1976-02-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 arising out of the government's disregard of existing statutes of the year 1936 which state that the Canadian section of the Thousand Islands International Bridge will revert to, and become the property of, the government and the people of Ontario as of March 1, 1976. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House condemns the illegal and unwarranted attempt by the government of Canada to seize without compensation as of March 1, 1976 the Thousand Islands International Bridge and all its assets in Canada valued at more than $25 million from the government and the people of Ontario to whom it rightfully belongs by law as of March 1, and further the House orders the government to immediately desist from proceeding further without full consultation with the provincial government and full public disclosure on this matter to the taxpayers of Ontario.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the second anniversary of the St. Valentine's Day march on Parliament Hill by federal government stenographers, protesting the despicable practice of rug-ranking whereby secretaries are paid, not according to their qualifications but according to the person for whom they work. The federal government promised fast action some two years ago and, despite all the pious speeches of International Women's Year, rug-ranking even on Parliament Hill still exists.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), and I should like to present in conjunction with this motion this valentine to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Drury):
That this House condemns the government for its lack of action in dealing with a matter of considerable concern to some 18,000 of its employees-the practice or rug-ranking-thereby showing, once again, that it is quite heartless.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Some hon Members: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I therefore ask leave under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman):
[DOT] (mo)
That this House deplores the fact that no statement was made yesterday, as had been promised, concerning legislation respecting Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war as recommended unanimously by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in its report of June 12, 1975, and calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to make such a statement without further delay.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Cambridge-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Douglas Aircraft apparently intends to lay off some 1000 members of its 1,650 member work force, and in

February 13, 1976
Oral Questions
view of the fact the North American aerospace industry has been experiencing difficulties especially in regards to finding markets for commercial aircraft, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce be instructed to report immediately to this House his progress and future plans regarding the rationalization of the Canadian aerospace industry and how Douglas Aircraft of Canada fits into such a rationalization. The immediate nature of this matter cannot be over-emphasized if we do not want to see a repeat of the loss of skilled craftsmen and technical personnel that occurred when the Avro Arrow program was abruptly ended.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there agreement?
Some hort. Members: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provision of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The head of the Guatemala Forestry Institute has appealed to Canada to rush lumber and galvanized tin to build at least 20,000 cabin type houses for earthquake victims before the rainy season starts in May. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That Canada immediately answer the appeal.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who on Friday last indicated that reconsideration of the export levy would come up before the cabinet sometime this week. When the minister made that statement he presumably knew that half his colleagues would be in British Columbia this week. Before going into the question of how the government reaches decisions on matters, may I ask the minister if the government has taken a decision with regard to any reconsideration of the export levy and if so what is the result?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Not
yet, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is any use asking the Minister of Finance when the decision will be taken since he seems to have been such a poor forecaster last week, but would he tell us when this very important decision will be taken and when it will be announced to the House.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The cabinet will be discussing the question. It is a matter to be discussed. I cannot predict exactly when it will arrive at a decision.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-NUMBER OF PROVINCES SIGNING AGREEMENTS TO JOIN PROGRAM
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I will see if the minister knows-


Mr. Baldwin:: Anything.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -anything about this. Can he tell us whether any more provinces have signed the agreement or have committed themselves definitely to signing an agreement with relation to the anti-inflation program, since some two weeks ago the minister said there were only some special problems of a minor nature standing in the way of such signatures and it is now some four months since the Prime Minister invited the provinces to join this marvellous crusade of the federal government.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been no fresh signatures. There is some indication there might be several more next week. We naturally would very much like the provinces to resolve their internal discussions in this regard and participate as soon as possible. But I go back to the point I have made frequently that this is a program in which we are seeking the support of the provinces and we recognize there are difficulties for the provinces in imposing these kinds of restraints on the people in their own public sector. Therefore, we have been discussing the individual problems before their signatures.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister feel he will have all the ten provinces in by the end of three years?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I appreciate the support of the hon. member for the three year period. That is just another change in his position.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON OPERATION OF PROGRAM
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance with respect to the program which was just alluded to in the question of the Leader of the Opposition. Yesterday the minister said that he would not give the House continuous reports with respect to the operation of the program but, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, the program has been in operation for some four months. Would the minister not agree to give the House a full report next week on the talks with
February 13, 1976

the provinces and on the activities and price initiatives of the Anti-Inflation Board, particularly in view of the cost of living increases that were announced yesterday?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would be pleased to do so, but of course within the context of the appropriate parliamentary opportunities.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-EFFECT ON INVESTMENT
Walter David Baker: In view of the importance of this program in relation to the whole question of the economic position of Canada, and in view of the statement on January 22 of the treasurer of Ontario who echoed the concern of the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada about the potential inflationary dangers of inadequate investment and the difficulty that this program might create for investment, does the government have a prediction as to the capital investment and the increase thereof in 1976, which the Economic Council of Canada cited at 2 per cent for itself and which the treasurer of Ontario called a potentially disastrous situation for Canada? What is the government's prediction for the period?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I
have indicated to previous questions, that is the kind of question which I think could be dealt with most effectively in a general economic statement that accompanies the budget. I do not think there would be much usefulness at this point in trying to make such statement.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION OF DATE FOR BUDGET IN VIEW OF INCREASED COST OF LIVING
Walter David Baker: Having regard to the statement just made by the minister with respect to the budget, if that is where it is to be made, has the minister reconsidered the date he set for the budget in view of these things that are important to the Canadian economy as a whole, and in view of all the unanswered questions with respect to the anti-inflation program and questions that were brought home to us all yesterday by the increase in the cost of living in this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It
seems to me that the hon. member is confusing two things. In the course of the budgetary statement, of course, the government attempts to set out what it feels will be the trend in economic factors, including the levels in investment, and it really makes no sense to do that except in the context of a budget. As to the anti-inflation program, as I mentioned yesterday, there will be opportunities within the House proceedings to discuss either details about this or the program in general, and I would be quite happy to do so within these opportunities.
Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD NUMBER OF CORPORATIONS SELECTED FOR PRICE MONITORING-REQUEST FOR LIST OF NAMES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, in reply to questions put to him by me the minister did not deny that the government had selected only 350 corporations for its price monitoring procedure. I should like to ask the minister explicitly today: has the Anti-Inflation Board selected only 350 corporations for such monitoring and, if so, what was the basis for that selection? Will the government take steps to provide a list to the House, and therefore to the people of Canada, of these corporations?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am
not sure of the figure to which the hon. member is referring. The government has in fact sent out the requirement to file to 6,500 firms.


John Edward Broadbent: I am aware, as I think other members are, that the board sent out a list in January to 6,500 firms, but it is also a fact that they are only looking at some 350 within that list, and it is on that point I want confirmation from the minister. Have they or have they not simply selected 350 from this list of 6,500, which is only in the neighbourhood of 5 per cent, and if so, does the government really believe it can have an effective price control program by monitoring such a few firms?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it would be more accurate to say that while it may not be possible to continuously monitor 6,500 firms, selective monitoring, as indeed occurs under our income taxation system, of the returns-


John Edward Broadbent: Very different.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is exactly the same thing. The sampling would be an effective means of putting those reporting on their operations under scrutiny, and it will be known that a scrutiny is being conducted.


REASON FOR GIVING SOME OFFICIALS ADVANCE NOTICE OF DIVISIONS-REQUEST FOR NAMES OF OFFICIALS
John Edward Broadbent: With regard to the efficacy of the same program, would the minister confirm that the Anti-Inflation Board is giving advance notice of its decisions to seven government officials in government departments outside the Anti-Inflation Board, including the Prime Minister's office, before such information is made available to the public and to other members of the House of Commons? If it is in fact providing such information to seven or so government officials, would the minister inform the House why these people are being informed in advance, and would he provide a list of the names to the House?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am
not sure whether there are seven. It seems to me to be common sense, however, that a board which reports to the government-indeed, through me to parliament-should be keeping in close touch at all times with other aspects of the

February 13, 1976
Oral Questions
Government of Canada. I fail to see any sensible objection to this being done.
* *
*


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister responsible for the census or to the Acting Prime Minister.
As the next quinquennial census will begin on June 1, 1976, can the minister tell the House why the question on the use of language at home will be withdrawn and what about the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism suggesting the question which was maintained in the 1971 census?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the census will be made on a five-year period; but for the nexf census in 1981, the matter will surely be considered.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I want to know why it has been removed. Is it not believed that it will have a tremendous effect on statistics in Canada?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is the five-year census and when we will take a much more complete census with a much larger sampling, in 1981, this question will surely be considered for its application.


TRANSPORT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works as Acting Prime Minister. It has to do with the serious situation with regard to the railway lines in western Canada, and particularly in northern Saskatchewan. I refer to branch lines where no serious effort is being made with regard to snow removal, with the result that small towns and villages are actually isolated. Will the minister get in touch today with both the CNR and CPR and impress upon them the necessity for immediate action?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to see that the officials in the Department of Transport do proceed along the line of action suggested by the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: I was asking the Acting Prime Minister to do this himself because nobody knows where the Minister of Transport is perambulating today, whether

politically or otherwise, and this situation has to be faced now. I therefore ask as a supplementary question if the minister agrees with the widely held view-and I am of that opinion too-that there is a concerted effort on the part of the railway companies to bring an end to branch lines in the western provinces and, in particular, to have no concern for a continuance of passenger service on branch lines?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that view.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the kind of answer the government has given in connection with this whole problem.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When Mr. Ivan Head returns from his trip to London and other capitals to brief ministers and officials on the results of the Prime Minister's discussions with Premier Castro, would it be a courteous gesture if he were to brief the Standing Committee on External Affairs? Would the hon. lady discuss this proposal with the chairman of that Standing Committee?


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I feel like taking rather lightly the suggestion made by my hon. colleague from Fundy-Royal, who should know better, as we say in English.
Of course, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is the first to be informed of such visits made in the name of Canada. In any event, I shall convey to the Minister the remark just made by my hon. colleague.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR MEDICAL SERVICES TO WHITES AND INDIANS IN NORTHERN QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the minister is probably aware there are claims from northern Quebec that isolated communities are receiving no medical facilities because the federal and Quebec governments are in a quandry over jurisdiction. Will the minister please clarify the state of negotiations with Quebec and state who is responsible for medical services for whites and Indians?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for a report on the situation in Mistassini. This detailed report has not yet been handed to me. As soon as I get it, I will be pleased to
February 13, 1976

give a detailed answer to the hon. member's question. However, I can tell him that it happens occasionally that positions are vacant and difficult to fill immediately, whether in Northwest Quebec or in communities located in the Arctic. This can have been one of the situations where some vacancies have not yet been filled.


Douglas Charles Neil: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It has also been claimed that provincial doctors visiting reserves have been asked to stay away by federal nurses. Will the minister clarify this statement and state what interim steps his department is taking to provide proper medical services?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have read the same allegations as did the hon. member, and, as I said earlier, I am not able at all to confirm or deny anything in this respect, but I find it strange to read in the same press report that they complain about the lack of nurses while they say two lines further that the lack of nurses would prevent doctors from going there. Therefore, this seems to me at least incoherent or inconsistent within the same press report.


ALLEGATION ANTHRAX SPORES CARRIED ON IMPORTED WOOL-INQUIRY AS TO INSPECTION PROCEDURES
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of reports that the spores of anthrax have been brought into North America and Canada on wool yarn imported from outside this country, and in view of the danger this poses not only to the health of humans but also animals in Canada, can the minister indicate whether the government carries out any inspection on this type of imported material and if not, could he tell us why not?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. member to the news release which was issued jointly by my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and myself on February 12, in which we reported that spores of anthrax had been found in a certain quantity of the wool imported in Canada. I think that this was found as a result of inquiries and inspections by the inspectors of the departments concerned.


Paul Yewchuk: 
Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give serious consideration to representations of the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, may I direct my question to his parliamentary secretary? As many as nine Canadians, mostly in one group, from Guelph, Ontario, have been missing in Guatemala since the recent earthquakes began. Since their disappearance is causing great anguish to their parents and the public, could the minister consider taking special measures beyond those already being taken to locate these people and so end the suffering?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I can report to the House, to answer the concern of my colleague which is shared by many Canadian families, that special measures are being taken. We think, on the basis of telephone calls received from Canadians here, in Canada, the work of our embassy in Guatemala and the work of our special task force, that the total number of Canadians in Guatemala can be evaluated at 600. Of these, 460 have been located, if I may use that word. The Department of External Affairs is maintaining communication with families to the greatest extent possible during days, nights and weekends.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs? In view of the keen disappointment which will be felt by many who are concerned about the fact that no statement was made yesterday concerning legislation respecting former prisoners of war, may I ask the minister if this matter is still under urgent consideration in cabinet and whether we may anticipate a statement by the minister before the end of February?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yes, the POW matter is still under study, intensive study, by the way. I think, if the hon. member will look at the comments I have made over a period of time concerning the statement to the House, he will see that I said I hoped to be able to make one in two weeks. I still intend to make a statement after I have finished consulting with my cabinet colleagues.

February 13, 1976
Oral Questions


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, within two weeks of what date?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I prefer not to tie myself down at this time.


PENSIONS FOR FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR-POSITION OF MINISTER IF CABINET FAILS TO SUPPORT MEASURE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs? As the cabinet has not supported the minister in his intentions to introduce legislation with regard to prisoners of war, and I should say that everybody realizes the minister's concern, what will his position be in the cabinet if the cabinet will not support him in his intentions?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to my position in the cabinet, I am the one who made the presentation to cabinet and when making my presentation, it was quite obvious what my intentions were.


PRODUCTION OF OIL FROM COAL-REQUEST FOR REPORT OF GOVERNMENTS ATTITUDE TOWARDS PLAN
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As stated in December, the plant of the South African coal, oil and gas corporation is producing petrol, oil and gas from coal. A second plant is now into production. It could eventually lead that country toward greater selfsufficiency in oil from coal. The minister promised, when I first asked a similar question in December, to send an expert to South Africa, to check on this process. I should like to know if this has been done. If so, would the minister tell the House what he has learned and if he is contemplating the construction at an early date of such a plant in Nova Scotia, in order to use our coal, ease our unemployment and help to make us more self-sufficient in oil.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is too soon to say that we have reached the point where we can make a decision with respect to such a plant. I can tell the hon. member that members of my department have been to South Africa. They are familiar with the technology and have been looking at other technologies. They have been talking to the various coal-producing provinces concerned, to the Canadian Coal Association and to various companies within the association trying to interest them in a co-operative approach to new coal technologies.


Gerald William Baldwin: Have you talked to the CTV people yet?


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I regret not having given him notice; I think he is familiar with the problem, because he visited Cape Breton Island some weeks ago. As the residents of Cape Breton Island are suffering economically from the lack of jobs on the island, is the minister, with his departmental officials, formulating new plans for economic development on the island?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member said himself, there have been recent consultations between the representatives of the Sydney area, members of the provincial government and representatives of my own department. During that meeting, they naturally analyzed the situation with regard to unemployment in Cape Breton and attempted to set up, by creating a special committee, a program to be implemented quickly and remedy the difficult situation in which the citizens of that area now find themselves. I know discussions are being pursued and we can hope that, in the near future, the various levels of government will be in a position to make concrete proposals with a view to setting up a program, at least on a temporary basis for the time being, to face present difficulties. But, with regard to a long term development program to create jobs on a permanent basis, the hon. member knows full well that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is now in the process of studying jointly with the provincial government a number of very important industrial files. We still hope that the time will come soon when we will be in a position to give more specific information in this regard.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but, in his absence, I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
In the light of recent events in Angola, and more particularly the recognition of the People's Republic of Angola by the OUA and the effective control the MPLA seems to have on virtually the whole territory, does the minister or the parliamentary secretary consider recommending, in the very near future, recognition of the MPLA as the legitimate government in Angola?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has clearly established the position of Canada as regards the recognition of Angola, in his public statement of January 20. According to the news, a faction seems to progress in the country, but it remains that the rules governing recognition of the state of Angola did not change and that they

February 13, 1976
Oral Questions
Hon, Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs): I realize that our targets and accomplishments are high and that they may appear up in the air to the hon. gentleman, but we have been able to reach them on each occasion and I hope we continue to enjoy the same degree of success.
As to the specific question asked, we are not, of course, attempting to judge where people should live-that is a free choice to be made in this country-but we do work at making practical alternatives available. The specific example I can give the hon. member is the $100 million commuter-rail program designed for new commuter projects which allow for decentralization so that people can live away from the major centres and yet have relatively easy access.
I could refer, also, to our housing programs, and I would be delighted to give the hon. member some details on these, but I am sure you would cut me off, Mr. Speaker. They are intended to provide an effective alternative of a family home for those who are prepared to live outside the larger cities. Present programs also recognize the difficulty young families experience in finding single family homes in major cities. We are making it possible for them to find attractive housing in more concentrated form-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Danson:: -in the major cities. This leaves, as a further alternative, the possibility of moving out from areas of major concentration.


ANTI-INFLATION ADMINISTRATOR INQUIRY AS TO DECISION IN IRVING PULP AND PAPER CASE
Mr. Joe Flynn (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Would he please tell us whether the administrator has made a decision in the Irving pulp and paper case.


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: I thank the hon. member for letting me know he intended to ask this question. I have received a report which I shall be tabling at the appropriate time under Standing Order 41(2). The administrator has, in fact, found Irving Pulp and Paper in contravention of the anti-inflation guidelines and has ordered the company to make payments totalling $125,000 to the Crown and set the per cent increase at 14. I might say that $100,000 represents a portion of the payment and $25,000 is a penalty for having knowingly contravened the guidelines.


FINANCE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It has recently been brought to my attention that some of the banks in Canada have been refusing farm improvement loans to

farmers who are eligible for those loans. I should like to ask the minister whether this legislation is still on the books and whether the banks are supposed to adhere to it. The same thing happened about a year and a half ago and at that time, the hon. gentleman's predecessor made a statement in the House which improved the situation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: thank the hon. gentleman for bringing this matter to my attention. I would be glad to inquire further into it and if he has any specific examples which would assist me in this regard, I would be glad to hear about them.


Robert Elgin McKinley: That is not really answering my question. Are the banks supposed to adhere to this legislation or not?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The banks are supposed to adhere to all the legislation passed by parliament which refers to them. As to the specific question asked, the banks are not obliged to make a loan to anyone, irrespective of the quality of the risk. There is an element of judgment involved. As I said to the hon. member, if he has examples in mind I would be glad to have details and to pursue the matter.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Considering the minister's special interest in opening national parks in Quebec, would the minister tell the House if the federal government still intends to make arrangements with Quebec for establishing Saguenay Park?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government's position has not changed in four years. We would be very pleased to have a national park on Saguenay fjord and to include it among the most popular national parks in Canada.


