1976-02-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the Honourable Mr. Chief Justice N. T. Nemetz and the Honourable Mr. Justice E. D. Fulton, both of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the two judges appointed for the trial of a petition pursuant to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, a certificate of judgment in the matter of an election in the electoral district of Vancouver East.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an important and urgent matter.
In view of the increasingly obvious need for adopting clear and specific policies on the food sector which will again be affected this year by considerably higher costs and so affect Canadian consumers as well, and as the farming sector is up against certain difficulties including, for instance, an expected much lower farm income for the year in spite of relentlessly higher production costs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House now study the recommendation made recently by the Food Prices Review Board for setting up at provincial and federal government levels a food ministry entrusted with the formulation of a coherent food policy, and that this House analyze any proposal of similar nature capable of ensuring balance between food production and food consumption, thus sparing all Canadians, producers and consumers, the consequences of the lack of planning in that sphere.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of 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.


REFERENCE TO LENGTH OF SESSION
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before beginning the oral question period, may I call to the attention of hon. members that the longest session in the history of the Parliament of Canada was one lasting 250 days, the two hundred and fiftieth day falling on May 8, 1967. This day is the two hundred and fiftieth day of the current session of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Lawrence:: This has been one of the least productive of sessions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, may I thank all my colleagues in this House for this very moving expression of their friendship. This is one of the moments when I am proud of being a Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because of the great concern in Canada over the security of our charge d'affaires and eight other Canadians who are members of the Canadian embassy personnel at Beirut.
Can the minister advise the House, and the country, what steps the Canadian government has taken and intends to take, subject of course to the threat too elabo-

February 23, 1976
Oral Questions
rate a declaration could constitute by prejudicing current negotiations?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, since this morning, we have been in touch with our Charge in Beirut. As the hon. member has mentioned, the embassy is occupied by a Canadian citizen of Lebanese origin, Mr. Haymour, with a group of companions, who have made a series of demands upon the Canadian and Lebanese authorities. There is no doubt at the present time that lives are at stake. Among those lives are nine members of the Canadian Embassy staff. I also wish to mention that I have been in touch personally with the foreign minister of Lebanon who has assured me that the Lebanese authorities are making every possible effort to secure a safe release of all the hostages. They are presently in negotiation with the persons who are holding as hostages these Canadian and Lebanese citizens.


Claude Wagner: Given the situation that the minister has explained, and given the fact that these individuals may not be political terrorists in the commonly accepted understanding of that term, can the minister explain how security can be so easily breached in a strife-torn country beset with continuing political turmoil?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the hon. member may know, Mr. Speaker, the embassy is, on a daily basis, the place to which many persons go who are seeking to come to Canada. People have access to the embassy for consular business. I conclude that the Lebanese people who are being held were persons in the embassy for business and, of course, the embassy staff were providing services in the normal way. I may add that the female members of the embassy staff were released. However, it is impossible to apply total security when the embassy is open, as this embassy is, to do business with the public.


Claude Wagner: What assurance can the minister give the House and the country that security at all Canadian embassies and diplomatic premises around the world is being strengthened in the light of escalating acts of terrorism?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member and the House assurance that prior to this present incident, security measures had been re-examined. In various embassies throughout the world, additional steps have been taken to meet the increased problems that are being faced throughout the world. However, the hon. member will realize that it is impossible, in a situation where the public has access, to provide totally effective security, as this incident has shown.


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 that last Friday the cabinet

had on its agenda the question of implementing the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs having to do with Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war, can the minister say whether a favourable decision was reached and, if so, when the appropriate legislation will be introduced?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I appreciate the hon. member's question but I shall not be able to make a statement today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask
whether there will be an announcement this week?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I anticipate there will be.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Solicitor General. Since Air Canada has refused to fly the prisoners involved in last week's hostage drama at B.C. Penitentiary to Dorchester, and arrangements have now been made with the Ministry of Transport to do so, will the minister tell us exactly when these prisoners will be transported and at what cost?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: It is correct that arrangements are being made to transport these inmates by government aircraft, but I cannot give him precise information as to when they will be flown to New Brunswick. I can say, though, that it is likely these arrangements will be less expensive than had the men been transported on Air Canada aircraft.


John Douglas Reynolds: Since Andy Bruce is scheduled to be returned to B.C. after a cooling off period and Dwight Lucas will have to be returned for trial on a charge of attempted murder, how does the Solicitor General intend to carry out this new arrangement of transporting prisoners back and forth? Is it his intention to buy a plane for the Canadian penitentiary service for just this purpose?


William Warren Allmand: This is not a new practice in the penal service. We have been transporting prisoners for years so as to break up different cliques and gangs in the penitentiaries and ensure better security in our prisons.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-ALLEGATION GUARDS ARRANGED FOR KNIVES FOR INMATES TO EMBARRASS DIRECTOR
John Douglas Reynolds: In
view of the fact that Gary Bannerman, a broadcaster in British Columbia, made statements on Saturday which said the staff had arranged for knives for the inmates to embarrass the director, can the minister tell us if there is any truth to these statements and whether his department has found there were inside people involved to embarrass the director of that institution, whose resignation has been called for by all the guards in that institution?
February 23, 1976


William Warren Allmand: I have no evidence on that aspect right now, but we have set up an inquiry to determine the circumstances of the hostage-taking and I hope to make the information available to the House and to the public as soon as the inquiry is completed.


PROPOSAL THAT BRITISH COLUMBIA CRIMINALS NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Solicitor General.
Since we have enough problems in the Atlantic Region and more particularly in New Brunswick, would the Solicitor General take the necessary measures so that British Columbia criminals remain in British Columbia?


William Warren Allmand: As I said, it happens on many occasions that we transfer inmates from one penitentiary to another in order to provide better security by breaking up cliques and gangs. I might point out to my hon. friend that we have several inmates from New Brunswick in British Columbia penitentiaries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Undoubtedly the minister is aware of the difficulties experienced by the firm Tricofil of St. Jerome which cannot get bank credit or assistance from the Quebec government. Did the minister have talks with Tricofil which was asking for federal assistance either from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and if there were talks between Tricofil, the government and the department, did the department reach a conclusion?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I believe some such discussions are underway, but I would ask the hon. member's indulgence to take the question as notice. I will get him a detailed answer tomorrow.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the minister's answer. Can we expect the federal government to assist this new form of trade organization?
Oral Questions


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As I say, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware at the moment of all the particulars, but I will get all the details and try to respond tomorrow.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. What action does the government intend to take on the final recommendation of the Food Prices Review Board, released last Friday, which recommends, among other things, the setting up of a ministry of state for food which would have responsibility for keeping an eye on the Minister of Agriculture?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that that was seriously recommended by the review board. Perhaps the hon. member was too busy over the weekend to read the text himself; he might want to ask a better question.


AGRICULTURE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister can assure the Prime Minister that the Food Prices Review Board was, in fact, serious in its final recommendation. Does the Minister of Agriculture intend to follow the other principal recommendations of the Food Prices Review Board, which spoke so critical of him, by setting up immediately a federal-provincial board which would have the effect of co-ordinating and maximizing the production of food in Canada, especially for the benefit of Canadian consumers as well as world consumers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had time to study the report. It arrived on my desk only this morning and I was very busy this weekend looking after my constituency,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: -so I have not had time to study it. I have only had time to see what was written in some of the nation's leading newspapers. I do not want to be a super Minister of Agriculture; I just want to be a good one.
11142

February 23, 1976
Oral Questions ENERGY


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON GOVERNMENT CONSERVATION MEASURES
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister who sits beside the ordinary "superstar" of the cabinet; I refer to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the government assured the Canadian people more than two years ago that it intended to set a very serious example to the Canadian people regarding energy conservation by means of substituting small cars for large cars in the government service, doing away with a number of government cars by requiring civil servants to use public transportation, reducing the general level of heating in government buildings and by using other methods, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to come before the House and outline just what the government has been able to accomplish in this regard in the past two years?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to outline to the House what we have been doing in the past two years and what we hope the country and the opposition will support over the next two years. I shall be issuing a report the middle of this week, I expect, and I would seek an early opportunity to have members opposite put questions to me on this very important policy.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will put a question to the Minister right now. In view of the fact that to the observing public there has been nothing done in any of these regards, would the minister have the honesty to come before the House tomorrow on motions and admit that absolutely nothing has been done to correct the situation?


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister has been unusually silent regarding the Westinghouse matter, WCI and GSW. In light of the fact that he will be going overseas shortly, within three or four days, would he give us some indication of what progress has been made?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, substantial progress has been made. I am glad to see the policeman back in the House too, I might say. In any event, I think the hon. member knows we have been getting representations on both sides of this issue virtually every day. I have now got all the material necessary to make a decision and I hope one can be made very shortly.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for welcoming me back to the House. He knows that I never abdicate my responsibilities, even after having worked so hard over the weekend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Whelan.)


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I might say that I heard the minister make this utterance on two or three occasions, and I should just like his assurance now that he will be able to bring forward a decision to the House prior to the time he leaves on this jaunt which I think he is contemplating at this time. I understand it is to be in three or four days. Will he have a decision on this matter prior to the time he goes away?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, that is my objective at the moment. In so far as I know, there is nothing that should stand in the way of that, but I have to qualify it by stating that, as the hon. member knows, there is new information, and new representations are being made frequently, but on the basis of what I have at hand now it ought to be possible to accomplish what the hon. member asks.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Minister of State for Fisheries. In view of the considerable number of unpaid fishing boat subsidy claims in Nova Scotia, is it the minister's intention to review this matter in the hope that federal subsidies as promised will be paid and, in addition, will he take steps to clarify the present regulations so that fishermen in need of the new boats which will be required when we secure a Canadian 200-mile economic zone will receive assistance, as promised by the federal government, within a reasonable period of time?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take issue with the hon. member's use of the word "promised". The subsidies were given to the extent that they were available up to $4 million, but then there was just not enough to go around. In the marginal cases where we might have led a fisherman to believe that his boat subsidy would be approved, in which case he made a commitment, I decided in favour of the fisherman where I could. There were other cases where fishermen, although having been clearly told that subsidies would not be available, went ahead. In these cases, of course, I could not approve retroactively what they were warned not to do ahead of time.


INCOME SUPPORT PROGRAM-DATE OF INTRODUCTION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of State for Fisheries would indicate if the income support program for fishermen is now ready to be introduced, particularly in view of the fact that about five months ago in committee one of his officials indicated it would be ready in about six months? I ask this in order to relieve the anxiety of fishermen who are preparing for the new fishing season.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that I did spend three hours this morning working on this very question. We are look-
February 23, 1976

ing at fairly firm recommendations, but they are still far from perfect in my eyes.


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the report released by the Atomic Energy Control Board that burial sites of radioactive materials are located in eastern Manitoba, were officials of the Atomic Energy Control Board aware that burial of radioactive materials was taking place in the area of a Manitoba forestry reserve by the Manitoba Cancer Research Foundation and the Department of National Health and Welfare without the knowledge of the Atomic Energy Control Board and without following the regulations of that board relative to the burial of radioactive materials?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants a detailed listing of the events in chronological order I would be very pleased to get it for him.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a very serious question to the Solicitor General. Are there to be any changes made in security at penitentiaries in respect of dangerous and violent criminal persons who appear now to have nothing to lose and everything to gain from jail breaks and the holding of hostages?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that is not true. They have a lot to lose by jailbreaks and hostage-taking. They can have another term of imprisonment imposed upon them and can have their parole eligibility put back several years, but despite that we are bringing in improvements and they will be announced tomorrow.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What have those dangerous and violent criminals who have been given life imprisonment to lose by a jailbreak or hostage holding?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, they can lose the possibility of parole right now under the law. Some of them are eligible for parole after ten years and up to 20 years. The more they misbehave in prison and the more crimes they commit the longer that parole date is put back. If they had nothing to lose, then they would be prone to be even more difficult.
Oral Questions


KNOWLEDGE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL OF REPORTS OF INMATES UPRISING-REASON FOR TRANSFERRING INMATES FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA TO NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It is known that reports on an inmates uprising were circulating through the B.C. penitentiary for several weeks before last Thursday's hostage taking. Was the Solicitor General informed of these reports by prison management and, if so, what extra precautions were taken.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I was not advised. From my discussion with the Commissioner of Penitentiaries and the regional director, it does not seem that they were advised. However, as I stated in respect of an earlier question we now have an inquiry underway and hope to get to the bottom of this.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Solicitor General why these prisoners were taken all the way to New Brunswick, rather than just to Prince Albert a thousand miles away?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in these circumstances there were three correctional officers held as hostages, and the request by the inmates was that they be transferred to Dorchester. We saw nothing extraordinary in that request. As a matter of fact, many people would think that Dorchester penitentiary is much worse than the B.C. penitentiary. So, if they wanted to go to Dorchester for a short while, we thought it was worthwhile to grant the request to save three lives.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. Last week the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development indicated he would be consulting with the Minister of the Environment concerning the granting of a drilling permit to Dome Petroleum in the offshore of the Beaufort Sea. Would the minister advise if those consultations have been made, and would he also advise the House whether he is recommending the granting of such a permit in view of the report of his department concerning the tremendous environmental hazards in connection with that drilling permit?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Now, I think we have to continue discussions and perhaps have discussions in the cabinet because of the importance of the problem, but no decision has been taken yet.
11144

February 23, 1976
Oral Questions


ALLEGED INADEQUACY OF PENALTY PROVISIONS IN LEGISLATION-POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, because the present penalties provide a maximum fine under the Fisheries Act of $1,000 and $100,000 under the Arctic Waters Pollution Act, can the minister advise whether the House will be receiving the new penalty provisions prior to the granting of any permit in view of the complete inadequacy of penalties under the present legislation and also in view of the fact that there is no contingency plan presently in place in accordance with the report of the minister's department, for cleaning up in the Arctic.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman would understand that there are two points we have to clarify before taking a decision; first, whether technology is advanced enough to allow a permit and second, if there should be a blow-out of some kind whether we have the facilities to really make a decent clean-up so that all the ecology is not destroyed. We are discussing those two points and have not reached a decision.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the gentle indication by the Speaker today that this session will set a new record, has the Prime Minister decided on the date of the new session so that we will have a Speech from the Throne debate in which we can discuss the state of the nation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is still a considerable amount of legislation on the order paper. We see no advantage in having a Speech from the Throne at this time. I suggest that if the House leaders would expedite the present business we would be in a position to consider the question raised by the hon. member.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Prime Minister is: will there be a cabinet shuffle or diminution of cabinet positions before that time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REGULATIONS COVERING PEOPLE HANDLING FOOD IN RESTAURANTS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the increased alarm and fear people who eat in hotels and restaurants have of being served food infested with parasites, I should like to ask the minister what

further controls or health certificates are being considered in respect of all people who handle food in such places?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Canada has a very extensive program of health screening of all immigrants coming into Canada, particularly with regard to contagious diseases. As a matter of fact, Canada has a more comprehensive program in that respect than the United States, Britain or France. Where the problem arises is in the case of non-immigrants, that is, people coming to Canada for short stays which, as the hon. member knows, number in the tens of millions every year. Both my department and the Department of Manpower and Immigration are currently looking at means whereby we can establish some kind of selective regulations. For example, there is the problem of controlling the 40 million visitors we get every year from the United States. The screening of nonimmigrants is a difficult situation to regulate. We are working at it and I hope I will be able to report progress to the hon. member in the near future.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that dissatisfaction and unrest over the handling of maximum security prisoners seems to be universal throughout the penitentiary system, which indicates that the problem lies not with any one institution or individual, can the minister tell us what new programs or policies he is putting into effect by way of general policy changes and improvements?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I would reject the suggestion that there is universal dissatisfaction in the penitentiary service over the handling of maximum security inmates. It is true that the Association of Correctional Officers and so on has voiced some opposition but, as I say, we will have to wait for the report of the inquiry to see exactly what the causes were for the most recent hostage-taking. But I would agree with the hon. member that the handling of maximum security inmates is a most difficult task. There are problems and we will announce some new proposals tomorrow in our peace and security package to deal with these problems.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. I should like to ask him by way of a supplementary, which he partly answered, when we can expect some concrete action on the part of the government to produce a maximum security system which is less barbaric to its inmates and more effective in protecting the rest of society. Will that be part of his improved program?


William Warren Allmand: That is an interesting goal, Mr. Speaker. Countries all over the world are seeking such an institution where you can combine humanity with security to a high degree. If the hon. member has any suggestions I would be pleased to look at them.
February 23, 1976



BRITISH COLUMBIA-ALLEGATION MR. CERNETIC DOES NOT HAVE SUPPORT OF PRISON OFFICERS

Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Solicitor General. Since it is obvious that there are major problems in British Columbia in light of the hostage-taking dramas of the past several months, would the Solicitor General tell the House exactly what is going on in British Columbia at the present time and why no question has been addressed concerning the management of the prison by Dragon Cernetic in view of the fact that he does not have the support of the prison officers.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I question whether he has or has not the support of his officials. It is true that certain members of the correctional staff voiced dissatisfaction with him but there are many others working in that penitentiary and in the penitentiary system as a whole who have great respect for Mr. Cernetic in the tough and demanding job he has. With regard to that history, I should point out to hon. members that we have been trying to close this penitentiary for several years. We have had great difficulty in getting sites for new institutions. It is only in the last six or seven months that we have found such sites and are able to go ahead with construction of new institutions.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that 171 employees of that prison voted against the management of the prison by Dragon Cernetic and do not endorse it, how can the minister make that statement? What is being done to deal with the problems of management at that penitentiary?


William Warren Allmand: That may be more evident once we have the results of the inquiry I set up.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, following his visit to Brandon, Manitoba on Friday night, and his speech to the chamber of commerce there. Can the minister inform the House when he will be announcing the restoration of air service to that important region of Canada?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I informed the chamber of commerce in Brandon, I was expecting to see a reply from the government of Manitoba either today or tomorrow because the provincial minister informed me in Brandon that he had dispatched a reply to my inquiry some time ago about assistance. Manitoba and Saskatchewan might contribute by offering their service to these communities. I do not know if a reply from Saskatchewan is on its way. I had been awaiting those replies before taking the next step of putting forward specific proposals or deciding on another alternative.
Oral Questions


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the western Manitoba region has been without air service for three years now, and also the fact that there is a brand new terminal waiting to be put to use, is the minister also considering the Transair proposal, the proposal of the designated regional carrier, to provide jet service into that area without subsidy?


Otto Emil Lang: I had discussions with the chamber of commerce about the alternative issue of a jet service for Regina, Brandon, Toronto, and I indicated to them that I had read with interest the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission on that subject. There would be some preliminary questions as to the appropriate carrier which might have to be settled in any case, but I certainly think it is an issue worth pursuing further.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to my favourite cabinet minister, the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that the prisoners who took three hostages are being transferred from British Columbia to New Brunswick, can the Solicitor General assure me that the province of New Brunswick will not become a haven for those individuals who tend to hide behind hostages?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR DOCTORS IN RURAL AREAS- GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since remote areas, such as Gaspesia, Lake Saint-John, Abitibi and particularly the towns of Lebel-sur Quevillon, Chapais, Chibougamau and many others are experiencing constant problems in respect of the number of doctors required to meet the people's needs, could the minister advise the House whether he is considering the possibility of granting isolation premiums to encourage doctors to establish practice in remote regions?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that he is sitting in the wrong House, and that this type of question should be raised in the Quebec National Assembly, either by himself or by one of his colleagues.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Immigration holds them back. It rejects foreign doctors.

February 23, 1976
Oral Questions


Armand Caouette: I would like to ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that the federal government is regularly spending funds in areas within provincial jurisdiction, like education-for example, the Secretary of State has announced a $250,000 subvention for teaching French in Ontario-could the minister tell the House whether he is prepared to propose to the provinces the establishment of an isolation premium program for doctors, with financial participation from the federal government to pay the cost of such a program?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, again I would urge the hon. member to examine my department's publications, which have been available for many years, where he would find that the federal government is sharing half the cost of medicare, including the premiums to which the hon. member was referring. So there is already a program for sharing expenses in this area. But I repeat once again that if the hon. member would like to pursue the matter further, he should have his colleague in Quebec City raise the matter there.



ASSISTANCE FOR FREIGHT COSTS ON FEED GRAIN-DATE OF DECISION

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the promises made some two and a half years ago with regard to feed freight assistance as it pertains to the new feed grains policy, is the minister prepared to tell the House whether or not the government is going to make some move so far as feed freight assistance is concerned?


Otto Emil Lang: I cannot predict exactly when that will happen.



FINANCE


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, I shall put my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House whether he intends in the near future to remove the 5 per cent tax on building materials for non-profit-making housing corporations, even if they are already entitled to some kinds of subsidies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is asking a budgetary question, Mr. Speaker, and he knows that the government does not as a practice announce tax changes in answer to questions.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Have there been any discussions directly with the minister or with officials of his department and Panarctic with regard to the use of the Manhattan for the removal of oil from northern areas?


Otto Emil Lang: I have had no such discussions. I would have to check whether there had been any discussions of that sort.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

Would the minister inform the House and the country about the latest reassuring developments that have taken place at the Canadian mission in Lebanon in the interval that has elapsed since he last spoke about the subject?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, since my reply to the question asked by the hon. member, I have had information that the embassy in Beirut has been liberated and all the hostages have been released unharmed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and it relates to the recent difficulties affecting the Lockheed company and the investigations by the minister with respect to their capacity to deliver the Orion aircraft for nearly $1 billion ordered for the Canadian armed forces. Can the minister give a progress report on that and indicate whether the initial date of delivery is still holding up and whether in fact the Orion aircraft are still on order with the Lockheed Company?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the government decided in principle to purchase from Lockheed but, as has been explained a number of times, we are experiencing difficulties in negotiating the financing and this is holding up the final signing of the contract. The negotiations, however, are continuing.

February 23, 1976


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Can the minister also indicate that the various aspects with respect to the methods of awarding contract and the pay-offs that apparently have been uncovered by congressional investigations have in no way affected any relationship that was established between this government and the Lockheed Company?


James Armstrong Richardson: We have assured the House on earlier occasions that there was no payment of commissions or any other kind of payment to Canadians. I did indicate that the difficulties the Lockheed Company was experiencing might have weakened the company's financial position, but there has been no evidence that this is to a degree that will prevent them from continuing the contract, provided we can get over the difficulties I mentioned earlier.



