowed under international convention.
At the same time that we allow American signals to come in, we allow Canadian advertisers to advertise on these foreign stations and get an income tax deductibility privilege which was designed primarily only for Canadian stations. All this bill seeks to do is end that anomaly and the unfair competition Canadian stations now face.
I heard the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway lauding KVOS for setting up a branch plant in Canada and for doing wonderful things for Canada. The way she was extolling this company gave me visions of thousands of jobs, and hundreds for Canadians. Let us examine a little more carefully the nature of KVOS. In British Columbia it employs a grand total of 30 people. As of 1974, Canawest, its film subsidiary, employed a grand total of 18 people. Let

Non-Canadian Publications
us compare that with employment in Canadian stations under CBC, BC television or a very small and struggling VHF station, CITY-TV in Toronto, which has none of these advantages. The latter does not employ just 18 or 30 people; it employs 105 full-time employees out of revenues which are less than half those of KVOS in Washington and British Columbia. Let us keep things in perspective when we talk about the number of jobs and the great production facilities KVOS provides for Canadians, and compare that with what Canadian stations have been doing out of revenues considerably smaller than those of KVOS. Let us remember that KVOS in Washington gets 90 per cent of its revenue from Vancouver, from Canadian advertisers. It gets 10 per cent of its revenue from the area it was licensed to serve.
KVOS is not licensed by the CRTC to serve the Canadian market. That is important to remember when we consider how our broadcasting system is organized. Because KVOS is not licensed by the CRTC to serve a Canadian market, it does not have to conform to any of the regulations of the Canadian Broadcasting Act which regulates every other television station in this country. KVOS does not have to conform to the 60 per cent Canadian content regulation, which is a perfectly acceptable thing, in my opinion, but is certainly a liability for a number of Canadian stations which have to find revenue to produce unique Canadian programs. KVOS is not bound by that stricture because it is licensed by the FCC in the United States. Any move it makes to conform to the Canadian Broadcasting Act and its provisions, such as the 60 per cent Canadian content provision and the provision to promote Canadian culture and identity for binding Canadian citizens together, is only on a voluntary basis. If we accept any of these amendments, that contribution could be changed at the whim of KVOS.
There is no legal way in which the CRTC can get KVOS in the United States to conform to the requirements of the Broadcasting Act, and to accept the amendments proposed by the Conservatives, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), would be a contradiction and a violation of the very Broadcasting Act this parliament passed and which hon. members on both sides of the House supported.
Let us keep things in perspective when we try to find loopholes by way of amendments. These amendments are completely in contravention of the Broadcasting Act. We learned in committee that United States border stations siphon off annually some $20 million in advertising revenue which normally would go to Canadian television. Why do our advertisers advertise on American television? It is partly to reach an audience, but I think it is important to realize that up to now, by doing so they have been able to get an income tax deductibility privilege whereby they can write off the cost of that advertising.
This bill will not prohibit advertisers from advertising where they want, but it will reserve that tax deductibility for advertising on Canadian television stations only. I think that is perfectly consistent with wanting to strengthen the Canadian television and broadcasting industry. How can we expect Canadian television to expand its broadcasting facilities and develop new and better programs if we continue to encourage an annual outflow of

$20 million? Let us remember that Canadian television must cover the same geographical area as does United States television. Canadian television stations and companies are expected to have the same quality of service and programming as the United States, without the vast financial resources available to American broadcasters.
I wonder if members of this House have ever stopped to calculate the outflow of funds since this kind of advertising policy began. In my estimation, which I have checked with other sources, to date Canadian television has lost about $250 million in advertising revenue. This year KVOS alone, siphoned off $7 million in advertising revenue from the Vancouver market.


Mr. Friesen:: Where did it spend it?


Reginald Cyril Symes: What does that mean? Money that should have been available for new television stations coming on stream in the Vancouver and Toronto areas is going out of the country. It seems to me the amendment before us leans over backwards to help foreign stations as opposed to Canadian stations. What does that $250 million mean to Canadians, in real terms? It means that about 8,000 man-years of work for Canadian citizens have been lost. I am calculating that at one job for every $30,000 gross revenue. It means that millions of dollars have been lost in tax revenues to the federal government. That outflow of money has meant the loss of hundreds of hours of production that could have provided new and improved Canadian shows. That outflow in the hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising revenue has been undermining the attempts to build a unique Canadian culture-a view of the world and ourselves through new and innovative programming and expanded television service.
Mr. Speaker, I listened again to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway telling us how KVOS has bent over backwards to bring about programming that is of interest to Canadians. I was very interested to read the transcripts of the hearings of the United States committee on foreign affairs, of the House of Representatives, which met on April 25, 1974, at which the president of KVOS was a witness. He spoke of how his station tries to consider the unique Canadian aspect of its audience. He submitted as evidence a list of local public affairs programs of the station for the previous year. It included 421 subjects, of which only 41, or less than 10 per cent, had any relevance for a Canadian audience. I think we should keep this in mind when we hear about how KVOS is a good corporate citizen of Canada. We have heard of the Canawest film subsidiary of KVOS and how it employs 18 Canadians and is producing films and helping the film industry in Canada. Indeed, it is the largest film industry west of Toronto. But it was set up primarily to design video commercials for KVOS. That is the bulk of its business-and we should not forget that, Mr. Speaker. We should keep in perspective the fact that American television stations receive all kinds of protection which we are only seeking to a small degree for Canadian stations.
I should like to refer to a submission of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the professionals in the field in Canada, who fully support the legislation. They point
February 16, 1976

out that American program producers give special protection against Canadian television signals beaming into some of their markets. For example, the Detroit-Windsor area is regarded as one market, with the result that neither the CBC, CTV, Global or any Canadian television station can broadcast into the Windsor area any program which is broadcast by a Detroit station. If Canadian broadcasters buy these programs, it is on the express condition that they may not be shown in Windsor if Detroit has them already. This means that Windsor residents, Canadian citizens, cannot see the full Global or CBC schedule or, previously, the CTV schedule when Windsor had an affiliate.
This is the kind of situation that exists. We have an American group of television stations in the Buffalo area making provision to help their stations against Canadian signals. In the case of KVOS, we have the FCC supporting that station when we know full well it is not licensed, nor can it be the success it is by just beaming into the Washington area. What is at issue is a strong and viable Canadian television broadcasting industry, an industry that is expensive to operate, one that needs funds to improve and expand its operations. For us as a parliament to continue to allow millions of dollars to be siphoned off by encouraging it through a provision in the Income Tax Act is a backward and regrettable step.
It is time we, as Canadians, stood up in support of a legitimate Canadian industry and the concerns facing it in these troubled times.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-External Affairs-Cuba-Possible review of aid program in view of involvement in Angolan war; the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski)-Veterans Affairs-Delay in processing pension applications-Government action; the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)-Air Transport-Possibility of restrictions on unilingual pilots-Government position.
Non-Canadian Publications



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I think at this point it is important for me to intervene, although I have already spoken in this debate, to put straight some of the things that have been said. I refer specifically to the arguments brought forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). I respect the opinions she has expressed on this problem, but I think it is important to let her and the House know that on the government side we view things a little differently. The hon. member argues that if a special case has been made for Reader's Digest, we can make a special case for KVOS. I think that right from the beginning the hon. member has to be stopped in that kind of argumentation. There is no special case for anyone; the same rules will apply to everyone. That is, there will be no exemption for taxation purposes for any American enterprise in this country of the nature we are talking about. There will be no exemption for anyone.
If we recognize there is a special difficulty with Reader's Digest because of the very nature of that publication in that it reproduces articles from the entire world and that it is very difficult to define Canadian content in that particular case, we have tried as conscientiously as possible to deal with that problem. It cannot be argued that we have made a special case for Reader's Digest. It is especially difficult, therefore, to see how Reader's Digest can fit into our criteria.
In regard to this particular station on the border of Canada and the United States, some members speak as though all hell had broken loose. The world will not end because we are to prohibit taxation exemptions in their case. Strangely enough, in English one says "Hell has broken loose," whereas in French one says, "Le ciel nous tombe sur la tete." In French we refer to heaven instead of hell. The sort of arguments one has heard in this House suggests that indeed hell has broken loose.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In English we say, "The sky is falling."


Jeanne Sauvé: Well, "Le ciel nous tombe sur la tete" means that there has been a catastrophe. Why argue that advertisers in the Vancouver area will not be able to advertise? There will be new outlets. Two new stations in the area are to come on stream and advertisers will have the opportunity to advertise their products. Also, if there is any surplus advertising-and hon. members should think of this- it should go to the magazines, journals and newspapers in the Vancouver area. Why send it down to the United States
10982

February 16, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
in order for it to be fed back to Canadians? We can use our own media to place our own advertisements.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Hear, hear!


Jeanne Sauvé: The hon. member argued that KVOS is a good Canadian corporate citizen. I do not know how one can say that. As I understand it, KVOS is a good American corporate citizen, not a Canadian corporate citizen. I can understand why the station wants to be thought of as a good Canadian corporate citizen. I am told that it took $8 million in profits out of B.C. last year. It cannot be considered as a Canadian corporate citizen. It is not even regulated by a Canadian regulatory body or agency. It is regulated by an American authority. Equivalent enterprises in Canada are regulated by the CRTC, the Canadian regulatory body. KVOS cannot, by the very fact that it is in the United States, identify with our needs and our particular sensitivities.