FINANCE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance if I may get his attention. While he is checking into the farm improvement loan situation will he also look into the availability or otherwise of small business loans which are also government guaranteed loans?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: would be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.
February 13, 1976

apply to any country in the same way. When a government has effective control of the country, we will of course establish immediate official relations with them.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, might I direct my question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister in an attempt to discover whether or not, as part of the negotiations or discussions leading to contractual links with member countries of the European Economic Community, there was any talk or any exchange of notes with respect to the offshore acquisition by Canada of military hardware or engineering work-up and design in connection with either a fleet replacement program for maritime command or the acquisition of a tank replacement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not
aware of any such arrangements, either actual or contemplated, but I will be glad to inquire.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services and it concerns technical problems relating to the long-term financing of the long-range patrol aircraft. Is it true that after eight years of study and two years in the final definition stage at a cost of $11 million, the contract has been in the hands of the government since September last, and the president of Lockheed came to Canada for the formal signing in January before anyone noticed that the Canadian government was to pay to Lockheed some $100 million in front-end or progress payments?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, we are now studying the problem of long term financing. The Minister of National Defence is taking a very close look at it and I would not like, for the time being, to disclose anything which might harm the negotiations. This is why I am requesting the hon. member to be patient. I think that within a few days the Minister of National Defence and I will be able to say exactly what has been the fate of this contract.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Patience is a great Canadian virtue, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know whether it is true that the Canadian government almost unbelievably assumed that
Oral Questions
Lockheed would provide the so-called long-term financing and did not have the required funds available itself-that it came as a shock to the Canadian government that it was expected to put up the money, and that for the last six weeks it has been looking for the funds?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member has the right to make his comments but I shall stick to what I said in the first part of my reply.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister consequent upon a speech made by the Minister of Manpower to the Toronto Sales Club when he was discussing the subject of national population growth. In connection with a national demographic agreement, including national population goals, have the provinces and territories indicated that they are not prepared to assist in the drafting of such an agreement and, if so, is it the intention of the government to introduce a form of policy statement on national population goals prior to the introduction of amendments to the Immigration Act?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would be glad to discuss that question with the Minister of Manpower when he recovers the full use of his health.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You mean the full use of his faculties.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do hope the Acting Prime Minister will be forceful in that regard in terms of indicating to the minister that it is necessary to have this policy prior to the introduction of amendments to the Immigration Act.



HOUSING


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a question for the minister responsible for housing, who is involved in the discussion with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In that same speech in Toronto- perhaps the minister did not hear me-the Minister of Manpower made some reference to national population goals and said it was necessary that government do more to encourage a population shift from major cities to small towns, adding: "in my view this affects transportation, education, housing, communication and social services". Could the minister advise me whether he will be introducing any policies more successful than those he has introduced in the past concerning housing which would allow such a shift from major cities to smaller towns? Is he thinking in this regard or is he still up in the air?
21 1 30-69
i
February 13, 1976

apply to any country in the same way. When a government has effective control of the country, we will of course establish immediate official relations with them.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, might I direct my question to the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister in an attempt to discover whether or not, as part of the negotiations or discussions leading to contractual links with member countries of the European Economic Community, there was any talk or any exchange of notes with respect to the offshore acquisition by Canada of military hardware or engineering work-up and design in connection with either a fleet replacement program for maritime command or the acquisition of a tank replacement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not
aware of any such arrangements, either actual or contemplated, but I will be glad to inquire.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services and it concerns technical problems relating to the long-term financing of the long-range patrol aircraft. Is it true that after eight years of study and two years in the final definition stage at a cost of $11 million, the contract has been in the hands of the government since September last, and the president of Lockheed came to Canada for the formal signing in January before anyone noticed that the Canadian government was to pay to Lockheed some $100 million in front-end or progress payments?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, we are now studying the problem of long term financing. The Minister of National Defence is taking a very close look at it and I would not like, for the time being, to disclose anything which might harm the negotiations. This is why I am requesting the hon. member to be patient. I think that within a few days the Minister of National Defence and I will be able to say exactly what has been the fate of this contract.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Patience is a great Canadian virtue, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know whether it is true that the Canadian government almost unbelievably assumed that
Oral Questions
Lockheed would provide the so-called long-term financing and did not have the required funds available itself-that it came as a shock to the Canadian government that it was expected to put up the money, and that for the last six weeks it has been looking for the funds?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member has the right to make his comments but I shall stick to what I said in the first part of my reply.



IMMIGRATION


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister consequent upon a speech made by the Minister of Manpower to the Toronto Sales Club when he was discussing the subject of national population growth. In connection with a national demographic agreement, including national population goals, have the provinces and territories indicated that they are not prepared to assist in the drafting of such an agreement and, if so, is it the intention of the government to introduce a form of policy statement on national population goals prior to the introduction of amendments to the Immigration Act?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would be glad to discuss that question with the Minister of Manpower when he recovers the full use of his health.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You mean the full use of his faculties.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do hope the Acting Prime Minister will be forceful in that regard in terms of indicating to the minister that it is necessary to have this policy prior to the introduction of amendments to the Immigration Act.



HOUSING


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a question for the minister responsible for housing, who is involved in the discussion with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In that same speech in Toronto- perhaps the minister did not hear me-the Minister of Manpower made some reference to national population goals and said it was necessary that government do more to encourage a population shift from major cities to small towns, adding: "in my view this affects transportation, education, housing, communication and social services". Could the minister advise me whether he will be introducing any policies more successful than those he has introduced in the past concerning housing which would allow such a shift from major cities to smaller towns? Is he thinking in this regard or is he still up in the air?
10920

Oral Questions


Barnett Jerome Danson: I realize that our targets and accomplishments are high and that they may appear up in the air to the hon. gentleman, but we have been able to reach them on each occasion and I hope we continue to enjoy the same degree of success.
As to the specific question asked, we are not, of course, attempting to judge where people should live-that is a free choice to be made in this country-but we do work at making practical alternatives available. The specific example I can give the hon. member is the $100 million commuter-rail program designed for new commuter projects which allow for decentralization so that people can live away from the major centres and yet have relatively easy access.
I could refer, also, to our housing programs, and I would be delighted to give the hon. member some details on these, but I am sure you would cut me off, Mr. Speaker. They are intended to provide an effective alternative of a family home for those who are prepared to live outside the larger cities. Present programs also recognize the difficulty young families experience in finding single family homes in major cities. We are making it possible for them to find attractive housing in more concentrated form-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Barnett Jerome Danson: -in the major cities. This leaves, as a further alternative, the possibility of moving out from areas of major concentration.



ANTI-INFLATION ADMINISTRATOR INQUIRY AS TO DECISION IN IRVING PULP AND PAPER CASE

Patrick Joseph Flynn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Would he please tell us whether the administrator has made a decision in the Irving pulp and paper case.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: thank the hon. member for letting me know he intended to ask this question. I have received a report which I shall be tabling at the appropriate time under Standing Order 41(2). The administrator has, in fact, found Irving Pulp and Paper in contravention of the anti-inflation guidelines and has ordered the company to make payments totalling $125,000 to the Crown and set the per cent increase at 14. I might say that $100,000 represents a portion of the payment and $25,000 is a penalty for having knowingly contravened the guidelines.



FINANCE


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It has recently been brought to my attention that some of the banks in Canada have been refusing farm improvement loans to

farmers who are eligible for those loans. I should like to ask the minister whether this legislation is still on the books and whether the banks are supposed to adhere to it. The same thing happened about a year and a half ago and at that time, the hon. gentleman's predecessor made a statement in the House which improved the situation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: thank the hon. gentleman for bringing this matter to my attention. I would be glad to inquire further into it and if he has any specific examples which would assist me in this regard, I would be glad to hear about them.


Robert Elgin McKinley: That is not really answering my question. Are the banks supposed to adhere to this legislation or not?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The banks are supposed to adhere to all the legislation passed by parliament which refers to them. As to the specific question asked, the banks are not obliged to make a loan to anyone, irrespective of the quality of the risk. There is an element of judgment involved. As I said to the hon. member, if he has examples in mind I would be glad to have details and to pursue the matter.



NATIONAL PARKS


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Considering the minister's special interest in opening national parks in Quebec, would the minister tell the House if the federal government still intends to make arrangements with Quebec for establishing Saguenay Park?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the federal government's position has not changed in four years. We would be very pleased to have a national park on Saguenay fjord and to include it among the most popular national parks in Canada.



FINANCE


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance if I may get his attention. While he is checking into the farm improvement loan situation will he also look into the availability or otherwise of small business loans which are also government guaranteed loans?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: would be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.
February 13, 1976



EVIDENCE OF MERCURY POISONING AMONG INDIANS IN QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROVIDE ALTERNATE SOURCE OF PROTEIN

Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and it concerns his responsibility for the health of the native people of Canada. A report issued by Dr. Barbeau of the provincial health department in Quebec states that out of 48 Cree Indians examined 20 have signs of Minimata disease and three are confirmed as having brain damage. Since the main source of protein in that area, as it was in Grassy Narrows, is fish, and since the summer season for these people is approaching, what plans has the government made with regard to providing alternate protein sources for these people? Are we going to say again, "don't eat fish"?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first of all, Dr. Barbeau is not a civil servant of the provincial government, but an eminent doctor practising in a Montreal hospital. About the question relating to the protein and the food taken by the Indians concerned, we are in very close consultation with the provincial government in an attempt to correct the situation and plans are under review on this matter. As the hon. member knows, the mercury contamination in this area seems to stem from natural elements. It is an exceptional situation. Comprehensive measures therefore will have to be taken throughout the whole region.



MERCURY POISONING AMONG INDIANS-SUGGESTED MASSIVE EXAMINATION OF NATIVES TO IDENTIFY VICTIMS

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That "exceptional situation" appears to be arising all across the country. The National Indian Brotherhood have identified vast areas where there is potential Minamata disease. In view of the fact that there have only been 48 examinations in this particular area of complaints, would the minister's department make some kind of massive examination of those people who are now living in areas which appear to be contaminated? In other words, when are we going to start doing something to prevent an epidemic of mercury poisoning in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the hon. member to spread panic among the people concerned. In each area involved, doctors regularly perform intensive tests. We have asked for the cooperation of the population everywhere there seems to be problems. Most of the times, we are dealing with a nomadic population which is hard to get in touch with, but all possible efforts are made, with the cooperation of the provincial governments, to contact the Indians concerned. All I can say to the hon. member is that we are trying our best to trace as soon as possible everyone
Oral Questions
likely to carry this disease in order to take the measures to prevent the recurrence of such situations.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. In view of the fact that on two occasions my office tried to reach my constituency but in fact reached Sydney, Australia, would the minister not agree that it would be cheaper to buy new equipment? If not, could she at least give us touch tone dialing so that we could get to Australia sooner?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I suffer from the same problem as the hon. member. You may be sure that I am doing all I can to get these people to get our phones to work.



HOUSING


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, and let us hope that it will be short and sweet on this Friday the thirteenth. On February 6,1 asked the minister whether he would look into the suggestion that a rebate of subsidy, given in view of the delay of registration of homes under the AHOP program, be looked into immediately. Has the minister had an opportunity to look into the situation and can he report to the House at this time?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am looking into the situation. I had hoped to have an answer today for the hon. member but it did not reach me in time for the question period. I am following up the matter, and I hope that I will have an answer for him on Monday.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Solicitor General. Has the Solicitor General knowledge of a report sent to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as member for Vancouver Centre, as well as to myself, that about 12 former Hong Kong policemen who fled Hong Kong in the face of an investigation by the independent commission against corruption have obtained official permission to enter Canada and are presently living in the Vancouver area? If the Solicitor General has not, would he consult with his colleagues the Minister

February 13, 1976
Oral Questions
of Justice and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to ensure that a dangerous situation is not allowed to develop?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of such a report, but I will be pleased to consult with the Minister of Justice and the RCMP about it.
* *
*



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board, in the absence of the Prime Minister.
Last week, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont suggested publicly an apparently painless way for Ottawa to redistribute the tax receipt surpluses generated by the Olympic Games and claimed by Quebec. At the same time the Minister of Communications stated that the federal government had already done enough and should not-as Mr. Bourassa claims-again pay part of the costs and deficits. Is the minister today in a position in the public interest to say to this House which of the two statements is closer to the position of the federal government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government is well known; we contributed substantially to the self-financing of the games by passing legislation with respect to the lottery, the stamps and the coins, and in addition we made commitments for the broadcasting of the games and their security. That is the contribution of the federal government-a very substantial contribution-and that is the policy of the federal government.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
In view of the statement made by the minister, can he say to the House whether the statement by the Minister of Communications represents the position of the government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister on television and I think she put the position of the federal government very well when she said that the contributions of the federal government are well known and will remain what they are.
* *
*



MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO LEGISLATIVE ACTION UNTIL ENERGY BOARD AND BERGER COMMISSION HEARINGS COMPLETED

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and arises out of press reports that the government has refused to rule out the possibility of legislative action for the construction of the Mackenzie

valley pipeline in the event that the hearings of the National Energy Board are further adjourned. I want to ask the minister whether he can give this House categorical assurance that there will be no legislative action taken by the government for the construction of the Mackenzie valley pipeline until the National Energy Board and the Berger hearings have been completed, the reports have been received by the government and considered by this House?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been made very clear in the past that we intend the regulatory process, the NEB hearings and the Berger hearings to be completed before any action is taken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I know that has been the stated policy of the government, but in view of press reports that the government has refused to rule out the possibility of legislative action, do I take the minister's statement today to be categorical assurance that no legislative action will be taken for the construction of the Mackenzie valley pipeline?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should take the minister's statement for what it is.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister or, if he is unaware of the subject, to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the government agree to halt the attempted seizure as of March 1 of the Thousand Islands International Bridge in view of the fact that existing statutes provide that it belongs as of that date to the province of Ontario, or as may be otherwise directed by the province of Ontario by order in council, since such order in council has never been passed? If the federal government does intend to proceed, would they agree to pay the province of Ontario at least $25 million compensation?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time wisdom tells me to take notice of this question and to pass it on to my minister.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. As the delicate environment of Canada is becoming more and more important, and since the minister signed this week
February 13, 1976

the Okanagan water basin agreement in my riding, I would ask the minister whether he is going to back up this signing with money and resources to bring this to a successful conclusion, and whether in fact he is serious about this agreement.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: am very serious, Mr. Speaker.



HARBOURS


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. As the port of Vancouver provides well over 50 per cent of the total revenues earned by the National Harbours Board, can the Acting Prime Minister give the House the rationale behind the 92 per cent increase in water lot lease rates in the port and harbour of Vancouver?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I should like to attempt to give the rationale in answer to a question during this period. However, the fact that Vancouver has a very successful economic record of port operations does not mean that the basic rental and operational rates should not be brought up to date.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, would the Acting Prime Minister assure the House tht the cost benefit studies behind the very high percentage increase in tariffs being imposed by the Minister of Transport to overcome "deficits" do not include such unrelated items as the St. Lawrence Seaway deficit, the port deficits at Halifax, Montreal and Quebec City, the capital losses at Pickering and the champagne, caviar, tear gas party at Mirabel?



WATER QUALITY STUDY-ADEQUACY OF TERMS OF REFERENCE

Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the minister's recently announced study of the quality of water in Canada, are the terms of reference and investigation broad enough to determine the presence of elements such as mercury, arsenic and asbestos as well as potential radiation contamination?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact it has been some two months since the offer was made by DREE in respect of Crocus Foods in Manitoba, surely the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion must have some indication now as to the position taken by the province of Manitoba regarding that DREE grant.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, indeed it was two months ago that an offer was made to that Manitoba corporation known as Crocus Foods and we are still waiting for that business to inform us of its decision. Of course, after an offer is made the business must consider it in terms of its project and analyze all its implications. I presume that is what they are doing now and it should not be long before they contact us to tell us about their decision.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with reference to both a motion under Standing Order 43 and a question asked during the question period by the hon. member for Leeds. I simply wish to call the attention of the House and the hon. member to Bill C-82 standing on the order paper which offers a complete explanation to both the point raised in the motion under Standing Order 43 and the question raised by the hon. member for Leeds.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I missed the first few remarks of the hon. parliamentary secretary, but I gathered he was referring to Bill C-82 in respect of the subject of the Thousand Islands bridge and suggesting that in fact it answers the motion under Standing Order 43 and the question I raised.
With all due respect, I must say that-I am sure unintentionally-the parliamentary secretary is misleading the House because the bill is the reason I asked the question and raised the subject in the first place. It most certainly does not answer the question. The province of Ontario has not passed an order in council; therefore, the act being proceeded with is not in accordance with the Statutes of Canada. I feel I am quite in order in asking these questions, in view of the fact that the province and the people of Ontario are further being milked by this government of $25 million in assets which rightfully belong to them as of March 1, or as they may otherwise direct. May I say that they have not otherwise directed.
The only thing in existence is a letter from the Premier of Ontario to the Prime Minister of Canada saying that Ontario is not interested in getting into the bridge business and suggesting further consultation. I believe that is exactly where the matter stands. Therefore, the information being given to the House at this time is not entirely correct and I would ask the government to provide the House with a proper answer to the question I raised.
10924

February 13, 1976
Energy



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table two copies, in both official languages, of a report relating to warrants issued under the Officials Secrets Act for the period January 1, 1975, to December 31, 1975, pursuant to section 16(5) of the said act as amended by chapter 30, Statutes of Canada 1973-74.


TABLING OF REPORT ON AUTHORIZATIONS AND INTERCEPTIONS UNDER CRIMINAL CODE
William Warren Allmand: In addition, Mr. Speaker, I wish to table two copies, in both official languages, of a report relating to authorizations and interceptions under the Criminal Code for the period January 1, 1975, to December 31, 1975, pursuant to section 178.22 of the said Code as amended by chapter 50, Statutes of Canada 1973-74.


ANTI-INFLATION ADMINISTRATION TABLING OF REPORT REGARDING REFERENCE ON IRVING PULP AND PAPER AGREEMENT
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in the House two copies, in both official languages, of the report of the administrator regarding the reference on the Irving Pulp and Paper agreement.


TABLING OF GUIDELINES ON OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION
Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, the guidelines concerning acquisition of interests in oil and gas exploration rights. Those guidelines are tabled in accordance with the provisions of Foreign Investment Review Act section 4(2).