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will he be removing or reducing the special excise tax on gasoline as the price of wellhead oil has moved up in July, a tax which was established to pay for off-shore oil supplies, or does he intend to make it a permanent tax feature?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: fiscal question of that kind would have to be dealt with in the context of the budget.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State who has just left the chamber, but perhaps in his absence someone else will speak for him. It is supplementary to the question posed last Thursday by the hon. member for South Shore who requested radio coverage for the past weekend's events. Has the Secretary of State been made aware of complaints concerning the inadequacy of French language television coverage of the Progressive Conservative Convention? Is it the intention of the minister to remind the publicly-financed Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of their primary responsibility to report in both official languages on public affairs of national interest?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would agree with the premise that, in fact, the corporation has a responsibility to report the important events in both official languages on both channels. I was rather glued to the English channel, so I was not aware of the deficiency of the French but I shall certainly look into it.
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION



GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO DEPORT DANG VAN QUANG- REQUEST FOR REPORT

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that Dang Van Quang has been living in Canada under a deportation order for going on eight months, seven months at least, may I ask the minister what steps he and his department have taken to deport Quang and whether the department has been in direct contact with the new regime in South Viet Nam?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already described the steps. There have been negotiations on behalf of Mr. Quang with at least one country and there are still pending discussions as to whether that country might or might not accept him as an immigrant. I have pressed for an official decision about this. I expect to have it soon, and then we will make the relevant decision on whether he goes there or back to South Viet Nam.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister if that other country, whichever it is, refuses to take Quang will the minister then carry out his responsibilities under the act and deport Quang to South Viet Nam?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, if I do so, it will be a disappointment to the hon. member because he will have to find another issue on which to make himself heard.



FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries concerning the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. In view of the fact that the co-operative fisheries of Manitoba are meeting in convention for three days this week, would the minister inform the House whether he intends to allow those fishermen fishing on Lake Winnipeg to have the option of selling their fish outside the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation similar to the arrangement in the Lake of the Woods area of Ontario?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen representations on this issue at the present time. I would remind the hon. member the advantage of the corporation has been to protect fishermen from being picked off one by one by those in the brokerage business.

February 23, 1976
Oral Questions



FISHERIES


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, if my voice will permit me, I would like to put a question to the Minister of State (Fisheries). Wednesday last, as recorded on page 11050 of Hansard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) in reply to my question gave the following answer:
... with respect to separating out the fisheries aspect of the Law of the Sea conference. Certainly, it would be within Canada's objectives to seek a separate fisheries treaty ...
He also suggested that this could be done by order in council. I should like to ask the following question: I would like to know whether the orders in council are ready to be promulgated and if so, whether they state our claims concerning the Canadian rights to salmon spawned in our interior waters.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I presume that the orders in council referred to by the hon. member are those which would come into force the day when Canada would notify that the 60-day period preceding the extension of the Canadian jurisdiction takes effect.
If such is the case, I would say to him that those orders in council exist. We only have to decide the date on which they would become effective if such decision has not yet been taken.



INDUSTRY


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Because of the fact the department spent $20,000 trying to prove that the heavier cars take more-may I put it this way? Heavier cars cost more money and use more gasoline. Since this is an obvious observation, we have already concluded, may I ask the minister whether he will introduce legislation which will in fact try to prove-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley James Korchinski: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Does he intend to prove that it is necessary to have the public buy smaller cars but that the manufacturers have to manufacture cars that will-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley James Korchinski: -will produce mileage performance of the kind that the average citizen wants rather than the type of performance that the government wants. In other words-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: In other words to prove that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.


Stanley James Korchinski: In other words, will the government buy smaller cars rather than more conventional cars? Will the minister introduce legislation to force the manufacturers of cars to give the consumer a car that will give higher mileage per gallon?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member resume his seat? The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour in charge of multiculturalism. In light of the minister's expressed hope that the government would take increased steps toward multilingual broadcasting within the context of a bilingual framework, can the minister inform the House if he has raised this issue in cabinet and indeed will a multilingual broadcasting policy be presented as part of the new "emphasis" of multicultural policy?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to raise the matter in cabinet. The power of the CRTC is quite explicit in this regard and I am talking to that agency with respect to it.


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I have hesitated to mention this matter, but I think it is something that needs to be brought to your attention. In asking questions in the chamber, one of the problems that faces members of the opposition is that there are at least two members of the Privy Council who consistently are away from their seats. I can appreciate and have full respect for the fact that ministers do have to be away sometimes, but when a minister drifts in and out of the chamber it makes it impossible to catch the attention of the Chair. I draw this to the attention of the Chair: The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) consistently come into the chamber, sit in their seats, then go out of the House again. This makes it almost impossible for hon. members to attract the attention of the Chair when the ministers are in the House and put a question to them in the question period.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Some time ago the hon. member for Vaudreuil referred to a question that had been, as he said, raised by the hon. member for South Shore. I wish to inform the hon. member through you, Mr. Speaker, that the subject matter
February 23, 1976

to which the hon. member referred was not raised by me at any time in this House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, in both official languages, the AntiInflation Appeal Tribunal rules of procedure for appeals.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,301, 3,528, 3,533, 3,536, 3,537, 3,538, 3,541, 3,545, 3,547, 3,548, 3,549, 3,580, 3,666, 3,688, 3,770 (supplementary), 3,875, 3,882, 3,889, 3,951, 3,993 and 4,073.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is the Minister of Transport aware of the statements in the press attributed to the President of Panarctic Oil during the week of October 20 to 24, 1975 indicating the possibility that Panarctic Oil will purchase three Scandinavian crude oil tankers for transport of Arctic oil to market should that be feasible?
2.	Is the Minister aware of the extent of participation in Panarctic Oil by the government and its agents and, if so, to what extent is this participation?
3.	Has the Minister examined the implications of going outside Canada for such vessels in terms of the long-term viability and health of the Canadian ship-building industry and trade balance and (a) if so, what conclusions have been reached (b) if not, for what reason?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes, I am aware that a newspaper report on October 21 of the Panarctic oil strike at Cameron Island also referred to exploratory discussions with Scandinavian shipping companies.
2. Yes, I am aware that the Canadian Government has a 45 percent interest in Panarctic Oil. I am also aware that the President of Panarctic Oil discussed the transportation of oil out of the Arctic with a major Canadian ship operator about a month ago. As a result of these discussions being reported to my officials, an interdepartmental group has been meeting to assess the broad transportation requirements and benefits from oil movement by ship from the high Arctic. Preliminary discussions with Panarctic Oil have taken place and a meeting is scheduled for November
Order Paper Questions
to define more precisely the project especially as it relates to shipping, but nevertheless including all other aspects of the system to move oil from Cameron Island.
3. No, we have not yet examined the implications of going outside Canada for Arctic ships since the major emphasis is on ensuring the participation of Canadian ship operators, designers and builders.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the recent agreement on Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan, did it include costing arrangements for the full five years of Phase 2 and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: No. Under the economic circumstances prevailing at the time, two-year costing arrangements were considered appropriate.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	What are the terms of reference for PEI of the Small Farm Development Corporation?
2.	Do its activities significantly overlap those of the PEI Land Development Corporation?
3.	Has any consideration been given to awarding increased funding to the Land Development Corporation in lieu of Small Farm Development Corporation activities in PEI?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. There is no Small Farm Development Corporation on P.E.I. However, the Small Farm Development Program is a program of Agriculture Canada and information related to this program can be obtained from that Department.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	With reference to the recent agreement on Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan, did the private sector become as fully involved in Phase 1 as originally foreseen and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Does the government believe, as stated in Schedule "C", that the private sector will in fact become more involved under Phase 2 and, if so, for what reason?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows-1. Yes.
2. Yes. Additional emphasis is being placed on private sector development.
11150

February 23, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the recent agreement on Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan, did the Joint Advisory Board approve the termination of funding for the Rural Development Council and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what reason?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: The Joint Advisory Board was not asked to approve the termination of funding for the R.D.C. (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	With reference to the recent agreement on Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan, what were the names of all groups and organizations in the Province of PEI consulted as part of the drafting process for the new agreement?
2.	What general programme of financial assistance is available and what specific grants were made to enable groups in PEI to prepare submissions regarding the Phase 2 agreement?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Information not available.
2. No programme administered by DREE is available to enable groups in P.E.I. to prepare Submissions regarding the Phase II Agreement.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the recent agreement on Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan, what specific arrangements has DREE made to ensure citizen input into the upcoming negotiations on costing arrangements for the final three years of Phase 2?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: None. Costing arrangements are a matter of negotiation between the Federal and Provincial Governments.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the agricultural sector of Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan, what progress has been made on the development of the Skill Training Programme?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: There is no skill training program so identified in the agricultural sector of Phase II. However, methods to assist young and new farmers to develop their skills are being prepared for implementation in April, 1976.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the agricultural sector of Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan, have any studies been made concerning the (a) multiplier effect of agriculture on the PEI provincial economy (b) long-range market trends for North America and their relation to the PEI agricultural potential (c) relative beneficial impact of monies spent in the various agricultural sector programmes and, if so (i) who did them (ii) on what date (iii) for whom were they done (iv) what were the major findings and/or recommendations (v) how are the results of these studies reflected in the agreement?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: No studies have been made by DREE in respect of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan concerning (a), (b) or (c).


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the recent agreement on Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan and the decision to continue the School Consolidation Programme (a) has the Programme been evaluated and, if so (i) by whom (ii) on what date (iii) what were the main recommendations (b) were any groups representing either parents or teachers consulted prior to the decision to continue the Programme and, if so (i) what were the names of the groups consulted (ii) with what person or persons representing DREE or the Joint Advisory Board did these groups have contact (c) what are the specific indicators that have been or will be employed by DREE and the Joint Advisory Board in evaluating the School Consolidation Programme?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
(a)	Yes. (i) Verner Smitheram and Robert Mahen. (ii) 1974. (iii) 1. The province should continue with its plans for consolidation and new construction to replace inadequate school buildings. 2. Any new building or any major renovation of existing buildings should be planned in consultation with those who must work in them-teachers, administrators, specialists, non-instructional personnel, and students. 3. Larger secondary schools should be built in the province with sufficient facilities to provide for the variety of programs required to meet the educational needs, interests, and abilities of all high school students.
(b)	Not by DREE, (i) Not applicable, (ii) Not applicable.
(c)	A number of indicators will be used in evaluating the school consolidation program. These will include-the quality of education, the proportion of students who complete the grades, the flexibility of the education system, and the relative rating of these indicators to other provinces and the Canadian figures.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the recent agreement on Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan, what provisions are there for thorough and independent evaluation of the Phase 2 sectoral strategies and programmes?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Evaluation of the Plan is an ongoing function of management. Independent evaluations are provided only when requested by management.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Did the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation grant a loan of $30,193,489 to the Quebec Housing Corporation for 38 housing projects in the Province of Quebec and, if so (a) were some projects related to the municipalities of Saint-Damien and Saint-Vallier in the Constituency of Bellechasse (b) what was the rate of interest (c) for how long (d) will repayments be made (i) monthly (ii) yearly and, in each case, in what amounts?
2.	Did the Quebec Housing Corporation reach an agreement with these municipalities in regard to the housing projects?
3.	Did the municipalities have financial agreements with the Quebec Housing Corporation and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: 1. To November 30, 1975, CMHC made 31 loans to Quebec Housing Corporation, to finance the construction or acquisition of 1,388 dwelling units and 780 hostel beds, totalling $39.9 million, (a) One of these loans was made for a project in the municipality of Saint-Damien, for $537,863 to finance 30 units, and another loan was made for a project in the municipality of Saint-Vallier in an amount of $292,473, for 20 units, (b) The rate of interest is 10% per cent, (c) The loans will be repaid over a term of 50 years, (d) Quebec Housing Corporation will make annual repayments of principal and interest in an amount of $57,617.24 for the project in Saint-Damien and $31,330.44 for the project in Saint-Vallier.
2 and 3. Information on agreements between Quebec Housing Corporation and the municipalities in question should be obtained from Q.H.C.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	On what date was the Bank of Canada established and what is its main function?
2.	Does the Bank have its own assets and, if so (a) what are they (b) what is their present value?
3.	With what reserves did it start?
4.	Does the Canadian monetary system depend on the Bank and, if so (a) what was the Canadian money supply as of January 1, 1975 (b) what fraction was owned by the Bank (c) of what did it consist?
5.	(a) On the same date, what financial institutions, such as chartered banks, held the other part of the Canadian money supply (b) for what dollar value in each case?
6.	Does the Bank have the authority to establish interest rates in Canada and, if so, is it after consultation with the Minister of Finance?
7.	What authority does the Governor of the Bank have on the Canadian monetary policy?
8.	What is the percentage of reserves that chartered banks must maintain with the Bank to cover their clients' credit in the form of deposit?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1. The Bank of Canada commenced operations on March 11, 1935. Its main function is set out in the preamble to the Bank of Canada Act.
Order Paper Questions
2.	Yes. (a) Mainly securities issued by the Government of Canada. A statement of assets and liabilities is published for each Wednesday and for each month-end in the form prescribed by the Bank of Canada Act. (b) As at January 31, 1976, $10,399,911,420.
3.	At the official commencement of business on March 11, 1935, the assets of the Bank of Canada totalled $185,455,000 of which $70,441,000 was accounted for by international reserve assets of a kind now held by the Exchange Fund Account of the Minister of Finance.
4.	By means of its control of the cash reserves of the chartered banks, the Bank of Canada is able to regulate the growth of the Canadian dollar liabilities of the chartered banking system, (a) Currency outside banks and demand deposits at chartered banks, $15,772 million; Currency outside banks and total Canadian dollar deposits at chartered banks, excluding Government, of Canada deposits, $57,442 million; Currency outside banks and total Canadian dollar deposits at chartered banks, including Government of Canada deposits, $62,124 million, (b) None, (c) See (a).
5.	(a) and (b). Bank deposits, which constitute the largest part of the money supply, as defined, are liabilities of the banks and banks do not typically hold significant amounts of one another's deposits. The total held by nonbank financial institutions is not available. The great bulk of the money supply is owned by the general public.
6.	The Bank of Canada has the authority to set its own lending rate, the Bank Rate, which is the minimum rate at which it is prepared to make advances. The operations of the Bank have an indirect but significant influence on other interest rates in Canada. See also 7 below.
7.	The Governor is the chief executive officer of the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada Act places the responsibility for the formulation and execution of monetary policy on the Bank. Section 14(1) of the Act requires that there be regular consultation between the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada on monetary policy and on its relation to general economic policy. Section 14(2) states: If, notwithstanding the consultations provided for in subsection (1), there should emerge a difference of opinion between the Minister and the Bank concerning the monetary policy to be followed, the Minister may, after consultation with the Governor and with the approval of the Governor in Council, give to the Governor a written directive concerning monetary policy, in specific terms and applicable for a specified period, and the Bank shall comply with such directive. Section 14(3) requires the publication of any such directive. No directives have been issued. In the absence of a directive the Governor must accept responsibility for the monetary policy followed by the Bank. At the same time the Government's power to issue a directive means that it must accept ultimate responsibility for monetary policy.
8.	Under Section 72 of the Bank Act the chartered banks are required to maintain cash reserves in the form of notes of and deposits in Canadian currency with the Bank of Canada equalling not less on average during any halfmonth than 12 per cent of Canadian dollar demand deposits and 4 per cent of Canadian dollar notice deposits. Under Section 72(4) of the Bank Act and Section 18(2) of the Bank of Canada Act the chartered banks are required to hold secondary reserves in the forms therein specified. At
21419-14%

Order Paper Questions
the present time the requirement is that these reserves be not less on average during any month than 5Vi per cent of Canadian dollar deposit liabilities.


Mr. McCleave: 1.	What factors are used to determine the supply of currency and demand deposits put into circulation (a) who makes such decisions (b) how often are they made (c) who has the ultimate responsibility for such decisions?
2 For each year since 1968, by percentages, how much has the (a) gross national product (b) supply of currency and demand deposits increased?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1. The control of the money supply (one definition of which is the combined total of currency outside banks and demand deposits at chartered banks) is a key element in monetary policy. It is based on a broad and continuing assessment of the functioning of the economy, the economic outlook, and the historical relationship of the money supply, as defined, to the trend of gross national expenditure, (a) The Bank of Canada. See also (c) below, (b) The Bank of Canada reviews its monetary policy continuously, (c) Section 14(1) of the Bank of Canada Act requires that there be regular consultation between the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada on monetary policy and on its relation to general economic policy. Section 14(2) states: If, notwithstanding the consultations provided for in subsection (1), there should emerge a difference of opinion between the Minister and the Bank concerning the monetary policy to be followed, the Minister may, after consultation with the Governor and with the approval of the Governor in Council, give to the Governor a written directive concerning monetary policy, in specific terms and applicable for a specified period, and the Bank shall comply with such directive. Section 14(3) requires the publication of any such directive. No directives have been issued. In the absence of a directive the Bank of Canada must accept responsibility for the monetary policy it follows. At the same time the Government's power to issue a directive means that it must accept ultimate responsibility for monetary policy. *
2.	Annual percentage increases in:	
	Value of	
	gross national	Currency and
	product	demand deposits'
1968	9.3	4.41969	10.0	7.41970	7.4	2.31971	9.1	12.81972	11.2	14.01973	15.9	14.41974	17.0	9.71975	n.a.	13.8
* Annual averages of currency in circulation outside banks and chartered bank Canadian dollar demand deposits.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 3,770-Mr. McKenzie: (Supplementary)
1.	What was the total cost of the Air Canada Inquiry conducted by the Honourable W. Z. Estey, including the printing costs of the report in both official languages?
2.	What was the total remuneration paid to the Commissioner?
3.	What are the names of each member on the Commission and the remuneration received by each?
Ralph Goodale: Transport Canada advises as follows: Supplementary Information: 1.	$408,178.80.
2 and 3. See answers in Hansard No. 119, page 10296 of January 26, 1976.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Has any department or Crown corporation purchased electronic listening devices or surveillance equipment during the past five years and, if so, which departments?
2.	What was the dollar expenditure for surveillance equipment during each of the past five years?
3.	Did the amount of expenditure increase during each of the preceding years and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: This reply is made on the understanding that the electronic listening devices referred to in the question are the kind defined in the Protection of Privacy Act. The Protection of Privacy Act sets out the exceptional circumstances in which interception of communications and use of electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other devices may be authorized. The Act is adhered to closely. It is considered necessary to decline to provide information which might adversely affect investigational procedures, except as required by law.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Did the Minister of Transport travel to Calgary on Grey Cup Day, November 23, 1975 by government aircraft and, if so, was it on official government business?
2.	At what time did (a) the Minister arrive in Calgary (b) his aircraft leave?
3.	From what point did the Minister's flight originate and where did it terminate?


Ralph Goodale: 1. Yes.
2 (a) 10:40; (b) 23:25 (Note: Times are Mountain Standard Time).
3. The flight originated from and terminated at Ottawa.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): What are (a) the amounts of hidden reserves on which no tax was paid over the past five years in the case of (i) each chartered bank (ii) all chartered banks (b) the names of the banks?
February 23, 1976


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: The chartered banks and other businesses which extend credit are exposed to losses from bad or doubtful debts and to depreciation in the value of assets and maintain contingency reserves to meet such losses. The banks are permitted to set aside amounts from pre-tax earnings, within limits prescribed by the Minister of Finance which relate such amounts to the level of assets at risk, for the purpose of maintaining General Appropriations for Losses. Prior to the enactment of the present Bank Act at the time of the last decennial revision, the banks included such appropriations in their balance sheets as deductions from related assets. These deductions were frequently referred to as "hidden" or "inner" reserves. Since 1967 the banks have been required to disclose these reserves on the liability side of their balance sheets as "Accumulated Appropriations for Losses". Further disclosure is made through the Statement of Accumulated Appropriations for Losses which analyzes changes in the appropriations accounts. Since 1967 the permitted maximum of General, or pre-tax, Appropriations has been reduced twice. This has meant that, with few exceptions, the larger banks have not been able to add to their General Appropriations from pre-tax earnings. The additions to General Appropriations from pre-tax earnings over the past five years by each bank are tabulated below:
Transfers From Pre-tax Earnings to General Appropriations ($ millions)
1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Bank of Montreal	-	-	12.3	-	-Bank of Nova Scotia	-	-	-	-	6.2T oronto-Dominion Bank	14.0	2.0Provincial Bank	2.5	2.3	4.2	4.0	7.6Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce	Royal Bank	-	-	7.0	-	-Banque Canadienne Nationale	2.8	7.0	10.0	8.0	12.6Mercantile Bank	.2	.3	.4	.6	5.1Bank of B. C.	.5	.2	.5	1.1	1.0Unity Bank	-	-	-	-	-Total	6.0	9.8	48.4	13.7	34.5


Mr. Fairweather: How many passengers used the Canadian Pacific Railway train from Saint John, New Brunswick to Montreal in (a) 1973 (b) 1974 (c) 1975?


Ralph Goodale: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: (a) 1973, 37,847; (b) 1974, 38,379; (c) 1975, 29,973* *
* Records not available for months of August and December.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,788, to the effect that the Department of National Revenue awarded $210,000 in moving contracts to Crismar Enterprises of Ottawa without the calling of tenders, what are the reasons that tenders were not called?
2.	Is the Department now calling tenders on such contracts and (a) if so (i) on what date did such procedure commence (ii) what are the dates and complete details of'all tenders called (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
On February 5, 1973, the Privy Council Office directed that the Connaught Building be transferred to them in order to convert it into a press centre to support the Commonweath Heads of Government Conference. Privy Council officials assumed control of the building the following day and requested that the furniture be removed immediately. The amount awarded Crismar Enterprises included the moving and storing of said furniture.
2. No. (a) Not applicable, (i) Not applicable, (ii) Not applicable, (b) All service contracts for moving, before and since this emergency, have been arranged and paid for by the National Capital Regional division of the Department of Public Works.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Did the government grant money to the bilingualism programme in the Public Service and, if so, in what amount?
2.	How many (a) English (b) French speaking persons attended courses given by the government?
3.	In each case, what is (a) the name of the (i) school (ii) department involved (b) the number of students in each (i) school (ii) department involved (c) the number of teachers in each (i) school (ii) department involved?


Mitchell William Sharp: See all these questions: No. 45 answered December 11, 1974; No. 46 ordered March 5, 1975; No. 49 answered January 29, 1975; No. 118 answered October 21, 1974; No. 119 answered October 21, 1974; No. 120 answered October 21, 1974; No. 547 ordered March 24, 1975; No. 688 ordered January 22, 1975; No. 1,454 answered March 3, 1975; No. 1,746 ordered May 5, 1975; No. 2,106 ordered May 8, 1975; No. 2,107 ordered May 14, 1975; No. 2,373 ordered July 23, 1975; No. 2,374 ordered July 23, 1975; No. 3,858 ordered February 7, 1976.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 3256 and 3945 could be made orders for returns, those documents could be tabled immediately.

February 23, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As of October 15, 1975, what is the (a) salary range (b) total number of employees in the Public Service in the classifications (i) DM 3 (ii) DM 2 (iii) DM 1 (iv) SX 4 (v) SX 3 (vi) SX 2 (vii) SX 1
2.	For each department and agency, what are the names of all persons employed in each of the categories, and (a) on what date was the most recent salary increase approved by the Cabinet (b) on what date was the order signed authorizing the salary increase (c) to what date are the salary increases retroactive?
Return tabled.