Mr. Wenman:: What is the government's position on freedom of choice?


Jeanne Sauvé: One has heard arguments about compensatory measures, about the creation of a fund in order to help us build up the Canadian industry, and so on. Those are totally unacceptable trade-offs. We do not need those trade-offs. We need to protect the revenues of our television industry.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: You mean, to protect mediocrity.


Jeanne Sauvé: We need to protect it from loss of revenue so that it can operate on its own and feel its strength in our country and particular environment. We must see if the industry can be viable on its own. We do not want compensatory measures which would confuse the whole picture.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: How do you know what the people want?


Jeanne Sauvé: We want our own television stations to earn our money in order that we can build up our own original, indigenous television industry. We want our industry to earn those revenues and so allow artists, artisans and writers of this country to earn their living in this country. Already they find it difficult to earn a living.


An hon. Member:: I am sure they earn a living now.


Jeanne Sauvé: If the hon. member will look at statistics on earnings of Canadian artists and artisans in this country he will see that it is difficult for any of them to stay in that field. Revenues are hard to come by. Their scope is limited and their livelihood precarious. I made this speech the other night and I will not repeat it. I hope the hon. member will read it.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I have read it. It says nothing.


An hon. Member:: You were not here.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I was here, and I have read it.


Jeanne Sauvé: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway suggested that the government wants to enact this legislation because it does not understand the west. She suggested that we cannot look beyond the Rockies and do not

know what is going on in that part of the country. Since becoming a minister I have been out west several times. I know some things about the west. I do not pretend to know more about the west than the hon. member. But I know that the west is not indifferent to the necessity of creating jobs for artists in Canada and of protecting the Canadian television industry.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Is that exactly what the west says?


Jeanne Sauvé: The west sees things our way and knows that we must protect the industry from losses of revenue resulting from American stations broadcasting to this country.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: But people want a choice.


Jeanne Sauvé: It is bad that some hon. members, when arguing this problem, should emphasize the so-called alienation of the west from the east. Such arguments are calculated to exercise under pressure on the issue. They arise in connection with just about every problem we discuss. I think that is wrong. It is just as if I raised the so-called French Canadian problem apropos everything we discussed in this House. Such an action would have bad consequences to Quebec. You just cannot do it. We should resolve arguments through logic. That is the sort of discussion I should like to see regarding Bill C-58. Let our discussion be on Bill C-58 and on nothing else.
Some hon. members ask what would happen if the Americans decided to retaliate and charge us the full price for the American shows we view in Canada. They saw, "Would it not be terrible if they charged us the full price?" There is no danger of that. Hon. members opposite should know that. I do not blame the hon. member who raised this argument because she is probably not acquainted with the pricing practices of the television industry. The American industry is following normal marketing practice. The United States runs cost so much and reruns in other countries are priced substantially below the initial price. This is the philosophy underlying the pricing of television shows. The present practice is not abnormal. The United States networks would not change their marketing practices just because they might want to retaliate. To begin with, they negotiated with those who created the shows, with the producers and artists, so much to run in the United States and so much to rerun in Canada, Sweden, France, Spain, and so on. They cannot change that. There is no danger of the kind of retaliation referred to, as if we should be afraid of retaliation any way. Who cares about retaliation? We want to do our own thing. We shall do what is good for us. We are not worried about retaliation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jeanne Sauvé: I think I have covered many of the arguments raised. I should like to answer the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) who complained that I was not listening to him. I sat here and waited for him to say something. In the end he said a few things to which I should like to reply. Unfortunately, he did not stay in the House and wait for my reply. This will be bad for the hon. member for Provencher, because when he produces copies of his speech to his constituents in order to show that he spoke about radio and television stations in southern

Manitoba, some of his constituents will already have read my speech and will say, "Here are the answers; how can you refute them?"
I spoke on this bill previously and I have kept my present remarks short. I merely wanted to set straight some misconceptions and to make a few necessary points.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the amendment to motion No. 7 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed amendment stands deferred.


Benno Friesen: Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be amended in clause 3 by striking out line 12 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor: "of being extended or renewed; or
(c) a written agreement entered into after the coming into force of this section with a Canadian subsidiary of a foreign broadcasting undertaking if not less than seventy-five per cent of the voting shares of the said Canadian subsidiary are beneficially owned by Canadian citizens and a percentage of the gross revenues of the said Canadian subsidiary, to be agreed upon by the said Canadian subsidiary and the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, less only normal advertising agency and sales agencies commissions, is allocated directly to Canadian television program production, extension of Canadian television service, or other broadcasting objectives for the benefit of Canada: an allocation so made to be pursuant to a plan made by the Commission and approved by the Minister of the Department of National Revenue.".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Non-Canadian Publications


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Benno Friesen: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be amended in clause 3 by striking out line 12 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor: "of being extended or renewed, or
(c) a written agreement entered into after the coming into force of this section with a Canadian subsidiary of a foreign broadcasting undertaking if a sum of money in the amount of twenty-five per cent of the gross revenues of the said Canadian subsidiary less only normal advertising agency and sales agency commissions, is used for Canadian television program production, extension of Canadian television service, educational television or other broadcasting objectives for the benefit of Canada: the method of utilization of such amount to be determined by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission and approved by the Minister of the Department of National Revenue.".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. Motion No. 10 is consequential on the other three motions, and therefore it must stand.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be amended by deleting clause 3.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members. The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions.
21419-31/2

February 16, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
(Division No. 104)


Mr. Speaker:: The question is upon motion No. 4 standing in the name of Mr. Cafik.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment lost.			Foster Fox	MacGuigan Mackasey	Yanakis Young-90.	
[The Acting Speaker.]


Non-Canadian Publications


Mr. Speaker:: 
Mr. Speaker:: The next question which was deferred is Amendment (Mr. McKenzie) negatived, the amendment (Mr. McKenzie) to motion no. 7.	Mr. Speaker: The question is therefore on motion No. 7
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. McKenzie) to	standing in the name of Mr. Friesen.
motion No. 7 which was negatived on the following


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think that inadvertently I was counted twice. I do not want to overdo my welcome among my colleagues. I think that I was counted twice because I shifted from my seat. The first vote only should be counted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. To answer the point raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), I am sure it will be quite easy to verify, by checking the record, whether or not a vote or two was accidentally cast on my left. We can certainly check that. Because of the figures announced it is obvious, in any event, that no inaccurate result has been recorded or intended, I am sure. Accordingly, we can check the record and make sure that Hansard accurately reflects the votes cast.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Denis on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order, since it is our right to do so. We should make sure that the hon. member who has just said how he voted is really the only one who has voted in this way. But, unless I am mistaken, it seems to me there are many hon. members in the same situation and I would like them to tell the House how they voted in the division we have just taken. I think it may be a good idea to check right away what will appear tomorrow in Hansard.
which says that no hon. member shall rise or move about during the taking of a vote. It is abundantly clear that during the taking of the vote on the amendment to motion No. 7 the hon. member for Mississauga rose while the yea votes were being counted. He resumed his seat during the taking of the votes against the amendment, then rose and left the Chamber. His actions clearly contravene the rules. Again, and fortunately for the House, that does not in any way interfere with the results of the vote and, for the moment, perhaps the best thing would be for the Chair to take under advisement the question as to whether any action ought to be taken in respect of the actions of the hon. member.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With regard to the next two votes on motions 8 and 9 it has been generally understood that these motions are tied in with No. 7. We hoped to show our support for the amendments and displeasure with the bill on division, and wish to dispose of that part of the bill without calling for a recorded vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it the sense of the House that, a not uncomplicated result having been obtained on motion No. 7, motion No. 8 shall be deemed to be lost on division and that motion No. 9 shall be deemed to be lost on division? Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 8 (Mr. Friesen) negatived.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Friesen) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: There is before the House the further deferred division on motion No. 11 in the name of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). Shall the same result obtain as for the other two motions?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, in response to the hon. member's remarks. I think that you, Mr. Speaker, explained the position clearly. I think the record will signify how my vote was cast, and my first vote is the right one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, while you are dealing with that point of order, will you tell the House what you intend to do about the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) who walked out in the middle of the taking of the vote on the amendment to motion No. 7?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was hoping that neither matter would be brought to the attention of the House. The fact is that it appears that a number of members to my left have voted twice. I hope the House will agree that, if after verification it is shown that some hon. members voted a second time, they did so inadvertently, as they explained to the House. It is their first vote of the two which, I take it, shall apply. That does not in any way change the result.
With respect to the point of order involving the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott), his action clearly contravened a custom and rule of the House, namely, one

An. hon. Member: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 11.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 11 lost.
Motion No. 11 (Mr. Wenman) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: In earlier discussion it was understood that motion No. 10 was consequential upon any one of motions Nos. 7, 8, or 9. I take it that those motions having all been lost, there is no necessity for a division motion No. 10. Is it agreed?
Non-Canadian Publications AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8:30 p.m.


Mr. Blais:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, with reference to motion No. 5. the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) indicated to me before dinner that she did not intend to proceed with that motion. I have passed this information on to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock and we should therefore proceed with motion No. 6.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is there unanimous consent that Motion No. 5. be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 5 (Mrs. Holt) withdrawn.