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to this motion. In light of the great enthusiasm shown by hon. members of the House, including those on the government side, for the principle of more open government which led yesterday to the passage of a motion in the name of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants, it might well be that this could be deemed to be merged with that motion and this motion could be withdrawn. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants has indicated that he would be prepared to have this motion withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


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. 3,232, 3,691, 3,700, 3,932.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Under the Small Businesses Loans Act or prior legislation for each year 1970 to date, by province, how many loans were (a) applied for (b) granted and what was their total value?
2.	For the same years, by province, how many loans were granted in communities with a population of (a) 500,000 or more (b) 100,000 to 500,000 (c) 50,000 to 100,000 (d) 10,000 to 50,000 (e) 5,000 to 10,000 (f) under 5,000?
3.	What was the total (a) value (b) number of loans made by each banking institution eligible to take advantage of the legislation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1.
(a) Application for a loan under this plan is made to a chartered bank or other designated lender. The number of applications made to these institutions is not reported to the Department.
(b) Year	No.	$(000)1970	1367	13,7721971	2129	22,2691972	2846	28,3281973	3076	31,6441974	2820	32,3831975 (to Sept. 30)	3161	46,528
February 13, 1976

Order Paper Questions
2. Data is not maintained by size of community.
1970	1971	1972	1973	1974BANK	No.	$(000)	No.	$(000)	No.	$(000)	No.	$(000)	No.	$(000)Bank of Montreal	1132	1212	322	2880	433	3407	425	3817	362	3389Bank of Nova Scotia	110	932	157	1534	134	1449	213	1792	260	3181Royal Bank of Canada	625	5447	743	6742	952	8303	1171	11144	1455	16387Toronto-Dominion Bank	97	1120	163	1770	181	1834	234	2415	360	4377Canadian National Bank	169	2441	382	4902	741	8732	652	7744	97	1200Provincial Bank	17	230	33	443	41	516	121	1752	124	1915Can. Imp. Bk. of Commerce	213	2371	319	3919	358	4038	254	2902	155	1857Bank of British Columbia	4	18	8	41	4	27	1	17	2	43Mercantile Bank	-	-	1	10	Credit Unions	-	-	2	36	1	13	5	62	5	34Total	1367	13772	2129	22269	2846	28328	3076	31644	2820	32383


Mr. Reynolds: Was there a meeting or meetings held at the Harrison Hot Springs Hotel in November, 1975 by officials of the Pacific Region of the Penitentiary Service and, if so (a) who was in attendance (b) what was the purpose (c) what were the costs?


William Warren Allmand: A meeting was held at the Harrison Hot Springs Hotel on November 25 and 26, 1975 by officials of the Pacific Region of the Penitentiary Service, (a) ten senior officers of the Pacific Region of the Penitentiary Service, one officer of the RCMP and one officer of the New Westminster Police Force were in attendance, (b) The purpose of the meeting was to review the hostage-taking incident which took place at the British Columbia Penitentiary last summer in order to develop policy and procedures in the handling of possible recurrences of such incident. Among the matters discussed were the composition, role and training of negotiating teams and tactical response teams; the determination of operational procedures as well as administrative procedures to operate crisis centres, media relation centres and the provision of information to media and families of the personnel involved, (c) The total cost of this conference is estimated at $1,150.


Mr. Roy (Laval): 1.	During the fiscal years 1970 to 1974, what was the total amount claimed in repayment for damages caused by flooding in the (a) Province of Quebec (b) Constituency of Laval (c) City of Laval?
2.	Of the total amount claimed in the Constituency of Laval and the City of Laval, what was the amount of money and the number of claims accepted for reimbursement under the federal-provincial agreement for (a) individuals (b) the provincial government (c) municipal governments (d) school boards (e) businesses or industries (f) others?
3.	Of the total amount accepted for payment in the Province of Quebec, what amount will be provided by (a) government (b) provincial government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1.
(a) During the fiscal years 1970 to 1974 only the 1974 spring floods in Quebec were of a magnitude sufficient to warrant federal assistance. The federal government offered to share with the province the cost of relief and reconstruction in accordance with the established formula and guidelines. The disaster assistance program established by the province has now been completed and the province is in the process of preparing an official claim for payment of the federal share of costs. The claim has not yet been received but is expected shortly, (b) and (c) The province has not submitted a detailed statement of account showing the amounts expended on a regional basis. It is expected however that this information will be obtained in the course of the audit.
2 and 3. See above.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Has the government allotted money to the Canada World Youth Programme since its inception and, if so, in what amount?
2.	How many Canadians were accepted under the programme?
3.	What remuneration is received by young Canadians in foreign countries?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. See answer to Question No. 3,351.
2.	1974-75, 318; 1975-76, 318.
3.	When in foreign countries CWY participants receive room and board, plus a daily allowance equivalent to one dollar purchasing power in Canada.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 3,485 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
21 130-70%

February 13, 1976
Order Paper Questions

Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 3,280, 3,281, 3,282, 3,321, 3,340, 3,349 and 3,350 could be made orders for return, those returns would be tabled immediately. I also ask for the consent of the House to table immediately the information which have already been delivered to us. The other information will be tabled in both official language as soon as I get them.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the conditions expressed by the hon. parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that the questions enumerated are deemed to have been answered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Coates: How many members of the present Cabinet have had office renovations and new furnishings for either their House of Commons office or their departmental office in the past two years and, in each case, what was the cost of the (a) renovation (b) new furnishings provided on a per item basis?
Return tabled.


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many of the present Deputy Ministers have had office renovations carried out in the past two years and, in each case, how long (a) after they assumed their positions did they have the renovations carried out (b) prior to the start of renovation had renovations previously been carried out?
2.	In each case (a) what was the cost of the renovations (b) what did it involve (c) if not completed, what is the estimated cost on completion (d) what was the cost of refurnishing the offices?
3.	(a) What was the cost of refurnishing the offices in cases where they were not renovated (b) what was the cost of each item?
Return tabled.


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many of the present Assistant Deputy Ministers have had office renovations carried out in the past two years and, in each case, how long (a) after they assumed their positions did they have the renovations carried out (b) prior to the start of renovation had renovations previously been carried out?
2.	In each case (a) what was the cost of the renovations (b) what did it involve (c) if not completed, what is the estimated cost on completion (d) what was the cost of refurnishing the offices?
3.	(a) What was the cost of refurnishing the offices in cases where they were not renovated (b) what was the cost of each item?
Return tabled.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the details of government contracts awarded since April 20, 1968 to (a) Canus Equipment Ltd. (b) Cadillac Plastics including, in each case (i) amount of contract (ii) date awarded (iii) purpose (iv) location of work done?
2.	In each case, were tenders called and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what are the (i) names of all those who tendered (ii) amount of each tender?
Return tabled.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the total of (a) permanent and full-time employees (b) non-permanent but full-time employees (c) casual or seasonal employees by all Crown corporations?
2.	Of the total number of employees in all categories, how many are (a) unilingual English (b) unilingual French (c) bilingual?
Return tabled.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What are the (a) names (b) positions (c) responsibilities (d) salaries of the personal staff of (i) the Prime Minister (ii) each Cabinet Minister (iii) each Parliamentary Secretary?
2.	What limits are placed upon the hiring of staff by (a) the Prime Minister (b) Cabinet Ministers (c) Parliamentary Secretaries?
Return tabled.


Mr. Coates: How many persons are under contract to Crown corporations who are in receipt of a salary and expenses of $30,000 per year or more and, in each case (a) what is the actual amount of the contract (b) for what period (c) what are their specific responsibilities and what is their mother tongue?
Return tabled.


Mr. Coates: 1.	(a) How many persons have been retained by each department who are in receipt of $30,000 or more in salary and expenses (b) what are their names (c) what is their mother tongue (d) what special services are they performing (e) what is the actual amount they are receiving?
2.	In each case, for what period of time does their contract run?
Return tabled.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1. What were the names of all lawyers used in the Province of Saskatchewan by the government or any Crown corporation in (a) 1974 (b) the first six months of 1975?
February 13, 1976

2.	In each case, what were the amounts of fees paid to each?
3.	In each case, did any lawyer or firm receive fees exceeding $5,000 and, if so, what were the names of such lawyers or firms and the amount of fees paid to each?
Return tabled.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of informing the House, it is the government's intention to proceed with Bill C-58, and if that bill should be completed, all the votes will be deferred until Monday, I would suggest at eight o'clock in the evening. We would then proceed to Bill C-68, which is the medicare act.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is perfectly all right, Mr. Speaker. However, in light of the very interesting exchange which took place a little while ago between the hon. parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Leeds, the hon. member might like to have Bill C-82 introduced and we could then see what sort of legal argument he is able to make.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, if we dealt with Bill C-82, the facts would come to light and we would destroy all the publicity the hon. member for Leeds might have gained.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why don't you do it, then?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council do follow from our discussions, but it seems to me there is one point that was not made clear and which perhaps should be explained. When the parliamentary secretary suggested that when the debate finishes today the votes would be deferred until Monday, should it not be clear that we cannot proceed with the discussion of motions Nos. 5 and 6 until there has been a vote on motion No. 4, both the amendment and the motion itself? In other words, we are not in a position simply to wind up the debate today and say we will take all the votes on Monday night. After there has been a vote on motion No. 4 we will still have motions Nos. 5 and 6 to deal with.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, that point ought to have been made clear and I thank the hon. gentleman for having done so.


Mr. Speaker:: It may very well be that it ought to be made clear. However, it has not been. The fact is that it is not possible even to consider the procedural regularity of motion No. 5 unless and until the House has made a determination on motion No. 4. It may very well be, after our division on motion No. 4, that motion No. 5 cannot continue on the order paper. Therefore, the House will recall that when discussion on motion No. 4 was completed, discussion on motion No. 5 was deferred until that division can be taken, and motion No. 6 was stood.
The House could either go on, presumably, to discuss any
outstanding motions which remain, or else go to some
Non-Canadian Publications
other business until such time as the House divides on motion No. 4, which I understand, and which I take it is agreed to by the House, will in any event not take place this day. In other words, if the discussion on the motions presently before the House concludes today, the House will defer any divisions until some time on Monday and then either go to motions other than Nos. 5 and 6 or to some other business. Is that agreed?


Jean-Jacques Blais: That is the understanding that has been reached between the parties, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, stemming from what the parliamentary secretary said just a moment ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In the interest of fairness, comments about the bill that were referred to by the parliamentary secretary were made by him by way of a non-point of order. I therefore permitted the hon. member for Leeds to make a lengthy rejoinder, in a sense of fair play. The non-point of order was not raised by the parliamentary secretary but by the House leader of the official opposition. I permitted a very brief comment by the parliamentary secretary. All of them were non-points of order, and I have no intention of letting it go on as a discussion between the parties about the merits of that particular piece of legislation. Orders of the day.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say I did not rise on anything pertaining to the bill itself or anything said previously. I was rising in respect of a statement made by the parliamentary secretary that if he were to proceed with the introduction of this bill he would therefore be destroying the publicity that I, as the member for Leeds, was getting out of raising this matter. I think that is a completely ridiculous, uncalled-for an unwarranted statement. I have raised a matter of grave concern to thousands of my constituents and the people of Ontario who are being robbed by the government of approximately $25 million. To be told-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thought I made it clear to the hon. member for Leeds that I allowed him to go quite considerably beyond the bounds of ordinary procedure in making a rather complex statement on what I thought was a rather full statement about the matter, on a non-point of order, and I think the matter ought to end there. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 11, consideration of Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, as
[Stage Direction]
February 13, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the bill, which I should like to present. Perhaps I might read it now. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That motion No. 7 be amended by deleting the proposed subparagraph (e) and substituting therefor:
"(c) a written agreement entered into after the coming into force of this section with a Canadian subsidiary of a foreign broadcasting undertaking if the minister of the Department of National Revenue has approved a plan submitted by the said Canadian subsidiary providing for compensatory payment by such subsidiary by the allocation of funds to Canadian television program production, extension of Canadian television service, development of Canadian talent, or otherwise for the benefit of Canadian broadcasting:
The minister may require as a condition for entering into any such agreement that a percentage, to be stipulated by the minister, of the voting shares of such subsidiary be beneficially owned by Canadian citizens.
This subamendment is in response to a statement made by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) and is designed to eliminate his objections to the amendments recorded in respect of motion No. 7.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that the seconder should be the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley). Is it agreed, pursuant to the motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex, that motion No. 7 standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) be amended in accordance with the terms of the motion just read by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre?


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, this debate has been carried on for a number of hours. I should like to say at the outset that the debate in no way is meant to be critical of the Canadian broadcasting systems, the networks or any of the stations affiliated with the Canadian Broadcasting Association, or the television stations. I have noticed, from reading Hansard, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications has made some statements regarding the statements I have made in relation to the situation involving KVOS-TV, Bellingham. I have pointed out that I am not only very pleased with the work BC-TV has done in Vancouver, but I wish it well and trust it will continue to do well.
I believe in the free enterprise system in a competitive market. I think BC-TV has prospered because it is in a competitive system and has good business management. The parliamentary secretary objected to the amendments I have submitted in order to protect the competitive system. He objects because he says this is an infringement of the legislation or, rather, an infringement and interlacing of tax legislation with the CRTC. As recorded at page 10849 of Hansard, the parliamentary secretary said:
Hon. members cannot argue out of both sides of their mouths. I hope hon. members will consider that when they talk about the situation in Detroit and Windsor. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock went on to say that this is in effect a tax bill to update the Broadcasting Act. Of course nothing could be further from the fact of the matter. It is indeed for the very reason it is a tax bill that it means to give incentives to Canadians to operate in Canada, and to encourage Canadian businesses [Mr. Speaker.)
to deal with other Canadian businesses to which they interrelate. It is precisely for that reason we are presenting this action here in the form of a tax bill.
That is also precisely the reason why none of these amendments make any sense because if we accepted them we would be doing exactly what the hon. member tried to attack us for doing. If we took his amendments we would be saying, "OK, let us through a tax bill make a special exemption which would change the whole purport of the Broadcasting Act." Surely that is the fundamental reason why these amendments cannot be given serious consideration.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, all I am asking is that hon. members of the House recognize that while there must be a national broadcasting policy, surely, in the interest of fairness, there must also be consideration of regional differences. I think that if we want to talk about inconsistencies, we might well point to the other matters in Bill C-58 which is under discussion at this time.
It seems somewhat ludicrous for the parliamentary secretary to say that we cannot make these kinds of distinctions, when the government has made a very great distinction between the situation facing Reader's Digest and that facing Time magazine, when actually it has launched an attack on Time magazine and yet has been able to find a way to spare Reader's Digest. I compliment them on sparing Reader's Digest and I am happy to see that it will remain in operation in Canada. As others have said, let me say that Reader's Digest is certainly not yet out of the woods on this issue, because it is still faced with the vicissitudes and whims of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) when interpreting the regulations. He did not operate outside the Income Tax Act when he made the special provision for Reader's Digest.
That is simply all that we are asking for, the same kind of treatment for KVOS-TV, Bellingham. We are not denying the need for a national broadcasting policy, the need for sovereignty of broadcasting facilities within Canada and the need to have a licensing policy which deals with all the broadcasting facilities in Canada. That must be safeguarded by statute. But the government has already violated the statute by making special deals for one publishing company, operating outside the statute and by way of regulations. In a matter of two or three months it has changed its own interpretation of those very regulations which it says it will use as guidelines for the publishing industry.
Time and time again we heard the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) state in committee that 80 per cent different was the rule which would apply to Reader's Digest. We believed him and we were all convinced, as the witnesses said in committee that under these regulations Reader's Digest could not continue to survive. Yet, what happened a few months later? Suddenly the Minister of National Revenue had a ray of light. He got an insight which he had not had before, and he admitted candidly in the House that as a result of discussions in committee and in private he realized that Reader's Digest could not function under the regulations as they had been interpreted.
That is exactly what we are saying about KVOS-TV, Bellingham, that under the present circumstances it would do a grave injustice to KVOS to operate within the statute as it is in its present form. If we want to talk about
February 13, 1976

inconsistencies, I would refer hon. members to Hansard of February 4, page 10641.1 asked the minister:
I wonder if the Secretary of State would not agree that if a writer is restricted by regulation as to how he can write, and the publisher is restricted by regulation as to what he can publish, it is not reasonable to suppose that there is a comparable restriction on the free flow of information?
The Secretary of State replied:
If I understood the question, and I am not altogether sure I did, I think I would probably have to agree. But I do not see that that is relevant to Bill C-58 or to the debate.
Yet, just ten minutes previously, as recorded on page 10638 of Hansard, the minister said:
Let me reiterate that the government is not seeking in any way to control the freedom of magazine publishers and editors. Nor do we want to impose our will upon the people of Canada and regulate their reading habits. Bill C-58 in no way impinges upon freedom of expression.
I would ask the Secretary of State to please be consistent in what he is saying. On one hand he says he does not want to impinge upon freedom of expression, and on the other he concedes that Bill C-58, if interpreted according to my question, would impinge upon freedom of expression. That, to me, is a blatant inconsistency. If the parliamentary secretary wanted to look for inconsistencies in this bill, let him look at the words of the Secretary of State.
I say, again, that we are asking to have freedom for people in southern British Columbia to enjoy the viewer selection that is theirs today without the injurious restrictions placed upon them by the prejudicial clauses in Bill C-58. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggett), in the debate on Wednesday, made what I think is a very helpful proposal. He suggested that where matters of broadcasting come into conflict with international relations, when broadcasting crosses the forty-ninth parallel from both sides and creates problems of international communication and tax problems, these matters should be referred to a commission which would adjudicate on them.
I think that is a helpful suggestion, and we have a precedent for this. The International Joint Commission, which has been operating for generations, sits down yearly-almost constantly nowadays-and brings together both sides in an area of dispute and conflict regarding water and fishing rights as they affect our international relations. Those of us from British Columbia are well aware of the IJC discussions recently concerning fishing rights in the gulf waters of British Columbia. There is no other way of handling these matters, because each country has vested interests in fishing rights for its own citizens and the problems of water, rivers, lakes, oceans, sharing coastlines and rivers, can be solved in no other way, with friendship being preserved, unless we have a joint commission adjudicating these matters.
I suggest to hon. members that that is a creative way of dealing with the conflict which we are facing today. I think the hon. member for New Westminster has come up with a creative proposal to get us out of the jam because, as all members of the House know, one of the leading executives of the lumber industry in B.C. this week met the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and told him of the concern that people in B.C. feel as a result of conflicts issuing from this kind of legislation. He told the Prime Minister that if Bill C-58 passes, the U.S. Congress will prepare retaliatory
Non-Canadian Publications
legislation. That is the kind of conflict we are facing, and the tragedy is that this conflict is completely unnecessary. Why should we fight with our best friend, when both sides can find a way of bringing the conflict into the open where it does not have to antagonize and where it can heal rather than create a rift? I commend the suggestion the hon. member for New Westminster made to us, and I suggest that government members present to their caucus the opportunity of resolving the differences which exist between Canada and the United States with regard to communications. That would take care of this and other problems facing Windsor and Toronto people as they watch upper New York stations and Detroit stations.
Certainly it would take care of the prejudicial situation existing in British Columbia. KVOS television is facing an impossible problem of having, if this legislation passes, to grade its production and having to create an inferior kind of production because of the loss of revenue it will face as a result of the legislation. There will also be a compounding of that problem if the deletion of commercials comes into effect. The combination of Bill C-58 and the policy of deletion of commercials would effectively wipe out another television outlet which brings enjoyment and pleasure to thousands of homes in the lower mainland of British Columbia.
I ask hon. members to consider this subamendment. Speaking specifically to the objections the parliamentary secretary raised about the amendments which I presented earlier, I wonder whether this subamendment does not meet his objections and eliminate them. I believe that hon. members on the government side could support this subamendment, give it speedy passage and so continue to provide for the people of British Columbia the kind of viewing they have enjoyed for a generation and want to continue to enjoy.