Mr. Matte: 1.	What was the total amount of grants made by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development since the implementation of the Northern Mineral Exploration Programme?
2.	For each such grant, what was the (a) object (b) amount (c) year (d) area concerned?
Return tabled.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada 1970, to lay upon the table of the House a certified copy of the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Saskatchewan, 1976.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Faulkner that Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned the debate on this bill on Thursday I was addressing myself to the position taken by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). Although I agree with the philosophy she expressed in her speech, I find it rather interesting, politically, that she should have compared the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) with Adolf Hitler. To the best of my knowledge, the Secretary of
(Mr. Blais.]
State has not taken up painting; but there may be other grounds for leading the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway to infer that there is more than a passing similarity between this legislation and legislation introduced by the Chancellor of Germany in the 1930s. Let me repeat in part what the hon. member said in the House last Thursday. As reported on page 11134 of Hansard, she said:
-The Secretary of State announced in committee that he had a cultural plan for Canada. That has happened before, with nationalism as the driving force, the most notable example being the German cultural plan announced in Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.
I think that for this House to consider the Secretary of State in that light is going a bit far. Of course, I must defer to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway who has greater knowledge of the hon. gentleman than I have. I was impressed with the hon. member's quotation from Somerset Maugham. Referring to that writer, she said, as reported on page 11136 of Hansard:
If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose that freedom ... And the irony of it is that if it is money that is valued more than freedom, that too will be lost.
As I said on Thursday, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway expressed sincerely her feelings about freedom, truth and censorship. I think her feelings might involve her in further difficulty with the government, particularly if it persists in proceeding with this bill despite the opposition of my party, the opposition in the government party and the opposition in the country.
Parts of this bill offend both the print and electronic media, particularly that part of the electronic media in which current developments have come to a halt. One can hardly expect new owners of cablevision stations to invest money in what were hitherto money-makers if, under the new rules as adumbrated by Mr. Justice Dube, there will be no guarantee that the owners will retain their licences even if they conform with every last instruction of the CRTC-of which, heaven knows, there are enough instructions.
This government believes in confrontation. It is confronting a major industry of Canada with the idea that it, and it alone, knows what is best for Canadians to watch and to hear; that it, and it alone, can say how these businesses must be conducted. If there were a valuable mineral resource under some new town or under where a new town might be built or, say, under Kincaid, Saskatchewan, or under any other city built on the prairies, I would not give a nickel for the cablevision licence for that community under existing west coast rules affecting cablevision. All this means that capital investment and development will stop entirely. That will enable the government to move in and say that the private sector of the economy is not fulfilling its task, and take over cablevision stations that up to now have been flourishing.
To indicate the difficulties this government is creating for our industry, may I quote a short extract from a letter written by the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia. The letter has to do mainly with Time and Reader's Digest. I do not always agree with the council, but I must concede that it knows about the forest industry of British Columbia and the likely effects of this bill on that industry. The first paragraph reads:
February 23, 1976

-Bill C-58 could be harmful to our industry's market position in the United States. We urged the government to withdraw the bill and reconsider the position it had taken.
In the penultimate paragraph it states:
As a member representing a British Columbia constituency, you will be well aware of the dependence of this province's forest industry on the U.S. market. Our members are increasingly concerned that U.S./Canadian relations are deteriorating and that this trend may jeopardize access to our principal market.
I wish to say a few words about Canada-U.S. relations and how they are deteriorating. Bill C-58 is an added rough spot in our relations. We seem determined to keep these relations in constant friction. To take dead aim at something like Time magazine is a sure way of ensuring that we do not return to the more tranquil days that we had before this government took office. Conditions have steadily become worse.
When this bill was first introduced, we were given to understand that "not similar content" was 50 per cent different. This was accepted by the trade, the industry and the House, including several members of this party. Our first reaction was that the bill was not all that bad. The ministry then decided to up the ante. They went to 60 per cent. When they found this was not an absolute bar to these two publishers, they went to 80 per cent. I understand the minister said they would go higher, if necessary, to make certain that Time magazine did not manage to continue publishing in this country. This is a very strange attitude for a government to take, singling out a magazine like this, saying it is the wrong thing for our innocent people to be reading. They say that if we prohibit their selling advertising to Canadians as a normal Canadian business expense, everyone will turn to read Maclean's magazine.
Last week I spoke for a few minutes about Maclean's magazine. That was the previous issue. I now have the February 23 issue: that is very fast delivery. I wish to tell hon. members about this magazine that is supposed to replace Time as a news magazine. As I stated last week, I am particularly interested in the foreign affairs section. This week's cover does not have a picture of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The only similarity is that it looks like a mad scientist or doctor who bears resemblance to the Secretary of State.
The world news begins on page 37. Last week there were three pages. This week there are two articles in what is supposed to be a news magazine. In fact, it states on the front page, "Canada's Newsmagazine". The first is an article on Lockheed. It is headed, "The Lockheed revelations imperil the Dutch Monarchy". That is current. I wish to read a paragraph from the article:
Considering the global scope of Lockheed's pay-offs, it wasn't surprising that Canadian plans to spend $950 million for 18 Lockheed Orion long-range aircraft were frozen pending the outcome of emergency talks between defence minister James Richardson and the U.S. aircraft manufacturer. There were fears that Lockheed might not be able to complete the deal although Richardson stressed there was "no question" of any Canadian official being involved in the scandal.
The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) said that was not the case. He said the only problem was long-term financing. It is nice to see Canada mentioned as a country of the world, but the story does not quite give
Non-Canadian Publications
the picture of actual events. The second article is, "Leonid Brezhnev: a plodder's progress". It is a laudable article on Brezhnev. However, that is all the world news: there is nothing other than articles on Lockheed and the dictator of Russia. There is an enchanting article about young people. It concerns the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery). This is typical of what we will have to get used to if we are to have Maclean's as our news magazine. It states that the hon. member for Spadina has been moonlighting as a part-time cab driver. I admire him for this activity. He is getting out to meet the people. Another quote with which I agree, and the hon. member must have said this to the reporter because it is in quotes, is as follows:
"You get disconnected in Ottawa," he says. "Cab driving teaches you the value of a dollar."
I suggest that the entire front bench take up cab driving to learn the value of a dollar.
"They don't have a sense of value here (in Ottawa). They don't know what a dollar is."
That is true. However, it then goes on with typical Maclean's slush. It refers to the hon. member taking a January walking trip to Central America's mosquito coast, and visits to the close friend who works for France's distinguished Folies Bergere. The article concludes:
"In Ottawa," he complains, "all you can do in winter is skate and that'll freeze your ass off."
That is the kind of cute article Maclean's likes to publish. It makes a Liberal look favourable and then ends up with a crude expression. This is one reason that magazine is unable to compete with Time as far as readership in Canada is concerned. I wish to quote from a couple of letters I have received from constituents who are concerned that they will not be able to continue buying and enjoying their favourite magazine. The first is from a doctor. It reads:
Dear Sir:
As my only direct representative in our federal government, I am appealing to you to use your utmost effort to oppose the government's intention to amend the Income Tax Act, which may very seriously affect the Canadian edition of the Reader's Digest.
1 have been a constant reader of this magazine for over 25 years, and have always considered it to be primarily Canadian, as opposed to any other foreign publication. During these years I have had occasion, for somewhat extended periods, to read the English edition. No one would say that this was an "American" magazine any more than the Canadian edition is in that category.
Quite apart from the impressive statistics of the contribution to the economic and cultural life of Canada which the Reader's Digest has contributed, surely the impetus of the hundreds of thousands of readers can only further emphasize its importance in Canada. No other Canadian magazine can take its place or even compete with its worldwide spectrum of interest.
I urge you to use your best judgment, your demonstrated fairness and persuasive powers to defeat this discriminatory legislation.
Yours sincerely, Moreley R. Elliott, M.D.
P.S. The almost identical argument is applicable to the iconoclastic proposals re the Canadian edition of Time magazine.
I should like now to read from another letter. This comes from a place called Rose Manor, in Victoria. Rose Manor is a home for aged ladies. This is the kind of dear soul you

February 23, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
find so often in our constituency. The letter is addressed to me, and it reads:
Dear Sir:
I am writing in protest against the proposed revision of the Income Tax Act and asking you as my representative to vote against it. The bill has nothing to recommend it but the very unlikely prospect of diverting tax money from one magazine to others in an effort to assist the development of a domestic news magazine and to foster national integrity and self-expression. The Reader's Digest does not interfere in any way in this worthy object. It is undemocratic and unjust to discriminate against one firm because it attracts more advertisers, and to use dictatorship against millions of Canadians who admire the uniqueness of this magazine and enjoy reading it. Anyone has the right to compete with it if they wish.
The public is ignored completely. Have we no rights under this government? I am nearly 90 years old and one of the few pleasures I have left is reading something worth while. It is not right to put hundreds of Canadians out of work and to deprive Canada of millions of dollars in revenue. I urge you and all fair-minded people not to allow this bill to pass.
Sincerely, (Mrs.) Caroline Barber.
I should like to read one paragraph from another letter I have received:
Please leave it as it is. It is clean, informative, full of local and international news. I know of no competition to it.
That is the thread which runs through my mail. Letter after letter tells me it is a favourite magazine which my correspondents would not know how to replace because they can find nothing in Canadian periodicals which is equivalent or which they really want to read. The harm which the bill would do to the Canadian economy should by now be apparent to all. Even so, the $30 million loss to the economy which would result if this bill were passed has not in my view been sufficiently emphasized. The publishing operation would, of course, go back to the United States, and postage on copies ordered would have to be paid by Canadians. Consequently, the money paid as postage for these magazines would be a direct loss to the Canadian government. I am greatly surprised that the present administration, of all governments, would wish to countenance a loss of revenue.
In closing, let me say this. Long ago there were two cities in ancient Greece-Sparta and Athens. Sparta was a commercial success, a militaristic dictatorship. Athens was a city where great attention was paid to culture. All the cultures of the ancient world were welcomed there. The educational institutions were the finest in the world. Today, Athens is visited by millions of travellers from every country who come to see the place where the free society of Athens raised monuments of such beauty in the way of statuary, architecture and tradition. It is still the envy of the rest of the world. By contrast, Sparta, which concentrated on other things, is hard to find: just a few hummocks on the ground is all that is left of a nation which neglected to pay attention to its culture, which tried to seal its people off from the rest of the world and keep them in isolation so that no comparison could be made between their nation and other nations. I believe Canada would prefer to choose the way of Athens rather than the way of Sparta. I urge all hon. members to support this amendment and to send the bill back to committee so as to allow much needed revisions to be made to it at that time.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of entering the debate today. I do so because I have been tremendously concerned about the attitude which has been taken with respect to Bill C-58. Right from the introduction of this measure, or shortly thereafter, we became aware of the direction in which we were going, a direction very much in opposition to the one in which we felt the government should be moving at this time.
I pointed out at a previous stage of the debate that the government have constantly engaged in confrontation. It does not seem to matter what area they are dealing with; they are so confident they are right and that everyone else is wrong that they have never hesitated to use extraordinary means by which to maintain their point of view. This has been the case as far as Bill C-58 is concerned.
In the earlier stages of our discussion, as I am sure the country is aware, a great deal of attention was paid to representations which we had received from the people of Canada. I suppose every member of the House has received a great many communications calling attention to the fact that what the government was doing was not in the best interests of the country and, moreover, that it was contrary to the wishes of the Canadian people. It was made clear that the end result of the program in which the government was engaged would be a serious interference with the rights of citizens of this country to read what they wanted to read and not to be circumscribed in the material available to them.
As far as Reader's Digest is concerned, a great many members, including myself, have pointed out that this magazine is welcomed in most homes across the nation. It is informative, it is entertaining, it is a wholesome magazine, one we are not ashamed to leave on the table in our living room for anyone who enters to pick up and read- and that is something we hesitate to do with some of the periodicals which are published right here in Canada. I do not think we can take the attitude that anything which is printed or owned in Canada is a good magazine or a good periodical, nor can we take the position that what is published outside our borders is wrong or unsuitable.
For all these reasons, I believe we need to take a further hard look at this legislation. If the government will not do so, the opposition will, very possibly, have to carry on until members opposite understand the situation. It seems to me beyond reason that the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) should take the position he is taking, determined to have his own way even though members of his own party stand and take exception to it. His own friends draw attention to the dangers that are involved, and ask him, in the name of common sense, to bring in changes to the legislation. As I say, it is almost beyond my understanding that the minister should refuse, even if he will not listen to members of the opposition, to accept the arguments of his own supporters with regard to what we believe is the right of Canadians to read whatever they wish.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I felt I had to stand and reaffirm my position on this measure. I had the opportunity of speaking on one of the motions introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) and also on some of the
February 23, 1976

motions introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen). Here, again, I believe their arguments were appropriate; they were direct, sane and sensible. It almost appears as if the minister is not willing to look at things that are sane and sensible, but is determined to pursue the course he has outlined regardless of the consequences or its effect on this country.
I do not believe we have the right to say, "This is the course we are going to take regardless of any other considerations. It is going to be this way, or none". Several years ago, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was minister of justice, he said-I cannot quote his exact words, but this is the gist of his message-that he looked upon his responsibility as minister of justice not only as being legal adviser to the government but as charting a course for Canadian society. I suggest that is exactly what he has been trying to do. There were those who at that time said he was just trying to find his way. I replied that he was not trying to find his way, that he knew where he wanted to go and was going there. We now have the Secretary of State following that course and supplementing the program that has been announced by saying, "As far as Canadian culture is concerned, this will be it, regardless what the people of Canada think about it. We are going this way, and they can like it or lump it". That position is entirely out of order as far as I am concerned.
Reader's Digest is a magazine that was greatly in the forefront of the discussions that were taking place. We now know that some changes were made. In some way the government and Reader's Digest came to the understanding that they would be able to continue to publish. I do not think the minister has ever outlined to us just what was said or what kind of agreement was reached. I think I ought also to say that while Reader's Digest was very definitely desirous of placing their arguments and the basis for their complaints before us, I do not think they did a very good job of coming back to us and saying, "Well, you fellows put up a pretty good fight, but now we want to tell you what the situation is". It seems to me that if the government will not tell us, Reader's Digest ought to state what the situation is and how they were able to fit in with the plan the government outlined.
We are glad that Reader's Digest will be able to continue publication. I like to have it in my home and I like to read it. Some say that it is not very deep. Just because it is not very deep is not to say that it is not enlightening, informative and pleasant reading. As I have said, I like Reader's Digest and I want it in my home, and I would like to know the basis of the understanding that was reached between the government and that magazine.
Some attention had been give the matter of the "80 per cent difference" provision. This seems to me a mysterious situation. In order to reinforce the position of the government, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) warned the industry, "If you don't measure up, or if you find some loophole to get past, we will soon introduce more legislation so you won't get past". It seems to me absolutely preposterous that a government should take this position regarding legislation presented to the House, legislation that has been opposed by members of the opposition as well as supporters of the government.
Non-Canadian Publications
We have before us a measure that has eliminated Time magazine. Here, again, if people want to read Time magazine and have a Canadian section in it, I cannot see why in the world they should not have the privilege of doing so. But, again, the axe has fallen. We are now finding other so-called Canadian magazines moving in which have no appeal at all to the broad mass of the Canadian people, yet hope to take over the market occupied by Time magazine. They will not be able to do it unless they come up with something vastly different from what they have at the present time.
I have spoken about the printed materials that are affected by this particular measure, and I should now like to turn to its effect on the television industry and on Canadian culture. Canadian culture is a relative thing. What the Secretary of State would call Canadian culture, other people would call garbage, and perhaps vice versa.


James Hugh Faulkner: Only Tories.


Alexander Bell Patterson: No; what about your own supporters? The minister does not have his ears and eyes open; he cannot see or understand. His mind is fixed on, "Come what may, you are going to do it my way." That seems to me to be a blatant disregard of the rights of the Canadian people. A rather disturbing attitude seems to prevail among most members on the government side-though, thank goodness, not all-when we begin talking about Canadian culture and foreign influence. The attitude seems to be that if something has a Canadian designation, however superficial, it has to be good; it is worthy of our acclaim and should be revered. This attitude is seen very clearly in a statement made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) some time ago and in the position she took regarding KVOS. The inference is that any group or letter designating a Canadian broadcasting licence automatically makes a TV station a better one.
I suggest that that is not so. I think the essential point in any discussion about KVOS-which is a station that has wide support in my area of the country-one upon which any decision should be predicated, is that KVOS is not just another foreign television station serving Canadian markets. KVOS has-in my analysis of the facts, at least- tried to observe the norms of good corporate Canadian citizenship for more than 20 years. To return to the periodicals, Reader's Digest has been a good corporate citizen, employing a great number of Canadian people. It pays its taxes, enters into the Canadian economy and has made a tremendous contribution. Yet the government says, "That is not good enough. We don't want you here".
KVOS, as I was saying, Mr. Speaker, has tried to observe the norms of good corporate Canadian citizenship for more than 20 years. I wonder whether any hon. member can, or would, say as much about the CBC television network. I, for one, feel that some of the trash that has been broadcast by this TV network, which has more than enough Canadian-designated communication letters to satisfy hon. members representing the government from various parts, indicates that the CBC is not a good citizen at all. Its broadcasting often violates the norms of Canadian society, it offends the sensibilities of vast numbers of Canadian

February 23, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
people, and its slant on news stories and other social issues does more to undermine and destroy Canadian values, beliefs and objectives than to support them. The record of objections raised about CBC programming by hon. members in the House will serve as ample evidence of what I am saying. I can find no record of complaint by anyone against offensive material being carried on KVOS. Good corporate citizenship, then, involves considerably more than paying taxes and balancing the books-and those are items the CBC cannot even come close to achieving.
KVOS does pay Canadian income tax in Canada on its Canadian advertising sales and on its revenue from film production. The income of KVOS-TV, B.C., Ltd., is taxed equally by the Canadian and United States governments. Under an agreement between Canadian and U.S. tax authorities similar to that applying to the Canadian radio stations in Windsor serving the Detroit market, 50 per cent of the advertising dollars from Canadian national and retail advertisers becomes a commission revenue for KVOS-TV, B.C., Ltd., and 50 per cent is paid to KVOS-TV Incorporated, U.S., for supplying the on-the-air product to the Canadian corporation. None of the revenue produced by the two KVOS western film corporations, Canawest Film Productions Ltd., Vancouver, and Canawest Master Films, Calgary, goes to KVOS-TV, U.S.A., and tax thereon is therefore paid entirely to the Canadian government.
KVOS-TV, B.C., Ltd., is a Canadian corporation and employs Canadian workers. It pays Canadian taxes and also owns and operates the two aforementioned film companies. These two companies represent, together, the largest full-time film production unit west of Toronto. Approximately 30 full-time persons are employed by KVOS-TV, B.C., Ltd., and its production companies. Depending on production business and schedules, as many as 150 Canadian performers, artists, technicians, salesmen and office workers receive professional income from KVOS-TV at one time. In addition, KVOS invests a substantial amount of its profits in Canada and Canadian enterprise. For example, it has built and subsidizes a very successful film industry in British Columbia and Alberta. It has to date invested a significant amount of money, approximately $3 million, in both short-term and long-term Canadian securities. I could give other examples, but suffice it to say that from 1965 to 1974-nine years-KVOS-TV's contribution to the Canadian economy, the public and private sectors, has been $75,862,000.
I should like to list a number of other significant items that show the essential good citizen character of this corporation. KVOS voluntarily adheres to Canadian advertising regulations. This has been the case in respect of the proportion of commercials per hour in children's programs. KVOS did not wait for the regulations to be changed, but as soon as notification was received from the CRTC the change was voluntarily implemented. KVOS-TV has for 20 years voluntarily followed all restrictions that Canadian-based stations have in the broadcast treatment of Canadian elections and election news. When writing for and/or filming commercials for Canadian or Canadian-distributed products or services, both federal and provincial laws, regulations and codes are adhered to.
I could go on talking about KVOS, but I think this is sufficient to show that this organization is a good corpo-

rate citizen, just the same as Reader's Digest was, yet it seems as though it is to be given the axe. The result is that it is going to be in a very difficult situation as far as further contributions to the Canadian economy are concerned.
One suggestion made by KVOS was directed toward what apparently is one of the foremost concerns of the CRTC, and that is how to improve the quantity and quality of Canadian-made programs. More specifically, the offer of KVOS dealt with how to continue to build and strengthen production facilities in the west. KVOS made a submission to the CRTC to pay a percentage of its gross revenue to finance a western Canadian television fund. If the fund had been instituted as suggested, by the end of 1975 KVOS-TV, B.C., Ltd., alone would have advanced well over $1 million toward expending the film and television production industry in British Columbia.
I do not feel I should pursue this particular thought any further, although I certainly could. I have ample data which would enable me to continue to impress upon the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) the reasons this bill should be withdrawn, looked at again and amended. However, my hopes are not very high. I think the attitude of the minister has been shown very clearly. He is just going to sit it out and say, "When those people stop talking and yacking, then we are going to get this bill through and it will become the law of Canada." That is the attitude and reputation the minister has displayed and developed. He does not give a hoot about anybody else but his own program, and he is going to get it through.
I believe this bill should be the subject of another thorough examination. It should go back to the committee. Many of the things said in the committee have gone out the window now because of the deal made with Reader's Digest. This House has the absolute right to know just what happened and what took place before it gives approval to this measure or lets it go through this House.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments in respect of Bill C-58 at this stage. I realize that comments by hon. members on this side have been viewed with some degree of criticism by the minister responsible for the bill. I had hoped that this stage of the debate might have enlightened colleagues on all sides of the House about something that disturbs me. This has been mentioned by some of my colleagues as a question of privilege. I refer to the matter of closure of discussion in the committee and the fact that the whip was heavily applied to those members of the Liberal party who had expressed divergent views on the subject. I also hoped it would be possible to expose and identify the back room dealers and those deals which took place behind closed doors as a late stage when it was decided to treat Time and Reader's Digest differently.
The government almost paid the political price of obscuring this window to the world. The minister will recall that in my first speech I pleaded with him to make a distinction between Time and Reader's Digest. I had hoped this debate would give us the opportunity of finding out what went on behind closed doors that made it possible for the minister to change his mind and examine again the new information which obviously would have been before him at that time.
February 23, 1976