Benno Friesen: Motion No. 6:
That Bill C-58, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be amended by deleting clause 2.
He said: Madam Speaker, the amendment I have submitted covers a small and seemingly innocuous provision in Bill C-58, but one which actually has subtle and far-reaching implications.
I would begin by referring hon. members to the record of the meetings of the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts at page 31:20. The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) was appearing before the committee and I should like to read the statement he made on December 4, 1975. He was answering a question put to him by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte).
If you take a look at what the Canada Council is doing in terms of supporting book publishing and supporting publishing in the literary field, in the social sciences and the humanities, in the learned journals, plus some of the things we are doing in the Department of the Secretary of State, you will see that collectively constitutes the elements of the cultural policies and the objectives that those policies are designed to serve.
I could provide that for you, I just do not have it here, but I have it in that form in my office. I would be pleased to let you have it if the committee were interested. In fact, I would frankly welcome a discussion by the members of the committee on that broader subject, because I often find that people do not fully understand what we are doing. That is obviously not correct.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 10 (Mr. Friesen) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: There has been some suggestion that the House adjourn until 8:30 instead of eight o'clock. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members would like to reflect on what they have done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear,hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: By order of the House I therefore leave the chair until 8:30 later this day.
At 6:34 p.m. the House took recess.
This scares me. I think it is not only the prerogative but the responsibility of the Secretary of State to provide cultural facilities to the people of Canada. But when the Secretary of State begins talking about providing a cultural policy for the people of Canada I become frightened, because as I page through the history books I find stories of other nations which put forward cultural policies for their people and which came to a sad end. I invite the government to disassociate itself from any plan which proposes a cultural policy for the people of Canada- Cultural facilities, yes; a cultural policy, no!
I would therefore like to begin my speech this evening by offering some background information which I believe is pertinent to the discussion in which we are engaged. When we talk about cultural values we are, ultimately, talking about a conflict between the new and the old, between revolutionary and traditional values. There is a very delicate balance between the two, and I submit the

February 16, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
legislation before us helps to destroy this delicate balance in our society.
I would begin by referring to the words of an individual who was very concerned about his culture, a man with whose work I am sure all hon. members are familiar. I refer to W. B. Yeats, a great Irish poet and a great Irish nationalist who was concerned not only with revolutionary ideas but with Irish tradition, working in areas like the theatre, poetry and the other media. What he wanted was a new Ireland, for himself, his family and his descendants. But the idea I want to impress upon the House is this: as much as he was imbued with revolutionary thinking and as much as he wanted a new world, a new Ireland for his children, when it came to his concern for his own daughter he left his revolutionary tendencies aside and wrote:
And may her bridegroom bring her to a house Where all's accustomed, ceremonious ...
How but in custom and in ceremony Are innocence and beauty born?
It was all well and good for Yeats to be a revolutionary thinker, but when it came to his concern for his own daughter he looked not for revolution but for security. I might set against this two lines he had written a little earlier:
For arrogance and hatred are the wares Peddled in the thoroughfares.
This, I believe, is the trend in our culture today. We are losing respect for the past, we are losing respect for those things that have been handed down to us, and we are coming quickly to that point to which Yeats referred when he said:
For arrogance and hatred are the wares Peddled in the thoroughfares.
-because we do not have that connection with the past anymore. I would suggest to hon. members that in our quiet moments what we are looking for is not change as much as security.
Let me suggest, Madam Speaker, that Bill C-58 disregards this need for security when it includes in its measures a provision such as Section 19(4)(b) which states:
(b) any publication the principal function of which is the encouragement, promotion or development of the fine arts, letters, scholarship or religion.
I see no reason why we should single out these areas which are the preserves of our culture and give us ties to the past and security to the present. There is no reason why we should work on them.
I would, with your indulgence, Madam Speaker, like to present a rather lengthy but, I believe, consistent argument as to why this motion of mine should be adopted, and why journals relating to fine arts, letters, scholarship or religion ought to remain in Canada unmolested.
This is an age of specialization and I have heard it said that a specialist is someone who knows more and more about less and less. In our society we are demanding specialization ever earlier each year. It used to be that no one had to major or know what they were going to major in until late in their university years. Now we require high

school students to know what their majors will be, and we are even beginning to require this of junior high kids, and pretty soon it will be that elementary school children will have to know what their majors are to be, and will have to know what they plan to do when they are adults.
More and more we are moving to this age of specialization. University students must specialize in their last years and become proficient in one field. The whole field of research forces the individual to focus on an ever-narrowing spectrum. There was a time when courses in biology, chemistry, physics, English, history and mathematics were enough and were sufficiently adequate. The more we discover about each field the more our curiosity became inflamed and, the more we gave closer and closer attention to the minutest detail. Now we have come to the place where there is no such thing any more as an insignificant detail. The microcosm today is just as important, if not more important at times, as a macrocosm, and perhaps even more mysterious and fascinating.
Years ago in biology one professor was doing research on one enzyme, and the guess at that time was that there were hundreds of enzymes to be studied. This man was studying only one. Now the study of biology is only at the beginning of the threshold of knowledge in that field and we are moving into areas of bio-physics and bio-chemistry, and on the other side into bio-mass. The more we specialize the more we are awed by complexities but also the more abstract we become.
Not too long ago a friend of mine was having trouble with her hand. She went to a general practitioner whom she usually consulted and that man sent her not to a specialist, not simply to a hand specialist, but to a specialist who specialized in the right hand. This is how abstract and how specialized we are becoming in our science today.
Where would we be today but for neurosurgeons, eye surgeons, aural surgeons, internal specialists, heart specialists, and maybe plastic surgeons? All of these specialist face the impact of extracting the area of specialization from the rest of the person.
It so happens that when patients visit doctors today they are no longer patients, they are cases. Social workers do not have people anymore, they have case loads. Doctors do not operate on people any more, they perform appendectomies, dentists perform extractions, psychiatrists treat manic depressives, paranoia, schizophrenia, etc. They do not treat people. We have become so specialized in terms of the ills of our society we are not treating people anymore, we are treating sicknesses. This is the threat of being professional. The organ demands all our attention till we forget the organism. The organism is so intricate we forget the psyche, and the psyche is so complex we forget the person. The astounding fact is that we are all three; we are body, soul and spirit. All three of these are related and all three need attention.
We have been so mesmerized by professionalism, with the abstract sections separated from the whole, that the parts too often have lost their meaning to the whole. I am reminded of a writer of some 150 years ago who found this particular situation facing his particular society. When we would have still thought it primitive he was already concerned with the complexities of his society when he said: And he can read lectures upon innocence;
February 16, 1976

A miracle of scientific lore,
Ships he can guide across the pathless sea,
And tell you all their cunning; he can read The inside of the earth, and spell the stars;
He knows the policies of foreign lands;
Can string you names of districts, cities, towns,
The whole world over, tight as beads of dew Upon a gossamer thread; he sifts, he weighs;
All things are put to question; he must live Knowing that he grows wiser every day Or else not live at all, and seeing too Each little drop of wisdom as it falls Into the dimpling cistern of his heart:
For this unnatural growth the trainer blame,
Pity the tree.-Poor human vanity,
That is the tendency.


Mitchell William Sharp: Beautifully done.


Benno Friesen: I see that the individual who is standing in for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appreciates poetry, and I compliment him for that.


An hon. Member:: It's better than your usual speech.


Benno Friesen: He could not but enjoy Wordsworth.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: He said that you are better than average tonight.


Benno Friesen: The fact is I think so too!


An hon. Member:: If it were only shorter!


Benno Friesen: The fact is that we have abstracted ourselves in another devastating way. We are so pleased with what we have accomplished we are walking about, like Nebuchadnezzar saying, "Look at this great Babylon I have built; look what I have accomplished." We are just the same as he, so impressed with what we have accomplished we have forgotten that all our accomplishments are built on past wisdom.
Some months ago the Secretary of State introduced Bill C-33 and we passed it. It was designed to preserve our antiques, our works of art, and our cultural artifacts. That was a good bill, because you see the past is the prologue to the present. From the past we gain reference points which we need for today to measure ourselves. We think today that we have accomplished a lot by our architecture, our science, and our engineering. If we look at only our accomplishments and think we have arrived at a reasonable design and development, then all we need to do is look into the past and see that there were other civilizations which had done equally well, and in some cases maybe even better.
The anthropology books and the archaeology books are full of examples of past societies in which the plumbing, I am sure, was in many ways as good if not better than ours. The library in Alexandria was so filled with books that when the Turks captured the city they used the books as fuel for 20 years. Where would we be without the mathematics of Newton and Kepler, or the research of Pasteur?
Non-Canadian Publications
What would Buckminster Fuller have done without the mathematics of the Egyptians? Where would medicine be today without the work done by the Greeks and Moslems, and where would Picasso be without the exposure to the primitivism of African art? Bertholt Brecht learned from Shaw, who learned from Shakespeare, who learned from the Greeks. Here we have wheels within wheels within wheels. Unless we catch the inextricable bond we have with the past we lose our moorings, we drift on a sea of disassociated human entities.


An hon. Member:: You are adrift.


Benno Friesen: Some people here missed the drift a long time ago. Today we have become so cocky we have conned ourselves into an existential nightmare thinking that we can never discover our authentic selves unless we cut our moorings from each other and from our past.


An hon. Member:: Look at yourself.