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, during the past few days we have heard a great deal from the opposition about the broadcasting side of Bill C-58.1 wonder how much contact members of the opposition have had with Canadian broadcasters. During the speech of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) I was beginning to wonder whether I was listening to a Canadian parliamentarian or a congressman or senator from the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Crawford Douglas: It is about time we became concerned about Canada and Canadian broadcasters to the extent that they deserve our concern. I happen to have spent 20 years in that business, and I am concerned and broadcasters are concerned with regard to what is happening over Bill C-58. What will happen to Bill C-58 and communications in the broadcasting industry in this country if the amendments which have been proposed by members of the opposition are allowed to come into effect? No matter how hon. members opposite describe it, they are asking us to allow an American broadcasting station to become a Canadian broadcasting station without receiving a licence; it is as simple as that.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Have you been to Vancouver?

February 13, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications


Crawford Douglas: Yes, I have, and I have spoken to Canadian broadcasters in Toronto, Ontario, and in the rest of this country. I think it is about time hon. members opposite started doing the same. That is the whole point. I should like to deal primarily with some of the remarks made recently in the House by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco). I refer, first, to the following statements made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West which are found at page 10852 of Hansard:
Testimony given before the standing committee by the American television stations involved and by the Association of Canadian Advertisers made it abundantly clear that the enactment of this clause will not aid Canadian broadcasters, especially those most in need of additional advertising revenue.
I was there when the ACA presented its comments. They were very good comments, but they were comments I would expect from people who do not want to lose an advantage. If I were in their position, I would make the same comments. But what about broadcasters in Ontario? In Toronto, Global and City TV stated quite emphatically before the committee, as well as at other times, that there are advantages to third party stations. CHAN-CHEX in British Columbia and BC-TV stated quite emphatically that there would be advantages to third level broadcasters in British Columbia.
Let us consider why people advertise. The statement has been made that they buy advertising because of the size of the market. They buy advertising for many other reasons also. They buy advertising because the prices involved and the size of the market determine the price which will be charged. Let us consider an example. Have hon. members ever heard of the A. C. Nielsen report?


Benno Friesen: Never heard of it.


Crawford Douglas: It is about time you did. It is for September, 1975-the latest available, as a matter of fact. I shall refer to the average household from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. Monday through Friday. By the way, this happens to be for the Toronto area, just so we cannot be accused of being regional, as hon. members on the backbenches of the Conservative party have been and so have made this debate into an entirely regional confrontation, east versus west, which I think is shameful. Let us talk about Canadian broadcasting and the Canadian industry. CFTO had a 20 per cent rating and WKBW, one of our American broadcasting stations, 14 per cent. There are three grouped together, Global, CBLT and CHCH, with 12 per cent. WBEN and WGR, our American friends, had 10 per cent of that rating.


George H. Whittaker: What have you got in your area?


Crawford Douglas: We have some pretty good Canadian broadcasters up there, if the hon. member must know. They are proud to be Canadian, want to stay Canadian and want to grow as Canadian, and passage of Bill C-58 will allow them to do so.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: How many people want to hear them?


Crawford Douglas: There are quite a few people in our area who want to hear Canadian radio and televi-

sion stations, and if the hon. member is submitting that Canadians do not want to hear their own Canadian stations, I think he should run for a seat in the United States Senate, because I am not too sure Canadians want to hear him say that.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I simply point out to the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas) that I began my remarks by complimenting the Canadian industry. I do appreciate it. The amendment is in no way prejudicing Canadian broadcasting, because all of us enjoy it.


Crawford Douglas: I do not think that is really a point of order, but let us see if we are prejudicing Canadian broadcasting.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


An hon. Member:: You mean Americans are allowed to talk in this House?


George H. Whittaker: The hon. member told us that in his constituency there is Canadian broadcasting. In my constituency of Okanagan Boundary, due to regulations of the CRTC, there are many stations which do not have Canadian broadcasting.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to resume his seat. He will have a chance to make a speech in due time after the hon. member who has the floor has finished. Points of order are supposed to be related to the conduct of hon. members and their right to speak, not to the content of speeches which hon. members make.


Crawford Douglas: In a brief answer, Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will look at the accelerated program that has been introduced in this House to allow places of 500 population or more to receive programming.


An hon. Member:: Thirty years without in B.C.!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hope hon. members will co-operate with the Chair and the House and allow the hon. member to complete his remarks. Other members had their chance to speak without being interrupted. If some hon. members are not interested in listening to the remarks, I would hope they would at least allow the Chair to hear what the hon. member is saying and follow the debate.


An hon. Member:: Those fellows will not be here when the facts are out.


Crawford Douglas: We were talking about the Nielsen survey which simply proves that if a buyer in the Toronto market wished to buy Global on two occasions, he would have a better audience rate and better receivership than if he bought WBEN. For that matter, if he bought two spots on City Television in Toronto, where there are plenty of openings, he would have a better showing than on either WBEN or WGR. It is worth commenting that on February
February 13, 1976

10 the hon. member for Kootenay West interrupted the speech of the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) when he said he would like to ask the minister how she related the statement to the effect that KVOS was paying $76 million to the Department of National Revenue.
KVOS, a broadcasting station, paying $76 million to the Department of National Revenue? The $76 million is the total alleged contribution of Wometco to the Canadian economy. To be correct, the total income tax paid by Wometco was $5.4 million over the last ten years. That is quite a bit different from $76 million. KVOS itself has never claimed-and I must congratulate them on that- that it contributed $76 million. The contribution is the total alleged contribution of Wometco, the parent company of KVOS. That includes KVOS, BC-TV Ltd., Canawest Master Films, Canawest Film Productions Ltd., and Wometco, B.C., Limited. How do these all tie in with broadcasting? Let us find out.
Canawest Film Productions is not affected by this bill in any way because we are talking about a tax on advertisers. Wometco, B.C., Limited is the principal owner of a Coca-Cola bottling company. If that ties in with broadcasting in any way, I fail to see it. This leaves $19.7 million as the alleged contribution of KVOS. The board of the parent U.S. company has a subsidiary sales office in Vancouver and claims that it is the means by which Canadian advertising revenues flow to the United States, and nothing else. So I think we had better get a few points straight before we go any further, Mr. Speaker.
If hon. members opposite had bothered to check, they would have found out what is actually happening. I have checked with stations in Toronto and others across the country. Some advertising firms anticipate passage of this bill and have already started to place options for time on some of the smaller stations as a direct result of our discussions. Some $20 million has been taken by three American stations, two in Buffalo, and KVOS, Bellingham. That is a lot of money, Mr. Speaker.
The amendment is suggesting that KVOS should become a Canadian broadcasting station through this $2 million a year. I do not think anybody in this House or anywhere else would say one is a bad businessman if he can pay out two and take in seven. Ninety per cent of the income of KVOS comes from the Vancouver area. They pay 50 per cent of their tax to the United States and 50 per cent to the Canadian government. It seems to me that if a business was taking 90 per cent of the revenue out of the country, it would be expected to pay tax on 90 per cent and not 50 per cent of 90 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Hew is that different from other companies?


Crawford Douglas: It is different because this company comes under the regulations of the Broadcasting Act. I have talked with people from KVOS, and they are fine gentlemen. When asked if they would become a Canadian broadcasting company, however, they would not. No matter what we do and no matter how we discuss it in this House, that is the fact. The fact is that they want to become a Canadian broadcasting company without being Canadian.


An hon. Member:: That's right.
Non-Canadian Publications


An hon. Member:: How can they?


Crawford Douglas: They can apply for a licence and move to Canada.


An hon. Member:: Tell us how.


Crawford Douglas: In the same way that any other Canadian businessman can apply for a licence in any other part of this country and build and develop a business. It is the building and development of a business that this bill tries to protect. As hon. members may or may not know, the early years of development are the most important in any station, and in some instances the most disastrous.
We can look at City TV in Toronto and Global and see what has happened to them. It is the flow of capital that can be generated and brought back into Canada though the passage of Bill C-58 that will allow Canadian companies, whether in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoudland, or the smaller prairie settlements to give local broadcasting. Let us consider some of the money that is going to be spent in this country. They say they are going to give us $2 million a year, and that is great. But what is $2 million a year going to buy in new broadcasting facilities for British Columbia? There is the accelerated program which in five years will spend $50 million, or in seven years more than $50 million-about $10 million a year.
As a matter of interest, what does KVOS do now about providing news coverage for people in Vancouver? What does it spend on local programming to which the people of Vancouver have a right? They say they put $2 million some place in the broadcasting economy. It appears that one of the B.C. television stations, however-CHAN or CHEX-is spending $6 million to meet the Canadian content rules, the very rules that KVOS want to buy their way around. After six years of service they are going to give up $6 million a year and give us $2 million. It costs $11 million a year to operate.


An hon. Member:: How much do they get back?


Crawford Douglas: From whom? We have talked about that wonderful suggestion of $2 million. I wonder how many members opposite have discussed this problem with the broadcasters in their areas. I did; personally I contacted all the broadcasters in western Ontario.


George H. Whittaker: Have you ever been to western Canada?


Crawford Douglas: I talked to the B.C. people. Every one of these people, without exception-they are Canadian broadcasters-agreed totally with the broadcasting provisions of Bill C-58. They see the money they so desperately need for their programming going south of the border where it should not go.


George H. Whittaker: There is not a B.C. member on the other side of the House right now.


Crawford Douglas: There is not an Ontario member in the House, either, on the hon. member's side, I might note.


George H. Whittaker: Where are you from?
10932

February 13, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications


Crawford Douglas: Statistics Canada presents some pertinent facts. The Statistics Canada report of August 31 deals with the after-tax income of private television stations in Canada. There are about 400 privately-owned Canadian television stations, not including CBC-owned stations. We shall also consider the income of three United States stations. Mr. Speaker, the after-tax revenue, or profit, last year of the 400 privately-owned Canadian television stations was $6.1 million.
Now I turn to a statement made by the authoritative U.S. company, Faulkner, Dawkins and Sullivan. According to the company, estimated net, after-tax income of the two Buffalo stations, WBEN and WGR, and KVOS, was $4.7 million. So here we have three United States stations making profits equivalent to two-thirds of the total profit of the Canadian industry. About 90 per cent of the KVOS profit comes from this country and about 30 per cent of the WBEN and WGR profit comes from this country. To me, as a Canadian, that makes no sense. Those three stations serve the Canadian public and take our profits. One of them was built primarily for that purpose. One of them makes 90 per cent of its profit from serving Canadians. Put together, the three stations I mentioned make a total profit equal to two-thirds of the entire profit made by the 400 privately-owned Canadian television stations which operate from coast to coast. Where do members of the opposition stand on this issue, or are they adopting their present position in the hope of becoming members of the U.S. Senate? Their arguments would be well received in that august body.


An hon. Member:: What about an appointment to the Canadian Senate?


Crawford Douglas: The hon. member has little hope of getting there even if he sits in this House for a long time. Let me now refer to something the hon. member for Kootenay West said on February 11 as reported on page 10863 of Hansard. He said that KVOS is a Canadian subsidiary and during the period 1964 to the present has contributed some $76 million to the revenues of Canada. I question that. If it contributed anything, it contributed about $5 million, not the $76 million mentioned by the hon. member. The hon. member referred to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters happens to be exactly what its name suggests, Canadian. For that reason we should pay heed to what it says. It represents Canadian broadcasters and hopes Canadian broadcasts will stay Canadian. He suggested that United States cable companies distinguish against Canadian television signals. The hon. member referred to the CAB brief and to a statement made earlier by a member of the NDP.


An hon. Member:: That was the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Crawford Douglas: Perhaps it would be best to quote part of the CAB brief. It is clear that CAB said they discriminate against distant signals. The association says, on page 5 of its brief:
Cable TV operators in the United States are required by the FCC to protect local broadcasters in their communities by deleting whole programs, not just the commercials, from the signals of non-local stations brought in by cable.

The Canadian Radio-Television Commission provides for simultaneous substitution. If a Canadian local station is broadcasting a program and non-local stations (including foreign) broadcast the same program at the same time, the Canadian cable operator substitutes the Canadian local signal on all the cable channels with the same program. The FCC procedure provides for simultaneous and in some instances, non-simultaneous "blackout" on American cable systems to protect the local station.
It is clear that there is discrimination against distant signals, not Canadian signals. I bring that point to the attention of the House. All this was summed up by the chairman of the CRTC, who is Canadian, has always been Canadian and has always devoted his utmost in time and ability to what is good for this country.


An hon. Member:: That is just romance.


Crawford Douglas: It is not romance; it is fact. He said recently:
We stand in Canada on the threshold of a flowering of our own cultural endeavours. After a continuing struggle our writers and artists are beginning to flourish. Music, books, painting, theatre-by and for Canadians-are beginning to emerge.
Our broadcasting-radio, television and cable systems are beginning to emerge-and they must-and they will, if Canadians recognize that to protect our own against unfair, unwarranted and deleterious actions is a virtue and not a sign of weakness.
There are those who say that our mandate to secure broadcasting as an integral part of Canadian life is chauvinistic. The original Sergeant Chauvin caused himself to be lowered into the grave by knotted tricolours-the flag of France.
That may be a surprise to some who toss the expression around so freely. I say chauvinism is truly the property of an individual such as the good sergeant-but devotion to encouraging a healthy sense of being aware of the circumstances of the country of your choice and your inheritance is a natural and fulfilling role.
It is the role I choose willingly-and if it be labelled nationalistic- then so be it. Four generations of ancestors nurtured and cherished in the soil of western Ontario has had its effect. I want my children and your children to be worthy members of the family of man-but to be so-they must be aware of where they come from. It is not something they will learn if our broadcasting and communications become only mechanical retransmissions of the history and values of those who choose America in place of Canada as a new home.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling it one o'clock, I must tell the hon. member that his time has expired. I allowed him three or four extra minutes to compensate for interruptions.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would accept a question after lunch.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House must give unanimous consent for the hon. member to reply, as his time has expired. Or does the House consent to allowing the hon. member to put his question now?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is here at two o'clock, perhaps I could ask my question then.


Crawford Douglas: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have arranged to leave after lunch. Perhaps the hon. member wants to ask his question now.


An hon. Member:: No.
February 13, 1976


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There not being agreement, and it being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the subamendment offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie). May I say, first of all, that I support this subamendment; I believe it to be well-founded.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas). In my opinion, he gave a fairly well researched speech. He adopted the Liberal party policy that in broadcasting one must first be concerned about the people who are making money, and only second-if at all-about what the people want to hear or watch. His speech seemed to be devoted almost entirely to the quantities of advertising revenue being generated. Not once did he suggest that people might wish to express their own opinions as to what they wanted to watch or hear. It seemed to me that whenever there was a question of advertising revenue versus various other ill-defined quality objectives, advertising revenue won every time.
On the west coast in the Victoria-Vancouver region a great number of our constituents prefer to select the channels they want to watch or listen to rather than those they are ordered to watch or listen to by the CRTC and the CBC. The recent ruling by Mr. Justice Dube, preventing the CRTC from extending the licence of Victoria Cablevi-sion Company for five years when it came up for renewal, is significant. Mr. Justice Dube found the CRTC could not renew that licence without hearing an application by Capital City Co-operative to take over the facilities of Victoria Cablevision Company together with the licence.
This presents a real problem for the CRTC. If the ruling of Mr. Justice Dube is upheld, we will see in future, every time a licence lapses, not only an application from the station that has been producing programs but an application by one or more organizations. The licence holders will be presenting their cases on the basis of their performance, and the new applicants will be presenting theirs on the basis of their promises. There will be no basis upon which to judge what their performance is likely to be. It will call for the wisdom of Socrates to determine the matter in some of these cases, to determine whether a station which has been operating passably should be preferred over one which promises to do better.
The simple economic facts of life have made the licences of radio stations and television stations things of great value. The licence itself should not be of great value. I think we can all accept that proposition, and it is the case presented by Capital City Co-operative. A licence for a cablevision station, or radio station for that matter, should not be a thing of great value, yet over the years this has been the case. I suspect that the blame has to reside with the CRTC, which makes the rules under which these sta-
Non-Canadian Publications
tions operate. Compliance with the rules has always been accepted as sufficient reason for renewal of a licence; hence the likelihood of a station that has been complying with the rules losing its licence was extremely rare.
I compliment Mr. Boyle on the start he has made as chairman of the CRTC. He started off with a tremendous handicap in that his predecessor as chairman, who had the golden handshake, as it were, had the job of allotting licences over many, many years all across Canada. Since these licences were so valuable, it was of prime importance that the CRTC be purer than Caesar's wife. Imagine the consternation among objective-thinking people in Canada to find that the chairman of the CRTC was able to drop his role of judicial impartiality on very short notice and run for the Liberal party in Hochelaga. It is the questionable impartiality of his predecessor that has made it extremely difficult for Mr. Boyle to start work as the new chairman of the CRTC, but despite this handicap left to him by his predecessor I think he is doing a remarkably sound job. I sympathize with him in the difficult position he is now being placed by the ruling of Justice Dube.
I would have preferred the CRTC to continue with their hearings on the west coast, excluding cablevision from its considerations. I do not think that cablevision and radio station renewals are so closely allied that the CRTC has to freeze everything at this time. There are many radio stations on the west coast, and a couple of new television stations are commencing operations or transferring shares or changing licences. All of this has now come to a stop. Some offers of shares in various companies had deadlines on them. I do not know whether it is legally possible to extend deadlines, but there is at least one radio station in Victoria that was due to appear before the CRTC to have its shares change hands. As I say, this procedure has been stopped, as has everything else.
Two other licence applications of great interest have been stopped. One is the CBC application for an English language television station in Victoria. This was of great interest, of course, to the people on the west coast, partly because it was going to rule another station off the cablevision channels. One of the stations due to leave the cablevision channels would be KVOS, although some people on the west coast thought that KVOS would be ruled out by Bill C-58. It is, of course, not known at the present time whether in fact this bill will ever pass. In the opinion of many of us KVOS has been operating as a pretty reasonable Canadian subsidiary. I hearken back to the speech of the hon. member for Bruce-Grey who was worrying about the money that KVOS had promised to funnel into Canadian television program production according to the subamendment tabled by my colleague for Winnipeg South Centre.
I should now like to speak for a moment or so about what these rulings and what the general attitude of the government toward electronic media is doing to the viewer on the west coast. He is being ignored completely. Men and women on the west coast who have grown accustomed to watching certain channels or programs are not willing to change. I should also like to say a few words about a very touchy subject in Vancouver and Victoria, and that is the
21130-71 Vz

February 13, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
French language television station that was to go on the air in Vancouver.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to restrain the hon. member in his remarks, but I think he is getting farther away from the amendment in front of us at this time. He is entering a completely different subject, although somewhat related. I hope that he will direct his remarks to Bill C-58 before the House at this time, and in particular to motion No. 7 and the amendment thereto.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to relate the allocation of channels and licences to television and radio stations to Bill C-58. In my area, cablevision channels are in part held by United States stations, KVOS being one of them. I think it is agreed that this subamendment relates directly to KVOS. It relates to about five television stations in the U.S., the main one of which is KVOS. As I read the subamendment, it makes specific reference to the Canadian subsidiary of a foreign broadcasting undertaking.
I have twice started to make some comments about the French language station in Vancouver. There is no room on the cablevision band for that station at the present time unless some other station is dropped. I should like to point out that the CRTC, the CBC and the Canadian government, showing a total lack of political sagacity, decided to bring on this application for a French language station at this time when channels are scarce. If the CRTC had waited one or two years, both cablevision companies on the west coast have applications in now to go to mid-band broadcasting, which would open up a dozen or more new channels. At a time like that we could transfer some of the favourite programs to those new channels. People would buy transformers which would allow them to listen to the new channels, and the people who wished to have a French language station on the west coast would run into very little opposition.
It is not that people do not want a French language station on the west coast. What they do not want is to have one of their favourite programs pushed off the band. I deeply regret that the government did not have the wisdom to wait another year or two until all the people in that area had converters on their sets. If the cablevision application had been approved, we could have had these converters on our sets within a year or so. With all the extra channels that would be available on the mid-band, the ultra high frequency band, I am sure that the application for a French language station would have run into minimal objections on the west coast and would have been accepted without furor.
I have been wanting to make that point for some time, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate your allowing me to make it. I think that the public outcry that there is against a French language station on the west coast is due, not to racial or language differences but to the annoyance at being placed in this difficult position when there is no need for it at all. A delay of a year or two until the cablevision companies were allowed to go to mid-band and ultra high frequency broadcasting would have completely obviated this problem. I hope that members on the government side will carry that message to their cabinet masters.