We are now faced with a different definition for a news magazine and a digest. It is now no longer sinful to bring in literary compositions from the outside, but it is sinful to bring in so-called general news. I suppose Time magazine could be called a news magazine. I suppose it is now bad for Canadians to read news coming in from other parts of the world.
My colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Patterson), who just spoke got the minister a little excited when he said that Canadians at times express concern over the cultural evolution that has been set up for some years through a type of closure which the CBC and the intellectual elitists are directing at Canadians. The minister said that it is only the Tories that are excited. What he meant was that only Canadians are excited, that the elitist group fully understand what is happening, is fully in accord with it and that, of course, they know better. The minister is saying, in effect, that the cultural evolution within our country must be directed, and it is not any longer the right of the individual taxpayer and citizen to express views in this regard.
I have always said that if the government wanted to clean up some of the mess which exists in respect of the newspaper, magazine and publications industry, it would do better if it would bring out some laws that would have the effect of cleaning up the magazine shelf itself. I respect the freedom of all Canadians, even those who like to read Playboy magazine and some of the other filth that is prominently displayed on the bookshelves. However, I would have thought the government would have made a greater contribution to a cultural evolution in our country by bringing in some directions concerning how some of these magazines, which some people find offensive, particularly when exposed to young people and children, should be displayed on the bookshelves. Some of my colleagues have referred to this matter and have alleged that the government's interest in all magazine content is coupled with just another tax law which is being used as part of an effort effectively to wipe out Time Canada.
I should like to address the House on a few specific points surrounding this bill with which I disagree. First let me point out that I hold no special affinity to the publication in question. I would make these comments regardless of the publication that might be concerned. It is, indeed, a sorry state of affairs when a country's laws are allowed to be distorted and aborted by bureaucratic redefinition. I fear this is merely the beginning and that it may become ingrained in our policies. The Liberals think that Canadians are not educated enough or astute enough to have the capability of discerning good from bad. That is what this bill implies. It is ludicrous for the government to believe the foolish notion that this country can be independent only if its publications are 80 per cent different from everyone else's publications. Its interest in editorial decisions is completely outside the law and is an area in which the government has no right or competence.
The desire to give fully-Canadian magazines a more prominent place in the publications business of Canada is commendable, but not at the expense of other magazines which have some redeeming value in this field. It is this kind of authoritarian rule which I fear. The government's
Non-Canadian Publications
desire to set itself above the publishing industry and to decide what constitutes an 80 per cent difference so as to allow tax deductions is a cheap form of pseudo censorship. The government is assuming editorial censorship. It is not doing so legitimately, because it could not be legitimized in any form. It is doing so, instead, by a new tax law-a roundabout way of meddling.
It will place hundreds of jobs in jeopardy if the publication in question succumbs. If the government fears that Time, Canada, is becoming a monopoly, perhaps the assets of Maclean-Hunter warrant a second look. Time, Canada, does not expect any special status and is willing to comply with every government demand except the "80 per cent different" rule. I suggest this might be for the reason that no one has ever defined what is meant by the "80 per cent different" rule. In a legal sense, this is without foundation on the part of the government.
If Time outsells Maclean's and Saturday Night, this is an indictment of our home-grown talent for its mediocrity. If they cannot compete on merit alone, they surely do not deserve to be protected through bullying on the part of politicians and bureacrats. That is obtuse thinking on the part of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner).
This insidious form of creeping censorship must be stopped in its tracks. It is a basic right of all Canadians to read what they choose. We are denying Canadians the right to read and view a full range of publications and programs. The effect of this policy scares me-not the stated intention of the Minister of National Revenue. It is a misconception to delude ourselves with the impression that lost revenue from advertising in Time will go to Canada's Maclean's. This is not the fact. The government says that if Canadians wish to read Time, let them get it from American sources. The crown of life is the exercise of choice. If we wish to read the magazine of our choice, that is our right and there is no reason we should have to pay a premium for that right. This is completely unfair and is no more than misplaced nationalism.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I wish to voice my disapproval over the deal this government made with Reader's Digest. The phrase "any type of continuing arrangement for access to material" is further proof that censorship is involved in this bill. I cannot agree with this interpretation which is completely unsubstantiated by statute and is only meant to run Time, Canada, out of this country.
Another magazine will be affected by Bill C-58. I should like to comment on that as well. The periodical to which I refer is MD of Canada. As I understand it, Bill C-58 is intended to strengthen the magazine industry in Canada. If MD of Canada is forced to discontinue publishing and distributing in Canada, nothing will be added to the objective of Bill C-58. MD of Canada competes with no other magazine of this nature. It is the only journal of its kind in Canada to begin with, so if it is removed, who will benefit? I am afraid that if it is removed, more will suffer as a result. MD of Canada is the only journal of medico-historical significance in this country that is distributed to physicians on a controlled basis.
MD of Canada has vindicated itself over the years. This is proven by the responses of physicians who receive it. Enrichment of the mind is surely the purpose of this

February 23, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
journal. From what I hear, MD has met this objective in the medical community. Further, MD is published, printed and edited in Canada and its contents are not duplicated in any other form in this country. To even consider relinquishing the distribution of this unique journal is a negative step. I suggest that the government re-evaluate what they are trying to do by imposing Bill C-58 on this publication.
I should like to make another brief point to do with the electronic media, particularly with regard to KVOS-TV in Vancouver. The government has clearly applied eastern regulations to a very specific and exceptional western situation. KVOS is indeed a good corporate citizen and always has been. It has proved itself more than adequate in the last 20 years. Furthermore, KVOS-TV has paid taxes to this government and it has received no carte blanche concessions, nor has it asked for any. For 20 years they have systematically reinvested substantial portions of their earnings into British Columbia and Alberta and have built in these two provinces the largest film production companies west of Toronto, with Canadian actors, writers, animators and production people of all kinds. They have done this to demonstrate good citizenship, and they have done it at a period of time when there was no competition and no one else to fill the void in Vancouver and in British Columbia.
Now that they have expanded their presence in Canada and have reinvested their profits in other industries, they stand accused of being a bunch of foreigners who are taking over this country. This company has diversified and invested its money in other industries, but the accusation is that they are engaging in a foreign take-over. They cannot win. The minister and the government are determined in any way possible to assume full control over the broadcasting industry in Canada, whether they are using bilingualism as an excuse, the government's intention to bring the French fact beyond a reversible position in Canada, the income tax laws, or whatever other excuse. They are determined to assume complete control of the broadcasting media in our country. That is frightening to most Canadians and, I suggest, to most of my colleagues in the House of Commons.
KVOS is entitled to a second look. I think we are being too hasty in writing it off, and especially in not analysing the KVOS offer put before the broadcasting committee which would repatriate a minimum of $2 million a year directly into British Columbia's broadcasting activities. KVOS has offered to share with CRTC all the profits. They are paying them out in taxes anyway, and they will have to lower their rates by 50 per cent if they want to stay in existence. They have offered to give CRTC 50 per cent of their profits after taxes, and will let CRTC direct this money into some form of broadcasting activity in our country. But this plea fell on deaf ears, and Canadians will be the poorer for it. In my opinion, this would better have met the objectives contained in Bill C-58 so far as British Columbia is concerned than the provisions of the bill at present. Just because there is a different problem in the west which could best be handled by applying a different solution, why should we be stuck with a national policy based on solving an eastern problem?

The government defends this invidious action by saying that the reason we must nationalize the broadcasting and magazine industries is that we have a responsibility to provide some form of news coverage and of cultural distribution to some of the more remote areas of our country, to Canada's hinterland, to mid-Canada and to northern Canada where we talk about the northern extension of the broadcasting system.
I live in the north and I live under regulations that CRTC brings out. As I have said before in the House of Commons, there would have been better ways of achieving the purposes of Bill C-58, particularly if CRTC were receptive to some ideas that come from the north and if some of the policies established by CRTC for itself could be amended to take into account and be more attuned to the needs of the north. I am making particular reference to one CRTC policy, namely, that if there is an area which has been identified as one which has only one national signal, either CTV or CBC, and some entrepreneur wanted to bring a cable program into the area, the CRTC would refuse the application for the simple reason that there is only one broadcasting signal in the area now.
I should like to ask the minister to consider the request which I have put forward on several occasions, to explain the reasoning behind that regulation which says that just because there is one signal or no signal at all in an area, they cannot get cablevision either. To me this does not make sense. I can identify several areas where this is happening. In the city of Prince George, with a population of 75,000, only last year CRTC allowed an application for cablevision because at that time one year had expired since the city had both CTV and CBC networks.
The same is true of the area of Skeena, Terrace and Kitimat-that great area in the province which my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo), represents. There is only one signal there. It happens to be CBC. Yet the CTV network had to sign an agreement with CRTC that eventually, over a reasonable period of time, their signal would have to be extended into the area. However, it is a five-year to ten-year program and until that time there can be no application for cablevision even in an area with a population of perhaps 80,000 to 100,000. They are denied cablevision programming because they do not have any other signal. The same is true of the Robson Valley area. There are not as many people there, but they had no television at all until a couple of years ago and CBC could not go in there because it would not be a paying proposition. So 7,500 people, in an area with a 200-mile radius, did not receive any kind of electronic programming. I admit they have radio, but there was no TV programming at all.
My predecessor in the House of Commons threw up his hands and said that CTV and CBC were prepared to look at the situation again in five years. I made a private deal with the telephone company in British Columbia which put up the tower and put in the signal and the facilities. We finally got CBC to pay an annual rent, because there was no money in the capital budget but lots of money in another budget, so we robbed Peter to pay Paul and we worked out an agreement under which CBC paid an annual rent. Now we have that one program in the area, but it will be many, many years before the other program
February 23, 1976

is put in there, because it is not a viable proposition in the area.
The same holds true of the Peace River country. As I go up the Alaska Highway, that storehouse of resources, that place where Canadians who still believe in the free enterprise system and in the spirit of individuality make their living and carve out their existence away from the concrete jungles, there is no television either. The reason there is no TV there is that CRTC would not ask a company such as KVOS if they would be prepared to spend some of their profits in such an area. They might have done it. Obviously, neither CBC or CTV do-because why should they? They have a captive audience now. They are in all the areas where profits are made, so why should they go up north? There is no competition in the city; it has all been chased out. Why should they go up north?
There is the other matter of saying that satellites are floating around and can be tracked with gadgets. I wrote to Japan about a metal shield that attracts a satellite. A kit is offered for $750 which can be operated in remote areas which have no electricity-although a little power plant is needed to run it. It is possible to pick up the signal from the satellite; but, Mr. Speaker, if you do that you go to jail. In the north, where there is no electricity and no programming, the satellite floats around, paid for by taxes generated in the north, but you cannot track it and put in your own broadcasting system.
Seventy-five miles from Prince George, which now has two signals and will have cablevision, is the town of Mackenzie. I met with the Chamber of Commerce there: they wanted to have the second signal. Some technicians said it would be a simple matter to hook up to it, and the way they explained it made sense. I suggested they should try it out. They took up a collection in town. That is the way they do things, Mr. Speaker. They are resourceful where I come from: they do not go running to the CRTC; they help themselves. If they want to skate, they flood an area at the back of the house. If they want to curl, they build themselves a rink. Sometimes they get a little LIP money. But they are resourceful people. So they climbed up a pole, hung on a reflector and, lo and behold, a beautiful signal appeared on the television screen.
They wanted to know what they would do then. I suggested they should leave the shield up there and enjoy the Saturday night hockey game. What did the minister do? He told them to take the thing down because they were not entitled to it without a licence. It could take a year of bureaucratic bungling to get a licence. First they had to hire an engineer, and then it became difficult. The engineer had to prove the system would work even though they already had a picture on the screen. He spent two or three months, and $20,000, to tell them the system would work. Now they can make their application to the CRTC because they have proof that it works.
As a representative of the north, am I amused when this kind of bill comes to the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker? No. I say it is high time we faced the problem as it exists- and that we all face it, not just the people on this side but the people responsible for the mess we are in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Non-Canadian Publications


Frank Oberle: As it happens, KVOS was in Vancouver when programming in Vancouver was the way it is today in Dawson Creek. My hon. friend nods his head because he knows the problem is similar and I know he is working hard on it, too, but I should like him to compare the circumstances with Bill C-58-


Arnold John Malone: Here comes the minister.


Frank Oberle: KVOS was in Vancouver when things were like they are in Dawson Creek and in my hon. friend's constituency. Full service was not available at the time. The owners were American-but did they have two heads and seven arms? They were entrepreneurs coming to Canada . All their business was in Canada. Their production facilities were here and they hired Canadians living in Vancouver. There was a steel tower in Bellingham, just across the border, which was a convenient location from which to beam the signal into Vancouver. But that was all that was in the United States, except the owners.
I guess we have to make a decision whether to allow these bad people from the United States to influence our cultural evolution in this country. That is something members opposite have dreamed up with this legislation. The minister laughs, and if it were not so serious I could share his humour. But it really is not funny, Mr. Speaker, particularly when you examine Bill C-58 in light of what it means to KVOS in Vancouver and other entrepreneurs who have made a contribution to our way of life and are now penalized for it.
I have just returned from a trip to the United States where I had the honour of representing this parliament at an Interparliamentary Union meeting with the Congress of the United States. I have taken part in these meetings for the past three years. We discussed some of the irritants that have cropped up since the last meeting. There are always such things as border problems, waste being disposed of in the Great Lakes, the clean-up of the Great Lakes, the International Joint Commission, and such matters. On the agenda this year was Bill C-58. Mr. Speaker, I cannot put it any other way than to say I was ashamed. It was very, very difficult to defend what we are trying to do here, because I do not know what we are trying to do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: We are called pirates. Our American colleagues look upon us as a banana republic. What we are doing with Bill C-58 will apply to other serious matters with the United States. There is the matter of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, for instance. One senator told me in private, "We might build a pipeline through your country, and we might put some gas in it in Alaska, but there is no assurance that something will come out at the other end. You might nationalize something going through your country." There is the nationalization of the potash industry, and stealing cablevision in the area. That is what the latest regulations of the CRTC permit.
For the first time, I found that we were drifting apart ideologically from the United States. They are worried about what is happening in this country and what this government is doing. Mr. Speaker, they have every reason to worry. I did not say that publicly down there, but things were extremely difficult, and they will become more dif-

February 23, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
ficult. Every year we export 80 per cent of our production to the United States, and import between 3 per cent and 5 per cent of their production. If they should close the border to trade tomorrow, we would be eating our pulp, paper and lumber. They can get it from Russia. We have paid for building sawmills in Russia and Poland, and the United States has a trade imbalance because of the wheat that goes over there. We would be eating our pulp and paper tomorrow if the United States were to decide to trade elsewhere. They will eventually have to bring us to reason, and when they do it will hurt us. We will not be number seven in the world, in terms of our standard of living. We will be number twenty-four in other respects and will be treated in the same way as every other banana republic.
Since it was possible at a quarter to twelve, so to speak, to make a back room deal with Reader's Digest, to save face, why is it not possible to make another back room deal with Time and several other companies as well? Surely the minister realizes that the difference between this country and the United States is not great. The Americans respect our wish to evolve our own culture, our wish to build our own nation. They will not sit back forever and take what we have been dishing out to them. They are upset about our foreign take-over legislation and upset about the foreign investment review law. I know we are telling them not to worry, that the decisions so far have been in favour of those who want to invest in Canada. I know that people attending certain United States hearings have told the Americans not to worry, that the law is not being applied strictly, that it is only on the books to keep out certain foreign investment and is seldom, if ever, invoked. The point is that the law is on the statute books and can be invoked.
It is high time this government reaffirmed our country's friendship with the United States. That friendship works in Canada's favour. Continuing on the course this government has set will be devastating for our country. It will alienate us from our friendly, neighbouring giant who may have caused the odd difficulty but who has been a great friend of Canada's ever since we became a nation.
Again I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, please call back the people from Time and KVOS and work out another back room deal. After all, pressure is being put on my colleagues from British Columbia. Although they are not as numerous as those who come from Quebec, whose influence was obviously brought to bear with regard to Reader's Digest, I plead with the minister to reconsider the matter, because as many Canadians are employed in Vancouver and British Columbia by companies affiliated with KVOS as are employed in Quebec by Reader's Digest. Obviously, if the minister will not listen, British Columbia members will be disappointed. One hon. member on the government side in particular will be embarrassed when the government's case must again be taken to the people.
I will not prolong this debate because others wish to contribute. It is high time that we, as Canadians, opposed this kind of skullduggery and asked the government to listen to the people, not merely to Tories or Liberals. The minister cannot say that only he on the government side has received letters on this subject. I will not say that I am the only member on my side to whom Canadians write. I

know that the minister and his colleagues are receiving letters of complaint from many Canadians. Before it is too late, I plead with him to reconsider this scandalous course of action and direct this country on a new course.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, when last I spoke on this bill in the House I was addressing my remarks to comments made by the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve). We are now discussing an amendment to refer this bill back to commitee. I support the amendment. Having attended committee hearings but, unfortunately, having participated only once in the committee's deliberations, I could not help noting how little time the committee was given to hear the evidence of witnesses. This led to frustration. I am sure that many members and many witnesses were not given the opportunity to voice their concerns in committee about this bill. Let me repeat a comment which the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) made about MD of Canada. She said, as reported on page 10991 of Hansard:
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.
Magazines like MD of Canada and Modern Medicine, together with agricultural and other professional journals, bring professional and personal enrichment to those who read them. This silly legislation will make such magazines harder to obtain. Some of the present readers may be denied access to them in future. I am sure that the minister and his officials were not thinking of MD of Canada, Modern Medicine, our cattlemen's magazines or other, similar journals when contemplating this law. I doubt if they had ever heard of those magazines. They are not interested in them, and I would not expect the minister to read them; they are outside his interest. But these magazines are part of the lifeblood of professional men, are part of the lifeblood of the various people affected in trades, industries and agriculture. Usually, the reader looks forward to receiving his magazine. Although this law will not make it impossible for people to continue receiving these magazines, it will place constraints on their publication. Perhaps my arguments do not impress the minister; I notice that he yawns. If he had been through the sort of convention I have been through, he might be even more fatigued.
Motion No. 7 was intended to increase television coverage in Canada. The Minister of Communications said that she was concerned about the employment opportunities for Canadian artists and artisans involved with radio and television. She suggested that our artists, artisans and actors did not have adequate opportunities for employment. She went on to suggest that this was an area that required development. She stated it was part of our culture and heritage.
I cannot help but be amazed at the remarks of members opposite when they talk about the need for development of our culture. Last year the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), who is responsible for multiculturalism, was presented with an excellent document, a rather thick manual dealing with the entire subject of multiculturalism. I do not want Your Honour to think I am straying from the purpose and reason for this debate. That manual contained some very valid proposals with regard to multiculturalism. It was

very well done. After all, it was a report commissioned by the government. In July, 1975, I wrote to the Minister of Labour asking about this Canadian cultural identity and the need for a multicultural program. Three weeks later I followed up with another letter because I had not received an acknowledgement. Three weeks later I again followed up with another letter; I had not yet received an acknowledgement.
I followed up the initial letter of July, 1975, with an additional inquiry every three weeks until February, 1976. I have never received the courtesy of a reply. That shows how valid the arguments are by those opposite when they tell us they are concerned about the cultural identity of Canada, how they want to improve our culture and open up opportunities for artists and artisans. If that is an example of what they are doing, then truly it is laughable. I must say, with every measure of scorn, that for a minister to take nine months to answer one simple question is beyond all comprehension. Good heavens, consider what a woman can create in nine months!
The minister has expressed concern about artists and artisans. KVOS made a proposal to the minister which would have given the opportunity to some artists to continue in their present employment. Apparently it was not palatable. Rather than give them that opportunity, the minister would deny them such employment. He would rather they went on UIC and followed through with welfare. That is part of the cultural program of this government. It is a program that is truly remarkable in its lack of identity, thrust and recognition. I do not understand it.
The minister is very concerned about delegating foreign authority to KVOS. She said, in effect, that it is improper for us to accept money from the United States which might in some manner be influential dollars. She said it might improperly influence us, change our culture or change our identity. How naive, at the very least, and how untruthful at the very most. I have never heard any debate in this House about any money put into Canada by a foreigh-con-trolled company such as an oil company or a mining company changing our culture and identity. Surely this is the same thing, but with much smaller dollars. It is better to have something than nothing. Better half a glass of water or half a loaf of bread than nothing at all.
The minister would deny the honest and sincere attempt by KVOS to maintain a presence, a cultural presence at that, in the western part of this country. The minister said, as reported at page 10982 of Hansard:
It is just as if I raised the so-called French problems apropos everything we discussed in the House.
The minister was concerned that we were talking about western alienation. Of course we were talking about western alienation. The minister indicated that this kind of discussion does not take place in the House as far as Quebec is concerned. How very true. It does not need to take place because there are no similar problems in Quebec. We have every assurance that if there were, they would be attended to very quickly. Not so with western Canada. We have every justification in saying there is indeed a problem in western Canada.
Last week the truth of the matter was very evident. We saw the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), his mandarins and ministers, trotting off to British Columbia to solve the
Non-Canadian Publications
problems of the Liberals. What a grand scheme it was. However, I think the appeal of the Prime Minister will have fallen on deaf ears because there are not, and never have been, any tangible results. We see that enormous architectural monstrosity in Vancouver which is called the headquarters of the CBC. I do not doubt that it is very fine on the inside. I wish I could say the same for the outside. When I compare the millions of dollars tied up in that facility to the thousands of dollars that could be spent in my remote constituency in British Columbia, I wonder about the priorities of this government. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) spoke about the remoteness of his area. I am quite familiar with his part of the country. They do indeed have problems. They are certainly very remote and certainly very northern.
I extend to you, Mr. Speaker, an invitation to come to Kootenay West. You would see that half of our geography stands on its side and a considerable amount is under water. Kootenay West has provided a fortune to the Canadian people. The industriousness of the people has, through Cominco Limited, through mine after mine of silver, lead, zinc, bismuth and antimony provided a fortune in tax revenues of one kind or another. The waterways have provided an enormous source of power-little used in our area, incidentally, because we do not have much industry there; DREE has really not been effective in Kootenay West and has now been withdrawn. Be that as it may, the wealth generated within Kootenay West has contributed a great deal to all of Canada. What has Kootenay West received in return? Consider the communications system. Look at the CBC. We have low-power radio transmitters- LPRTs, as they call them-spotted in three or four areas. In one area the signal goes right by the homes of 350 people, yet they cannot pick it up because the CBC will not spend a dime to enable them to do so; the corporation sends it down the road another 12 miles. How powerful is that mighty signal? Enough to bring it back up the road three miles. How ridiculous!
We are talking about KVOS, about the priorities of the government in the field of communications, whether in print or over the airways. Take the community of Kaslo. They have an LPRT. It has been there several years. The grounding is not very good; people living three miles away cannot pick up the signal. Do we find the CBC very concerned about this? The minister has talked about the legality of these things. We heard the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River tell us about people in his communities having provided their own signals. I suspect it is almost too much to accept as mere coincidence the fact that the CRTC hearings involving the CBC took place at almost the same time as the debate on Bill C-58 began in this House. It was interesting to hear the Minister of Communications talking about legality, telling us this was illegal and that was illegal. Yet I have not heard one word from the hon. lady with reference to the fact that the tower which was erected on Mount Seymour was erected in violation of CRTC regulations. I addressed the hearing in Vancouver and pointed this out, but I have yet to hear a response. I can only assume the CBC will continue to break not only the regulations of the CRTC, with the full

February 23, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
approval of that body, but also the provisions of the Criminal Code.
If the minister cares to read my presentation before the CRTC, he will find out that the CBC is violating the law time after time. How laughable it is! The CRTC and the CBC are in bed together, yet the CRTC tells my people that they cannot put in a transmitter or that they cannot put in a receiver. Talk about mixed priorities! The Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) is very concerned about KVOS. I trust she is not laughing over the fact the CRTC condones the violation of regulations by the CBC. I am glad the hon. lady, by shaking her head, gives me reassurance on that point. Right now, CTV is going into Kootenay West having been asked to do so by the residents. After the CRTC changed the ground rules a bit, delaying the plan for a year and frustrating the people in my riding still further, the green light has finally been given, as I understand it.
I know the system being used by CTV is a very costly one and I know, also, it is not likely to show much of a profit for CTV. That is one of the penalties of doing business. Were it not for channels 2, 4 and 6, and channel 7 out of Spokane, the residents of Kootenay West would not have had an opportunity to watch television at all. These stations were there years before CBC ever got off its backside and provided a signal.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the communications history of my riding, and the picture is not much different throughout the outlying areas of British Columbia. At this very moment the people north of latitude 60 have a better communications link than the people of Kootenay West. Surely there has to be something wrong with the government's priorities when it comes to the operation of its communications network.