Benno Friesen: Sometimes I do. I do examine myself on these scores. When we disassociate ourselves from the past that is where the confusion begins and is compounded, and we actually lose our identity. The beautiful part of life is that we find our identity when we relate to each other not separate from each other. We become persons when we identify with people rather than disassociate ourselves from them. We find our wholeness in cosmic relationships, not fragmented abstract ones. That is precisely what publications like M.D., Art or religious publications are all about. These publications are here not to see what they can get out of us but what they can impart to us.
They want to leave with us their richness and the fullness of relatedness. These periodicals join us to our humanity; they unite us to our total being. They enrich us by relating us to our past and to our present. These are the humanizing vehicles. They give the doctor, the engineer, the physicist, and the layman contact with themselves, and contact with their past. They do this so that these people can better relate to the people around about them.
Specialty periodicals abound. They sharpen the intellect. There are some whose total mission is to tenderize the heart. They are here to serve. And we want to make it more difficult for them. We want to see how we can complicate their work and make it more difficult for them to operate in Canada. Have we become so small, so smug, so isolated in our nationalism that we feel we have need of nothing? And is our national identity so fragile and our economy so brittle that we feel threatened by a few thousand magazines? Have we become so dehumanized that we have not only lost all feeling but do not even remember what it is like to have that need?
If we deny publications like M.D., fine arts periodicals or religious periodicals the right of free access into our offices, into our minds, and into our hearts, we are of all men most miserable. We will in fact hasten the day of 1984, a brave new world, a clockwork orange. If we let our feelings grow beyond our intellect we will become as confused children. But if we let our rational being, our intellect outstrip our sense of feeling, we will become machines, robots, goose-stepping our way to self destruction. We get periodicals like those I have mentioned not
10990

February 16, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
simply or primarily to preserve the periodical but rather to preserve ourselves and our humanity.
I know there are members in this House who are in the medical profession. I would like to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) who spoke on behalf of the periodical MD before the Christmas recess. He spoke in glowing terms of what a periodical like MD meant to him in his profession.
I recognize also that there are other members in this House from the medical profession who do not care for the magazine. I listened to the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) who said it was worthless so far as he is concerned. That is a choice he can make. I would simply refer hon. members to the editorial pages and to the letters to the editor, and let them read for themselves the testimonials other people have given to the periodical. They have stated what this magazine has meant to them. If there are hon. members in this House who feel it is of little value to them, let them ignore it. That is a choice they can make. But why should that be a reason to deny other members of the medical profession the right to the pleasure of reading this kind of a periodical?
I would hasten to point out that the purpose of this periodical is to provide that kind of information, that kind of cultural content that will give the doctors a new dimension in their practice, that will help them relate to their patients in a new and vital way, and which will in fact humanize their practice.
There are members of the profession in this House who have testified to that fact. When I read the letters to the editor and when I consider all the people who have asked for reprinted articles from MD I recognize that that publication serves a very valuable function in our society.
I know there are members in this House who feel that a periodical that goes to members of the profession free of charge threatens the publication industry. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) has indicated that it would in fact threaten industry in Canada. Really there is no such threat. MD of Canada does not compete with any other journal in Canada. Thus its elimination will in no way strengthen any other periodical in Canada because there is no periodical like it, nor does there seem to be one intended for the profession. If members think that a periodical that has its origin in the United States is a threat to us, we still have the Foreign Investment Review Act that has jurisdiction, and in that way we can consider any industry in Canada that has relationships with a foreign country. So I would simply ask members of the House to look at this periodical to see in what way it is a threat to the periodical industry in Canada, and to see whether the asset of having this kind of publication in our country outweighs the detriment.
We are in no way threatened by the periodicals. We are in fact the benefactors. Their research, skills and culture will make us richer for having these periodicals with us. I would ask hon. members to consider this motion and adopt it in order to preserve this dimension in our society.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. 
Friesen) is always so eloquent with such beautiful phrases that I cannot bring myself to say anything against him, so I have researched the subject and I have come up with something that hon. members opposite will cherish just as I have cherished the words of the previous speaker.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is quoted in Hansard of June 14, 1965, as saying:
I do not believe the two publications that are singled out merit this rather favourable treatment they are receiving.
As a matter of fact hon. members opposite at that time were busy arguing that the government had simply not gone far enough. However, at the outset I would like to re-emphasize my support for Bill C-58 and for our government's efforts to encourage healthy and independent Canadian magazine publishing and broadcasting industries. After all, that is the main objective of this legislation and it is an objective which I would hope no member of this House could disagree with or lose sight of through the course of this rather turgid debate in which we have engaged for some time.
However, much as I endeavour to extend Christian charity to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-and of course we all know that we must extend charity to members opposite in this trying time for them-I can well see the new leader of the Tory party coming into his first caucus and addressing his colleagues, after being greeted with loud applause as he enters. He will select the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock and say:
Speak the speech, I pray you
As I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue;
But if you mouth it, as many of your players do,
I had as lief the town-crier spoke my lines.
I need not go on, but that is the way it may be.
I find it difficult to reconcile the hon. member's amendment to Bill C-58 with the important objective of this piece of legislation. The hon. member is asking us to delete clause 2 from Bill C-58 or, in other words, to leave in the Income Tax Act subsection 19(4) which classifies as Canadian certain foreign owned publications which have as their principal function "the encouragement, promotion or development of the fine arts, letters, scholarship or religion." In return, of course, the Canadian edition of these publications must have made at least a token move toward the inclusion of Canadian content and Canadian editorial direction.
As far as this goes I considered it to be quite acceptable, but let us look for a moment at the government's reason for wanting to delete this clause and the arguments being put forward for its retention. The government has decided that, whatever contributions these magazines may make to Canadian culture, Canadian arts, letters, scholarship or religion, or to the Canadian publishing industry, such contributions do not justify the profits that they have made solely because of their artificial status as "Canadian" magazines.
The arguments against this move have ranged from the intrinsic quality of the magazines to nothing less than the "freedom of the press" and the "cultural deprivation" of this country to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock's own alleged concern about "the free concourse of information in a society" and his rather histrionic allusions to the
February 16, 1976

decadence of imperial Persia and the fall of the Roman empire. I find it rather difficult to draw those analogies to this particular argument when what we are really speaking about are these magazines. It is hardly the Persian empire. In any event, really the most important part of these magazines' objections to their sudden disenfranchisement as ersatz Canadians is only one point.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Would the hon. member permit a question from the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)?


Iona Campagnolo: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Benno Friesen: It pains me here, Madam Speaker, to hear this. I would just like to correct the record. I made no reference at all to either the Persian empire or the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Iona Campagnolo: I should like to return to the question because I think it is very important, that we define what is really at the root of this disenfranchisement of these magazines since Bill C-58 does not prevent them from publishing in Canada. It does not prohibit them from writing about Canadian events or about events of interest to Canadian readers. Neither does it censor their contents, no matter from what source they are derived.
In reality all this bill and this section of the bill do are one thing. The bill prevents them from making as much money as they could if they were still to be called "Canadian" magazines. That is what is at the bottom of all this. It sounds rather mercenary, does it not, when it is put so bluntly? But stripped of its legaleese jargon that is the consequence of this part of Bill C-58 and, I submit, stripped of all the pious frothings over a selective interpretation of "freedom of speech" and "government censorship", that is the real concern of the magazines affected by Bill C-58. They are not concerned with cultural, religious or any other freedom, but the freedom to make a buck. That is what they are worried about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: The passage of this part of Bill C-58 will cost the specific magazines affected by it a considerable amount of money. I must state to the House that I would have a great deal more respect and even sympathy for the arguments that have been made by the publications affected by this legislation if these arguments at least had the intellectual integrity, not to say honesty, to admit that it is money that is at the root of the opposition to Bill C-58.
These magazines are in business to make a profit, and if they were not then they would not be in business. It is as simple as that. There is nothing wrong with making a profit. The passage of Bill C-58 will reduce or eliminate that profitability unless they conform with the requirements of the new law. Is that not, with all the fine words removed, the real and basic issue that we are facing?
I will cite as an example one of the magazines which I would like the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock to think about. He has pleaded for the continuation of its Canadian status under subsection 19(4). This is the maga-
Non-Canadian Publications
zine called MD of Canada, and I use it as an example and show it to members not because it is best in the field or for any other reason except that it happened to be at the top of my correspondence today when I was thinking about the hon. member's amendment. It is not because the arguments in it are any better or any worse than those in any other magazine attempting to avoid this provision of Bill C-58. What are the arguments of this magazine?
MD of Canada is a magazine owned by MD Publications Limited, a foreign and, to the best of my knowledge, U.S. corporation. It is "sent to Canadian physicians on a regular controlled circulation basis", that is what it says on the magazine, and it is free of charge. In other words, its revenues come solely from its advertising receipts.
MD of Canada's first objection to Bill C-58 is that it is "a publication of unique richness and quality both in cultural content and style". This is certainly true and I am the first to congratulate them on creating a book that is both visually beautiful and highly erudite. The content of their publication is without fault, I am sure, but this, I must point out, in no way makes it a Canadian magazine.
There are many beautiful and interesting magazines in this country, but unfortunately very few of them are Canadian. Why this justifies a continued artificial status for MD of Canada I simply cannot comprehend.
Then there is the argument that section 19(4) is designed for the benefit of Canadians wishing access to cultural and scientific journals and that they should be retained for the sake of these people. This is the hon. member's freedom of information argument. MD of Canada, we must note, is one of the magazines which would qualify as Canadian under this ruling.
However, this magazine goes on to point out that fears for Canada's cultural independence are not justified because the government can prevent other similar magazines from being established in Canada through the Foreign Investment Review Act, if it so desires. Of course what it does not state is that this would lock it in its own position as Canadian and free it from the threat of competition, much like the fox already inside the chicken coop urging the farmer to lock the door so that all those other foxes cannot get in. It is an argument which would do wonders for the magazine's bank account, but not, I am afraid, a great deal to justify its concern over the free movement of information within this country.
Moving along to the third line of defence we find MD of Canada arguing that the passage of Bill C-58 would probably result in its ceasing to publish "in Canada, thus depriving 30,000 Canadian physicians access to the only journal of medico-historical writing available to them, and of course, the implied ceasing, according to their presentation to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, of world-wide coverage of Canadian medical events and the bringing to the attention of physicians around the world outstanding Canadians such as Banting, Best, Grenville and, Lord forbid for I cannot understand it, Stephen Leacock.
While this last argument does not merit serious criticism in the context of any reputable international medical journal, we should look for a moment at the first problem, that
21419-4>/2