I am pleased with this subamendment that would make an exception for a Canadian subsidiary of a foreign broadcasting undertaking if the minister of the Department of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) approves a plan submitted by the said Canadian subsidiary that would provide for compensatory payment by such subsidiary by the allocation of funds to Canadian television program production. This is the part that is really hurting in Vancouver. KVOS has established in Vancouver quite considerable program production expertise. They use a lot of artists. They are particularly good at the type of programming that calls for art work, and it would be truly a pity if such an industry were forced to relocate in the United States.
This additional money would go to the extension of Canadian television services. I am thinking of money being put into public service, such as in Cable 10 in Victoria or its equivalent in Vancouver where the general public is allowed to present programs which are of local interest. This is certainly done by Cable 10 in Victoria. I have the privilege of appearing on a program on that channel one night per month, as do most of the local elected representatives. The time is divided on party lines. The station operates a telephone call-in service and the people of Victoria are permitted to conduct a dialogue with their representatives. This is the kind of public programming that can be carried out. This type of public programming carried out at the present time in Victoria and Vancouver seems to be far ahead of anything I have seen elsewhere in Canada. These channels were among the first to install colour cameras, and their productions are a credit to the community. I do hope this heavy-handed type of legislation will not do away with the allocation of funds to Canadian television program production, particularly of the community type.
These talk shows which are popular on the west coast- this seems to be a west coast phenomenon-help to train the technicians necessary to operate cable, television and radio stations. For all of these reasons, I most heartily support the subamendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
Perhaps I can take one moment to point out, as did the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), that Bill C-58 is most unreasonably unfair to some of the periodicals Canadians have grown accustomed to receiving and count on for coverage of news events around the world. Maclean's magazine is apparently to replace them. I can only say of Maclean's magazine that it is nice looking and fairly Canadian. One of the problems is the lack of depth in its reporting. When I read Maclean's I rather feel I have surveyed a beautiful lake and found it is only two inches deep. However, that is getting pretty far from the subamendment we have at hand.
In conclusion, let me commend the amendment to hon. members opposite. I do not have to commend it to all of them because some are already convinced of the ineptitude and mischief created by this bill. I highly recommend it to those members who are as yet unconvinced. Perhaps they will consider this matter further this weekend, or next, when members of this party will be labouring at their duties and members on the government side will be sitting idly watching the excitement created by the choosing of
February 13, 1976

the next leader of this country. Perhaps during that time they will decide to give up this hopeless bill and let us get on with something else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, one of the necessities for this amendment is the fact that the minister is not now in attendance, has participated only slightly and has not attended most of the debate in this House. As a result, I suggest she does not understand the issue in this case.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to bring to the attention of the House, in view of the remarks of the hon. member, that the minister in question has been replaced here this afternoon by the minister to my left, so there is a minister in the House in respect of this matter.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I appreciate that observation, and I appreciate the fact that the whip on that side has done an excellent job of making sure that his ministers are covered. Unfortunately, the decisions that must ultimately be made in generating policy must be made by the ministers themselves. The real issue involved in this amendment is one of time. Time should be given for consideration of this bill and this amendment. This amendment will provide the time for the minister to consider the bill and the amendment in order that she will then understand the matter. The minister did not participate in the committee hearings and she has only briefly participated in the debate in the House. While I am sure she may have read some of the speeches, I think her attendance here is of importance. Because of her non-attendance during the debate, her limited participation here, and her non-participation at the committee, this amendment should be accepted in order that she will have the opportunity to hear representatives from the broadcasting area. I would ask the minister who is here to make representations to the minister to determine whether the issue has been thoroughly aired and understood and if justice is being done. I am sure when she does that she will decide there is no harm in giving us more time on this matter.
Many of the conclusions expressed in the speeches of hon. members from both sides of the House would indicate that the main issue has not been thoroughly aired or understood. The fact that this is a regional issue does not seem to be understood. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the members of his cabinet who are visiting the province of British Columbia will take the time to visit the Canawest production facilities in Vancouver, and perhaps KVOS-TV, in order to have a first-hand look at the situation. If they do not, I am sure when they return they will feel obliged to spend more time on this issue.
The hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas) not only attended the committee meetings but has done a considerable amount of research and has spoken in this House about those things in which he believes. I congratulate him on that effort. Because the minister has not participated, and in my opinion does not understand the issue, it is even more important that we spend more time on this matter. I hope that the backbenchers who did attend the committee meetings will speak out very clearly to the government
Non-Canadian Publications
calling for the extra time which is required. I hope they will also persuade the government to accept this amendment which does little more than give more time.
While individual responsibility is inherent in any definition of freedom, what is even more true is that freedom is based upon the absence of restrictions. While freedom of movement is perhaps a very basic and important freedom, the most important freedom is freedom of the mind. Freedom of the mind involves, under any circumstances, freedom to hear, to read and to see what we choose. That opportunity is being restricted and limited in this case. I suggest that even if that freedom to choose is limited in the smallest way, we as members of parliament have a right to recognize that this freedom is being eroded or attacked even if in the most minuscule way. That is the case in respect of this legislation.
If I could make any point, I would make this clear point. Fifty-six per cent of the people in the lower mainland area choose to watch and listen to American television. Because of the penalty involved and the proposed commercial deletion we, in effect, are wiping out this choice of the people. This freedom of choice must be retained, because if we do not have it then there are restrictions in respect of what the mind can see and hear. These limitations are completely unacceptable, I would think, to any parliamentary democracy. On that issue alone I ask people to look very closely at this amendment.
According to the government, this bill is tied together; it is one bill referring to broadcasting and periodicals. If we were to relate the two elements and were to find something that has an 80 per cent application to periodicals, if it were applied to television it would be easy to find the 80 per cent. So the most objectionable feature of this periodicals bill could be complied with by a television station. However, we are attempting to wipe it out. The United States government has just begun negotiations with Canada. One unsatisfactory meeting has been held. Further discussion is required. I suggest this subamendment should be accepted so that time would be provided for all the broadcasting media, not just KVOS-TV, to make presentations on this subject to the government and to the CRTC and perhaps, through them, to parliament.
How could anyone object to giving time so that those concerned would have the right to be heard and would be heard? We may not like what we hear. We may not agree with it. We may decide after a period of a year to take the same course of action, but without this sub-amendment we would merely be closing a door which we should be opening. It was stated earlier that this is a subject which concerns all Canadians and has nothing to do with regionalism. I suggest it is related to regionalism and the kind of thing that was demonstrated in Weekend magazine this week in an editorial headlined "The Ugly Canadian". This concerned, on a smaller scale, the same kind of impact which Canadians have on the people of northern Washington.
Americans are concerned about the impact Canadians have in that country, just as we are concerned about the impact on Canadians of American broadcasting. Just as we would expect them to be tolerant of Canadians and good

February 13, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
corporate Canadian businessmen, at the same time should we not expect the same kind of justice to be given to United States corporate citizens who have demonstrated their capacity to make a contribution? The contribution they have made is that of promoting Canadian culture. They have established a major firm in Canada for the production of films. This firm is called Canawest. Canaw-est will be affected by this bill. Since a contribution has been made to our Canadian culture, I respectfully suggest that we should reconsider the matter of "The Ugly Canadian" in relation to the good corporate citizen in America.
Unfortunately, the point was missed by the good member for Bruce-Grey when he claimed the bill would not do certain things. He failed to tell us what good the passage of this bill will do for Canada. Unfortunately, it will do no good. The whole principle of this bill and the amendment is to increase the flow of advertising dollars to the news media. It has been shown that this will not increase the flow of advertising dollars to the news media. If this purpose is not accomplished, I ask what we will have accomplished other than injury to existing Canadian cultural facilities, and I include Canawest as a promoter of Canadian culture and identity.
I have a message for the minister which I hope will be passed on to her by the minister listening on her behalf. I would suggest to the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve), our fair Portia, that the quality of mercy is not strained should she provide the option of the right to be heard to KVOS-TV and other broadcasters in the same situation, because really what we seek is an element of time. The option to delete this amendment during the next parliament obviously would be open to the government, and in the meantime we would be providing, through this amendment, a period of time in which the government could hear representations from the broadcasting industry.
The most we would be doing would be allowing one more year, or the period of time between now and the next parliament when this entire bill could be presented or when this amendment could be changed if it proved to be unsatisfactory. Surely that is not too much to ask. It is unfortunate that one should be reduced to the position of having to ask for mercy, but I do not hesitate. Although our land might well be disallowed full justice, let this amendment show how mercy can reason justice. If the government continues not only to deny justice but also mercy, the people will have justice more than thou desirest at the next election; because, make no mistake, the members of parliament from this region of Canada have spoken up time and time again. All members have spoken, not once but twice and three or four times in an attempt to get the message across.
Vancouver is not Toronto, just as Toronto is not Vancouver. There are special problems there to which this amendment relates. If it cannot understand what these special problems are, I suggest the government should listen to its own backbench members from British Columbia. The only one who spoke was the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way who made an impassioned speech urging that not only this amendment but that amendments she had put forward be passed. If she were here this afternoon I am sure she would speak on the amendment before us urging that the

government accept it on behalf of the people of British Columbia.
I think the statements made by the parliamentary secretary about Canadian stations selling advertising on the U.S. market and the fact that the CRTC has stepped in and stopped this, following which the hon. member had to explain that this was an error-


An hon. Member:: The argument was not.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: -underscore a basic problem in the broadcasting section of this bill. Actually, there are two problems but the first one is major; that is, that even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fleming), who probably knows more about broadcasting than most members of the House-and I give him credit for that-is confused about the various points at issue in this debate. The broadcasting section of this bill has been completely obscured by the publishing side. Because this affects the lives of many millions of citizens who are viewers, voters and citizens, I urge that we take time to give either the broadcasters who have served Canada for many years an opportunity to present a positive program which could be of benefit to Canada, as proposed in the amendments which we are discussing, or that we send this portion of the bill back to committee so that a clear-cut analysis can be made by members. By that I mean that members analyse that portion of the bill with an open mind to find the best way to improve the Canadian broadcasting system.
Secondly, over and above the fact that we have not had time to analyse the broadcasting section of the bill is the fact that was emphasized by the parliamentary secretary when he said that CKLW had no restrictions on selling in the U.S. market. He might have pointed out that the Americans put no restrictions on selling by CKLW-AM. There is no immorality there. By that I mean that CKLW-AM is a powerhouse, the maximum power station in Windsor, Ontario, which has been serving the Detroit market for more years than any U.S. border television station has served Canadian markets. In fact, the tax structure of KVOS-TV B.C. Ltd., when it was set up in 1955 by both the Canadian and the U.S. tax departments jointly, was based on a method that had been used for many years by CKLW-AM and its U.S. subsidiary, CKLW Inc. I might add that CKLW Inc., at its headquarters in Detroit, employs U.S. citizens and bills itself in magazines throughout the United States not as a Windsor, Ontario, station but as Detroit's number one radio station, which in fact it is. It is the number one audience station in the major market of Detroit, Michigan.
The point I am making is that it is not immoral to receive revenues for services rendered. We cannot say that the U.S. stations are doing something wrong when they sell in Canada, when for many years-more years than the U.S. stations-we have been, and still are, doing the same thing in reverse; in other words, selling from a Canadian market into a major U.S. market.
I should like to take issue with another point made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). He read from the brief submitted by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters which referred to the treatment of Canadian stations by U.S. cable companies. After checking with
February 13, 1976

lawyers in Washington, D C., who are attorneys specializing in broadcasting law, I can state specifically that Canadian signals are treated in exactly the same way as U.S. signals, with no exception anywhere in the United States. By this I mean that, instead of calling a signal either a domestic or a foreign signal, the designation is either a local or a distant signal. Because Canadian signals are not located in a U.S. city, they are designated as distant signals, but they receive the same treatment as distant U.S. signals.
If I were a U.S. border station, all I could ask of the Canadian government in terms of taxes, and of the Canadian cable system in terms of carrying my signal, would be that they do exactly the same to me as their U.S. counterparts do to Canadian signals. It is that simple. CAB should have no complaint whatsoever about the way in which Canadian signals are handled in the United States.
This is the time for sober thought. Our integrity and good sense are at stake. Let us accept the amendment to this section and not "grandfather" anyone into any situation, but merely permit negotiations in such a way that if the negotiated settlement is better for Canada than the punitive effects of Bill C-58, Canada is not precluded from accepting the negotiated settlement. I am not asking that we, as members of the House, make a judgment. All we are asking is the right to be heard. Having heard us, the Minister of Communications will be in a position to grasp the situation, with the help of her parliamentary secretary who has been following the debate closely, following which I am sure we will be able to decide what is rational and right for both Canada, the U.S. and our corporate citizens.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise once again in the House and speak in support of an amendment which I think deserves the consideration of hon. members opposite. Apparently up to the present they have not paid attention to what has been said on this side of the House. I think it is a great misfortune that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) was not here today to hear the comments of the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas). I am sure she would have straightened him out, because he is looking inward rather than outward. I am also sorry that he is not here this afternoon to hear what we have to say, because in my opinion he made a hit-and-run speech.
The issue at stake in Bill C-58 goes beyond one television station or even three or four television stations. What we are actually talking about here is communication. One of the misfortunes of people in this world is that they allow communications to break down. I am sure you would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that many of the problems that families have are caused by a breakdown in communications. This is what happens when people stop speaking with each other. The same is true with regard to families within communities, with regard to regions within Canada and even with regard to nations. The minute they stop communicating with each other, trouble commences.
Therefore, I am deeply concerned about what we in Canada are doing as we unilaterally make decisions which only serve as confrontations with our neighbour to the
Non-Canadian Publications
south. Let me impress upon the House that if the crunch ever comes, the United States will be our last resort for help because of the fact that we share this continent together. What is good for one part of the country certainly has to be good for the other, and if it is good for the regions of the country, it is good for the people who live in those regions. For the last several years I have been concerned about the way Canada has treated the United States. I could relate several instances where we have backhanded the United States and they, being the older and bigger brother, have taken it and said nothing.
I am as pro-Canadian as anyone living in Canada. Some of our families are now fifth, sixth and seventh generation Canadian, and many of otir ancestors came to this country from the United States. So from anything I may say it should not be inferred that I am anything but pro-Canadian. However, I am firmly of the opinion that I can be a stronger Canadian if my country grows in conjunction with the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: We have much to lose because we are much smaller than the United States. We have discussed the probability of bringing down a trunk line for the movement of gas and oil from the northern part of the continent, and the reason we are having problems in negotiating such an agreement is that the United States has now come to the point where it can no longer trust Canada and Canadians. It is not sure where it stands. We must realize that the United States is the only country in the world upon which we border. It is north of us and south of us. Therefore, we must consider the fact that the United States is our neighbour, and a good neighbour. However, I am sure the American people are human, and if we continue to backhand them, as we seem to be doing with all the legislation we are passing, petty or otherwise, eventually they will say that that is enough and then we will suffer the consequences.
With regard to television stations, I think this is a small thing. I am sure the dollars which would be saved by Canada would be few in the over-all picture. The hon. member for Bruce-Grey was too close to the trees to see the forest when he spoke this morning. If you want to grow big and strong, you cannot do that at the expense of your neighbour. You can only do that if your neighbour does it with you. I feel very strongly that we must give greater consideration to our friends south of the border in order to have a proper means of communication between the two countries, and not to build a great deal of ill-will, animosity and misunderstanding.
There has been a difference of opinion over the past two years with regard to our beef industry. This matter is very close to us in western Canada. It is as close to us as television is to those in southern British Columbia. A problem developed because we allowed the communication system to break down. I would be very happy if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the cabinet would give some hon. members opposite who are really interested in the negotiation of an equitable deal with the United States a means of trading and understanding which will be to the benefit of all of us.

February 13, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
I must take exception to the actions of the cabinet, this government and the support it has from some of its backbenchers with regard to the unilateral actions being taken without any discussion with the United States. I am sorry the minister is not here this afternoon to tell us whether he had any discussion with our friends in the United States about the program. Has he discussed what share of the dollars we will get out of television in British Columbia or in southern Ontario? I realize we are entitled to a share and we should have a fair and proportionate share.
In any dealings I have had with Americans, I have found them to be fair, intelligent and very understanding, and I am sure that an equitable arrangement can be worked out whereby we can maintain our status as an independent people and also be held in esteem and trust by our friends. This is of fundamental importance and goes far beyond the amendment we are dealing with today. While I realize that I have been dealing primarily with our neighours to the south, to a degree this could affect our relationship in the whole world of communications. We all know that the world has become smaller as technical means of communication have been developed.
In recent years, and during the past five years in particular, the relationship of this country with her neighbour to the south has deteriorated to a dangerous degree as a result of our lack of consideration, discussion and even common courtesy. The policy of this government seems to be to create dissension by implementing ill-timed and poorly conceived decisions directly affecting our friends to the south. In earlier years, leadership in Canada was exemplified by open negotiation, dialogue and knowledge of that country's interests and their effect upon our own. When leadership exactly the opposite in nature took over our country, the closeness from which every Canadian benefited gradually diminished, and in more recent years one could almost come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister and his ministers feel that our southern neighbour is an enemy rather than the best friend Canada has.
On reflection, this continuing disagreement of Canada with the United States government and its officials appears to be personal revenge on the part of the Prime Minister. Recently he said on his visit to Cuba that he wanted to go there prior to any representation from the United States. He did not say why, but I am sure there must be a question mark in the minds of Americans, and perhaps while he is out in British Columbia he would be well advised to go on one of those television stations- perhaps KVOS-and tell our neighbour why he made that statement.
In my opinion, personal spite or grievance of a leader of any country should not be imposed upon its population through policies at the national level, just to prove one man's authority and to fulfil his desire to get even. If people in public office followed that pattern at every level, a country would be placed in an impossible position and would have a very black image indeed. When a prime minister and his cabinet set this type of example, everyone suffers, on both sides of the border. To be a good leader one must first learn to be a good follower. There is no place in our country for childish behaviour by a government leader at any level.