An hon. Member:: The minister is leaving.


Robert Hylton Brisco: How unfortunate. Here I was, making such a sterling address, and the minister has abandoned me. I feel crushed. In any event, back on February 10 the Minister of Communications, as reported at page 10,823 of Hansard, said she was concerned about special tax deals. How, she asked, could a government make some kind of special arrangement with KVOS? That is an intriguing question, and I hope the minister was directing it to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) rather than to us, because the Minister of Finance is an expert at making special appeals when it comes to taxation.
There is nothing original or strange about making some kind of tax arrangement with a foreign firm, whether it is a television company, a mining company or an oil company, whether it is located in the United States, in Cuba or in some other country. I am sure the government has sufficient experience to develop any special arrangements which may be desired. Certainly when it comes to taxation, the Minister of Finance and his colleagues have demonstrated a supreme capacity for making special deals. I see no reason why there should be any difficulty at all in dealing with the tax position as it affects KVOS. KVOS has dealt very well with Canadians when it comes to taxation, just as they have with their own country; that is to say, on the basis of a 50-50 sharing arrangement. Perhaps the ministry in Canada would like more.

In urging hon. members to return this bill to committee, I say this: it is obvious to all Canadians, and particularly to all members of the House, that the debate on Bill C-58 has been prolonged for more than the normal period. Why has debate on this bill, at every stage and on every motion, been so protracted? The answer is, because there is so much which is wrong with this legislation, wrong with the whole thrust and purpose of the measure. Obviously, the government is prepared to wait it out. Let me assure the government that it is not our intention to test its patience; but we, too, are very patient and intend to examine thoroughly, at every opportunity, every facet of the bill that is wrong, as well as those amendments that were defeated by members on the other side.
I wonder how those in the healing profession on the other side of the House, who have so quickly, in such a trained seal fashion, jumped up to support their government, will relate their position when it comes to such professional journals as MD of Canada and Modern Medicine, as well as certain trade and agricultural journals. It may well be that the professionals on the other side of the House are really not interested in these kinds of magazines and they could care less. They are not concerned whether their fellow doctors or fellow farmers or lawyers have the opportunity to enrich themselves with any opportunity for culture or professional development.


Alexander Bell Patterson: They want to be brainwashed.


Robert Hylton Brisco: It may well be that they have some difficulty reading. In the context of this bill it has been said that there may be some form of United States retaliation. This proposition has been rejected by the government, and rightly so. I, too, would reject it. The United States really does not play that kind of game. If it does, it does it in a very sloppy fashion. In talking on this bill, it is our purpose, at least in part, to see that Canada does not have the opportunity to play that kind of game, the retaliation game engineered by members on the other side of the House. I do not suppose for a moment that the United States would take some arbitrary form of retaliation. I am sure none of us is worried about a nuclear strike.
Nevertheless, I suggest the opportunity is there for the United States to say, "Well, we had better keep our signals within the United States. Canadians are not interested in them; they do not want them, or at least the government does not". It is not very difficult, technically speaking, to keep U.S. signals in the United States, though I hope that does not happen. But if it does happen, I suggest there would probably be a subsequent strike within the postal service because it could not handle the volume of mail that the Minister of Communications, the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), the Prime Minister, and all members on that side of the House would receive as a result.
The minister is more concerned about our cultural identity than she is about freedom of the press and the airwaves. Regardless of all the rhetoric and speeches that have been made, the simple fact remains, so far as KVOS are concerned, that they are quite prepared to act within the rules. They are quite prepared to accept the same
February 23, 1976

treatment that Canadian stations receive when their signals go across the border.
One critic corralled me outside the House and said, "You are wrong. How can you make statements such as you have just made if that station is not prepared to entertain 80 per cent Canadian ownership?" At least, I think that was the percentage he threw at me. I ask, Mr. Speaker, why should they? Does the United States insist upon 80 per cent ownership of signals originating in Canada? I would be very pleased to hear of just one case. Surely there are some experts on the other side who can advise me whether the United States insists upon 80 per cent U.S. ownership of Canadian signals going into the United States. What utter nonsense!
Let us send this bill back to the committee where it belongs. Let us have a full review by the Secretary of State, the Minister of Communications and all the other experts on that side who have managed to cloud, garble and distort the bill with non-persuasive arguments. Let us then get on with other business in this House. Another most controversial bill introduced by this government, Bill C-68-another cop-out by the federal government-is awaiting us in the wings and requires the attention of the members of the House. There are, of course, other bills waiting, bills requiring the attention of the House. We can only assume that in his wisdom the House leader has decided that debate on Bill C-58 must continue ad nauseam and ad infinitum. If that be the case, the policy of those on this side of the House who are concerning themselves with this particular bill will be "illegitimi non carborundum."


Some hon. Members:: Explain.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)-Housing- Allegation owner of 800 Richmond Street West, Toronto, charged rents higher than authorized; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Veterans Affairs-Pensions for former prisoners of war-Position of minister if cabinet fails to support measure; the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt)-Canadian Pacific Railways-Restoration of rail service to Glenwood and Hill Spring-Reason for delay.
Non-Canadian Publications



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Faulkner that Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, if there were agreement on the government side that the bill go to committee immediately, then of course I would not need to speak. I would make my speech very short and I think the government would do the country a real service by putting forward whatever legislation might be ready, though I understand the government has no legislation ready, which is partly the reason it is willing to sit out this debate. I do not mind the government taking this time.


An hon. Member:: We can wait.


Arnold John Malone: Perhaps the hon. member has some constructive comments to make, though I think he ought to recognize that he is dealing with a minister who has put forward a pretty sloppy bill, one that had loopholes which had to be patched up as we went along, a sloppy enough bill that special concessions have now been made to certain groups which the bill originally attacked. I suggest this is all very much in character with the role that the minister himself has played in committee and in the House. He is a minister who, basically, is not in his seat for the question period. He is not in his seat now, during the debate on this bill. I cannot for the life of me believe that a person who would put forward a bill of such interest to the Canadian public would not remain to hear it debated.
I know of no bill that has attracted as much mail sent to members of the House as this bill, yet the minister and other members of the Privy Council are not even in their seats. I think this is a real slam to the Canadian public that their democratic process is being so totally denied. It has been said that the purpose of this bill is to protect our cultural identity. That identity cannot be protected by such a flippant attitude on the part of hon. members opposite.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to send the bill back to the committee. I suggest it ought to go back to the committee because it is legislation which has been etched in the minds of the Canadian public as a disservice. It has caused discontent across this country and has resulted in great protests coming to the desks of members of parliament. We have received literally thousands of letters of protest. My filing cabinet has letters of protest from constituents measuring eight to ten inches thick.
All that is being asked is that the bill be sent back to the committee in order that we can rehear the witnesses under new circumstances which result from the fact that the government has chosen to change the legislation. It originally put forward a legislative measure which would deny

Non-Canadian Publications
Reader's Digest certain tax benefits. The government then changed its mind and said Reader's Digest would qualify, but continued to deny the benefits to other publications. What must be clarified and made crystal clear are the rules of this game. How can any publishing group in this country, Canadian or otherwise, have any sense of security about the publishing industry here when we have a government that changes the rules according to its own whims, choosing its own friends and enemies. That is exactly what has happened.
The claim by some, that this is a Maclean-Hunter bill, has some validity. One only has to look at Maclean's magazine since it changed from a publication every two weeks. It is now, obviously, a Liberal magazine. One only has to count the number of Liberal cabinet ministers who have been on the cover picture of this magazine. The fact of the matter is that this is a bill designed to kill the counterparts of Maclean's, for the protection of the government's own supporters. If that is not the case, then how can one justify the treatment given Reader's Digest and the treatment extended to Time magazine?
The issue here is clear. The reason for sending this piece of legislation back to the committee is to define the criteria-criteria that have become very clouded and, I suggest, very shady. This is a very unscrupulous issue that faces us because of the lack of definition of criteria and lack of clarity in direction. We are now asking the government for a chance to find out, once and for all, what the government is trying to do. It is almost impossible to debate this piece of legislation in this House because it is so pointless and without direction.
By putting forward a piece of legislation without spelling out the criteria in respect of allowing foreign publications into this country, the government forces a subjective judgment, and as long as the judgment is subjective, regardless of what other government considerations may be advanced in support of the bill, the fact is the legislation is a form of censorship. For this reason, we ask that the bill be returned to the committee. Perhaps, more properly, we ought to suggest it be returned to the wastepaper basket. The bill ought not to be before us because of the obvious loopholes, to say nothing of the basic and clear lack of philosophy behind it.
We are asking the government, during this debate, to make it very clear how a publication is to be considered Canadian. We also want to know who is to make the decision. How can any company publishing material for the market in Canada develop a set of criteria when it does not know what the government has in mind? We have had no clear answer in this House whether MD of Canada will fit into the mainstream of Canadian publications. Nor do we know what MD of Canada requires to do in order to fit into this mainstream.
MD of Canada collects its medical information from all around the world, so obviously most of its material is foreign. Is the research in different nations of the world not of value in Canada? Is science and scientific research in any part of the world valid in this country? Is not the fact that MD of Canada is essentially a Canadian-owned magazine, using foreign material, a valid reason for publication in this country?

The question at issue here relates to the exemption of Reader's Digest and how it, in fact, meets the criteria, however unclear they may be. Apparently the decision in respect of all magazines is to be left in the hands of the government in order that it can tinker with and shape the minds of the Canadian people. The decisions are to be made at the government's whim. I suggest that if the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, is has no business in the minds of the citizens.
We can say with certainty that one of the reasons for this bill is to provide the government with the means of shaping Canadian thought, and shaping it deliberately according to the wish and the will of the government. This is a deliberate and unscrupulous attempt at censorship. It is designed to put forward specific ideas of the government to the Canadian people and to provide patronage to certain areas. It is designed to find favour in respect of certain magazines and to provide employment in specific areas. How else can the government justify its special exemption for Reader's Digest, a privilege that has been withheld from other magazines?
We must have a clear definition of criteria in order that magazines published outside the borders of this country will have some clear direction of what needs to be done to get into the Canadian market. We need some clear rationale in order that people will feel a sense of security in the publishing industry. We must know why some magazines are being denied the privilege of publishing here without having to pay a surtax.
Let us look at the principle of censorship itself. We know that at times there have been valid reasons for censorship in this country, yet the government has denied that censorship. I recall different ministers saying they did not believe in censorship. The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) made this clear in committee. I do not, personally, believe in censorship and I think censorship ought not to be the role of government. Does it not strike you as odd, Mr. Speaker, that thousands and thousands of letters have crossed the desks of members of parliament in protest against certain CBC programs, namely, "Ten Lost Years", "Baptism", and "You Are Going To Be All Right, Jamie Boy", yet the government simply passed these off by saying it would not enter into any form of censorship? On the other hand, we have the present situation. The government has imposed its own will in respect of a change in rules as they apply to a certain publication.
On one hand there is the right to avoid the use of material that might be offensive to some, or reverse the government's choice to ban it, as in the case of Reader's Digest, MD of Canada, Time magazine and, I suppose, even the Bible inasmuch as its content is at least 80 per cent foreign. We certainly must ask what the government uses as its criteria. Partly tongue in cheek, and partly seriously, I suggest that the government might consider the Bible to have foreign content. I notice members opposite smiling. The fact is that if they wanted to be literal in respect of their own legislation, they could put a degree of control on anything they wanted at the whim and will of the government.
February 23, 1976

I think this brings us to the basic question of the Bill of Rights in this country and the privilege of being Canadian. As I understand the Bill of Rights, it ought not to have a price, a tax or a surtax attached to it. To this government, the right to information means that if the people want certain bits of information they can get it, but at a price.
I should like to know from members on the government side whether this is a philosophy that will apply to all rights in this country, and at whose wish and whim, and at what point, will the criteria be established and set out in legislation so that we will know what allows Reader's Digest in and what keeps Time magazine out, because without that defined criteria there is no doubt that this is a censorship bill. To claim otherwise is to be stupid, because the fact is that no one has yet explained to this House precisely why Reader's Digest was able to obtain a special exemption, and whether or not other companies which have not obtained the exemption can do something in order to meet the qualifications. Is that not a silly way to run a government? Is that not an unfortunate way to operate an institution which exists within a democracy?
The government sets up something which is so loose as to be totally subject to its will. This must be treated as a threat to all Canadians, because although it applies to some little piece of paper such as Bill C-58, which means that we may not get Reader's Digest next month, it is also an indication that this government has chosen to interfere with the basic rights of Canadians because it chooses to stop something without establishing criteria in respect of what might be stopped.
The government makes special exemptions in order to get around the stop-measures without establishing the criteria in this regard. What this boils down to is simply that the government has opted to set up for itself a subjective position in which it says it has the privilege and right to influence the public mind for its purpose. That is a most unfortunate situation. We can claim that the bill does not have a political mandate, and well it does not. Did anyone hear, during any election called by the Liberals in recent times, that one of their intentions was to impose upon Canadians a restriction on certain publications? They know they have been dishonest in their electioneering. They did not put forward any particular set of examples to illustrate to the Canadian people that this was expected. Yet this has been imposed. I think this points out the philosophy of the government of the day. It has the notion it has the right to do whatever it wants. Once they have won, they get the feeling that they might not win again unless somehow they can shape the minds of Canadians.
One way to do this is to try to restrict the information available to Canadians. They do not want to call it a censorship bill because that might bring a strong reaction, so they slip it in bit by bit in an effort to control the minds of Canadians. The bill has as its single purpose an attempt to control the minds of Canadians under the guise of an attempt to protect some irregularities in the taxing system. If that was all the government wanted to do, this bill would have gone through much sooner. I do not think there would have been much objection from this side if that had been the sole purpose.
When members of the government claim that the opposition is holding up this bill, they are simply blowing and
Non-Canadian Publications
sucking at the same time while trying to maintain a whirlwind attack. In this country the people have a right to think. They have a right to think, to read, to hear, to speak and to communicate as a principle of the Bills of Rights. This government is imposing its view in respect of the information available to the Canadian people. I have claimed before that this is a censorship bill because it sets out, in almost its only set of criteria about publications, a set of criteria that is false.
They talk about how foreign publications must be at least 80 per cent different in content to any previous publication. A simple analysis of that boils down to the fact that there is no such thing as 80 per cent. It does not exist. It cannot apply to publications. This government knows that. Percent is a mathematical concept. It is used in mathematical terms. You can talk about mathematical notions and percentages when talking about such units of measurement as length, weight or volume; you can talk about a percentage increase or decrease in the use of numbers. But you cannot talk about percent in dealing with values. That is like saying to someone that a person is 80 per cent right or, "I hate you 80 per cent", or that someone loves someone else 63 per cent.
The government takes a piece of legislation and tries to relate 80 per cent to a value judgment. This is a false concept. Someone can take a look at something, and if they do not like it they can say it is not 80 per cent. If they do not like it they can claim it is any per cent, because there is no unit of measurement for a value judgment. It is only when there are units of measurement that a percentage may be taken. It is a phony government that tries to tell us this criteria of 80 per cent has any validity. Anyone who has taken a course in research knows there is no way one can look at a piece of literature and apply 80 per cent to it with any degree of consistency.
This issue came up during the committee hearings on this legislation. I challenged the deputy minister, who was on hand that day and who had said they would use the length as the unit of measure; I asked him, if we had a piece of information that was 100 centimetres long and boiled it down until it was only 20 centimetres long, but had basically the same concept, whether that would apply. He said yes, to which the minister piped up and said it would not, that it must differ substantially, meaning that it must be different in its content or in what it talks about. This means the government is saying it is putting on a subjective judgment, that the percent notion no longer applies and that this government is censoring the minds of Canadians.
There is no doubt that, and I think it is time the government recognized that they are putting forward a piece of legislation which threatens the very core of what this country is intended to stand for. All the while the debate goes on, and the minister slips in and out of the House without showing sufficient interest to take part in the debate while hon. members have been speaking this afternoon. It is most unfortunate that such an attitude should prevail on the other side, because if we are going to look at a bill which has as one of its objectives the influencing of Canadian culture, the least we could ask is that the debate be approached with a less flippant attitude.

Non-Canadian Publications
We know that the government accepts certain magazines and rejects others, without establishing any criteria, that it talks about 80 per cent when percentage should not apply, and that it censors the minds of Canadians. In fact, it tries to shape this country in such a way that the publishing industry is led to failure. The government would like to support Maclean-Hunter so its members can have their pictures week after week on its front page. It does all that, simply to try to maintain power. The whole bill is aimed at nothing else than destroying the whole notion of parliamentary democracy.
How can the government be bothered with this piece of legislation when there are so many inequities in the communications field with which they could be dealing? If the minister is really sincere about doing something for Canadians, how is it that the citizens in east central Alberta and west central Saskatchewan, who cannot pick up the CBC radio signal at night, receive a reply to their complaint from the Secretary of State, only a week ago, in a letter which stated that the CBC tests the strength of the signal in daytime, and if the people cannot get a night signal that is unfortunate? How is it that the television reception in the same communities is totally inadequate, yet the response of the government has been that perhaps by 1978 there will be some opportunities to put up another satellite transmitter?
Why is it that this bill is before us and takes up the time of the House, when people in the Northwest Territories, such as in Yellowknife, have to receive their news between midnight and one o'clock in the morning? I suppose the only justification for that is that when the Liberal government is in power the news is so bad that the government must set up a protective policy for the people in the north. Why is it that people in Yellowknife, when the weather is 40 below, have to listen to weather reports stating that it is raining outside, because the signal comes from Vancouver? Why is it that people whose natural trading links are with the northern cities of Edmonton and Saskatoon are unnaturally linked with Vancouver? This is a bill which should not be before members of parliament because the citizens of this country are asking for consideration of other issues in the field of communications. This is a bill which imposes on people, not responds to the needs and wishes of the citizens of this country.
Let us take a look at another portion of this senseless bill, a bill which indiscriminately opposes borderline broadcasting whereby U.S. stations beam their signals in Canada. I accept that there could be some real and genuine concern if all our culture were to come from the south across the forty-ninth parallel. But rather than react in the way in which the government has reacted in such an uptight manner about Americans influencing our culture, why do they not recognize that in the age in which we live, in the 1970s and the 1980s, and in the compressed world in which we can communicate instantaneously with any continent, instead of restricting any communication across the border we should open it up, and instead of requesting borderline conferences on communications between our two countries we should request the U.S. to encourage considerably more Canadian programs in that country?
One of the objectives of this bill was to increase opportunities for Canadian cultural development. How can it be

done better than by opening up the market to Canadians? However, that is not possible for a restrictive government which wants to control. This government does not care about the expansion of cultural concepts, but would rather control broadcasting. If it really cared to expand our cultural influence, it would open the market wider and it would not have taken such a hard position on KVOS, one of the best examples of good Canadian corporate citizenship. KVOS, over 20 years ago, on its own initiative approached the Canadian government and asked to pay Canadian income tax because it recognized that a significant number of its dollars came from Canada. Some of the money from this company started Canawest, which now employs hundreds of people in the animated film industry in the production of animated advertisements not only used in Canada but used in the television market throughout North America and the world.
This piece of legislation, insensitive as it is, takes the position, on the one hand, that we should try to expand Canadian culture, and on the other scrambles the eggs by beating the chicken. There is no sense or logic in the legislation before us, and I submit the least that members of the government could do would be to send this bill back to the committee for the purpose of hearing more witnesses and to try to crystallize and clarify what is now a totally hazy, foggy and subjective approach to legislation the aim of which seems to be censorship.
To suggest that this legislation can be given third reading is to be naive beyond belief. It has not been prepared in any kind of finite detail. The government cannot tell us honestly in the House the ramifications of this bill with regard to any foreign publication, because it has not established the criteria. It does not know what will happen to a company which is foreign owned if it sells its shares to a Canadian operation, because it has not established its criteria. All we can say is that because the government cannot accept the challenge to send this bill back to the committee, it is chicken and it does not want to hear the Canadian people give testimony and bear witness in a way in which might be embarrassing to the government. The government could well improve its position if it could swallow hard and realize that this bill is as flippant as the minister himself. It should recognize that it would be much better to withdraw it or, failing that, send it back to committee to be tightened up.
Members of the government have become turncoat on Reader's Digest without telling us why but they are still hard-liners on Time, and without telling us how. They are a subjective government making decisions which affect the lives of Canadians, without reason, without criteria, without concern. Their position on this legislation is symbolic of a much greater issue, one which relates to the Bill of Rights and the concepts and freedoms we find therein. This legislation in its present form would put a price tag on certain freedoms which would then fall into the domain of privilege, with the government having the power to extend or restrict them at will. What folly for any government to take that position.
The plea of this party is that the government extend the time for consideration of this bill in committee so that an attempt can be made to iron out the problems that remain
February 23, 1976

and so that we can understand more fully the intention of the legislation.
I consider it a threat that the government would take the position that it should control the flow of knowledge and has the right to shape the minds of Canadian citizens. It is playing foul with the heritage of this country without reason, without concern, and certainly without the consent of the citizens, and I think it is high time that members of the government answered for that.
Three times in committee and in this House, Mr. Speaker, I have issued the challenge for anyone on the government side to explain what unit of measurement will determine the 80 per cent rule, but have never had a response. The plain fact is that there is no such thing as a percentage in a value judgment. If something cannot be measured by weight, volume or length, as greater or smaller numerically, there is no such thing as a percentage. The government knows it is playing with a false notion.
The government is making a deliberate attempt to mislead the Canadian people by saying, "We will allow at least 20 per cent foreign material into the country". The truth of the matter is that percentages do not apply. The government is playing censor and ought to be called for that, and called because it is being dishonest about the intent of the legislation. I think it has been deliberately dishonest, Mr. Speaker-dishonest about the fact that it hoped this legislation could be used as a tool or a ploy; it is a malicious attempt by the government to shape the minds of Canadians to its own advantage.
I issue the challenge to any member of the government who wants to respond in this debate to rise and tell us the unit of measurement of the value judgment that applies. How is it measured? How do you look at a painting and say it is 80 per cent pretty? How do you look at literature and say it is 80 per cent different? It cannot be done. The government's position is false and it really threatens the whole parliamentary system if it thinks this kind of unscrupulous and untidy legislation can pass.
The Liberal government is trying to sneak this bill in through the back door without considering the wishes of Canadian people. Across the nation many Canadians are voicing their concern about the communications system, their concern about violent and abusive material on television and in the media, while the government chooses to censor Reader's Digest, Time and MD of Canada without giving reason. Then the next news was that Reader's Digest was acceptable.
I note that the minister has returned to the House from his vacation in his office. I wonder if at this time we might adjourn my speech and suggest to him-oh, I see he has left again. I suppose he thought I was going to make a suggestion to him and did not stay around for it. I would suggest that the minister rise in this House and tell us how it is possible to apply percentages to a value judgment. I do not believe the minister can honestly tell us that the 80 per cent criteria is even slightly honest. He knows a bureaucracy has been set up to attribute to a piece of literature any percentage it likes-according to how it likes the literature. There is no way to attach a mathematical concept to a value judgment. If the minister cannot define it for us he should face the fact that the government is submitting a
Non-Canadian Publications
censorship bill and attempting to play with the minds of Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third or fourth time I have spoken at various stages of this particular legislation. This is a bad bill. The objectives and intentions of the minister that led to the legislation were good objectives and good intentions, and I say that without reservation. But it is bad legislation.
Given the good intentions and good objectives I suggest that the legislation was conceived in ignorance, drafted in a world of fantasy and, if passed, will be implemented in chaos. I do not know the way out.