February 16, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
is, that Canadian doctors will no longer receive MD of Canada. I submit that it does not require too great a stretch of the imagination to assume that within a very short time Canadian physicians will be receiving the MD magazine from the United States on a regular controlled circulation basis. So what is the real loss to Canadian physicians?
The Canadian content in the January, 1976, issue amounted by a generous count to 12 pages including letters to the editor, the title page, and a review of American movies about British detectives, as well as a large photograph of an alley which might have been a Canadian alley. The real loss to MD of Canada is the advertising revenue which makes it a profitable business, and that is what we are talking about. That is the real and basic issue, and I find that I am beginning to have a decreasing amount of respect for foreign owned corporations which do not have the honesty to admit that that is why they publish magazines and broadcast in Canada.
The same argument hon. members opposite will find holds true for that outraged paragon of virtue whose cause they have seen fit to adopt, Time Incorporated. Time's objection to the Cullen rule is based on nothing else but a desire to make money at the expense of us dumb and gullible Canadians, and for Time to say otherwise is the sheerest hypocrisy.
Subsection 19(4) of the Income Tax act has been in effect for over 10 years. Why did we hear nothing from Time Incorporated about its so-called unholy censorship until the government moved to have that subsection, which applied to them, removed? Canadian magazines have not complained. Why did Reader's Digest all of a sudden cease to be concerned about this vile censorship once it found that digests were not covered by the wording of the clause? The answer is obvious. The answer is just and only money.
The hon. members opposite who have risen to the defence of that poor outraged near-virgin Time Incorporated, and its sister neo-Canadian publications and television stations, are either blindly naive in their pursuit of a rather strange version of justice or are just perhaps incredibly opportunistic in their desire to make short term debating points at this sensitive time and at the expense of the government. Knowing the opposition to be totally sincere in their abhorrence of opportunism, I ask the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock to give serious reconsideration to his amendment to this bill. As the bill currently stands I, and I believe a good number of responsible members of this House can, do, and will support it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: Madam Speaker, first I should like to compliment the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) who did such an excellent job in her speed contest. I think she is the fastest speaker I have ever heard in this House, and I want to compliment her on that.


An hon. Member:: She is the fastest reader.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Somebody said she is a fast reader. That does not matter; I could not read that fast.
I should like to speak in favour of this motion which asks for the complete exemption of Modern Medicine, or

MD, fine arts magazines, religious magazines, medical magazines and scientific journals. It must occur to all of us that scientific knowledge from around the world is something against which we should not put up barriers. When we consider that Canada has a population of 22 million and that this year we cut back on research, we need all the more to get all the information we can from every country in the world. Surely we want to be as well informed as possible.
Modern Medicine examines medical research from around the world, and all one has to do is look at a copy to see the abstracts which are studied and the list of scientific and medical men reviewing those publications. In Canada there is no way we could review to the same extent. When we say Canada is producing this, it is true, Canada does produce it, and I am proud of it. It is printed in those journals in other countries to advertise Canada and its research.
I want to say that those publications are made possible, and they are dealt with in hundreds of abstracts and papers written by the world's most eminent authorities. They are produced from the top specialists in the world, and of course Canadian articles are published as well. They are distributed in other countries and keep them informed of what we are doing in Canada.
Medical magazines, scientific magazines, and religious magazines all tend to enhance our knowledge of scientific achievements and research. To put a wall around Canada and say that with our 22 million people and some 27,000 doctors we are capable of producing this is a misnomer. In the United States there are ten times that many, and around the world Germany, Great Britain, France, Japan and other countries are producing people who are doing wonderful scientific research. This would be the most retrograde step one could imagine for the world of science or research.
This year we cut back about 10 per cent of our research because of a lack of funds. If we ever needed this scientific knowledge, it is right now. Medicine and science are universal and international. It is absolutely imperative to have foreign sources of medical literature to keep up what we are doing. The attractive formats of those magazines are seen in doctors' offices and in other professional offices.
Modern Medicine goes into 25,000 Anglophone doctors' offices and 7,000 Francophone doctors' offices. This will hurt those Francophone doctors more than the Anglophone doctors, who can pick up scientific journals from the United States to read.
On a qualified circulation basis, as the hon. member said, it is true that they do not pay anything for it, but it comes in. It is read because it is produced in a very attractive form.
Here is a sample of what comes in through Modern Medicine: "New Perspectives in the Search for Non-Narcotic Analgesics"; "A Falling Hemoglobin Signaled the Problem"; "Drug Interference with Chemical Tests"; "Failure of Cardiac Pacing in Hyperkalemia", which we do not know all that much about. "How much do You know about Clinical Psychiatry?" Then "Abstracts" pages 880 to 943.
February 16, 1976

"Books and reviews" from around the world pages 946 to 950. Also "In a Jocular Vein", so that it puts everybody in a good humour.
Now let us take a look at MD of Canada, about which we are talking. The editorial essay is "The Magic Moment", then "Mirror of Medicine-Brazil and the Conquest of Diseases". In other words, here in Canada we will know what is going on down there in Brazil, a huge country that is growing fast and has great development taking place. And then "MD Letters-What the Medical Profession is Thinking about Itself". "MD Voices, Medicine and Scientific News", in other words, the voice of the people in the medical field.
Next there is, "National Conference on Breast Cancer", one of the big killers in the cancer field in the world today and one we are all worried about and trying to find a better method of handling than we have now. All you have to do is look at the statistics.
We read "Symposium on Headaches", "Medicine Around the World"-would we not use a treatment if it came from Japan, China, or the Far East if it would cure cancer? I just leave that with you. Then we have "MD Pictorial- Kenya's Flying Nun" about the type of work she is doing. "World of Medicine-Armchair Anthropologist", "Lonely Lyricist", "Renaissance Realist". Then, "MD Entertainment: Reviews" on films and books read and recommended; "Camera Eye"; and finally "Product Index".
I would submit that in itself proves the necessity of allowing those magazines to come into Canada and of allowing them liberty in the tax field.
Mention was made in this House recently of Lassa disease, Madam Speaker, and very few members knew anything about it. I had not heard of it myself until it was mentioned to me by some missionaries. In Africa the disease has a mortality rate in the ordinary healthy person of 20 per cent to 25 per cent, and for pregnant women the mortality rate goes up to 50 per cent. It was discovered through the research of three nurses who went to Africa to study it.
Usually in that part of Africa if you get sick you have either malaria or typhoid. They dose you with quinine, and if that does not effect a cure then you get the typhoid vaccine. The nurses had a patient who died, then one nurse died, and another. The third nurse was taken ill and was flown back to New York City. At Columbia University it was discovered the disease was caused by a virus in the blood, and so by 1971 it was labelled as a virus disease suspected to come from a rodent. The scientific journals did not know whether the disease was due to a bite or food contamination, or why it came from a rodent in west Africa. These matters are still to be researched.
In the U.S. they were able to take blood from the nurse and isolate the virus. The blood could be used as a toxin finder or a complement fixation test to diagnose the disease. All this means is that if you have the disease and are among the lucky 70 per cent or 80 per cent who get better it is because you have in your blood the antibodies that kill the virus. By using that blood they can diagnose the disease in the next patient. The only places where this complement fixation test can be carried out are Atlanta, Georgia; New York City; London, England.
Non-Canadian Publications
I want to give credit to members for speaking their minds in the way they have. This is a free country, and surely the greatest freedom of all is that these scientific journals can enter this country from all over the world. We are all part of humanity, whether black, yellow or white, whether we live in the Far East, the Middle East, or North America. Anything we can do to help disseminate knowledge in the medical field or scientific field must be done. The Russian and American astronauts must have had an exchange of ideas to accomplish what they did. It would be a backward step not to accept this amendment.