Incidentally, this is not the time for people to be looking inward; they should be looking outward. Why do the government and the cabinet insist on proceeding with these unreasonable and unnecessary restrictive policies which operate to the detriment of our loyal and friendly neighbour to the south?
The bill now before the House, without amendment, is just one more example of decision without forethought, without consideration, and without discussion. I believe that if the minister responsible for the bill had made a trip south of the border to discuss the problem we would not now be spending all this time debating it. Instead he delivered it as a bolt from the blue, and he feels it must be put through regardless of repercussions within Canada or in the United States.
How much longer does the government think it can bulldoze its way through with this type of legislation and expect our neighbour to turn the other cheek? If the shoe were on the other foot the protests of cabinet ministers opposite would be heard around the world, similar to a pampered child who fell on his face because of his own clumsiness yet tried to place the blame on someone far removed from his come-down. I can visualize all the reports stressing what we did for the United States, plus the imaginations of every anti-United States person within and beyond the North American borders.
If Canada wants to create enmity why not choose a country which is opposed to our way of life, which does not believe in basic freedoms or the right of the individual? Goodness knows the world has more than enough countries under dictatorships. I hope we can still maintain our friends among those countries which think and act as we do. Canada needs, and her people desire, the friendliness of the United States and its citizens.
The good will and understanding between Canadians and their southern neighbours is constant and deep. The border does not enter into their minds. There cannot be a line drawn when it comes to friendliness, co-operation, admiration, and communication among people. I would venture to say that relations between people of the mari-times and New England, between Ontario and the central United States, between the prairie provinces and the Dakotas, and between British Columbia and Washington are more loyal and closer than ties between the different regions of our own country because of the fact that two thirds of our population live within 300 miles of the United States border. The United States can get along without us, but we would have a difficult time getting along without the United States as long as there is that 4,000 or 5,000 mile unprotected border.
For what reason did the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), or whoever had the brainwave to formulate Bill C-58, take action which could only heighten the doubt the United States now has about the reliability of the Canadian government? This arbitrary piece of legislation, added to Canada's several ill-conceived agricultural policies, implemented on the spur of the moment by our federal government, must only underline the question: can the United States rely on Canada with her on and off again, up and down restrictive policies initiated at the apparent whim of a government careless of our historic ties and
February 13, 1976

overlooking the strength we automatically have as a nation bordering on the United States? That country has a ratio of about ten to one in population, production, and resources compared to us. Regretfully I would have to say that the ratio would apply as well to public relations, international policies, brotherhood, and loyalty.
What would happen for instance if our neighbour decided without negotiation, forewarning or consideration to legislate its land as out of bounds to Canadians for ownership or publication purposes? How could the Prime Minister and the cabinet explain such retaliation to Canadians that was caused by their policies? As a matter of fact many residents of this country feel more at home across the border than they do here. This is another result of the inconsiderate, biased federal government policies.
Communications between the people of the United States and Canadians are open, friendly, and constant. Communications, whether through television, radio, magazines or people is vital; but communication between the two governments is a basic essential if Canada is to regain the proud image which has been so continuously and vigorously eroded in recent years by those governing this country.
Does the government place pettiness and its persistence to exercise a stubborn, unfriendly attitude above the standing of this country with our strongest neighbour, thus blackening Canada in the eyes of the free world? Mr. Speaker, I hope the government gives credence to what we are saying on this side and recognizes that as the United States grows, so grows Canada. We are both going to grow better and stronger if we grow one in conjunction with the other.


George H. Whittaker: Madam Speaker, I was not going to enter this debate until I heard the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas) speak earlier about how similar television and broadcasting were in Ontario and British Columbia. I doubt very much if he has travelled beyond the small orbit of his own riding because I do not believe he knows what he is talking about when it comes to television or broadcasting in British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: Where is that?


George H. Whittaker: Somebody from the party to my left asked where British Columbia is. Well, they used to know because at one time they had a few members from British Columbia but 1974 fixed that up. Now they have only a small contingent and they are not heard from too often.


An hon. Member:: The Tories didn't do that.


Jean-Jacques Blais: All you guys are going to run in Oregon next year anyway.


George H. Whittaker: I put the question, what has the elimination of KVOS-TV from Vancouver got to do with the station in my riding as far as television is concerned? There are 250 miles of the Canada-United States border in my riding and those people who live along it will have to rely on American broadcasts if they want to see television. They tell me that they cannot get Canadian television and only know what is going on in the United States.
Non-Canadian Publications
The city of Grand Forks has CBC and CTV but people are also able to get broadcasts of American television from just across the line, a very short distance away. There is a move afoot for cable television in this area. A lot of people are writing to me and asking what is going to happen to the broadcasts from across the border when Canadian cable is installed. They wonder if they will not be able to get it because a lot of them will not be able to get cable. The cable companies just service those who are the easiest and most economical to service, and leave others without. These people have a real concern. For many years the only television they were able to get was from across the border. This is exactly what happened in Midway.
I know the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) to my left will not understand this kind of thing. He comes from a part of the prairies where there is not much concern about TV or radio broadcasts. But what I am raising now is something real; it affects people. I think the hon. member understands people; I don't really know. But this is a real concern to people.
The people in the community of Midway were able to get CBC-TV because they took the initiative and formed a company which bought the necessary machinery and put it on top of the mountain. They were then able to get CBC-TV. Their mainstay has been a broadcasting station just across the border, not too far distant. That has been their main broadcasting station and they have had to get by with it over the years, when they were not able to get television. Then a forest fire burned their equipment, and once again they had to rely on television broadcasts from across the line in the United States.
They tried to interest the CRTC in building a broadcasting station under the accelerated program about which the hon. member for Bruce-Grey was talking. At any rate, they wanted the CRTC to do something under the accelerated program so that they could have TV broadcasts in the area. They were not very successful. Let me read what the Secretary of State's department had to say. An official wrote:
The situation in which the people of Midway find themselves is indeed a difficult one. Officials of the CBC inform me that the corporation can offer no financial assistance in the rebuilding of the installation in Midway, but that they would be pleased to help by giving engineering assistance and advice to the TV committee in the restoration of its installation.
Plans to install a CBC-TV transmitter in the general area are part of the CBC's accelerated coverage plan, but this, of course, offers no immediate solution to the problem of television coverage for Midway residents. This could be done through the CBC's Vancouver regional headquarters.
That letter was written on October 3, 1973. Since then the government has tried to do a lot of things in Vancouver with TV but it is not doing anything constructive in communities like Midway along the border which need help, have not got access to Canadian broadcasts, and rely heavily on television and radio broadcasts from the United States. They say to me, "We don't know what is going on in Canada."
Part of a letter sent by one of the people in Midway reads:

February 13, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
Technical advice we have had enough. After all, we had enjoyed satisfactory TV reception long before the CBC even knew about us. What we expected the CBC to do was to accelerate their accelerated coverage plan just a little more, mainly for the fiscal and political reasons outlined in my resume to you.
We don't think that the total expenditure of about $1,200 would have bankrupted the CBC, but it surely would have created a lot of appreciation from a number of taxpayers who in the past years have contributed at least this much to the CBC as their share of income taxes on top of the $15 they pay annually for the upkeep and maintenance of our signal translator.
That shows the kind of thing going on in my riding.
I mentioned Grand Forks and I mentioned Midway. Christina Lake does not even have TV. They cannot get CTV or CBC-TV. They have to rely on broadcasts from the United States.
Let's look at Princeton. Princeton is a fairly good sized city in my riding. And what do they have by way of TV? They have private enterprise repeaters broadcasting equipment up in the mountains. They were supposed to subscribe for one of these and pay for it. They have CTV equipment up there, but it is strictly on cable. That means that only those who can afford to hook up to cable, only those in the area where the cable is, can have that kind of broadcast.
My hon. friend from Bruce-Grey talked about the accelerated coverage plan. If any people deserve a broadcasting station, a CBC-TV station built under the accelerated coverage program, it is the people of Princeton. I ask you, what are all these goings on in Vancouver, and what has the kicking out of KVOS from the Vancouver area got to do with these kinds of accelerated programs?
As far as CBC radio is concerned the people in heavily populated communities like Kelowna and Penticton, where there are more than 75,000 people, have been trying for 30 years to get a CBC radio station in the area. They have now been promised it. The subject was supposed to come up just when the CRTC meeting in Vancouver was adjourned. After 30 years of constant bickering and of trying to get the government to put it in, they are now going to get it. I do not know if it is to come under the accelerated program, but I do know that we have been told that we are going to get, in 1978, a French TV station in the Okanagan area. It did not take long to come in, certainly not 30 years. It is to come in very quickly under the accelerated program. But we are not getting, and we have not been told we are getting, TV stations in our border areas where there are a lot of deserving people and where they must rely to a great degree on American broadcasts.
I thank the House, Madam Speaker, for allowing me time to speak, and I hope that some of the members opposite from eastern Canada now know what goes on in British Columbia.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Madam Speaker-


Jean-Jacques Blais: Let's hear about the real British Columbia, Stu.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I agree with much that the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) said about the provision of CBC programming for border areas, and about the accelerated program provisions. However, I suggest that

we should direct our attention to the amendment before us and consider if we are to vote for or against it. The amendment would leave open the opportunity for station KVOS to negotiate a special deal. That is what we are talking about at this stage of the debate. To be consistent, we opposed the special deal worked out with Reader's Digest and on the same principle we oppose a special deal for KVOS in terms of its somewhat unique position in broadcasting in British Columbia.
I guess we could get to the history of KVOS. They entered the market very early. They attempted, I think, to be a good corporate citizen in their Canadian operation, but we are still faced with a fundamental problem and it is that KVOS is an FCC-licensed station which is licensed to broadcast to the Bellingham area. It is not licensed to broadcast to the lower mainland. So unless and until we have an across-the-border convention where there is some kind of joint licensing provisioning, so that the market area for the individual television stations is determined in the licence, the hope of making this kind of special arrangement is very slim indeed.
I want to go on record about something else which is connected to this. I oppose the provision under the CRTC for cable deletion. I think it is wrong that American programming with advertising should be arbitrarily deleted by Canadian cable companies which are allowed to substitute their own advertising into the programs.
I know the law says that there is no title to the cable signal. But I think it is offensive to most individuals, to their sense of propriety and morality, that programs that are produced at a cost should arbitrarily have the advertiser, who in fact helps pay for the production of those programs, suffer by having his advertising arbitrarily pulled off and Canadian advertising inserted. Surely to God many of us in this House have already suggested that we have a look at the whole question of broadcasting on both sides of the border, and it has to be looked at in terms consistent with the Canadian nationalism problem. Nevertheless the idea of arbitrarily deleting advertising on cable is offensive to the majority of Canadians who have a sense of what is right and what is fair.
Again the amendment to some extent is an amendment to protect a private broadcaster, so I want to make sure that what I am saying is related to the motion. I must say that the Conservative position on the question of private broadcasting is one which is giving me some concern. Therefore, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I thought I would do some digging on this thing and I went back to an MP from British Columbia. His name was Mr. Fraser, and it was in 1935 that he spoke for the Conservative party in British Columbia. He said the general complaint throughout the province was that they could only get reception from United States stations.
There was a plea from many Conservative members in British Columbia in those days for the expansion of public broadcasting, for the development of communication in this country between east and west to resist the very heavy cultural pressures that tend to run north and south. In fact all he was doing was supporting his leader at that
February 13, 1976

time, Mr. R. B. Bennett, who had a great deal to do with the beginning of a public broadcast network in Canada and the beginning of the idea of developing a Canadian nationalism.
In fact, I suppose that when we get back to the traditional question of who were the free traders and who were the protectionists it would seem to me the Tories have a pretty good record in terms of protecting Canadian industry. We in the west never liked that because it meant we had to pay higher prices for products produced in the centre of Canada. But it is rather inconsistent now that we should have had so much debate on the virtue of free enterprise broadcasting when it was the Conservatives who, through George Grant and through R. B. Bennett, had a great deal to do with establishing public broadcasting in Canada, and it is to their eternal credit that they did.
It was only in latter days that we had this continuing attack on the CBC, saying that great monolith should be attacked, but sometimes the attacks get pretty irrational. The CBC has a pretty tough job to do in terms of trying to satisfy the myriads of interests in the country. I wish to quote Prime Minister R. B. Bennett who said on June 6, 1935:
We in this country are in an exceptionally difficult position. We have ten and a half million people and we have to rent several thousand miles of wire to broadcast on an efficient scale. That is very expensive having regard to the existing rates for wire, railways and telephones.
I urge members of the Conservative party to read what R. B. Bennett had to say about public broadcasting in Canada because I think they should not abandon what really was good judgment and good sense expressed by that Prime Minister at that time.


Thomas Gordon Towers: If you had listened to what we said you would know different.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I did listen carefully.


An hon. Member:: We did not say anything against the CBC. You started it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: When we get into broadcasting I want to say something about the fact that the finest channel coming into the lower mainland is not a Canadian channel. It is American channel 9 out of Seattle. It is an educational channel. Again those of us in this House who do not support the amendment also do not support the idea that existing programming should be deleted from the cable.
There is every reason to have full choice in the lower mainland of British Columbia. In fact if we stop thinking of just today's debate and think ahead a little, a converter before long will become standard equipment on television sets. We will go to 36 channels in the foreseeable future, within a few years, and this will provide us with all the variety of programming we need. Commercial programming fulfils a responsibility all right but it does not fulfil the democratic need for variety of programming because stations are at the whim of the advertiser.
Without proper ratings all you can appeal to is either the lowest common denominator or the largest audience. But there is a significant audience out there for something different than Mary Tyler Moore three times a week, plus re-runs, or "I Love Lucy". We will have a chance to reach
Non-Canadian Publications
all those different audiences under the converter system. We do not need to be narrow about allowing American programs on to the cable system. We could cope with all of them, including a French station in Vancouver, and we could expand our service into areas which do not normally share in television.
Let's have an original play once in a while. Let's have a little educational television which we have not had for a very long time. That is why I want to mention once again channel 9, a public service channel out of Seattle which has used some CBC programming too, because it seems to me to be satisfying an audience which is very unhappy with commercial television programming. I remember when Sunday mornings used to be called a television ghetto hour, when we had a few public discussions and something worth-while in terms of satisfying the intellect. That is gone, because if programs do not measure up under the rating system advertisers will not touch them with a ten foot pole.
As I see it one of the main functions of public broadcasting is to extend to everyone a variety of choice. Then we can protect Canadian nationalism. We do not need to shut off the border or to blank out signals from a certain direction. Nevertheless it is important that we support stations within our own borders, particularly in terms of revenue, and this is the objective of Bill C-58.
As I say, we cannot support the amendment that has been put forward. Television station KVOS is to some extent an innocent victim of this legislation, but we really do not have a solution to the problem. In fact there is no solution for KVOS because it is an FCC licensed station in the Bellingham area. I would be pleased to see them given a CRTC licence and establish themselves in Vancouver so they can go into production with revenues from the Vancouver area. That would be satisfactory. But since it is not licensed for the Vancouver area it is not really under the jurisdiction of the CRTC. I therefore submit the amendment before us should not be supported.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Madam Speaker, I just want to interject at this time a few comments specifically on the amendment dealing with broadcasting as it comes into Canada from foreign countries. Perhaps I may commence with some remarks with regard to the comments made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). If he had to go back to 1935 to find some difference in consistency in the Conservative party's philosophy, that does not exactly show too much of a threat, especially when it was a period when most people were still using D-type battery radios and did not know television was an instrument that could be used in the home.
I think the particular issue of concern here is that this is another piece of censorship being promoted and put forward by the government of the day. It is another way in which the government has told the people, "We know what is good for you". I agree with the comment of the hon. member for New Westminster that these in many ways are regulatory kinds of concerns. They can be dealt with and handled by regulation. It is not a problem that needs to be

Non-Canadian Publications
handled and dealt with by banning or controlling foreign broadcasting into this country.
I think this is a view that is not compatible with the whole history of the development of KVOS operating into the southern mainland of British Columbia. Anyone who has thoroughly and educatedly analysed the situation of KVOS has to come to the conclusion that few stations have taken such a strong and advanced good corporate citizenship attitude as they have. I submit their establishment of Canawest, a film industry operating out of Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver, employing several hundreds of people in the artistry of making animated films, films projected not only across Canada in Canadian advertising but also very extensively in the international market in the making of commercials for other countries, demonstrates quite clearly the fact that that particular corporate structure has taken seriously its Canadian obligation.
At one fell swoop with Bill C-58, which is both a censorship bill and an anti-Christian bill, we-


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Anti-Christian?


Arnold John Malone: Yes, it is, because the bill also provides foreign content in public materials cannot exceed 80 per cent. Since the Bible comes into Canada in this way, it is also anti-Christian.
I will make that point in another way. If I might digress for a moment, Bill C-58 has a very marked effect on at least one specific area of the province, the Mormon communities in southern Alberta whose religious materials are all published basically outside the border. If you apply this legislation to its full extent, it discriminates in a religious way, and challenges quite strongly the notion of freedom of religion, because it excludes material more than 80 per cent of the content of which is published outside of Canada. I am afraid this bill is a threat not only to the normal kinds of reading material but religious as well.
Essentially the amendment asks for time for the Canadian government to decide how to spend foreign dollars on Canadian culture. It is almost an irrefutable kind of amendment. First of all it does not put the government in the position of taking a decision that in any long term way is going to hurt it; it simply requests that time be given for further study of the bill in the committee. That seems to me a very obvious proposal that government members ought to accept.
Secondly, it puts forward a proposal that can do nothing but lead to advantage for the Canadian people, because its acceptance would mean an increasing amount of dollars would be pumped into Canadian culture.
We are dealing, then, with the whole question of freedom of choice. Let us look at the very obvious subjective judgment being made by the government, subjective in terms of how it is tearing down the traditional stations that people on the lower mainland of British Columbia and the border areas of central Canada are accustomed to. I note this action is just as consistent as the government's claim that 80 per cent of the content of newsmagazines must not be published previously somewhere else; at the same time the government again subjectively takes the position that that does not apply to newspapers.