Arnold John Malone: The wastepaper basket.


William Herbert Jarvis: The motion put forward by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) suggests that the matter be referred back to committee. I support the motion, for a number of reasons. First, I have faith, possibly a naive faith, in that particular committee. I served on it for more than three years, did battle in it with esteemed friends opposite, enjoyed my battles, and enjoyed the results of some of those battles.
In the last parliament the committee considered broadcasts in Gaelic for Cape Breton. I remember the consideration regarding the export of Canadian cultural property. I remember complimenting the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) on third reading. Yes, we have had harsh words in that committee, but we have always served under a fair and just chairman. His successor, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), was no less an honourable chairman. Therefore I support this motion because these difficulties cannot be resolved in the House and there is some hope, albeit remote, of resolving them in committee.
I regret the atmosphere of the committee hearings. I am not debating who ought to have been on it and who ought not, who said what and why, and who could sit on it and who could not. I also regret the lack of time the committee was given to examine witnesses whose expert evidence was worth hearing. I found an atmosphere of acrimony. I did not see the adversary system working. I believe in the adversary system. No, I found "chippiness," a lack of flexibility and a lack of respect for opposite viewpoints. This I had never seen in that committee. I do not think this legislation will destroy the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, but I do know that what we do with this bill may affect other legislation coming before the committee. This is not easy legislation; the citizenship bill will not be easy legislation either. I know I am straying, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate your indulgence.
It is my opinion that the only hope for this bad bill lies in that committee. I want to see the integrity of the committee restored because, in my judgment, what it did with Bill C-58 eroded its integrity. In saying this I do not point my finger at the minister, whip, or government supporters on the committee.

February 23, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
I am happy to see my good friend, the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas) in the House. He spoke on a motion dealing with the broadcasting part of the bill, and made a good speech. We gave him a rough time when he spoke. I compliment him for speaking. At least I know how he feels. I do not know what the Secretary of State and Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) feel because the government's position has changed radically since the introduction of this legislation. At least I know where my colleague from Bruce-Grey stands, even though I know he is wrong.
Second, I think the committee could resolve the uncertainty surrounding this legislation ever since January 1975. Difficult legislation like this inevitably leads to uncertainty. I find some aspects of the bill completely acceptable. I favour a healthy magazine industry in Canada. I accept that we must protect that industry from unfair competition. I accept the ownership provisions of the bill, although I do not know if there is any magic in 75 per cent. I enthusiastically support provisions concerning editing and publishing in Canada. Frankly, they do not go far enough. The minister might have gone further to Canadianize the publishing industry. Why are there no provisions concerning circulation, advertising, personnel, accounting, and so on, provisions which could Canadianize to a greater extent the publishing industry? I will not make an issue of this.
Let me tell the minister what I cannot accept. I am against two aspects of the bill. I oppose the government's content approach. I would be willing to consider an antidumping approach. I do not know how difficult this would be. I am sure the minister and his officials are much more expert in this field than I am, and perhaps they have considered the anti-dumping approach. Let me make my position clear: I prefer the anti-dumping approach, by way of legislation, to the content route. However, I suppose it is too late in the day for this. As I say, I wish the minister and his officials had taken that route, instead of the "substantially the same" route. Actually nothing I have heard in this House or elsewhere suggests that the government has even considered this approach.
The second aspect I cannot accept is the aspect of back room deals. Mr. Speaker, back room deals are destroying the integrity of the Department of National Revenue, destroying the integrity of a department whose integrity must never be in doubt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: I cannot accept the wheeling and dealing. If the wheeling and dealing were laid on the table, were opened up for all to see, there might be justification for it. We do not know the government's reasons for wanting to get rid of Time but to keep Reader's Digest. I do not accept that process. It is not an honourablte process to which this House should be party. Possibly the committee might resolve these two difficulties. I do not know, but I think the minister ought to be fair and try it.
Several other areas of the bill concern me. The minister indicated he might look at the distribution system. I understand that 13 of 14 magazine distribution companies working in this country are U.S.-controlled. I know I may be out of order, Mr. Speaker, but the system of distribution of periodicals concerns me very much.

The minister may be fed up to the ears with hearing about Time, but one point merits repeating. Time was misled. I do not say it was deliberate. When the magazine presented its first mock-up to officials of the Department of National Revenue it understood that Canadian content meant roughly 42 per cent of content. The officials in good faith were thinking in terms of 50 per cent or 60 per cent. Why did Time return shortly afterwards with a revised mock-up? I do not understand why the department did not respond to that mock-up, unless somewhere along the line somebody pulled a switch or pushed a button and said, "Stop; we cannot win what we want with this mock-up." If you are going to be cynical you could say the button was pushed because Maclean-Hunter said they needed 80 per cent. I am not going to be that cynical, but it is a conclusion one could draw.
There is no doubt that something happened at some stage, probably on May 5 or 6, 1975, to cause the officials in the Department of National Revenue to say stay away from the Time mock-up deal because we are not on that any more. Something happened in October and, all of a sudden, it became 80 per cent. Again if one were cynical one could say that Maclean-Hunter really wanted 100 per cent, but they could get away with 80 per cent. I am not saying that because I am not cynical.
The other magazine that really concerns me is MD of Canada. I do not understand why it is being executed. One member opposite, I believe the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy), proposed an amendment to solve that problem. I forget the exact words, but it included all scientific publications. I supported that amendment.
I cannot understand the objects. First there is the antidumping object and, second, the encouragement of the Canadian industry. Why are we on a witch-hunt against MD and similar publications? If Reader's Digest can be accommodated through a back room deal, why can MD not get into the same room? There are other publications in the same general category as MD of Canada. I do not know if it is a locked door into that room. If so, it is very unfortunate because that is not the experience I have had with the Department of National Revenue over the years.
I usually hear cries of "obstruction" and "filibuster". I thank members opposite for not saying that today. However, I was prepared to accept it as being reasonably accurate. In January, 1975, there was the removal of what is called the grandfather clause subsequent to which there was no consultation of any significant nature with those against whom the legislation was drafted to operate. There was no reasonable consultation basically with Time and Reader's Digest.
This is tax legislation. Therefore it is penal legislation. A lack of consultation with those being penalized gives little credit to those in government responsible for the legislation. Therefore I do not mind speaking on this at length. I do not mind if many of my colleagues in this party join me in this. If that is obstruction we should not be reluctant to accept the label.
In May, 1975, Time was misled by the then Minister of National Revenue with regard to this mock-up. If that were to happen again it would encourage me to obstruct
February 23, 1976

again or filibuster.If that is the label, I accept it. If someone had been considered Canadian under our laws for a substantial length of time and was misled by an arm of this government, namely the Department of National Revenue, I see no reason why those in opposition and, frankly, those on the government benches should not obstruct or filibuster.
In October, 1975, we were confronted with the so-called Cullen rule, the result of which was to change the content percentage. The second result was to give publishers ten weeks to conform. I do not mind obstructing that kind of legislation or rule. If that is filibustering or obstruction, I will accept the label. When I saw the atmosphere in the standing committee and what was done to make that committee less effective than it had been historically, I saw good reason to stand up and obstruct. I do not consider that obstruction negative. I consider it positive.
The only hope for this legislation is to let it go back to committee. I am almost sympathetic with the fact that the government has a political football and it does not know whether to kick, pass or run. Therefore it is fumbling. It has pretty well consistently fumbled from January, 1975, to February 23, 1976.
I again say that this is bad legislation, conceived in ignorance, drafted in a world of fantasy and, if implemented, will result in chaos. I urge this House to accept the motion of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock. In my judgment the only hope for this legislation, if there is any hope at all, lies in the standing committee.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be appropriate for this discussion to end now by calling it six o'clock, but there does not seem to be the inclination to do that. It is important that I take part in this debate to a limited degree, having regard to the damage done to my voice over the week end.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where have you been?


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asks where I was. I was taking part in an event which will have great national significance as we look ahead to the future of our country and the future government of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I am delighted that that significance has not been lost by the members on the other side. May I now call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Non-Canadian Publications
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, before the dinner adjournment I was apologizing to my colleagues on both sides of the House as I must now apologize to you, for the condition of my voice. I want to assure you, Madam Speaker, that this condition arose from my participation recently in an occasion of great public importance-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: -and, as I tried to say before the adjournment, an occasion which will probably change the course of Canadian history over the next few years.
The difficulty about the bill before us is that its provisions, coupled with the rules which have been promulgated by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen), imply a new departure in the field of legislation. I know of no other instance in which a bill, in relation to its most important principles, leans for support on something which is outside the bill, namely, something which can be changed, interpreted or adjusted according to the outlook of a particular minister or a particular government. This is why the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) moved that the bill be referred back to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts to enable that committee to hear evidence concerning the arrangements made after Bill C-58 had been reported to the House, the arrangements being those which would enable Reader's Digest to qualify as a Canadian periodical.
The extent of this arrangement is an important thing for the Canadian people to know. One legislative sin has already been committeed, and that is the acceptance of the so-called Cullen rule. The second sin is the government's failure to come clean with the House, as it were, about the line it is taking in this respect; as matters stand I really do not know how the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) feels about this. He has been silent. A very important part of the package is not included in the legislation and is subject to change without ever coming before the House.
Speaking just before the dinner adjournment, the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) indicated on behalf of this party that we find the "content" approach taken on the part of the government, albeit toward a worthy object, unacceptable to us. We would like the minister, instead, to consider, adopting an anti-dumping approach. We cannot accept any arrangement which even appears to have a tinge of a back room deal about it. Even the appearance of such an arrangement lends some credence to a charge of this kind when that charge is not denied.
We are concerned as well about whether or not the particular attitude evinced by the Cullen rule accompanying this piece of legislation could be extended by a government to other forms of periodicals and reading material such as newspapers. I think it is important to remember that as this debate began the newspaper editorial writers and commentators indicated that the word censorship used in terms of this legislation was too strong. Then as the case unfolded the attitude of these same newspaper columnists and commentators changed, to the point where now they are almost universally opposed to a system of justice

February 23, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
which is akin to that described as justice according to the length of the chancellor's foot.
My respectful submission to this House is that this matter ought to be reconsidered by the government. The government ought to disclose to the House the background to the arrangement, and who made it. The reasons for the arrangement ought to be explored in depth by a committee, and witnesses should be called so they can be questioned by members of the committee. A complete parliamentary re-examination of the bill should take place. Without that kind of examination this bill, the regulations accompanying it, and everything that flows from it will be a blot on the legislative landscape of this country.
For that reason, Madam Speaker, we intend to support the amendment and would be very happy to see the minister recant his position and thus shorten this debate. The principle we have discussed is an important one. It look a long time for it to be recognized by the public press of this country, but it is now so recognized. The government owes this parliament, its own supporters, and members of the public an explanation as to what went on when this change was made.


William Gordon Ritchie: Madam Speaker, I would strongly support sending this bill back to committee so that the so-called Cullen rule, which appears to be nothing more than a rule designed in the head of the minister of the day, or of some civil servant to fit the needs of any given situation, can be examined. As a result of this sweetheart deal with Reader's Digest which has gained it Canadian status, everything becomes very murky and the thing smells of political patronage. Obviously Reader's Digest was desired by a large number of Canadians, but more important its offices were situated in the city of Montreal. Time is entitled to ask why its position should not be re-axamined in light of this so-called Cullen rule. In fact the whole magazine industry may well be placed back in the situation it was before.
In effect the government has nullified about 25 per cent of what it hoped to save on advertising-some $10 million in Time and some $7 million in Reader's Digest, the balance being in the broadcasting media. For more than a decade Canadian companies advertising in foreign owned publications aimed primarily at the Canadian market have not been permitted to deduct advertising costs. This shows a great deal of decision by the revenue department. Just the other day I noticed an advertisement by CP Air in Newsweek designed for the Canadian market, since it showed only airline routes in Canada. The new rule applies to editorial content that is not substantially the same as the content of a foreign publication with which there is a continuing relationship. It is this "continuing relationship" that I think needs examination.
I think the government hopes to save about $40 million, though this has been cut to $30 million. There is no reason for assuming that the government ever will save $40 million, but let us examine what has happened under this sweetheart deal and the application of the Cullen rule. Although the terms of the bill are the same as originally, the government is putting a different interpretation upon it.
(Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).]
Last October the revenue minister decreed that "not substantially the same as" meant "80 per cent different". Since neither magazine felt it could meet this difference, they had to cease publication. The government has now come up with a different interpretation. The phrase "not substantially the same as" remains unchanged; it is still 80 per cent different. The new interpretation relates to what constitutes a "continuing relationship". The aim of the bill is now entirely different.
The revenue minister has suggested that Reader's Digest can still operate in Canada if its editorials fall into any of three categories. The first is that of original articles written for Reader's Digest of Canada. That is fairly easy to achieve; all that has to be done is to publish an article in Canada first and then send it to the United States for publication. It is really a negation of the whole concept of what is an original article for Reader's Digest of Canada.
The second category concerns articles that have appeared in other publications with which Reader's Digest of Canada has no continuing relationship. Obviously this could relate to any of the sub-companies owned by Reader's Digest.
The third category is articles purchased through Reader's Digest of the United States which have been chosen, edited, and condensed by Reader's Digest of Canada. Again these articles must be chosen from publications with which Reader's Digest of Canada has no continuing relationship. It is this third category that is the crucial one.
In effect, Madam Speaker, the government is saying that Reader's Digest of Canada has no continuing relationship with Reader's Digest of the United States if Reader's Digest of Canada merely buys articles through Reader's Digest of the United States; in other words, if it buys articles that appeared elsewhere, using Reader's Digest of the United States as an intermediary. The whole situation is so complicated that it can be interpreted in any way the revenue department wants.
As a result of this interpretation of what is a continuing relationship, Reader's Digest of Canada is completely whitewashed. It is now in the category of being 80 per cent different. Time of Canada cannot buy articles through Time of the United States because the Time organization originates its own material. Therefore Time Canada can buy only from Time of the United States and thus is considered to have a continuing relationship. Obviously it was a sharp eyed person in the department who spotted that and used it to fabricate a rule to keep out Time but allow Reader's Digest of Canada to continue. This House should have a look at this problem to find out why one is allowed in and the other is not. It is obvious that Time will not be allowed because it represents competition to the hopefully to be published Maclean-Hunter weekly.
Let me say a few words about two or three medical journals that will be affected by this legislation, and I have specifically in mind MD Canada, Modern Medicine and The Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality. These are small but very well published magazines. MD Canada is a standout because it portrays the history of medicine. The articles are well written, much like those that appear in the heritage works of the Horizon magazine from New York, which
February 23, 1976

is probably the most outstanding in the world. It seems foolish to get rid of these magazines.
The opportunity to publish the results of Canadian research is very thin at the best of times. Much of the work the National Research Council does in respect of medical matters is lost because there is no way of publishing it. When a researcher is finished he sends his material to the archives here in Ottawa where it sits on a shelf gathering dust. No one ever sees that work again. Very soon the Research Council forgets about it and appropriates another $50,000 or so to research the very thing that was done in the first place.
The Canadian Medical Journal is the only medical magazine published in Canada and distributed widely, and I suggest it would not be published were it not for the large fees that physicians have to pay in order to subscribe to it. I suggest it is read by very few doctors. It is of little value because of the fact the medical field has been split into so many specialties, and the Canadian market is so small no medical magazine in Canada has the resources to do the research work necessary to inform the medical field. By and large U.S. medical magazines are much wider read in Canada than the Canadian publication.
The $50 million or so spent by the National Research Council is largely lost because the results of research are not able to be published. The removal of these few magazines will further diminish the amount of medical knowledge that flows freely to Canada from throughout the world. This will make Canadian doctors even more cut off from the rest of the world.
In fact we have seen what has happened in the drug industry as a result of the passage of drug legislation a few years ago when potents were taken away from drug companies. Many drugs developed in the United States, in the United Kingdom, and in Europe are being marketed around the world, but in many cases there is little knowledge of these drugs in Canada. I suggest this is another result of drug legislation. With such programs as Parcost and provincial efforts to curtail drug prescriptions we have seen a reduction in the quality and certainly quantity of drugs being made available to the Canadian public. Advertising is extremely important to the drug trade. Many people think drugs are widely known throughout the world by all physicians, but that is not the fact. Most physicians learn about drugs through reading about them in medical journals and from details supplied by drug travellers.
One of the most widely read medical journals in this country is MD of Canada. Many drug companies advertise their products in this magazine, and the revenue from this advertising in large part allows the magazine to be printed. Most of these drug companies are based in Montreal. Without this advertising almost certainly the knowledge about new drugs would diminish substantially, and only the Canadian public is the loser.
Canadians have benefited more than most from medical discoveries throughout the world, and that is because most of the great discoveries are not made in Canada but in western Europe and in the United States. There is an enormous outpouring of medical knowledge from the United States which is freely available to the rest of the world. In fact our food and drug department does very
Non-Canadian Publications
little but phone Washington and ask what is being done in respect of certain drugs that are being tested, and new drugs becoming available.
MD of Canada has a special place for people involved in medicine, and a special place as well for a small number of people who are not involved in the medical world. It is a very enriching magazine to its readers. It includes a written medical history that is extremely interesting, covering times from Julius Caesar, Napoleon and so on. This magazine is subscribed to almost exclusively by physicians so it is not in competition with any other journal or magazine. In fact there are no other magazines in which many of these companies can effectively advertise. The removal of these magazines from the Canadian market will in effect mean the end of this advertising.
Just a short time ago the Department of National Health and Welfare discontinued the practice, set up when the drug act was passed, of sending out selected drug information. Obviously the department felt that the bulk of this information ended up in the wastepaper baskets in doctors' offices.
Articles in MD of Canada are world-wide in scope, and many contain elements of history art, and music and their relationship to medicine. I have always appreciated the work of the originator of the magazine, Dr. Felix Marti Ibanez. Unfortunately he passed away at a very young age. He was the chief health officer of the Republic of Spain before the Franco civil war. That is probably equivalent to the position of deputy minister of health.
Modern Medicine, which is the corollary to MD of Canada, is also to be a casualty. Its value was in the fact that it contained condensations of many interesting articles from around the world. Thousands of medical articles are written but only a few can be read by any one individual. Modern Medicine has been a useful magazine in that it condenses many of these articles for the busy physician who does not have time to read extensively.
These magazines translate many of these world-wide articles into English so that doctors can take advantage of the information available. These articles are translated from Russian, Hindustani, French, Italian, Spanish and many other languages so that this information then becomes available to us. There is absolutely no possible substitution for these translations in this country, so again the information available to Canadian scientists will be restricted. I do not know what the point was in picking out these particular magazines.
Turning to the larger issue I should like to mention the CBC. I think the problem of the CBC is that it cannot stand some little competition. The CBC always attempts to inform the people what Canadians should do, think, and believe. But everywhere I go I notice that most radio and television sets seem to be tuned into American stations. What does this indicate? By and large it indicates that the CBC is not interesting. It is obvious when one listens to the CBC that it is trying to tell us something, that it is trying to lecture to us, or tell us we should do such and such a thing and should not buy this or should not do that. The CBC attempts to direct the public's morals. The CBC suffers because of this. When the CBC was established it
11174