Simma Holt: Madam
Speaker, for a change this is going to be very brief. I want to register my support for the motion proposed by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen).
I can never match my friends and colleagues, the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) and the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) for glibness and articulateness. They, after all-and they have made it quite clear to me-have worked long in the electronic media. Although I have hundreds of hours in radio and television, it was not my whole career.
Since I have lost the battle-I do hope I have not lost the war-in this fight over content control and freedom, I just want to say one thing. I would say tonight Canadian nationalism, has become rather a farce in this House. In debate on the amendment regarding medical publications underline this. A heart is a heart is a heart, regardless of whether it is American, French, or German or if it comes from Afghanistan; cancer is cancer is cancer, whether it is American, French, or German or comes from Afghanistan. But here we are Canadianizing heart disease and narrowing it into a nationalistic frame, because of advertising and a strange and warped law. This magazine is to be driven out of Canada.
I should like to remind this House that in the last ten years since this tax equality-I will not call it tax privilege because I do not go along with that myth-it is not a benefit to the periodical publisher, but a right to the advertiser, there were 88 new Canadian magazines born since 1965, and they are flourishing and have a circulation of over 10,000 each in Canada, 70 of them in English and 18 in French. They have a combined circulation of 209 million annually.
We are fighting this bill. At this time, when certain periodicals are developing, growing in what is a tenuous market, big magazines all around the world have died. The Minister of Communications said that only 30 jobs are involved if the KVOS animation studio closes in Vancouver, for example. The field is small and highly specialized. I wonder if there are 60 animators in international TV and movie production in all Canada. Our periodical business has grown, and anything done in this House, any attempt to damage the magazine business, I shall fight.
I therefore support the amendment of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.


Mr. Roger Young (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to join this debate, to become involved in the fray and to make a few comments. The hon. member for

February 16, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) made an ethereal speech this evening.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A flowery speech.


Roger Carl Young: It was flowery, as my colleague across the floor says. I was bothered by some of the things he said in support of his amendment. He asked for a special exemption for scientific, technical, and cultural magazines. In other words, he wants advertisers in these magazines to enjoy continued exemption from tax.
It is unfair to ask the average Canadian taxpayer who does not receive these magazines, because their circulation is controlled, to bear the tax burden which ought to be borne by the advertisers in those magazines. Why should advertisers be given such benefits free? My colleague from Skeena amply illustrated the benefits and profits such magazines enjoy. In the long run the Canadian taxpayer must bear the cost if taxes are deferred or lessened. Why should the average Canadian taxpayer pay for the advertisers' costs?
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock referred to medical, scientific, and cultural magazines. I point out that members of the medical profession, who are among the wealthiest professionals in the country, receive medical magazines entirely free. The drug companies pay for publication and circulation, and the profits derived from such a small circulation are enormous. Ordinary magazines charge what the market will bear. I do not think increased costs to the advertisers would affect advertising in such magazines.
Hon. members speaking to this amendment and speaking in the debate generally have raised fatuous and phony arguments about censorship. They suggest we are trying to close the borders to magazines, that we want to prevent the inflow of technical, medical, and scientific knowledge. Nothing is further from the truth. Bill C-58 in no way attempts to close the border to the inflow of knowledge. It is a tax measure only.
We discussed censorship in committee. Actually one could draw an analogy between our copyright laws and Bill C-58. Our copyright laws guarantee property rights in material which has been written or published. The copyright law says that no person shall in any way use language which is substantially the same as the original covered by copyright or in any way use it, print it or publish it, in order to make a profit. We protect the property right of the originator, the creator of the material written or published. Bill C-58 merely says that you cannot reprint or republish in this country, in substantially the same form, material which was printed or published originally in another country, and claim a tax exemption when so doing. I know that is a rough analogy only between our copyright laws and Bill C-58.
The committee mentioned the copyright aspect to various publishers and writers appearing before it, and we noted that they were all in favour of copyright laws. When we showed them that copyright laws work as Bill C-58 will work, they changed their attitude on the question of censorship; not one of them wanted to repeal our copyright legislation.

An hon. member opposite earlier this evening suggested that some hon. members on my side of the House think magazines like Modern Medicine and MD of Canada are worthless, or not worth protecting.


Benno Friesen: Who said that?


Roger Carl Young: It was said on the hon. member's side of the House. I remind the hon. member that I had the distinct pleasure of speaking with and examining Dr. Gibson, the publisher of MD of Canada. Many hon. members congratulated him on the excellent magazine he and his colleagues publish. Nobody on my side of the House feels it is not a good magazine. It is an excellent magazine.


An hon. Member:: Not all Liberals think that.


Roger Carl Young: I will do my best to change the opinion of the hon. member from Halton. It is an excellent magazine. I am not a medical person, but I enjoy reading it and told Dr. Gibson as much, even though our views on Bill C-58 were not the same. I told him how interesting I find the magazine and asked him to continue sending it to me. I know that once we pass Bill C-58 I shall still receive my copy of MD of Canada and still enjoy reading it I know the good doctor will send it, because he is a man of exemplary character. I do not expect Bill C-58, after it passes, to prevent my receiving the magazine.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock wants us to grant a continued tax exemption for advertisers who advertise in Modern Medicine, MD of Canada, and several similar magazines. Why should we continue to grant special exemptions for such magazines? We did it several years ago for Reader's Digest and Time. Now, several years later, we must correct the problems our earlier actions created.
We know that initiatives are being taken at this time to allow foreign publications to become involved with the scientific, technical, and religious magazine fields in this country. Already I foresee that if we do not encourage Canadian companies in this country to publish in these fields, if we do not act quickly, we shall find ourselves facing some of our present difficulties again some time in the future. We will have the same problem in this one isolated field in another ten, 15 or 20 years down the road, and we will have to go through the same thing again.
In the early stages of this debate and in committee we heard from members opposite. I do not think I would be taking them out of context if I were to say that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and others on that side had no great concern over the basic principle of Bill C-58. If they had a question as to what we were doing, it was with the mechanics of it. As to principle, there were voices of agreement that the principle was right and that maybe we should have done it all ten years ago.
I find it passing strange that having to come to this stage of the debate we now find members opposite saying "No, no, we cannot do this, we do not believe in it." If anything has changed, it is their principles. There is now an outcry that we should create for ourselves another problem which
February 16, 1976

will come up again if we do not look after it now. They have now begun to argue against the basics of the earlier points they tried to make.
My colleague from Skeena spoke extremely well on the situation of profits and just what is involved in operating these magazines. It is true from our investigations we found that all the profits either go out of the country or are held in a corporate or separate account in this country. The share-holders who have a right to the profits are outside this country. The profits which in large part arise because of the tax write-offs do not help the Canadian consumer but flow outside the country.
These are limited circulation magazines paid for by the drug houses, not the doctors. There is no reason why, at the extent of adding two or three more pages of advertising in either of the magazines, they would not be up to the same ground as if C-58 had not taken place.


An hon. Member:: But the doctors pay a subscription.


Roger Carl Young: The doctors do not pay a subscription now. Perhaps they should pay a subscription. That would make more sense than burdening the average Canadian taxpayer.
These magazines have an almost virtual control of the field in Canada at the present time. The arguments put up by members opposite sound very much like arguments almost requesting or pressing for the protection of a virtual monopoly. There are few magazines engaged in this field. If there is anything that does not need protection in the course of business today it is someone with a near monopoly of the market.
The hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) said that scientific, medical and technological bodies to a large degree are the same the world over. I would not disagree with that. As far as medicine is concerned, the body here is the same as in China, India, South America or wherever. Our doctors may treat diseases in different ways, but really we do not differ.
Bill C-58 will in no way close the borders of this country to the inflow of medical, technical and scientific knowledge. It is for the simple reason that these are the same the world over that the'information will continue to come in, before C-58 or after. It is the same reason that doctors in this country will continue to receive and to use the same type of medical knowledge now as they ever have. That is true whether it is a Francophone doctor or Anglophone doctor. The case is the same, the body is the same, the technology is the same, and the information will continue to come into this country.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the origin of Section 19(4) of the Income Tax Act was founded in a spirit of phony or pseudo-nationalism in 1965. I remember very well the time of that budget when these proposals were initially made. I make no apology for the things I said at that time, criticizing the proposals in the context they were made at that time. However, to take out of context quotations made in 1965 on a bill presented under much different circumstances is to distort the truth.
It was almost a collection of cheap shots that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Non-Canadian Publications
Northern Development (Mrs. Campagnolo) was making tonight, reading as though it were from a prepared text from I don't know where, just trying to get things on the record.
I am a little more interested in the tax aspect of this than the so-called benefits or tax advantages enjoyed by publications that are subject to Section 19(4). Are the profits or the benefits for those publications? They are not. The expense is that of the Canadian taxpayer advertising in those magazines, placing advertising directed to the Canadian market.
My colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), speaking on MD and Modern Medicine said that they are technical magazines for the benefit of Canadians. The research, knowledge, writing and choice of articles that appear in those magazines are for the benefit of Canadian as well as American doctors. To say suddenly that these publications are for the entire benefit of the publishers is absolute nonsense.
Why should a Canadian business concern, whether it is a subsidiary of a foreign house or an entirely Canadian owned or controlled pharmaceutical house or medical equipment manufacturer, be deprived of what is reasonable, what is the custom, and what is given to all taxpayers?
My heart bleeds for the concern on the other side for the ordinary taxpayer. A lot of humbug has entered into this debate with regard to this special treatment of taxpayers. The taxpayer is the Canadian business that advertises in those magazines. After all, the publication is carried by a Canadian company. There is no foreign publication that can carry on business in Canada unless it is a taxpayer. This idea of siphoning off all the profits to some foreign jurisdiction free of Canadian tax, and that is the suggestion, is totally wrong.
If anybody from outside this country carries on business in Canada as a corporation, and they are all corporations, they are obliged to register as foreign companies and they become Canadian taxpayers. The Canadian government levies it income tax in such cases in the same way as it does on Canadians generally. The Income Tax Act says nothing regarding the nationality of corporations as far as these provisions are concerned. So it seems to me that hon. members who have suggested that somehow profits are favourably syphoned off to other jurisdiction because they do not pay Canadian taxes, totally miss the picture.
Take the position of a Canadian advertiser in these publications. I will refer to Modern Medicine and MD. No one has suggested that these are poor magazines. They are highly qualified technical journals. All right, they are paid for by advertising and many of the advertisers are Canadians who are entitled to deduct a legitimate business expense from their incomes when arriving at their taxable income. Simply because the material, under the Cullen rule, an arbitrary rule and therefore a reprehensible one, comes from foreign sources, Canadian doctors and others will, in effect, be deprived of benefits they have derived if the magazines are not circularized in Canada. I think the publications themselves could quite legitimately say they would restrict their gratuitous distribution to Canadian