The fact of the matter is that if you pick up any paper, the Ottawa Citizert, the Ottawa Journal, Toronto Globe and Mail or Star, or any paper anywhere in the country, you will find that paper has more than 80 per cent foreign content. Yet the government, again subjectively, without first establishing criteria, is taking the position that the bill's provisions apply to the broadcasting industry.
As the hon. member for New Westminster said, there ought to be a cross border convention on broadcasting. While it was his position that we should have the convention first and then follow through with some kind of special deal, I think it really ought to be just the reverse. The fact of the matter is that a number of these border stations have established their roots. They have become good corporate citizens, in many cases pouring large percentages of their money-not just large amounts but large percentages of their money-into the Canadian cultural system, building industries in this country and hiring Canadian people-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) rising to ask a question or on a point of order?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Would the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) allow a question?


Arnold John Malone: Yes.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: On the question of a cross border convention, the hon. member indicated that his position was that we should pass this amendment and then enter into negotiations. Would he respond to this question? Would we not be in a stronger position in such negotiations, instead of giving away part of our bargaining stance by passing this amendment favouring one station, to negotiate first?


Arnold John Malone: No, I would still have to disagree with the hon. member for New Westminster. To do it in the order in which the hon. member suggests would simply mean a great deal of the stations presently operating would have to go out of the business of broadcasting in Canada, or cut back on their revenues from Canadian sources. That puts us in the position of taking action against those people who traditionally have been good corporate citizens working in the best interests of Canada. Then following the adoption of some convention we would reinstate them. That is kind of a long road for anyone to have to tread.
Perhaps the government can handle this cutting back and rejuvenation, but it is certainly not something to which we can subject the corporate structure. If we were to do such to a corporate structure it would simply take its broadcasting system out of Canada and establish it somewhere else.
The point is well taken by the hon. member for New Westminster. In countries with borders such as the one which exists between Canada and the United States it is probably true that a convention of some kind should be established considering the whole nature of broadcasting. As I have said in respect of other amendments, the way to
February 13, 1976

increase Canadian culture is not by restricting or severing our relationships with the United States, or by allowing only Canadian content, or a high percentage of it in our publications and in our television and radio broadcasting. The way to extend Canadian culture is in fact by playing upon that larger market of 220 million people to the south. I believe such a convention between Canada and the United States ought to be aimed not at destroying border stations or cutting off U.S. broadcasting into Canada, but quite the reverse. We should be increasing Canadian influence into the international market, and we should be increasing significantly our intake of cultural matters from all countries of the world.
It must be recognized that our world is not getting larger, it is getting smaller, and this is not the time in our history to shut off our borders, limit information, and restrict the flow of communication. This is the time to open up and begin to communicate more and more with international markets, creating more opportunities for our artists, and all this by developing situations in which they can broadcast into the United States.
In much the same way we found that other parts of this bill represent censorship. The 80 per cent figure is in effect censorship in that we are using a mathematical concept to deal with something that has no mathematical unit. The whole thing becomes a subjective judgment, and therefore censorship. The same applies to the broadcasting regulations.
This House should give full consideration to an acceptance of this amendment because in essence all it is asking for is more time in which to conduct an in-depth study, and a chance for those who are to be affected to appear before the committee to make recommendations and suggest other alternatives. This time would allow a more thorough study of the issue, and I see no reason why anyone in this House would oppose the suggestion that we allow a minimal amount of time for greater participation and for greater study.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, since this debate has been going on for some time I think it would make sense to read again the amendment now under discussion. It is:
That motion No. 7 be amended by deleting the proposed sub paragraph (c) and substituting therefor:
(c) "a written agreement entered into after the coming into force of this section with a Canadian subsidiary of a foreign broadcasting undertaking if the Minister of the Department of National Revenue has approved a plan submitted by the said Canadian subsidiary providing for compensatory payment by such subsidiary by the allocation of funds to Canadian television program production, extension of Canadian television service, development of Canadian talent, or otherwise for the benefit of Canadian broadcasting: the Minister may require as a condition for entering into any such agreement that a percentage, to be stipulated by the Minister, of the voting shares of such subsidiary be beneficially owned by Canadian citizens".
In participating in this debate I should like to refer again to the comments of the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas). Far too aften when members representing regions in Ontario speak in this House they portray the attitude that the Canadian border ends when it reaches Manitoba. I do not find this as evident on the part of members on this side of the House, but far too often
Non-Canadian Publications
Canada is considered to be Ontario, and nothing but Ontario.
In the speech of the hon. member for Bruce-Grey he made an extremely strong case for the province of Ontario, and I commend him for that because he has a responsibility for that region. The amendment now before the House would have a great deal more effect on the residents of the province of British Columbia than on those in Ontario.
As an Albertan I feel there is more at stake than just this broadcasting issue. The issue is whether we want to see the government prying into many aspects of our private lives. We in the Progressive Conservative party are aware that in equities in the broadcasting industry exist and that legislation is required to correct these. The present legislation before us fails to take into account the needs of our regional areas.
It was of interest to note the other day that an hon. member of the Creditiste party complained about not having a French-language station in his area which is predominantly French-speaking. At this time some of our friends opposite are attempting to do something that is perhaps contrary to the beliefs of many of us. They are planning to put a French CBC station in Vancouver over the objections of the local residents. This is an indication that the government fails to recognize the regional needs of the country. We have an area in Quebec which would very much like to be served by a French-Canadian television station, but seems to be having great difficulty in getting one. Yet in Vancouver where the need does not exist the government is pushing such a station down the throats of those residents.
Many northern areas in British Columbia and Alberta do not have decent television reception, yet we do not see a great effort on the part of the present administration to provide such service to those areas. On the contrary this administration, as we see by this legislation, is attempting to eliminate existing stations in southern British Columbia.
After listening to the speech by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey I find it difficult not to agree with him. Perhaps it is difficult not to agree unless one has his fingertips on the very complex facts. Herein lies one of the problems. Very few people have bothered to take the time to get the facts in respect of broadcasting. Most of the time during this debate has been spent in respect of publishing problems involving Time and Reader's Digest.
It is all very well to say that we should protect Canadian broadcasters, and by doing so automatically great sums of money will flow to Canadian stations. That sounds good and it reads well in print. It is also nice to hear people say that we should be patriotic and protect the Canadian broadcasting industry. It is all well and good to be patriotic, but I think it is also essential that we be realistic.
This is not a simplistic piece of legislation. We must protect a number of Canadian entities, and among those entities is the Canadian broadcasting industry, but we must also protect the Canadian businessman who advertises in order to sell his merchandise. No one has talked very much about him during this discussion. We need to protect the Canadian viewer, the Canadian citizen we all

February 13, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
represent whose freedom of choice this bill and other government action threaten.
It is easy to speak about a national policy. But I ask why, just because it is nation-wide, is it nation wise? It takes an eastern problem and transfers the problem and the solution to the west. The problems and solutions are totally different. I think it is essential that we, as parliamentarians, understand that there are different regional problems in the various areas which must be approached on a regional basis.
We are attempting to have the government explore the optimum method of meeting the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. All these amendments say is that if a plan submitted by a border station is good for Canada then these punitive effects of Bill C-58 should not take effect until Canadians have an opportunity to explain the alternatives. What in the world is wrong with that? In the case of British Columbia the circumstances are different from those in eastern Canada. Everything is different. No one from the east will take the time to realize that what is good for Ontario and Quebec is not necessarily always good for British Columbia and Alberta.
Let us examine the practical results of Bill C-58 in British Columbia and Alberta rather than in Ontario. In order to survive KVOS-TV will have to cut its rates probably by 50 per cent to meet this tax bill. This would result in a loss situation for several years while the market grows. Be that as it may, that station will remain on the air. Its revenue will be cut by over $3 million. This money will not be available to Canadian stations or for the Canadian broadcasting objectives. Instead of that $3 million plus being lost to broadcasting let us do what mature neighbours should do; let us work out a compromise whereby everybody benefits.
Let us put $2 million a year into a non-profit society with a board of directors of distinguished B.C. citizens. This board, not KVOS, would spend the money in any way worth-while in order to further our broadcasting objectives. Some suggested possibilities include sharing costs with Canadian stations in extension of the Canadian station services into such places as Skeena, Prince Rupert, upper Vancouver Island, and the Kootenays. They would also include the building of a major production centre in British Columbia with the cost sharing funds that would bring in other money from the United Kingdom and the United States.
While Canada's major production facilities are in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, why do we attempt to deny the province of British Columbia the opportunity to build a comparable production empire operated and staffed by Canadians with funds from Canadian advertising? We could set up training centres on the Vancouver mainland, on Vancouver Island and in the Okanagan for the training of Canadian writers, directors, actors, and the development of the other skills needed in production. There are no skills of this type in B.C. This plan is a positive one. We have always said we are interested in exploring alternative ways of achieving the results we want.
Bill C-58 would accomplish nothing in B.C. The plan submitted by KVOS-TV (BC) Ltd. is good for the citizens

of B.C. and is just plain good business. I say again that all these amendments do is permit the exploration of plans such as this. If they are better for Canada than Bill C-58 why should we stop Canada benefiting?
The hon. member for Bruce-Grey this morning brought up some good points in his speech. As you can probably tell, Madam Speaker, by the many speeches of B.C. members from this side of the House we have been closely analysing the TV picture in B.C. We sincerely believe the western problems are not the same as eastern problems. The television side of Bill C-58 is not simplistic. It is complicated in many ways.
The hon. member for Bruce-Grey said that he had spoken to numbers of TV stations and that they all said this bill is good for all Canadian broadcasters. The Institute of Canadian Advertisers submitted a brief on this subject. That institute presents a different type of background. It gives a good outlook on this topic. It is very different to the view expressed by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey. In summary may I say that this is not a simplistic problem. It involves dangerous economic effects. We need to study this broadcast section so that we are all in agreement that we are doing the best job for Canada and for the Canadian businessmen and Canadian viewers. I believe that this bill will be a bad influence over-all on our broadcasting outlets. I urge the members of the House to support the amendment presently before us.
On this note I should like to quote from the brief we received from the Institute of Canadian Advertising. That institute states:
-we ask ourselves what would happen to various groups if advertising expenditures by Canadian advertisers on U.S. border stations were made a non-deductible business expense:
Madam Speaker, I see it is four o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville) moved: that Bill C-208, respecting Heritage Day, be read the third time and do pass.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried!


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Madam Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I must say I am somewhat surprised that the sponsor of this bill did not take the first opportunity to express his reasons for wishing this motion to pass today. In fact I do not even see the sponsor of the bill in the Chamber. I am sorry; he is present.
February 13, 1976


Mark R. MacGuigan: I want to see it passed because there have been enough speeches.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: The hon. member says he wants it to pass because there have been enough speeches. It is my recollection that there was very little debate on this measure at the second reading stage.


An hon. Member:: You were not here.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: That is quite true, I was not here. I was somewhat surprised when I came back and found that it had passed second reading without debate. It went through the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in pretty short order. What we are faced with now is a measure which has not really been debated in the House, and I think it deserves at least one hour's debate before it finally becomes the law of the land.
The main object of the bill is to create a new statutory holiday for Canadians. As I understood the unemployment statistics which were released earlier this week, we have a great number of Canadians on an enforced holiday. While the figures seem to have dropped substantially for December, the January figures are not comparable in any way. In fact there were some 100,000 more people out of work in January than there were in December. On the other hand we hear people from all sides, irrespective of party, saying that the country has problems.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says that the system under which we have been accustomed to live is not working properly and that changes must be made. I suggest that it is certainly not the way to make the system work by lessening the amount of work done in the country. All of us being human, the great majority of us would rather work less than more if we had the choice. I do not think there is anything magic in improving the soul by being forced to work, and therefore we should always be looking for measures which would give us more time to fulfil ourselves without being engaged in drudgery. Nevertheless, as I have said, we have heard calls from all sides to make Canada more productive. It does not seem to me to be appropriate at this time to be calling on people to work less.
If this measure is passed the wage bill for the month of February would be increased by a minimum of 5 per cent, if one considers the normal working days to be 20 days a month, but of course there are certain jobs that have to be done whether or not there is a holiday, and those people who are compelled to work on that day will probably get time and a half as a minimum for the work they do, and in some cases double time or more.
As a country we already have a very high cost economy. I know there is at least one group in the country which feels that this holiday was promised to them. I refer of course to the railway workers. Apparently when the Hon. Emmet Hall was arbitrating in the pay dispute with the railways in either 1973 or 1974, the last time there was a strike in the industry which resulted in the House passing legislation to force railroaders back to work on the understanding that their claims would be arbitrated, that learned arbitrator inserted a clause in the settlement stating that the workers would receive another holiday called
Heritage Day
Heritage Day. I find it passing strange that that learned gentleman would think that whatever he said would be binding on Canadians at large. I know he was given wide powers to settle that dispute, but I do not ever recall any legislation setting up that arbitration giving him the power to establish a new holiday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is the hon. member not aware of the fact that at the time the Hon. Emmet Hall made that award a bill approving Heritage Day had already been passed in a committee of parliament, so the idea did not come from him? He was simply working on something that parliament was talking about and was expected to pass.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Madam Speaker, I am certainly aware of that but I find it very surprising that the hon. member should now be espousing the view that if a measure is passed through a committee of one of the houses of parliament, that gives it some sort of legislative authority.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It gives it a good start.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: The hon. gentleman has been here a long time, I know, but I have never heard that type of philosophy espoused by anybody associated with the legislative process in this country, that just because something has received committee approval it will become the law of the land!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wanted the hon. member to tell the House the truth.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I was not telling anything but the truth. The fact is that the Hon. Emmet Hall at one time was a member of the Supreme Court of Canada. I would have thought that if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did not understand the legislative process, maybe the Hon. Emmet Hall, being a learned student of the law, might have had some understanding of it. It seems to me that it was a complete misrepresentation of the situation for railway workers to have an arbitrator produce something like that in his report.
I understand why railway workers might feel they have been "had" to some extent by that award. I suppose you could criticize their own representatives before the arbitration tribunal for allowing that learned gentleman to make the finding he did, but it would seem to me to be only common sense for anybody to understand that nothing is the law of this land until it has passed all stages in both Houses, and received Royal Assent.
Nevertheless, we could look at the railraod situation as it applies to holidays. Throughout history the western part of Canada has suffered problems in the transportation industry.
When driving west last summer when the House recessed for the summer I was passing through the prairies on a weekday, not a week end, and I noticed there was a great number of trains moving on the transcontinental tracks, whereas in September when I was returning to Ottawa, also by car, and I travelled through the same part of the land on a week end I did not see any trains moving

February 13, 1976
Heritage Day
on the tracks. I wondered at the time what was the difference.
I made some inquiries about why trains do not move in this country on the prairies at least on weekends in the summertime, and I was advised that for one reason or another the railway companies are unable to make up crews to operate the trains on week ends in the summertime in western Canada. I am sure there are shift differentials and added pay for working on week ends, but it appears that employees of railroads like their week ends off and are not too concerned about working on week ends. If they will not work on week ends even for added pay, I think it would be a mistake to create a situation which would shorten the amount of time available for use by Canadians of their railway facilities. Of course that does not apply to Canada at large but is one of the added expenses. At this time when we are trying to cut down costs why we would be proceeding to do something which would add cost to our economy is just beyond my comprehension.
We have been told that we need to stabilize the situation, to work harder and produce more. We have been warned by the government that that will happen even if we do not want it to happen. The Prime Minister pointed out in pretty clear terms at Christmas time that Canadians could expect a great deal more government intervention and direction if they did not get hold of themselves and get things moving on their own. Yet here we are with a measure proposing another non working day.
As I pointed out before, a high rate of unemployment continues to plague us, and it does not matter which way the statistician serves up the figure, there is still an increasing number of people out of work this winter. I wonder how those people who are unable to work and want to work feel about our creating an enforced holiday for everyone. Upright and responsible Canadians who want to find work, restore a feeling of individual independence and self-respect, and perform a productive function within our work force are denied that opportunity. I am sure that when those people look at their dwindling savings and consider their future and the future of the families they are committed to feed, clothe and house, there is a feeling of deepening bitterness and resentment that their elected representatives should be wasting the time of the nation discussing holidays when our real function should be to come to grips responsibly with the problems and to do our utmost to fulfil the promises made during several election campaigns in the past.
We hear constant complaints from parents and others about the increased number of holidays granted in schools today. Most of us, I believe, sympathize with this view. After all, we in this House can hide behind the fact that that is a provincial responsibility. The issue of the creation of a new national holiday is one we cannot hide behind. It is a federal responsibility which we should look squarely in the eye and reject this proposal, even though it may not be a very popular decision with some elements within our society who are all too eager to jump at the chance of a day's pay for no work, which is what this boils down to in reality.