February 23, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
was supposed to spread radio and eventually television around the whole of the country. In my riding a considerable area has been without television for a long time. Instead of embarking on many of the things in which it is involved, the CBC would be doing much more for the country if it provided a minimum of television service to all parts of the country.
I feel this bill should be returned to the committee where we might hear what the sweetheart arrangement is between the government and Reader's Digest. I would hope we would hear what is the real meaning of a continuing relationship between Reader's Digest U.S.A. and Reader's Digest Canada, and why the same cannot be applied to Time Canada and Time U.S.A.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, at the third reading stage of the debate on Bill C-58, the bill which would end some of the income tax privileges for advertisers in non-Canadian magazines and also on nonCanadian television stations, I wish to make a few comments on behalf of the New Democratic Party.
We supported the legislation when it first came before the House. We saw it as long overdue. We have had some reservations concerning the interpretation by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) as it pertains to Reader's Digest, but on the whole we support the legislation and wish to see its passage at this time.
I really think my friends in the Conservative party are flogging a dead horse, a horse probably of their own creation, when they level charges of censorship and other kinds of wrongdoing at the government.
We debated this bill for months. It was first introduced over a year ago. The debate on second reading was prolonged mainly as a result of Conservative opposition. Very extensive hearings were held by the committee. The amendment before us to send the bill back to the committee seems to me to be a backward step which will not achieve anything.
In the committee we heard testimony from the officials of the Department of National Revenue concerning their interpretation of the 80 per cent different rule. I do not see how sending the bill back to the committee at this stage would further clarify that or in any way improve the bill.
It should be remembered that the main purpose of the bill is to promote a healthy Canadian periodical industry. Under the provisions of this bill the government will give tax advantages only to advertisers in bona fide Canadian magazines. The magazines must be 75 per cent Canadian-owned and they must not be substantially the same as a foreign parent magazine, which is defined as 80 per cent different. They also must not have an ongoing licensing arrangement with the parent company. Any magazine that fulfills those requirements by definition becomes a Canadian magazine and under the Income Tax Act their advertisers may deduct the cost of that advertising for income tax purposes.
In reality the bill before us provides an incentive to Canadian industry, in this case the magazine and television industry. I see nothing wrong with that principle. We have applied it to Canadian industry and manufacturing, and belatedly are applying it to the periodical industry in

recognition of its importance to the cultural, news, and information heritage of this country.
This bill is long overdue. Back in the early 1960's a royal commission recommended that unless we took this kind of action to sustain the Canadian publishing industry, this industry would slowly strangle from lack of advertising revenue as foreign magazines, mainly Time and Reader's Digest, set up branch plant operations in Canada and gained much of the advertising dollar. The government of that day, which happened to be a Conservative government, allowed an exemption for Time and Reader's Digest and a few other minor scholarly magazines, and said that for the purpose of income deduction for advertisers they would be classified as Canadian magazines. The consequence of that mistake, perpetuated by Liberal governments, is that today we find these two magazines, Time and Reader's Digest, have gained the lion's share of the advertising revenue, to the detriment of Canadian magazines.
I am not talking about Maclean's which is a healthy magazine but rather about many of the other small magazines which have been struggling to find a few advertising dollars which would make the difference between their continuing and expanding, or going under.
We have seen how the government has reacted to the tremendous lobby of Reader's Digest. It is estimated that in excess of $200,000 was spent on this lobby campaign with the general public and members of parliament. Indeed we have not for a long time seen such intensive lobbying on the Hill.
Tremendous pressure was placed on the Minister of National Revenue. They argued their case forcibly. They argued that theirs is a special case, that their magazine is a digest and therefore should be given some special consideration. We see this once again in terms of the minister allowing Reader's Digest to have access to a pool of original articles that the parent company collects. However, there is a condition, which we in this party accept, that if there is to be any editing or digesting it must be done by Canadian editors and that the going rate must be paid for any of the articles that are bought from the pool of the parent company. Of course they must also conform to Canadian ownership requirements.
I think that helps to allay many fears we had that somehow we were back in square one. The only criticism I have of that arrangement is that by virtue of the fact that the pool of articles that Reader's Digest Canada will choose from is a pool of articles decided by U.S. editors, in some roundabout way we could construct the argument that there is still a degree of editorial control in the United States. But the problem of course is that Reader's Digest in the United States has exclusive licensing arrangements with most major magazines, and therefore Reader's Digest Canada had to come to this kind of special arrangement with the Minister of National Revenue.
The only other thing that we see as a bit troublesome is the amount of discretion that the Minister of National Revenue has in determining how the act will apply to various magazines. We had hoped that this would be spelled out in more detail. However, this would mean major amendments to the Income Tax Act because that
February 23, 1976

discretionary power of course rests with the minister as it applies to other industries and individuals, and I do not see the government coming forward at this time with such amendments. So we had to accept the bill as it is, although it is imperfect to some degree in the areas that I mentioned.
We also support the bill because it seeks to end an outflow of advertising revenue to television stations, to the amount of some $20 million a year of Canadian advertising revenue which goes mainly to Buffalo stations and KVOS in Washington state, and hopefully then the advertisers would redirect these funds to Canadian television so that our stations can expand and produce more Canadian programming. In no way does the bill prohibit them from advertising on those stations just as in no way does it carry any degree of censorship provisions with respect to advertisers in magazines.
We support the bill. We have not put up many speakers because we saw the delaying tactics of our Conservative colleagues. They have aired the issue thoroughly, the Canadian people have had the chance to judge, and I believe that at this time the Canadian people want to see the bill passed. We are of that opinion in this party, and for that reason I urge my friends in the Conservative party, having put up the fight that they have, that they now accept the bill of the House so that we can get on with passing this piece of legislation and turn our attention to equally important legislation which lies ahead of us.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Madam Speaker, I am not anxious to take up too much of the time of the House but I do want to take a few minutes to express some views which I had mentioned back in November of last year regarding this bill, and in particular to support the amendment of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) that the bill be referred back to the committee for further study.
When I spoke on this issue in November of 1975 I was very concerned about the Canadian content portion of the bill. I never interpreted it as censorship. On the other hand, as I think I explained very clearly at the time, I interpreted it as editorial interference. At that time I made a case for certain scientific publications. There are a number involved in the medical area such as MD of Canada, Modern Medicine and Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality. I was somewhat concerned to find that there seems to have been some back room negotiations made with respect to Reader's Digest, while other periodicals were not given the same consideration.
I would like to think that there would be some recourse so that these periodicals or journals could be reassessed by the committee to see whether or not a formula could be devised to ensure their continued publication on the Canadian scene.
I should like to refer again to one of these periodicals of which I have a great deal of knowledge and which I have enjoyed over the years, that is, MD of Canada. I want to speak of it in particular because it is somewhat unique. As you know, the editor is Dr. Gibson who was invited to become the editor of that journal in April of 1973, following a great deal of searching on a world-wide context and following the death of the renowned Felix Marti Ibanez
Non-Canadian Publications
who was the founder and original editor of MD of Canada. As you know, Dr. Gibson is an internationally known physician and medical historian and he was a colleague of Dr. Ibanez.
When we look at MD of Canada it is important to realize that its own staff does the research and the writing and that the research and writing are done for physicians in the international context. We must remember that these are in-depth studies which add a great deal to the medical profession. I also want to point out that the news section is written by professional journalists. The head office is in Montreal. The medical news articles cover the major Canadian news of the day and meetings of various Canadian physicians.
I think that perhaps the most important thing about MD of Canada is that it is unique and that it has a humanistic concept which is not present in other medical journals with which I am familiar. It combines a cultural and historical interest greatly to the liking of physicians and professionals. If you look at MD of Canada and other medical journals you will find a striking difference. To quote Dr. Ibanez himself, he said it is the integration of medicine, society, and humanity translated editorially into a magazine of medical culture and cultural medicine.
I indicated some time ago that I have a very personal interest in this journal, and to try to demonstrate to the House the type of content found in the journal I had occasion earlier today to go back to some earlier publications of MD of Canada because, as I indicated previously, I had found some of these articles so interesting that I had kept them over the years.
As hon. members may know, I have a particular interest in the north and I would like to refer them to an excellent series of articles which appeared in the March, 1973, issue of MD of Canada. The cover story and feature article in that issue relates to the Arctic and is entitled "Arctic".
The lead article was written by Peter Freuchen. It is a fascinating, literary piece of writing and I should like to quote a little to give you some indication of the literary style of the journal:
You feel an undeniable sense of harmony as you stand listening to the beat of nature's heart, as your eyes penetrate endless horizons and your mind experiences a touch of eternity.
This article describes the Arctic very well. It goes into detail of the geophysics of the Arctic, the climatology of the Arctic, the flora of the Arctic, the population of the Arctic, and some of the recent developments in technology. I suggest that this kind of article is important in view of our interest in the recent developments in the northern part of Canada.
In this same issue of March, 1973, there is a superb article entitled "Icebound Nomads" about the Inuits and Eskimos, of whom there are 35,000 to 40,000 in the universe, about 10,000 of whom are in Canada.
There is another article which deals with the humanistic aspects of medicine and science combined. This article entitled "Polar Pioneer" is about the Norwegian Roald Amundsen and gives an excellent background of the Inuit
21419 -15'/2

February 23, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
people not only in the Canadian context but in that of other countries.
A further article "Cold Comfort" describes the anthropological background of the Inuit people in northern Canada and northern Quebec. There are two more articles about the Arctic, which gives you some idea of the proportion of this magazine which was devoted to the Arctic. One article "Viking Beauty" related to art.
I want to stress that MD of Canada is a unique journal. Its editorial content is quite different from routine medical journals as we traditionally think of them. I have tried to impart to the House that the editorial attitude of MD of Canada is as universal as medicine itself. I indicated earlier that this concept was perceived by Dr. Marti Ibanez who was recognized internationally as a physician and humanitarian. This concept recognizes that physicians are members of an international medical community. Any other view of physicians would be too narrow, and the feature articles I have referred to reflect this concept. They attempt to combine the humanistic approach to man, his environment and, life style with the traditional reports on diseases. I emphasize that the literary component of the magazine is most important.
It should be recognized that the object of this journal is to stimulate medical culture, and this aspect of the magazine is unique. This is one of the reasons why I think it extremely important that the amendment before us be carried so that this specific publication can be reassessed by the committee.
Over the years I have found it interesting that lay persons are surprised that a magazine designed for the medical fraternity devotes such a share of editorial content to the arts or the humanities. These are the cornerstone of this particular journal, however. It is extremely important that the magazine be reassessed by the committee to see whether the same exception can be applied to it as has been applied to Reader's Digest.
The journal MD of Canada and the other MD magazines which I will refer to in a moment are really not designed for consumption just in Canada but for physicians everywhere. They are basically universal in nature and of interest to all physicians, whether they practice in the United States, Canada, Southeast Asia, Europe or wherever. Of course some of the articles touch on local aspects. In the ones I referred to, although they are international in context, a good deal of the information is based on experience in northern Canada, the Northwest Territories, northern Quebec and the Yukon territory-wherever the Inuit are found.
It is important to understand the MD concept. MD of Canada is no more a facsimile of MD, the medical news magazine of the United States than it is a facsimile of MD Espanola or any of the other international MD magazines. The complete editorial content of MD of Canada relates to the Canadian scene, and most of the news it covers is unavailable to Canadian physicians from any other single source. Reports or highlights of various medical and scientific meetings in Canada which are often not reported in other media are covered in MD of Canada. The "clinics" section deals with new findings in the international context. MD of Canada is the only source of this news which is so helpful to physicians in keeping abreast of problems in

today's fast moving world of medicine. The publication is sent to all physicians in Canada at no cost. The news section is different from what is contained in the United States edition or MD Espanola or the one that appears in southeast Asia.
From the beginning the magazine was published in Canada. It is important to remember this. It has been printed in Canada. The Canadian edition is not an edition printed outside and then brought into Canada. It is printed on Canadian paper, from typeset and plates manufactured in Canada, and mailed in Canada through the facilities of the Canadian Post Office, utilizing mailing lists provided by Canadian mailing houses. All advertising is solicited in Canada by the sales staff located in Montreal and in Oakville, Ontario.
I emphasize the importance of the free flow of medical information, regardless of its source. This free flow is essential to public health in this country and internationally. It should be considered as a magazine separate and distinct from any magazine published for the laity. MD of Canada has received favourable comments from thousands of physicians across this country, which illustrates the important contribution this important journal is making to the practice of medicine. It is doing this by supplying information of medical value, of value, I might say, to physicians around the world. I emphasize that the exchange of scientific information internationally is most important and I find unacceptable any curtailment of the international exchange of scientific information, or flow of scientific information to those interested in scientific ventures.
To sum up, MD of Canada is a controlled circulation magazine without subscriptions or revenue. Paid circulation magazines might choose to send non-Canadian editions to Canada, for sale to readers. That choice is not open to MD of Canada. Its only revenue source is advertising. If this important medical publication, which has been sent to this country's physicians for more than 15 years, were to cease publication in Canada as a result of Bill C-58, our medical profession would be the losers. The magazine could not be replaced, in the Canadian context.
I repeat that MD of Canada is not a Canadian edition of a foreign magazine. It is not a split run edition magazine; neither is it sold here as part of the overflow circulation of a parent magazine. It is a fully integrated Canadian medical publication which publishes material of value to the medical profession. It warrants repeating and emphasizing that the magazine's concept, its viewpoint, is important. It is unique in the field of medical journalism. It combines humanism, art, culture, and medicine.
MD of Canada purchases its typesetting, printing, labelling and mailing services in Canada. By definition, MD of Canada is a magazine of medical culture, and of cultural medicine, as I have emphasized. It carries a completely Canadian medical news section.
Again let me emphasize the importance of this special publication. It is unique-I say this with all due respect to other medical publications which may be affected by the bill, publications such as Modern Medicine, or those to do with the medical aspects of human sexuality. This unique
February 23, 1976

magazine combines material which is of scientific interest to practitioners of medicine, with art, culture, and the humanities. I ask the House to consider seriously the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock and refer this bill once more to committee to see if there is some way for this magazine to continue publishing in Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, a few moments ago I heard the hon. member from Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) say that the consideration of this bill totally lacked any logic as regards the length of the debate. He also suggested that the bill had been introduced a year ago and that debates had continued ever since in this House.
It is certain that the public, through magazines or newspapers, heard the pros and cons but I cannot agree that this bill has been before the House for too long. I have no regret or any excuse to extend to anyone about the length of the debate in this House. Particularly if the House has a bad bill before it it is not an excuse to say, we debated it long enough, now it is time to pass it. If this bill is in the wrong direction and based on unsound principles we are going to oppose it. It has been demonstrated that the opposition got results with the length of debates. Changes were brought in by the government which watered its wine, and there was an arrangement made for Reader's Digest. We were going to lose Reader's Digest and undoubtedly related operations because it is rather a congromerate of businesses for the Montreal area. Several members opposite undoubtedly exerted strong pressures on the government so it would make an arrangement with Reader's Digest. I wonder what certain ministers involved said. We must have an explanation about that. Why not do the same thing for Time magazine? It should be known that Reader's Digest insisted not once but a thousand times through representations made in the form of circular letters sent to members of Parliament as well as through the claims that were made in committee. First of all they were opposed to the rule of 75 per cent Canadian ownership.
Well, afterwards they very quickly realized the content. I would like to see Liberal members and NDP members justify their positions. Naturally, they show intolerance for any opinion other than theirs. That is why they are prepared to accept the principle of this bill.

You know, Madam Speaker, this is narrow nationalism; it is cheap nationalism. Actually some of the arguments used to justify this bill are not worthy of a banana republic. But some forget that this sort of thing is a two-way street.
A lot of Canadians operate abroad. There are jobs for Canadians abroad. By God, do we not feel proud about the operations of Canadian firms and Canadian personnel in other countries? Yes. But if these countries were to move in on Canadian firms in the same way as the Government of Canada proposes to move in on these two publications, there would be screams of protest which would burst anyone's eardrums. We do not consider that there must be two standards, one way that you behave in Canada toward outsiders with, as I say, banana republic chauvinism, and then the standard that other countries must exhibit toward we lilyrwhite Canadians.
Non-Canadian Publications


Stanley Howard Knowles: Us, not we.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will accept the hon. member's correction in grammar.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hansard would correct it anyway.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am surprised that we insist upon this course of conduct in one area. We show many other countries an example of what I call petty nationalism. We then complain because we get treated the same by them. There are a lot of countries that look to Canada as an example of how they should act. What an example we show them when we put on a performance like this.
My colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), has put in concrete form the suggestion that was made during the report stage that this bill be referred back to the committee because, while report stage was being considered, the miracle of Reader's Digest was announced to the Canadian public. The uncritical public was relieved at being spared from buying a totally American Reader's Digest which would, of course, come into Canada, possibly in almost the same numbers but with the profits going entirely to the United States.
None of the operation would be carried out in Canada. Not even the Post Office would get anything out of it, not a blessed cent. With mail subscriptions emanating in the United States, the entire revenue would go to the U.S. postal department. Newsstand copies would be carried by express or freight, whether by rail or road. The Canadian government would not get anything out of it. There would not be any, or very little customs duty. The net revenue to the Canadian government would decline under the operations of this bill in its original form.
Somehow a face-saving has been found for Reader's Digest. I am going to ask, what was the deal? Was it the pressure of government backbenchers that caused the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) and the cabinet to modify the strictures and restrictions of the Cullen rule and certainly that new minister's interpretation of his powers and what he would do to whip everybody into line?
Let us have Reader's Digest tell the members of the committee what promise they got from the government. I am not unhappy. I am not criticizing Reader's Digest. I think they acted properly to save employment and revenues for Canada with regard to income tax, postal service and so on.
A tremendous amount of the cost of publishing Reader's Digest, both French and English versions, will remain in Canada for the benefit of Canadians. It was going to be thrown out, totally. What saved it? Surely the members of this House are entitled to an explanation.
When they appeared before the committee the representatives of Reader's Digest said they could not live with the restrictions in this bill. The government was obdurate. The net result was that Reader's Digest was going to go. Now there is a deal. It is owed to this House by the government and Reader's Digest to furnish the explanation.


An hon. Member:: Let's vote on the bill.

February 23, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I hear a muttering about voting on the bill. That is not going to bring out the explanation. Do government caucus members know what the deal was, or were they merely told to accept it on the good faith of the ministry? Were they simply told that it was a good deal?
What is the attitude of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt)? What about the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy), the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), and the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Flynn)? What do they say about this bill?


An hon. Member:: Fantastic.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is it fantastic? The hon. member for Scarborough West says that it is fantastic.


Mr. Martin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to correct the hon. member. I made no exclamation after his reference to me a little earlier.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Very well. One of his
colleagues must have some form of ventriloquism. The word was fantastic. It must have been his neighbour.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You are fantastic.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I always knew that. I am glad to see the member opposite confirm this opinion. My colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), indicated that when it comes to that, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) is a slow learner.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: At least we can take a joke.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As I was saying, I want to find out the arrangement with Reader's Digest. That being out, what about Time Canada? I have no particular brief with regard to the content of Time Canada. Some people pretend that that magazine should contain more Canadian news. When I look at the average issue of Time, even the United States edition, and considering that the United States has ten times the population and a great deal more activity around the world, proportionately I think that Canada gets more space than does the United States on the world scene. To that extent the suggestion that Canada should rate more coverage in a world-wide magazine is unrealistic.
I am looking now at the new format of Macleans. There is a lot more Canadian news. It is not world news. It is Canadian, shall we say local, events. I am not complaining about that. It always struck me that Macleans magazine existed mainly for the benefit of the Toronto school of writers, the "in" group. The editorship seemed to move around like musical chairs. They all praise one another. It was a self-serving operation. They may not like what I have to say, but I should like something to break that up. They don't supply a substitute at all. I don't suppose they really need to supply a substitute on a world-wide basis.
If Canadians are restricted to reading Time magazine as it will be brought in from the United States, the postal revenue will, of course, be lost. Printing revenues will be lost. All the effort and materials which go into Time

Canada will be totally lost to us. Mr. Speaker, there is such a thing as cutting off one's nose to spite one's face and in this action on the part of the government we are witnessing the same sort of thing. If it wants to encourage Canadian publications let it do so by all means, but not by the regressive and repressive methods proposed in Bill C-58.
I heartily endorse the amendment put forward by my hon. friend from Surrey-White Rock. I also submit that if the government and the New Democratic Party are unwise enough to reject it and draw a veil of secrecy over the whole situation, the House would be well advised to reject the bill entirely. This is bad legislation operating entirely on a false premise. If you apply to other nations the same principles as are applied here you would deny the operations of many Canadians abroad. There is no logic in this approach, and I consider that the minister's recommendation in favour of this legislation should be entirely rejected.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to say a few words about this bill I must admit I have not been studying it as carefully as I might have done during the last few days. This is because I have had some other things on my mind and I hope they are reported in the Canadian edition of Time magazine when it comes out in the coming week. I look forward to seeing its comments on the leadership convention which has just concluded.
I support the amendment to send this bill back to committee. I am concerned about the deal made with Reader's Digest. I rose to speak on this matter originally because of the many letters and representations I received from constituents who feared that the Digest would no longer be delivered in their mail boxes. To their relief they find that some deal has been made which will allow Reader's Digest to continue as a Canadian publication.
I sympathize to some extent with the feelings of those who desire to encourage a sense of Canadian nationalism. The problem about this bill is the 80 per cent content rule, and this was the subject of a great deal of discussion which went on in the committee. I do not believe governments should become involved in deciding what the content should be of any magazine in this country.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) discussing MD of Canada. He told us that this was a staff-researched and staff-written publication and that all these articles were researched and written for physicians in Canada. He pointed out that the editorial content reflected a unique humanism which combined the cultural and historical interests of the physician with his professional interests. This was the striking difference between MD of Canada and other medical publications. I recall recently reading one of the articles in MD of Canada. It concerned the life of one of the wives of King Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn, and the reasons for her various medical problems. This article was of great interest to me, as I am sure it was to a great many people.
We all know there is a great deal of unemployment in the country at the present time. If we force these publications out of Canada, jobs will be lost. The rate of unemployment, now running at about 7 per cent, is of such concern to me that I believe the effect of the bill upon the employment situation will in itself be a basic consider-
February 23, 1976

ation. I do not believe we encourage Canadian magazines by restricting the content they are allowed to print.
In the last few weeks I have been talking to many of my constituents about this bill. I find they have been reading about it in the press. Some have been reading Hansard. And people are still confused. Some believe we are subsidizing Reader's Digest by giving that publication special tax considerations. Others say we are not. Some people are asking whether we did offer both -Time and the Digest special concessions at some time or another. Having regard to this situation I suggest we spend a little longer on this legislation, send it back to the committee and discuss the arrangements which exist as between the government and these publications.
I am also concerned, as an agronomist, lest various magazines of interest to my profession may be restricted by the legislation before us. I listened with interest to what the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) had to say about publications in the field of agriculture. He suggested that livestock advertisements might be covered by the bill and that the results might adversely affect Canadian farmers trying to sell livestock in the United States and elsewhere.
For all these reasons I felt I should enter the debate to-night to lend my support to the amendment of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock which seeks to send the bill back to committee for further study so the committee can deal with a number of considerations raised by many hon. members during the debate in this House.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great misfortune that apparently the minister and some of his backers do not see fit to think about some matters that are of fundamental importance to the Canadian people. I refer to freedom-economic freedom, freedom of the press, and freedom of worship. These are the three basic freedoms on which this country has been built. They have meant much to Canadians of all races and creeds, but apparently they mean little to the minister and those who support him.
I have a great deal of respect for members on the government side of the House who disagree strenuously with the minister about the legislation he has presented to the House. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy), who suggested that it would be well to take a portion of the CBC's budget to assist publishers in this country. The waste of the CBC would probably never be noticed since its budget is so large. When the hon. member for Timmins asked why we should not give 10 per cent of the CBC's budget to the publishers who would then have more money than they can ever hope to gain from all of the Time and Reader's Digest advertising, he raised a point of fundamental importance. If we were to do that, or something like it, there would not be the fear of this legislation that exists on this side of the House.
The fear that we have is related to interpretation. We have gone over this and I hope that the minister will eventually take heed of the matters with which we are greatly concerned. Section 19.1 specifically states that "in computing income no deduction shall be made in respect of an otherwise deductible outlay or expense of a taxpayer
Non-Canadian Publications
made or incurred for an advertisement directed primarily to a market in Canada". This is where this question of interpretation comes into focus and it is why the amendment of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) should be passed and the bill sent back to committee. The minister should tell the committee exactly what he means when he uses the phrase "advertisement directed primarily".
I have been in contact with some of the officials in the Department of National Revenue and they do not know the answer to that question. I should like to know whether or not the minister knows, and I feel the committee has the right to ask that fundamental question.
It has been suggested that ample time has been given when the legislation went to committee. I am sure you are very much aware, Mr. Speaker, having been chairman of parliamentary committees, that when five minutes is offered a member of a committee to question the minister, and he perhaps has only that one opportunity during the meeting, he can only touch on the outer parameters of his questions before his time expires. Some other member of the committee continues his questioning on other aspects, and as a result not sufficient time is given for the questioning that should take place in connection with a very fundamental principle of Canadian democracy, freedom of the press.
We have seen what happens when freedom of the press is lost. With today's communications it might be said that the world is becoming smaller. We can no longer live unto ourselves alone. Many governments are run on socialistic lines; we even have socialists in this House. However, governments that do not mind interfering with freedoms have no reservations about taking them away from individuals and allowing government, or governmental officials, to make decisions. Communism began in Russia, moved into China, into southern Asia, then into South America and now into Africa. Our North American continent remains relatively free of governmental control.
I think you would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, being the honourable man that you are, that we should protect this principle of freedom to our last drop of blood. Let no one interfere with our freedoms even though they are being eroded away one by one, principle by principle, in other countries. It may not be long before we too have none left.
As I said earlier, we have our basic freedoms-economic freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of worship. Whether the legislative controls under which we now have to live are good or bad is beside the point. They are nevertheless controls, and once controls are put in place it is very difficult to get rid of them. We have found that out from experience. We all remember that income tax was supposed to be a temporary control. It was introduced many years ago, yet it is still with us and has quite an impact on society today. As I say, if these regulations are put into place they will be very difficult to remove.
Governments in Canada of one form or another are spending 40 cents of every dollar of our gross national product. In other words, 40 per cent of our economic freedom has disappeared. We do not know how long this will continue. I point out that in some socialist countries today the percentage is 70 or 80 per cent. Certainly I hope this

February 23, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
country can put on the brakes quickly and firmly enough so we do not find ourselves in the same position.
So it is with our other freedom, freedom of the press. Why should we allow a minister or a member of his department to interpret what constitutes Canadian content? I do not think anyone in this House of Commons, however intelligent he may be, could adequately define what Canadian content is in all situations and on all occasions. I think that is an absolute impossibility. Why then should we give this authority to a minister? I see no reason in the world why we should do that, and certainly not because the tax dollars we are speaking about are a very small or minute portion of the total tax dollars, or small in relation to our gross national product. The minister certainly is not playing fair with government members, members on this side of the House, or the Canadian public, and I have to take exception to that situation.
I pay honour to those members on the government side who feel about this bill as we do on this side. Let me spend a little bit of time in support of what the hon. member for Timmins has said. That hon. member suggested that this bill does not present any extensive degree of censorship. The hon. member referred to "extensive degree", but he then went on to say that there is a degree of censorship. Why should we allow any individual to propose censorship or control in respect of what Canadian people wish to read?
The hon. member then went on to say that the argument regarding the lack of legal authority of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) or the abuse of it has been overdone. I cannot agree with him in that, because I think the minister has not been flexible enough in this legislation. The only flexibility shown by the Minister of National Revenue was in respect of the provision for Reader's Digest. He made a change which allowed Reader's Digest a place in the Canadian plan of things.
The point I am trying to impress upon the House is that we have the right to know why and on what basis the minister decided it was in the best interests of the government to make this decision in respect of Reader's Digest. Unfortunately under the rules of the House, of which you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, we are not allowed to question policies or the reasons for legislation now before the House. We all recognize this rule and try to abide by it. However, this does create problems in certain situations such as the one we are dealing with at the present time, because we cannot ask the minister why and on what basis he changed his policy. This could be done in the committee, and that is why it is of fundamental importance that the bill be sent back to the committee where we can question the minister, and perhaps call further witnesses. Perhaps representatives of Reader's Digest would also have something to say in respect of this change in the legislation.
The hon. member for Timmins went on to say, and this is very important, that the answer and the reasonable position lay somewhere in the middle between what the minister is suggesting and what we on this side are proposing. I think it is reasonable to expect the minister to show some flexibility. Up to the present time he has not done so.