February 16, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
doctors and to others interested in medical matters. But simply because these magazines might get their editorial content from a foreign source, these publications are to be placed out of bounds. The acceptance of Canadian advertising promoting Canadian-made or distributed goods, and therefore for the benefit of a Canadian operation, is to be curtailed.
If this is the type of business expense which is to be curtailed because it has a foreign taint, what about the expenses incurred by businessmen attending conferences abroad? Their expenditures are made away from home. The knowledge is picked up elsewhere. There are many types of business expense which are legitimately incurred abroad. This is an introverted attitude toward what Canadian business ought to be able to do. It seems to me that here we are inviting the reverse. Remember, these swords are two-edged. There could be Canadian publications which would carry, say, American advertising directed to Americans. I do not know whether the volume is very great. But can you imagine the reaction of hon. members opposite, who so assiduously-


Walter David Baker: So blindly.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -support this bill, if the United States government were to cause to be enacted a similar measure under the United States income tax legislation? There would be cries of outrage from that side.


Walter David Baker: Tears of rage.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton says there would be tears of rage. His language is perhaps more flowery than mine, but the meaning is the same. In many of these provisions which relate to income tax we should treat others as we expect them to treat us. I do not think United States law is as chauvinistic as this particular proposal.
Should we follow such a course as this for reasons of cheap nationalism? After all, the minister has made his peace with Reader's Digest. He has not disclosed what kind of a deal has been made, and this will be the subject of some remarks by my colleagues later in the debate. What about some of the other publications concerned? Has peace been made with the owners of the Red Deer Advocate and other newspapers in British Columbia, as announced by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) in Red Deer on Saturday night? What was the deal there? What are the circumstances and what will be the application of the Cullen rule? It is very easy for the Advocate and the others to take the line they did with regard to publishing. But what about the content? This is something to which a lot of members object. It is arbitrary. We do not have anything like it on our statutes.
I find it passing strange that ministers like the President of the Privy Council, and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) should now adopt the mantle of protectors of Canadian publications. I ask: which ones though, primarily? Is it the gang in Toronto? Is it the friends of the government in the publishing field?
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on February 6 I directed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with regard to CIDA loans to Cuba. My question was as follows:
Will the government be reviewing any CIDA loans or grants to Cuba now its troops are engaged in the Angola conflict, and if Cuba has managed to become involved in wars, should this not disallow its receipt of aid as an underprivileged country?
The Prime Minister completely evaded my question when he stated "Our aid program is not linked to the ideology of a particular country". His answer in no way related to my question.
I then questioned the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), asking him if there was a clause in CIDA contracts to cut off aid to a country if it suddenly finds it has money to fight in a war, and the minister stated there were no such clauses. There definitely should be such a clause in CIDA or CUSO contracts.
The idea behind CIDA aid is to help underprivileged people in underprivileged countries. Cuba cannot be considered underprivileged when it is engaged in the Angolan war. War is a costly business today and Cuba must be spending millions as it is reported to have had 12,000 troops in Angola for the past four months. Now a statement out of London by Zaire's foreign minister Karl Nguza says he has "reason to believe" Cuban and MPLA troops will be tempted to invade his country after the war in Angola ends. Canadian taxpayers do not want their tax dollars sent to communist countries which are engaged in wars.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I am referring to aid and not to trade. Canadians generally have no objection to having a sound trade agreement with a communist country, but supplying aid and cash to a communist country that is engaged in a costly war is an entirely different matter. The Cuban intervention appears to be on a large scale and must impose a considerable burden on the Cuban economy. If Cubans can engage in a war, they do not require CIDA grants and low interest loans. The loan figures range from $23 million to $100 million at the ridiculously low interest rate of 3 per cent. Many Canadians would like to have such a low rate of interest in order to buy homes or other commodities. At the moment Cuba has an outstanding line of credit of $10 million and the question is, is this money being used to finance its involvement in Angola?
CIDA published a strategy paper last September that warned there are a number of third world countries which have entered a period of permanent emergency. Our aid should be directed to those countries, not countries which can afford to become involved in a war. The majority of
February 16, 1976

Canadians, I am sure, do not object to doing our share in helping starving nations.
The Prime Minister's visit to Cuba and the comments he made while there have certainly caused confusion around the world. To add to the confusion the Prime Minister has dispatched Ivan Head, his foreign policy adviser, to London to explain what the Prime Minister said or did not say while in Cuba. That is another matter and not what I am mainly concerned about tonight.
I want to repeat that in the future CIDA contracts with underprivileged or underdeveloped countries should have clauses under which aid would be immediately cut off if those countries became engaged in a war, or their economic situation improved. In addition, an immediate examination should be made of the present CIDA contracts to see if there is any possible way of halting aid to Cuba while she is engaged in the Angola war, and I certainly hope there are no negotiations going on at the present time to grant further aid or cash to Cuba.
I hope the parliamentary secretary can enlighten the Canadian people on this very important subject tonight. In closing, let me say that the latest report today states that Cuba has up to 7,000 troops and advisers in the Middle East, 4,000 men in Syria, 3,000 in south Yeman, and 2,000 in Africa apart from the 12,000 in Angola. Cuba hardly seems like a country which needs CIDA aid from Canada.


Mr. Walter Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a few details on the Canadian help program extended to Cuba. I would first mention that that country's poverty is below the $500 per capita level per year, which compares with Trinidad and Tobago, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Jamaica and other countries with which Canada pursues a cooperation program. I would further note that the Cuban government has given very high priority, in its development efforts, to the redistribution of goods and services, and that its whole plan is closely linked to the social and economic development of the Cuban people. The Canadian help program is related to the top priority areas of Cuba's development plan. Our effort is basically aimed at providing goods and services capable of generating development.
To date, the total Canadian help extended to Cuba amounts to $14.2 million of that amount, 35 per cent will have been spent before the end of the current fiscal year, and the remainder will be spent during the following 18 months.
The technical assistance program totals $4.2 million, in the form of grants. It includes projects such as these: The CUJAE project, aiming at increasing the number of specialized engineers in Cuba, with $1,147,000 grant; the animal health research project, with a Canadian grant of about $154,000; the citrus industry development project, a $505,000 grant; the fishing industry stimulation project, $1,705,000; the project involving the establishment of a research and development centre on conversion of sugar cane residues into paper, a $300,000 grant; the project aimed at reinforcing the medical equipment maintenance system in medical and hospital centres, a $275,000 grant.
The other programs are similar in nature and always meet specific needs. The government of Canada takes the
Adjournment Debate
required steps so as to ensure that Canadian funds are used for the projects they were intended for.
A line of credit of $10 million under the form of a loan at an interest rate of 3 per cent has been granted to Cuba. It supposes the purchase from Canada of equipment necessary to the development of Cuba in priority areas like agriculture, public health and scientific research. All the items supplied through this credit are submitted to a close interdepartmental study to ensure that they are in keeping with the objectives agreed on at the time the credit was granted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but the three minutes available to him have now expired.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-DELAY IN PROCESSING PENSION APPLICATIONS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to refer to a matter I raised on February 10 pertaining to applications by veterans for pensions. At that time in reply to my question the minister gave a stock answer which he had given me three years earlier, and followed this up in reply to a question by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) with another stock answer. I tried to pursue this matter further because I was not satisfied.
I should like at this time to recite the chronology of the events leading up to that question. An applicant submitted an application in May, 1973. He waited about six months and then wrote to the Pension Commission, who in turn informed him it would take about a year and a half. He waited until the following February 19. Then he gave me a copy of the letter he received from the government in which he was told it would be about 18 months before he would have any kind of a response.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert at about that time rose on the subject, and I did not feel it was necessary to duplicate his question. At that time, as I have said, the minister gave the stock answer in respect of the number of applications processed and so on. I then went over and spoke to the minister personally. I also wrote him a letter in which I told him that I had been advised that if we asked to have the application withdrawn it would lose its priority and go to the bottom of the list. I went to the minister with the thought that if he made an appeal this might speed up the application.
I then wrote to the applicant, informing him that I had spoken to the minister. I received an interim reply from the minister in a lengthy letter explaining the situation in the same terms he had explained to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) why it took so long. I sent a note to the applicant giving the minister's reply.
I then received a letter from the minister stating that he had checked with the commission and that the application was put on a priority basis. That was in May, 1974, about a year after the application had been filed. This was done on a priority basis, I was told. In January I heard from him