We all know how the Liberal government talks out of both sides of its mouth from time to time, and I suggest it is doing it on this occasion. Of course it has the valiant support of its friends in the New Democratic Party. The Liberal government says work harder and produce more on the one hand, while on the other it is encouraging us to take another holiday.
The government spoke out of one side of its mouth with regard to wage and price controls in 1974 when it ridiculed this as an answer to our economic difficulties and won a campaign on the strength of this ridicule. Now wage and price controls are in effect, and that is just something from the other side of the Liberal mouth.
For the rest of us to follow this duplicity would be completely irresponsible and would constitute a betrayal of what we were sent here to do and what was vested in us by the constituents who elected us in the last election. They sent us here to try to restore some credibility in the government of the country.
How can we tell Canadians to cut back, tighten belts, work harder, bend their backs and produce much more, and yet at the same time create another holiday? The last time this issue came before us I stood against it, and I am standing against it now, notwithstanding some editorial criticism in one of Alberta's leading newspapers. I must say that on the other side of this question I received a great deal of correspondence and other messages from people who agree with the point of view I am putting forward, not just from my constituents but from people across the country. It is interesting to note that of the very few who did not agree with me one writer suggested I was advocating he slave away until midnight. I never suggested longer hours for anybody. I merely stated that we should not shorten the work cycle more than it is now.
I should like to give someone else a chance to participate in this debate, but it boils down to the fact that if the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), who proposed this bill, has his way, we will have a holiday which is a movable feast. It would not commemorate any particular thing. There are two or three things suggested in the bill, and from then on it would be up to the cabinet to decide what we would commemorate each year. That bothers me, because if there is not one thing we are commemorating, what are we doing this for? If there is not one particular thing which is worth-while having an annual holiday for, then I suggest it is not worth-while, leaving aside all other considerations.
In summary, I cannot see any purpose for creating another non-working day in this country at this time.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, with my usual brevity I should like to say that I am highly enthusiastic about this bill, and I am always depressed that in these private members' hours we rarely get to motions and make decisions. I hope this House will make a decision and support this measure. In my long years here I have noted that far too often when a private member comes up with a good idea it is talked out for years and years, and then the government introduces it.
I remember the suggestion that we have the likenesses of our prime ministers on the currency of the realm, and even while there was a bill on the order paper in the name of the
February 13, 1976

hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), the government made the announcement right under his nose, so to speak. I should like to see the House, on this day when the private member is king for one hour, make a decision.
I am enthusiastic about this measure because in a certain non-Mafia sense I am one of the godfathers of this bill. It embraces the recognition of the founding father of confederation, Sir John A. Macdonald. I tried for many years to promote a holiday on his birthday. He was, unfortunately, born on the 11th day of January, and that was not a good time for a holiday, but believing with Edmund Burke that all good government is founded on compromise, I was pleased in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to go along with the suggestion that we designate Macdonald, the national flag, and the native peoples, and as the years go by that we reach into our heritage and set aside aspects thereof to which we would turn the attention of the Canadian people.
I would be very sorry if in the discussion of a heritage day bill we got into the realm of merely computing a number of working days. The principal purpose of this bill and those asking for it is to try to foster in this representative body a greater feeling for the old fashioned word patriotism, a greater feeling among Canadians for the great men and events of their past and for the essential ingredients of what makes this country tick.
If I can get the chief whip of the government party and the mover of the bill to stop talking, I think other hon. members would hear me a little better.
It seems to me that while the economy of the country may be in a precarious state, and it is, I do not think we would really shore it up, and assure solidarity and prosperity merely by taking a stand against awarding another non-working day. I believe it is not a question of how many days people work but rather of what they accomplish. If we are smart enough in this country to increase our productivity-although it looks very bad now, comparatively-we may move into an era when the working week will not be longer but shorter.
I am happy that we are making some effort in this bill to honour Sir John A. Macdonald, master statesman, architect of confederation and, incidentally, the man under whose regime the legalization of trade unions was accomplished. I think it is appropriate that Sir John A. Macdonald should be linked with this proposed legislation.
I want to commend the legislation to my colleagues in the House as a useful gesture toward increasing our feeling of Canadianism. This country is more than lakes, mountains, and railways; it is the spirit of the people, the unity of the people that gives a sense of Canadianism.
For too long we have been afraid to let our Canadianism show-afraid we might be accused of being nationalist or romantic, or of getting excited. It took years to get Canadians on our stamps, for instance. We are afraid to display pictures or portraits of former prime ministers in our schools in case we be too partisan-even though they have been dead for three quarters of a century. Once in a while we come close to letting ourselves go, as we did during Expo. We do not injure our country, however, if we speak for an hour or two, as we have today, of symbols. Surely a
Heritage Day
civilized society is one that realizes that symbols are more important than mundane things. It is the spirit of the cathedral, not the bricks and mortar that put it together, that makes it a true place of worship.
I am in favour of asserting our belief in the great heritage of Canada, and if we direct our people to that for one day we will have achieved some useful purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, I too appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-208, respecting National Heritage Day, the private member's bill presented to this House by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan).
Last night I had the opportunity of attending a Kinsmen's club meeting in Ottawa with the hon. member and heard him speak in regard to the bill. One thing we were all made very much aware of by the hon. member was that Kinsmen's clubs across Canada are participating to a very great degree in the celebrations of a heritage day. Because the Kinsmen are so closely associated with this bill I feel it appropriate to commend them not only in this area but in their many areas of involvement in serving the greatest needs of communities.
Kinsmen International is the only true all-Canadian service club we have. I consider it an honour and privilege to be a member of this outstanding group.
Bill C-208 provides:
-that the particular aspect of our heritage to be honoured on this day should be varied by proclamation from year to year and that the focal point of the celebration for the first year should be the Canadian flag.
On this note I should like to quote from a brochure put out by the Kinsmen's Club of Sherwood Park in my constituency. The brochure deals with Heritage Day and what we should all anticipate. If this bill is passed, in the first year the focus will be on our flag. I think it is worth while to take two sentences from the brochure issued by the Kinsmen's Club of Sherwood Park as follows:
The national flag is a symbol of Canada which identifies our country throughout the world. It is natural, therefore, that Canadians will wish to treat the flag with respect that such a symbol warrants and will expect others to do the same.
It also says:
This land means many things to many people. Our common bond is represented by the flag. Wherever it flies, we can be proud.
As I stated earlier, this is a quote from a brochure put out by the Kinsmen's Culb of Sherwood Park. Since they are so closely associated with Heritage Day I think it appropriate that we put some of the accomplishments of the Kinsmen Club organization and its contribution to the community as a whole, on the record.
Kinsmen was started in Hamilton in October, 1920, by a dozen young men serving their community. Today there are over 500 Kinsmen Clubs in Canada with more than 15,000 members in the association.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am afraid the bill does not stretch as far as to talk about Kinsmen Clubs.

February 13, 1976
Heritage Day


Mr. Prud'homme:: They make a good contribution to the community.


Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, I stand corrected. When I took several courses they instructed us to use a certain amount of quotation in a debate such as this, and that is what I was attempting to accomplish. I will abide by Your Honour's ruling, however, and not quote the contribution of the Sherwood Park Kinsmen's Club to the community. I think it should be pointed out, however, that Kinsmen is Canada's only service club that is totally Canadian.
I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville who has expressed deep concern about our heritage by the introduction of this bill. I should like to know whether he has ever been a member of Heritage Canada?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Yes, I am.


Peter Elzinga: Thank you. Heritage Canada is truly concerned about the many dominant factors that have made Canada what it is today. In this it is like the Kinsmen Clubs because they have shown their concern for our heritage in many ways.
Even though there are many positive aspects of this legislation I feel it is also imperative that members on both sides register some of the negative aspects of the bill. It has been under the rule of our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that Canada has dropped from being the nation with the second highest income per capita to the eighth highest. I question whether we should introduce a bill that is going to give us another holiday when we are in such a situation. This is not an accomplishment of which we can be proud. The bill asks for another holiday and, as the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) said, it will be a paid holiday. I question whether we as a country, as a people who are constantly decreasing our productivity are in a position to endorse this. We are becoming a country that is over-pricing our exports and this trend will continue if our productivity declines as it has in the past years.
I make one final point in regard to this legislation, Madam Speaker. We cannot condemn the government for it because it is a private member's bill, but I wonder how much investigation was made prior to its introduction. Alberta and, I believe, two other provinces already have a Heritage Day under their provincial jurisdictions. The Alberta Heritage Day falls in August. It appears that this legislation introduced in the House of Commons is in conflict with provincial legislation.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, if we are to be a nation structure in Canada as a whole, it is time we paid more attention to the various provinces and their needs.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Madam Speaker, at the outset I should like to assure hon. members that I am not opposed to holidays. I am also in favour of recognizing some aspect of our national heritage by holding an annual holiday. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) deserves the congratulations and appreciation of the House and the Canadian people for his work toward that goal. There could not, however, be a more inappropriate time than the present to be giving consideration to the
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
implementation of such a proposal. This country just cannot afford to lose a day's production at this time. To declare a national holiday would be to lessen the sincerity with which we have been approaching the whole problem of returning the economy to a healthy state with a good potential for growth in the next few years.
The Economic Council of Canada, in its twelfth annual review, indicated that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for this country to maintain throughout the next decade the record of strong economic growth experienced in the 1960's. Until now we have been able to draw on a steadily increasing labour supply to ensure an annual rise in national productivity. Now that the number of young people entering the work force each year has begun to decline, other options for growth in productivity are having to be considered.
We can attempt to offset the decline in the birth rate by increasing the number of immigrants to Canada every year. Indications are, however, that this approach would be unacceptable to a large number of Canadians. Another option would be to make industry more capital intensive rather than labour intensive. The major problem here is that much if not most of the money needed, assuming it is available, would have to come from foreign sources. We would, therefore, be in the unpleasant situation of having to decide between maintaining what independance we enjoy now and accepting a lower level of productivity, or opening our country up to more foreign influence in order to continue to enjoy the benefits of an expanding economy. The danger that the later choice will become acceptable to many Canadians is very real.
Certainly if there has to be a choice between maintaining our high standard of living by losing more control of our manufacturing and resource industries, and accepting a lowered standard, but with more national independance, the present attitude of Canadians is not reassuring to those concerned with maintaining our ability to act as an autonomous nation.
The Economic Council of Canada reports that Canadians are, in general, relatively complacent about the future of their country's economy. The council warns that our recent slow growth in productivity and the consequential increase in foreign influence have contributed to the erosion of those indigenous capabilities that led to dynamic and innovative behaviour in Canadian industry.
Canadians on the whole are not aware of how badly our country has slipped in relation to other highly industrialized nations. The relatively rapid increase in total national output until now has been based on one of the fastest growing labour forces in the world. When we examine individual productivity, the figures are less than reassuring. Based on data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the average annual increase in output per employed person in Canada was almost the lowest of all industrialized nations during the period between 1960 and 1970. This raises the question of just how efficiently we are utilizing human and natural resources in Canada. It also should cause each individual to re-assess his contribution to the economic growth of this country.
I feel very strongly that this is not the time to reward
poor performance with another statutory holiday. We are
February 13, 1976

presently preaching restraint, and to provide for another holiday would only contribute to the present economic malaise.
I am in favour of providing for a national holiday in February and I will be glad to support such a move when the economy regains its strength, but our present situation makes this proposal undesirable at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker-


Paul Yewchuk: Don't talk too long, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be only a minute or two. I fully support the bill. I deplore its not having been passed in time for Heritage Day to be celebrated in February of last year. I deplore the likelihood of its not being passed in time for Heritage Day to be celebrated this coming Monday. I have feelings about some of the arguments which have been put forward this afternoon which perhaps I had better keep to myself.
I still think that Mr. Justice Emmet Hall was fully justified in saying to the railroad workers, when he gave them their arbitrated settlement, that he would agree to the workers getting the holiday if and when parliament passed the bill.
Without further ado I say that I support the bill and hope it will pass third reading this afternoon. As a number of members to my right still want to speak on third reading, and as there is not much time for them to speak between now and five o'clock, I wish to propose a motion under Standing Order 6 (5). I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this day's sitting be continued beyond five o'clock, until the proceedings on the third reading of Bill C-208, now before the House, have been concluded.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. All those who oppose the motion will please rise.
And more than ten members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I declare the motion negatived.
Motion negatived.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some of those ten were Tories and some were Liberals.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a point of order, I should like to make it clear to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that even though ten members did get up to say no to his motion, the bill could be passed before five o'clock, and if anybody knows that, he ought to know it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question!


Paul Yewchuk: Madam Speaker, while all of us are very proud of Canada's heritage and wish to make reference to Canada's heritage from time to time, I think this bill is simply a demonstration of laziness on the part of the government and perhaps on the part of the member who has put it forward.
Heritage Day
The Liberal party and the government have a long record of leading Canadians down the slippery slope of the disruption of the work ethic, the destruction of the belief that the people of this country have to work in order to keep the country producing. It seems to me there are many ways of celebrating Canada's heritage without having to stop eight million workers from doing a whole day's work.
The cost of eight million man days of lost work comes out to a substantial figure, and we should give this idea a good deal of thought before asking the country to face a financial loss of that sort.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has become famous for his scoffing at the notion of work and creating the attitude that Canadians need no longer work, that the government would set up a guaranteed income plan and that all people have to do to be acceptable is to be good consumers. I have to take issue with an approach of that kind. We know that in order for Canada to remain productive and maintain its standard of living, which is still one of the best in the world, although not as good as it was, everyone must accept some responsibility for work and productivity.
If we want to celebrate our Canadian heritage I suggest we might do so on July 1. We already have a day off on that date. That is a day which commemorates Confederation, and it seems very appropriate we should celebrate Canada's heritage at that time. As things are, nothing very much happens on that day except that everybody gets a day off and perhaps some communities hold a picnic or arrange a baseball game. The holiday is not utilized to its fullest extent.
As everyone knows, the country is facing a severe inflation problem. The former minister of finance who resigned his seat a day ago, the Hon. John Turner, constantly reminded us that the way to solve our inflation problem was through increased productivity. In my view the proposal in this bill would contribute both to the cost-push type of inflation and to the demand-pull type of inflation, and neither of them are desirable. We should not be looking for ways of getting an extra day's pay without working for it.
Most of us like the idea of taking a day off once in a while, but I would point out that we already have provision for a substantial number of official holidays and I cannot but feel that the hon. member, in putting forward this bill, is catering to the natural desire of some people to be lazy.
The Economic Council of Canada in its last report suggested that because of the decreased birth rate which followed the postwar baby boom fewer people are entering the work force today. We are at the point at which we must decide whether Canada wishes to continue to experience growth in its gross national product or whether it is satisfied to experience no growth. If we choose a growth rate of 5 per cent, for example, it will be necessary to bring in some 300,000 new immigrants a year to do the work which will be required or, alternatively to attract 300,000 women, not presently in the work force, to enter the work force.
Today we are suffering from severe unemployment, but if some growth occurs in our economy over the next five years the Economic Council it suggests is conceivable that

February 13, 1976
Heritage Day
in the absence of the immigration to which I have referred, or in the absence of women joining the work force in substantial numbers, we may experience a labour shortage. It would be ill-advised in these circumstances to give up eight million man days of work.
Mention was made that we might in some way recognize native Indians through this method of taking a day off. That, to me, is utterly ridiculous. If we want to recognize the Indian people, we should fulfil this desire by doing something for them which is meaningful, such as recognizing their aboriginal rights and trying to settle them in an equitable way. Or we should be coming to grips with measures for securing the economic development of their land, or solving the educational difficulties they are experiencing. Or, perhaps, if we want to take time off, spending a moment of silence would be more appropriate in view of the government's record in dealing with the needs of the Indian people. It seems to me the suggestion of a Heritage Day devoted in part to the recognition of the Indian people is a supreme example of tokenism toward people who are experiencing serious problems which must be met by serious proposals so that solutions can be reached.
You may have gathered by this time, Madam Speaker, I cannot support the measure before us, and I hope it will not pass or gain approval during the course of the debate.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Madam Speaker, I find it ironic that Bill C-208 should follow immediately Bill C-68. If members of the House were listening attentively to the words spoken by some of their colleagues I think they would have come to the conclusion that Canada does not need another national holiday. If a Canadian is not ready to be deprived of his favourite American program to increase his Canadianism, what are we doing speaking of adding yet another Canadian holiday.
I was flabbergasted listening to contributions made by others in this debate to the effect that all this means is another paid holiday. To my mind Canada is much more than a paid holiday. I do not believe we should have another holiday until it means much more than that.

And this interpretation, Madam Speaker, is not more honourable than the one we hear now and again from those for which Canadianism does not extend beyond the profit dimension. If federalism is profitable, it is good for them. They consider themselves as Canadians. But I find absolutely unacceptable that this Canadianism, this federalism be restricted to some arithmethical consideration and as far as I am concerned the Canadian heritage extends much beyond this consideration, Madam Speaker.
For some people, this paid holiday would be the only benefit from this bill. Some of my colleagues defended quite well the case of our economy which is an economy of austerity particularly when the productivity of Canadians is much lower than our neighbours'. This is no time to toy with the idea of yet another holiday; we should rather be asking ourselves what we could do to streighten out our economy. What could Canadians do to straighten out the economy of their country?

I should not like to be rude or unkind, Madam Speaker, but I wonder if it is not typical for Canadians to say: "What's in it for me?" If it gives me a paid holiday, I am all for it, period. But we should consider what Canadian heritage means to Canadians. And if it is the only reason, Madam Speaker, I believe we can multiply holidays as much as we want, but this will never enhance the celebration of Canadianism.
It is time to examine all the advantages we have as Canadians. You just have to go abroad in countries a little less privileged to see all our advantages, the wealth we have in Canada not only in the central area of the country but also in the east, in the west and in the north. In creating a new holiday, in February or on the third Monday or in the fall, the first concern should be the celebration of this Canadianism. It should have a certain meaning. It should represent something for Canadians. But, if it is a paid holiday, I suggest it is not worthwhile and that we should not study this bill any longer. I am convinced that the hon. member responsible for this legislation felt the same way I do about this idea of a national holiday. We could call it Flag Day or Sir John A. Macdonald Day or someone else's day. It could simply be Canadians' Day, because in fact Canadians have benefited from this rich land. And I cannot find a better way of expressing this than by saying in English:

People should count their blessings and evaluate all the advantages that there are for Canadians in having inherited this rich land. This is why I am having difficulty in following the reasons that have been invoked for adding another holiday. This debate may last long enough for me to discover from my compatriots the reason for an extra holiday, apart from the ones to which reference has already been made.
Perhaps we should also try to seek the opinion of the Indians of Canada as to how they see another Canadian holiday. What conception do they have of a truly Canadian holiday for Canadians? Since we are speaking about a national holiday, why not consult the provinces and territories and ascertain their views on what form it should take, on what it means to Canadians? Should it be called "Confederation Day", what I call "Canada Day", or something else?

National holidays can be created which have no real meaning. I know I will offend some people but I will give this example: In the province of Quebec, by tradition, June 24 was Saint John the Baptist's day, the patron saint of French Canadians. But in recent years June 24 has been politicized to the point where it is the feast of a small group which celebrates in its own way and according to its capacities. They find that the only way to celebrate is to have an orgy that lasts three or four days, makes a lot of noise, and has no meaning in the province of Quebec for the majority. That is why, Madam Speaker, I am opposed to creating a national holiday if it has no meaning.
As much as June 24 used to have a meaning for Frenchspeaking Canadians in the province of Quebec, today it does not mean anything at all to the very large majority. It
February 13, 1976

is the lot of a small minority of noisemakers who have been looking at their belly buttons for ten or twelve years. Madam Speaker, I am seriously in favour of finding a formula acceptable to all Canadians to create a holiday for Canadians. But I do not think that the formula being considered is the proper one. We should perhaps start by consulting Canadians in all parts of this country, the provinces, municipal authorities, Indians, natives, so they too will feel part of that holiday. It should not be a holiday made against them but for them and for all Canadians. For that reason, Madam Speaker, I find that the committee perhaps did not spend enough time on this bill, very commendable and deserving as it is of a lot more consideration than it was given.


An hon. Member:: Question! Question!


Maurice Dupras: Madam Speaker, when the motion by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), was introduced we were able to sense that the House was opposed to passing that legislation. And I imagine that it is for the reason I indicated, Madam Speaker, that the matter was not given sufficient consideration and was not examined by enough Canadians to be able to determine if really that idea of a new national holiday could be celebrated in February, and I find that the date is very well chosen for amateurs of winter sports. Since winter sports are the main industry in my riding, and it is in that part of my country that it is best practised, and in the best of traditions, because we have been dedicated to that touristic industry for so many years-

Perhaps I should say this in the other official language of my country. We are dedicated to tourism which has been
Business of the House
most successful in my area. Perhaps I would accept such a day because I think it would be a great occasion for Canadians to spend some time in the beautiful part of the country that I represent in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us take the vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Robert Elgin McKinley: Madam Speaker, I see it is five o'clock. I wonder whether the acting House leader on the government side would confirm that on Monday we will continue with Bill C-58?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It is my understanding, Madam Speaker, that we will continue with Bill C-58.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



END OF VOLUME X