The hon. member for Timmins went on to suggest that the minister and the government have never accepted the consideration of any middle ground position, and considering the type of mild amendments which have been refused by the government, even amendments that would have been useful without detracting to any degree from the bill, then he felt that the minister was operating from a point of total inflexibility and maybe even from bad will. Why should we in this House of Commons have to deal with inflexibility of this nature? It would seem to me that at some time the minister should stand and state unequivocally what was involved in this change he he made for Reader's Digest.
The hon. member for Timmins then went on to say it might well be that the Minister of National Revenue and his officials will look the other way when a Canadian publication is involved and that, indeed, if the government could wring out of its interpretation an accommodation for Reader's Digest it could certainly wring one out for a Canadian publisher. However, the fact remains that our Canadian publishers will have to face this legislation always, and it may be that they will be hurt by it while it may not necessarily hurt foreign publications.
Before this bill receives third reading I hope the minister will stand in his place and tell us exactly what happened that resulted in this change of interpretation. I hope he will tell us exactly what happened between his former position and the one he is now maintaining. This is of fundamental importance because there are other magazines involved.
I proposed an amendment to this House which was rejected, I must say to my regret. That amendment was referred to by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schel-lenberger). It had reference to foreign owned magazines which aimed their advertisement at the Canadian market. As I said earlier, this world is becoming smaller, and surely there should and could be an arrangement whereby the United States and Canada could benefit from magazines published in each country. We both have much to gain by a common understanding and a common purpose. There is not much difference between their thinking and ours. Their well being is closely associated with ours, and to a great degree our philosophies are the same. If we could have an interchange of ideas and thoughts surely it would be to our mutual benefit.
One other matter of concern to me is in respect of research. We heard from officials of the Department of Agriculture that research is falling badly behind because we are unable to keep up with technical change. One official went on to say that much research is being done in the field because the department is falling behind in research at headquarters.
It would seem mutually beneficial to all concerned if we had exchange of information back and forth across the 49th parallel. We all realize that many of our magazines received in Canada are published in the United States.
It was my privilege for some time to serve as the superintendent of a Presbyterian Sunday school organization, and I have no hesitancy in telling you about this. There are a great many people who belong to that church, but they are still not in a position to publish their own Sunday school material. In view of the fact that we must rely on
February 23, 1976

American publications for the edification of our pupils to a great degree, why in the world can we not have a mutual understanding between the two countries as we have between the two church bodies?
According to this legislation if an organization, a corporation or whatever, wished to advertise in a magazine directed to the Canadian market it would not be eligible to have that advertising expense treated as a deduction for income tax purposes. I think this is wrong. I believe we actually are dealing with peanuts so far as the government is concerned, but it certainly is not peanuts when one considers the church organizations which must depend on public support for their sustenance. I should like to hear the minister tell us whether this legislation is actually aimed at this type of advertiser or publication. Surely this is not the case, because sometime he also will die and I am sure he would want to know where he is going. I believe many people at this point in time would like to tell him where to go, and where to take this legislation.
We must realize that this matter is of fundamental importance. Many letters have been received from people involved. No doubt down the road there may be other innocent bystanders who will be caught up in this. Surely the minister could give this further consideration because of the fact that it is open for interpretation.
As I suggested before, the minister basically is a good fellow. Many of us are prepared to trust him because of the fact that he has proven that he is trustworthy, but what guarantee can he give us that he will always be in that position? He cannot give that guarantee. What guarantee can he give that the present government will always be the government? I hope it is not and I do not believe it will be.
If the time should ever come when we have in Canada a government that has no hesitancy in taking away the freedoms of the people then certainly it would not be very difficult for a person, a minister, or a government to change the interpretation. We must realize that interpretation is one of the significant factors involved. That is the reason why there are so many church groups in the world of today. Interpretations differ. So many people interpret the basic philosophy in a different manner.
In the realization that this is a matter of interpretation and relevancy I find this legislation to be abhorrent. I would hope the minister would stand up in his place and say he would agree to accept this amendment, take the legislation back to the committee and thereby give the committee an ample opportunity to quiz the minister, and perhaps hear further witnesses because of the fact that I do not think they have had a full opportunity to present their case adequately to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Mitchell William Sharp: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been some discussions among the representatives of the parties. It is my understanding it is the general wish that the motion to dispose of the amendment and third reading of this bill would be put on Wednesday as the first
Non-Canadian Publications
order of government business, and that there will be no further debate.


Walter David Baker: That is right, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder whether the government House leader would have any objection to the calling of the vote on the amendment this evening, or on both if he should see fit, and then let us have the two votes back to back if it should go that way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the only point I make is that we cannot call the vote on the second one until the first one is disposed of by the House. We could call the vote on the first one, defer it to Wednesday, and have a gentlemen's understanding that on Wednesday there would be no further debate on the main motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There seems to be agreement that the vote on the amendment should be called but that the registered vote would be taken on Wednesday as the first government order, but only with agreement that this would be followed by a vote on the third reading. Is this agreed?
If hon. members are not clear I would hope they would rise and so state. The Chair would like to make sure it is agreed that the vote on this amendment will be registered as the first government order on Wednesday next.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: With no debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No further debate on third reading would take place before the vote. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen).
All those in favour of the amendment will please say
yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: According to the order previously made, this vote stands deferred and will become the first order of government business on Wednesday.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
11182
[Stage Direction]
February 23, 1976
Adjournment Debate

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, February 18, I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) the following question:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that an owner of a limited dividend building located at 800 Richmond Street West in Toronto charged tenants of two-bedroom apartments in the building $189 a month in February, 1975, and increased the rent to $205 commencing in February 1976, whereas the rental agreement between CMHC and the owner of the building stipulates that the rent be $173.25, will the minister direct CMHC to have the owner return the over-payments to the tenants forthwith, and not to permit any increase in rent until CMHC and the landlord have negotiated a new rent increase based on actual cost to the landlord?
I thought the Minister of State for Urban Affairs was * prepared to answer the question at that time but the Speaker thought there was too much detail and did not permit the question.
May I review with you very shortly and quickly the details. There is an owner of a limited dividend project at 800 Richmond Street West in Toronto who entered into an agreement with CMHC, and as of February, 1975, the agreement called for rent of $173.25 for a two bedroom apartment, but the landlord of that building charged the tenants not $173.25 but $189. Then in February of 1976 the landlord charged the tenants $205. If you look at those increases in rent you will note that the first rent instead of being $173.25 was $189, an overpayment of $15.75 a month or $189 a year, and the second increase to $205 amounts to an overcharge of $31.75 a month, or $381 a year.
What the landlord has done regarding rents in one bedroom or three bedroom apartments in the building I do not know, but for two bedroom apartments he certainly has overcharged. When the tenants became aware of this overcharge they contacted CMHC which said to them that they can take the problem to the Ontario Rent Review Board or, if the landlord does not repay these overcharges, they might call in the mortgage because of the breach.
What should CMHC have done in these circumstances, and I am assuming that the facts are correct because I received them from responsible people? Surely what they should have done is to order immediate repayment to the tenants of the overpayment to the landlord, and if the landlord failed to make the repayment they should have taken immediate legal steps with regard to the breach of the legal contract.
However, there is a bigger issue in this problem than the overcharging of rents, and that is the role of tenants concerning agreements entered into between CMHC and the owners of limited dividend buildings. Last summer the Minister of State for Urban Affairs met with representatives of the Metro Federation of Limited Dividend Tenants and they asked for three main items to be discussed. One was standards of maintenance in limited dividend projects, the second was a grievance procedure with regard to problems they would have concerning the building, and the third was participation by the tenants in discussions and negotiations between CMHC and the landlord. These are reasonable requests but to date I have heard nothing, and

neither have they, from the minister with regard to these problems.
Surely the tenants have the right to have knowledge of the basic terms of the agreement entered into between CMHC and the landlord. When I talk about the basic terms I mean the rent, the maintenance, and the terms of the contract, because with regard to rent under the Anti-Inflation Act and with regard to the limitation imposed by the Ontario government they are only entitled to costs such as increased taxes, heating, electricity, maintenance and insurance increases. If the tenants are forced to pay increases they should know what these actual costs are so that they can determine whether these costs are right and reasonable in the circumstances.
The agreement between CMHC and the landlord should not be a secret document; it should be a public document, and the tenants of CMHC buildings, both in limited dividend projects and public housing projects, should get a summary of agreements entered into between CMHC and the landlord so that they know just what the rent is, what the term is, and what other terms affect them.
With regard to the limited dividend projects, the moneys that are applied to mortgage financing are public moneys. Surely the tenants should have the right to know what the problems are. I am rather shocked that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has not taken the initiative to publicize the terms of the limited dividend agreements entered into between the landlord and CMHC.
I look forward to the answer of the parliamentary secretary. He is a reasonable person and I am sure he has documented the problem and will give a good answer.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) who is currently on a very important mission to Africa and the Middle East, where he is meeting with various heads of state for the purpose of discussing participation in Habitat, the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, to be held later this year in Vancouver. Knowing the hon. member's strongly held humanitarian views on proper housing and living conditions, I know he will be a vigorous supporter of that conference.
With regard to the question he has raised tonight, it is gratifying to have the hon. member support the minister's efforts to provide reasonably priced rental accommodation for Canadians.
I think the minister would agree with him also that we should look into the three points he raised with regard to the standard of maintenance, grievance procedures, and participation by tenants. I will look into them and see if anything can be brought forward and if the hon. member and I can continue studying these matters.
As to the specific case the hon. member has described to the House, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is currently reviewing the developer's operating costs for 800 Richmond Street West, Toronto, in order to decide what level of rents is appropriate. The building was financed under section 15 of the National Housing Act, where an operating agreement between the developer and CMHC forms a part of the mortgage. The terms of the agreement
February 23, 1976

make provision for a review of operating costs when the developer requests an increase in rents. If the agreement is violated, the corporation may institute foreclosure action, or seek other remedies through the courts under the agreement. It should be pointed out, however, that CMHC does not have the power to direct the owner to make refunds of payments in excess of the authorized rents. The minister expects to have the results of the CMHC investigation by the time he returns from his trip. I am sure he will advise the hon. member and the House of his conclusion.
I appreciate the hon. member's remarks on the other points he made. I shall take them up with the minister and try to get some answers to the problems.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-PENSIONS FOR FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR-POSITION OF MINISTER IF CABINET FAILS TO SUPPORT MEASURE
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Railton) in the House. I was hoping the minister could stay but I am sure he is quite busy.
I raised a question on the legislation that was promised to provide compensation for prisoners of war on the basis of the length of time they were incarcerated. On January 28 the minister indicated that he would make an announcement, probably within two weeks. On further questioning by myself and by my colleagues, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), the word was always the same, the problem was being considered in cabinet. Mr. Speaker, I wish they would take that word consideration out of the English language. It appears the only answers we ever get are that the matter "is under consideration".
On February 13 the minister replied again that it was being considered by cabinet and the House leader, who seems to support the procrastination in cabinet to deny these veterans, promised me a long outstanding date which is now overdue. I do not know what they are waiting for. The amounts involved are insignificant, particularly compared with next year's spending estimates of $42 billion. One wonders why nothing is done. One can only presume that the government is leaning on the backs of veterans in restraining its spending.
According to figures I have, $2.3 million could be spent on Japanese theatre prisoners of war, and $6.7 million on other prisoners of war, making a total of about $9 million. A number of former prisoners of war have passed on, which will probably reduce that total by $1 million. I see, from looking at the new estimates, that spending under the veterans land administration, legislation which was phased out against the wishes of veterans, is to be reduced from $13 million to $9 million. If the parliamentary secretary wants to know where extra money can be found, surely the government could use the $4 million it saved for the benefit of prisoners of war.
The members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs have supported the minister, as have the veterans.
Adjournment Debate
We all think, with due respect, that he has brought in good legislation, and introduced many improvements to existing legislation, which we have supported. But, as he himself says, so long as veterans are alive, we shall need improvements in legislation, if only to cope with veterans' needs.
Inflation being what it is today, it is obvious that veterans' allowances and disability pensions are not keeping up with the increase in the cost of living. The Canadian Labour Congress brought this to the minister's attention. It showed that some veterans on war veterans allowance are getting less than they would get if they earned even the minimum wage. Inflation today is badly hurting our five million poverty-stricken people. Statistics Canada figures show that a family of two needs a minimum of $5,000 today to survive. So it is obvious that there is a need to increase pensions and war veterans allowances.
I mention this because I want to draw attention to those prisoners of war who were incarcerated for up to two and a half years. The Hermann report mentions the pre-aging process. The parliamentary secretary, who is very capable and served with distinction as a medical officer, realizes the effect of incarceration on prisoners of war, even at this late date.
It is now four years since the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs recommended that the plight of former prisoners of war be studied and the Hermann report commissioned. We, on my side of the House, want to know facts. Let the parliamentary secretary say, either yes, or no, will legislation be introduced soon. Today in the House when answering the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the minister indicated that probably in a week he would have the answer for us. He told me on January 28 he would know the answer in two weeks. He said much the same today. Does his answer of today mean we must wait one week, two weeks or three weeks? The question is, how long must veterans wait.
It is an insult when the minister says that the matter is "under consideration". We have supported his position in cabinet. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is not partisan. We understand the situation, and the minister's position in the government, and we want a yes or no answer: can we expect the legislation soon; or, when can we expect it? We need to know, to allay the fears and concerns of veterans across the country who expect the legislation and look forward to it, because it was promised. Hopefully the parliamentary secretary this evening will give us the answer to our question, and say that the minister will announce a date by next Friday.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Here is your chance.


Samuel Victor Railton: -the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) as usual spoke well of the situation affecting prisoners of war and other circumstances to do with veterans. He has strongly urged the minister to say when the legislation will be announced. I will not use the words "it is under consideration" this evening.
21419-16%

Adjournment Debate
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Norfolk-Halidimand (Mr. Knowles) are as interested in this matter as much as any of us on this side. I can state that the veterans are just as interested to have this matter settled. The minister has great concern. I can use that word honestly. He has been fighting hard for the welfare of veterans in every way. Actually in the minister's answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre today, I thought he said he was going to say something this week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what he said.


Samuel Victor Railton: That is a little better than a week from now. There have been a great many factors holding us up, such as a full cabinet or full cabinet committee. There have been a great many vacancies because of certain trips and one thing and another. It is very important that the people who have the final say discuss it and say it.
The minister is perfectly honest when he says he has the matter under advisement completely. I think he has it completely in his hands to give the hon. member an answer this week, and that it will be forthcoming.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-RESTORATION OF RAIL SERVICE TO GLENWOOD AND HILL SPRING-REASON FOR DELAY
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I just cannot believe that the minister did not see fit to be in the House tonight or at least to appoint somebody. Oh, I see he has appointed someone.
On November 7, November 18, November 21, December 2, January 28, and January 29 I directed questions to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in an effort to have a railway bridge repaired in Glenwood and Hill Spring which was damaged by floods in June, 1975. On November 7 I asked the following question:
In light of the fact that the CPR informed me over four months ago that a bridge would be provided in the Glenwood-Hill Spring area in order to facilitate the movement of grain, and in light of the fact that this has not even been started, will the minister assure the House that every effort will be made to have this situation corrected immediately?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I think there may be a requirement and a role for the Canadian Transport Commission in relation to the bridge on this particular line, but I will look into the matter.
On November 18 I asked the following question:
In answer to my question in this House on November 7 regarding restoration of rail service to Glenwood and Hill Spring, the minister informed me there may be a requirement and a role for the Canadian Transport Commission. Since that time the CPR has notified Mr. Harold Boucher, President of the Chamber of Commerce in Magrath, that it is awaiting word from the CTC. Would the minister inform the House where the confusion lies, since the CPR says the bridge has to be restored in order to provide service?
The minister replied:
-we have been considering the question of the use of trucks immediately to move grain from that area, and some steps are going forward toward this end.
I then asked the following supplementary question:
In view of the fact the minister has stated that the bridge has to be repaired, would he inform the House why the CPR hauled 15 loads over the bridge but now refuses to haul any more and has cut off service to people in the area?
The minister replied:
I am not sure at which stage the hon. member refers to the materials having been hauled. As I understand it, the bridge is not safe for service and therefore cannot be used to provide service in the ordinary course.
On November 21 I asked the minister the following:
In light of the fact that at a meeting held in Magrath, Alberta in November of 1972 the ex-minister of agriculture, Mr. Olson, informed the meeting that "If any producer suffered any loss due to inability to deliver grain as a result of plugged elevators, CP rail would be responsible", would the minister inform the House whether or not he has instructed the CPR to restore service to Glenwood and Hillspring?
The minister's answer was:
I rather think the former minister of agriculture's words have been taken out of context. The question of restoration of service is one, as I have said before, that depends on certain action on the part of the CTC.
In my supplementary I asked:
In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport has informed me that he has to get a hold of the CTC, that the CTC has told me they have to get a hold of the CPR, and that the CPR has told me they have to get a hold of the Minister of Transport, would the minister please inform the House how I go about restoring service?
And this was the minister's answer:
As I told the hon. member earlier, we are all trying to get a hold of each other.
Next, Mr. Speaker, I quote my question of December 2.
On November 21 the minister received a telegram from the Chamber of Commerce in Magrath as follows:
Advise what arrangements made to move grain from Glenwood and Hillspring elevator. Situation desperate. Grain piled on ground. Deteriorating daily. Surely you can order CP Rail to move grain either by rail or truck.
Again, this was the answer:
Any such instructions would have to originate from the CTC. The problem with grain movement is that there is difficulty with a bridge that can handle ordinary service. There is real doubt about the ability of anyone to order a movement by truck. However, we have been negotiating toward a specific truck movement of grain. We are attempting to put the final details of that movement in place. I hope to be able to tell these communities in short order about that plan.
On January 28 I put my next question as follows:
On November 7, 18 and 21 I asked the minister questions regarding the restoration of rail service to Glenwood and Hill Spring and the minister replied in part on one occasion that the CTC had a part to play in the matter, a bridge was under repair and that the CTC, CPR and the Minister of Transport were all looking for one another. Will the minister inform the House whether or not he plans to do anything about this serious situation?
To which the minister replied:
I will check the exact dates on which certain steps were taken in this regard and bring the hon. member up to date on the matter.
On January 29, in the course of a further question, I said:
There is to be a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce in Glenwood tonight to discuss methods which might be used to restore grain transportation. Will the minister assure the House that he will contact the Chamber of Commerce in Glenwood before their meeting tonight with a statement of his intentions?
This the minister did as promised. I should like to read a telegram which was later sent to the minister as follows:

February 23, 1976

Our executive express sincere appreciation your wire January 29 advising you had requested president Canadian Pacific Railway to immediately repair bridge Cardston Glenwood Line. Have they agreed to do so and when may we expect normal service? Advise.
As of this point in time Mr. Boucher has not been advised of anything. The trucks are not moving grain. The bridge has not been repaired. I just wonder what the answer will be tonight. Will it be that the CPR tenders are let and that an announcement is forthcoming? Will it be the trucks are too expensive? Will it be that nobody wants to work? I think the CPR has been the scapegoat for the Minister of Transport.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) I would like to tell the hon. member I hope to be able to satisfy him with an answer tonight. Before getting to the heart of the answer I should like to summarize briefly the event which caused the disruption of the CP Rail Cardston subdivision run from Stirling through Cardston to Glenwood, some 73 miles.
Last summer a flash flood damaged a bridge, cutting the line west of Cardston to Glenwood and isolating two elevators at Hill Spring-two primary elevators with a capacity of 160,000 bushels-and Glenwood where there are four primary elevators with a total capacity of 250,000 bushels.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: I already know that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: This incident caused 15 rail cars to be marooned by the flood between Cardston and Glenwood. Immediately reacting to this situation it
Adjournment Debate
was possible to winch rail cars one at a time across the bridge. Evidently the ministries concerned did not stop there. We carried out an initial examination of the various alternative means of restoring service and their respective cost elements. This examination indicated that trucking the grain out from these two elevators would be preferable to rebuilding the bridge, bearing in mind this is one of the lines which is being looked at by the Hall Commission whose report is expected by the end of the 1976.
A closer examination of the costs proved that the truck option was higher than the initial indication, because if all the grain were trucked out to Cardston it would create congestion problems at Cardston. Also, trucking distances to the alternate delivery points of Brocket and Fort MacLeod would be greater and would be over roads that have severe load limitations during certain times of the year. Furthermore, the trucking option would involve a second elevation with increased costs.
The higher than anticipated trucking costs caused us to ask the Canadian Transport Commission to carry out a full study of the various rail options. On the basis of the CTC study it became evident that it was preferable to rebuild the bridge at an estimated cost of $75,000. On January 30 the Minister of Transport wrote to Mr. Burbidge, president of the CPR, and asked CP rail to rebuild the bridge. Canadian Pacific rail has agreed and confirmed that in fact construction crews were already on site and CP rail estimated that reconstruction would be completed in approximately six weeks.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.


Tuesday, February 24, 1976