Adjournment Debate
again. I had assumed that everything was in order. At this point I had other applicants with similar cases which they asked me to check into.
In January of this year the applicant suggested that something must be sadly wrong when one can fight a war in six years but an application cannot be processed in three years. I then contacted the special assistant to the minister.
We are constantly being told that we should not bother the commission because if we do, the individual application will go to the bottom of the pile. Surely the commission has enough intelligence to label these applications. Application No. 160 would come between 159 and 161. Surely they can pull out application No. 160 and see what the order is, and then give the applicant an idea as to when his application will be processed. However, I could not get a response from them.
Having gone through all the trouble of trying to help this applicant 1 think I have a legitimate grievance after three years, and perhaps the commission should wake up, if that is what is necessary.
What really concerns me is that the commission and the special assistant to the minister keep telling me, every time we make an inquiry, that we should not ask to have the application brought forward because if that is done it will lose its order of priority. Yet the minister gave me an assurance that it was taken care of on a priority basis. If I cannot ask a question concerning an application, how can I be of any use to my constituents?
I feel there is something wrong with the commission. Unfortunately, I believe they should be given a jolt. The applicant suggested to me that I should not bother them because he believes the commission is antagonistic toward him. Other applicants have told me the same thing. I do not want the commission to feel antagonistic to any applicant. These veterans have a right to apply to the commission and to receive some consideration. Certainly they deserve quicker service than they have been receiving from the commission. Any citizen of Canada is entitled to that much, and certainly veterans are entitled to that much more consideration than they have been receiving to date.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: It is a pleasure to reply to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) regarding the processing of pension applications.
At the present time it takes about a year to prepare the statement of case after an application for an entitlement board is received. The staff working in this area has been increased substantially so that the time lag is being rapidly reduced, and by the end of the year should be no more than four to five months.
The number of first applications awaiting decision was 3,182 as of the end of January, 1976. The number of claims considered at that level in 1975 was 9,239. In the same period there were 2,721 applications for entitlement boards and over 2,200 such claims were heard.
In so far as delays in adjudication are concerned, there are no cases at the first level of which the commission is aware which have been outstanding for anywhere near three years. At the end of January, 1976, there were only 28

on record on which the decision had been outstanding for 15 months or more.
The commission has been steadily reducing the time lag between the date of application and the date of decision. The average length of time required to adjudicate a pension claim is now 6.8 months. A year ago it was close to 12 months. It is now 57 years since the end of World War I and 30 years since the end of World War II. Most of the claims now being made relate to conditions which did not manifest themselves for possibly 20 to 60 years after discharge. The commission has the responsibility under the Pension Act to find evidence and ways and means of relating today's disability to a time factor or possibly an episode which may have occurred 34 to 60 years ago, and these include heart conditions, deafness, arthritis and so on. These are afflictions of age, but the commission tries to separate the age aspect from the attributability aspect and relate the condition to the period of military service. In many cases this is an almost impossible task. The relatively simple claims such as gunshot wounds were considered long ago.
The purpose of the Canadian Pension Commission is to inquire and to try to arrive at the true state of affairs, and not to try to advance or defeat any particular point of view. The commission examines the facts and tries to determine whether a claim is valid. There is no adversary system. The commission does not oppose a claim, nor does anyone else. It examines the evidence and available information, and makes a decision.
I should just like to say that the hon. member for Mackenzie quoted a particular case, and I know the minister and myself would be glad to look into it again for him to see just what is the difficulty.


AIR TRANSPORT-POSSIBILITY OF RESTRICTIONS ON UNILINGUAL PILOTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about the question of language use in air traffic control. I do so not as a politician but as a professional pilot who has ten years' flying under my belt in international and national air spaces, and I am still actively flying. I take this opportunity to avail myself of a rather useless forum simply because I have something to put on the record. I say useless because there are only five of us in the Chamber tonight, and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is not one of them.
A policy has been implemented in Quebec where two languages are being used in air traffic control. I do not speak tonight of anything other than safety, and I want to put on the record that safety in the air lanes in Canada over Quebec air space is being jeopardized for the sake of political expediency. I forecast that there will be a disaster. It will be a fatal disaster, of minor or major proportions, and the minister and the government will be entirely to blame.
In the seven minutes I have there is no way I can advance all the arguments I have to propose with respect to the jeopardizing of safety, but I want those who are here tonight, and perhaps those who might read these remarks, to imagine themselves on the flight deck of an Air Canada flight with the weather being 3,000 feet overcast, with
February 16, 1976

perhaps two miles in fog. That is pretty good weather for an approach to, let us say, the airport at Quebec city. The wind is calm, and we on the Air Canada flight deck have been cleared for an ILS or instrument landing system approach. We have just changed to tower frequency on a radio which carries 380 frequencies on one of the radios on our flight deck. We call up the tower saying that this is Air Canada established on the ILS. The tower replies that we are number one. That means we are number one for landing.
Now you are over the outer marker and you want to tell the tower this, but you have to wait while the following conversation takes place between the tower and another aircraft.
Tower says: "Are you ready for immediate, United?"
United answers: "Affirmative".
Tower: "United, you are clear to position and hold", United being on the ground and being ready to taxi out for take-off.
You say: "Air Canada inside the marker gear down."
Tower answers: "Air Canada continue".
I am leaving out names and flights and numbers in this narrative because I am telling you something that actually happened in the air over Quebec air space on January 25 last.
At this point you do not know, on the Air Canada flight deck, which runway the other aircraft is occupying. Remember, the wind is calm. But you would not have to be very clever to at least suspect that the United flight is in front of you on the runway you are about to land on.
You say to the Tower: "We are down to 500 feet," and you call for landing clearance.
Tower comes back: "United clear for take-off; Air Canada clear to land."
As I say, Madam Speaker, this happened. As the tower says this you are passing through 400 feet, still in cloud through ILS approach. You have already decided, on the flight deck; you know the aircraft is there. You suspect it is on the same runway, and if it is there you are going to go around again.
At 300 feet you come out of cloud and get a view of the rear end of a 727 starting down the runway. You say to the first officer, "Go around." That does not go across to the tower. You say to the tower, after you have paused while your hands are busy in the cockpit on the go around: "Air Canada going around."
Tower pauses a few seconds during which Air Canada, with you on the flight deck, re-enters the cloud and you pass over the United flight.
Tower says: "United abort your take-off"-this said by a different voice than before.
In this instance all ended happily, but my point is that if you just change this scenario into a bilingual situation, remembering the seconds that you have with aircraft, and the combined approach cruising speed at 1,200 miles an hour in some situations-what if no one is prepared? Change that scenario into a two language situation, lower
Adjournment Debate
the limits a little bit, and instead of 400 feet you have 250 feet or 300 feet-you do not have two miles, you have one mile. Perhaps you have the makings of a disaster. Indeed you will.
The controller made an error in this situation. Anyone can make a mistake, but remove the ability of the other parties in airplanes to monitor air traffic at any airport and that mistake will not be known-it will not permit the captain of an airplane to analyse the situation and make decisions which might avoid a disaster.
This situation ended happily, but with a bilingual situation there would have been a major disaster. That is what is going to happen.
I speak only to the question of safety and I urge the government to reconsider very ill conceived policy of implementation of two languages in one of our provinces before a fatal disaster occurs-a fatal disaster for which only the government can be blamed.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, may I first address myself to my hon. friend's beginning remarks about this particular proceeding in the House of Commons being, to use his words, "a useless forum." We on this side do not consider it to be a useless forum. We take this so-called "late show" very seriously. I suppose my hon. friend does not, because unfortunately he is here so infrequently.
To deal with the matter which was mentioned in his actual question to which his notice referred today, which had to do with the possibility of restrictions on unilingual pilots as far as their licences go, this is the point to which I should like to address a few remarks this evening. It relates rather directly to what he has said this evening. I can assure him and all Canadians that there is no intention on the part of the government to impose any restriction on the pilot licences of either English-speaking or Frenth-speaking pilots flying in Canadian air space. In this connection it is the responsibility of every pilot to operate only within the limits of his competence, including that of language, as contained in paragraphs 504 and 817 of Air Regulations.
Specifically, paragraph 504 states that:
Prior to commencement of any flight, the pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall familiarize himself with all available information appropriate to the intended flight.
Paragraph 817 states that:
Nothing in these regulations shall be held to relieve the owner, operator or flight crew member of an aircraft of the consequences of any neglect in the use of lights or signals, or of any neglect to keep a proper lookout, or neglect of any precaution that is required by the ordinary practice of the air or by the special circumstances of the case.
The portion of this paragraph which is relevant to the question before us this evening is the portion which reads:
.. . neglect of any precaution that is required by the ordinary practice of the air or by the special circumstances of the case.
Further, those occurrences to which my hon. friend referred as "near misses"-that is the American terminology while in Canada we use more technical language to refer to such occurrences as "loss of separation between aircraft"-may involve varying degrees of seriousness ranging from a technical loss of separation to more serious occurrences, but are not language problems per se.

February 16, 1976
Adjournment Debate
I wish to allay my hon. friend's concern and assure him, earnestly, that the Ministry of Transport will continue to ensure the highest possible degree of safety in Canadian
air operations. We will also want to permit the use of Canada's two official languages where it is possible to do so consistent with that high safety standard.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Tuesday, February 17, 1976