1976-02-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an urgent and important matter.
In view of the federal government's new dairy policy which reduces production quotas in Canada and of the quite illogical increase in dairy product imports which already represent 5 per cent of the national production of industrial milk, and in light of the federal government's decision to reduce the amount of grants to producers, thus reducing their income, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House request that a special and urgent debate be held to give the elected representatives of the people the opportunity to discuss this essential matter before a final and last minute announcement is made by the government, as the decisions of the federal government in the matter are reached unilaterally without prior consultation with the members of parliament, whereas in the case of the western wheat producers the policy was appropriately discussed and submitted to the House several times.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 relating to a matter of utmost concern to the majority of Canadians. The subject is the capital punishment bill which is to be presented to the House shortly. I
therefore hope that all members of the House will give careful consideration to the following motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That it is the will of this House that the subject of capital punishment be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and that the said committee study and hear witnesses, if necessary, to find a more humane method of applying capital punishment other than hanging by the rope and that the committee make a full report to parliament with recommendations, no later than March 15, 1976.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a case of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the government has had years of failure in its attempts to decrease the unemployment rate whereas Statistics Canada has finally succeeded in cutting the unemployment rate from 7 per cent to 6 per cent in the space of one month, and in view of the fact that their most spectacular success was in decreasing the rate of unemployment in Newfoundland from 17.1 per cent in December, 1975 to 11.6 per cent in January 1976, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the government employ the obviously effective skills of Statistics Canada in their fight against inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
February 10, 1976

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder if he would remove a little of the secrecy involved in Canadian diplomacy in connection with the demand by Denmark and other European countries to the effect that, with regard to the European common market link or any floor price for oil, Canada should give to European countries the same access to our energy resources as Canadians. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs precisely what assurance Canada has given.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The question raised by the Leader of the Opposition came up during the discussion at the International Energy Agency particularly on the issue of the adopting of the long term program. Canada, because of the implications to which the hon. gentleman has referred, sought and received an exemption from paragraph five of the long term program which may have had implications affecting access on equal terms as Canadians. In the meantime, while this was going on in the International Agency, a reserve was entered by Denmark at the Council of Ministers which was considering a mandate for the beginning of negotiations with Canada. As I understand the position, that reserve has now been withdrawn by the Danish government and the way is now clear for Canada to begin negotiations with the Council on the contractual link. Specifically, the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition has been resolved to the satisfaction of the Canadian government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What I want to know is what assurance the government of Canada has given to the members of the European Economic Council and to other countries involved in the International Energy Agency so that this matter might be resolved in terms satisfactory to the Canadian government but completely unknown to the Canadian people.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Assurances have not been given by the Canadian government beyond the adoption of the longterm program, apart from chapter five, from which Canada has been clearly exempted by the governing body of the International Energy Agency. We have not given any assurance beyond our general commitment within the long-term program. In other words, we have not traded an exemption from chapter five.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the hon. gentleman saying that Canada has given no assurance to other members of the International Energy Agency and no assurance to members of the European Economic Community with regard to access to Canadian energy resources?
[Mr. Speaker.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In the terms described by the Leader of the Opposition in his initial question, the answer is no. Certainly that was the issue which was before the government and before the governing board-whether Canada would undertake explicitly the obligations imposed by chapter five. We declined to do that, and were exempted. That is the situation in the International Energy Agency which is an institution aside and apart from the Community. When we begin negotiations for the contractual link with the Community the question of access will probably come up again, and at that time Canada will have to take its position in the particular context of those discussions. But that bridge has not been reached yet.


EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY-CONSIDERATION OF MANUFACTURED GOODS IN DISCUSSIONS ON CONTRACTUAL LINK
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. From conversations that I had in Brussels last year, the prime interest of common market officials seemed to be a long-term, secure source of supply at fixed prices for raw resources and semi-finished resources, such as iron ore pellets, copper, uranium, pulpwood and petroleum. At present we have a $9 billion trade deficit in manufactured goods. To what extent will manufactured goods figure in the discussions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations which will begin with the Community will seek to establish a contractual agreement with, on the one hand, the Community and, on the other hand, Canada. There are three general areas of discussion that have been identified. One, of course, is the question of industrial and economic cooperation. At the present time these negotiations have not commenced, and it is not possible at this point to say what particular items will become part of a future agreement. As suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, access to Canadian raw materials is of interest to the Community and that question will be considered. So far as the trade aspect of the discussions is concerned, manufacturing will be very much on the list.


INDUSTRY
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Inasmuch as industrial technology will be made available under the common market connecting link, assuming that it is successful, is the minister planning to develop an industrial strategy for a secondary industrial base in Canada, or is his position that of his predecessor, that Canadian businessmen should go outside Canada to the third world countries, become involved in joint ventures and export back to Canada, which will do little to aid employment in Canada?
February 10, 1976


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am reasonably certain that the policy attributed to my predecessor is not precisely what the hon. member said it was. If he is asking whether our strategy is to ensure that there is maximum employment in Canada as well as the upgrading of our natural resources to the maximum degree that is practical and reasonable, then certainly the answer is that that is the policy I will be pursuing, not only in connection with the European Economic Community but also with other parts of the world.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of two ministers who might answer this question more appropriately, may I direct to the Minister of Finance a question concerning the labour force information that was released today. First of all, I would ask the Minister of Finance whether it is the case that, if the same methodology were used to ascertain the unemployment levels for January of this year as was used for the preceding December and January of 1975, instead of showing a percentage drop in unemployment for last month the figures would have shown a percentage increase, both in comparison with the month before and, even more significantly, on a seasonally adjusted basis, over January, 1975?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is no. While there would not in fact have been the actual drop that appeared, there would probably have been no change upward in the former detailed figures. Of course, it remains speculative because the questions asked in the former survey were not asked. New questions were asked in this particular survey, so that is something that cannot be determined. From month to month I would have to say that there has been no change in the general level of unemployment in Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT-INCLUSION OF FARMERS' WIVES IN STATISTICS
John Edward Broadbent: Well, Mr. Speaker, our calculations for both periods are different from those of the government. My supplementary question is related again to the reclassification. Is it the government's view that the percentage drop in the number of unemployed women is substantially due to the redefinition of "farmers' wives", who have been included for the first time in the survey? If that is the case, I should also like to ask the government, if now that it has been decided to include farmers' wives as part of the labour market, whether the government plans to take related steps in regard to equality so as to ensure that farmers' wives are actually entitled to part of farmers' incomes?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to observe at this point that this
Oral Questions
is a technical revision of the unemployment figures started three years ago and carried out by the relevant agencies of the government, among other things so as to base these figures on 1971 census data instead of 1961 census data. With regard to the inclusion, there has been a change in the nature of the questions asked so as to better determine who is actively seeking employment. As to the hon. member saying his figures are different from those of the government, I assume he has made a survey of 55,000 households as has Statistics Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT-EXCLUSION OF SEASONALLY EMPLOYED WORKERS FROM STATISTICS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister is normally very courteous and accurate in his observations, but he failed to answer the question in respect of whether women were going to be entitled to part of the farm income. Maybe he will pick that up in response to my third question. My third question concerns the decision to exclude or change the categorization of seasonally employed workers so that they do not show up in the same way in the unemployment figures.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Edward Broadbent: The question I put to the minister is, since the vast majority of seasonally employed in Canada would in fact prefer to be employed all year round, but because there are not jobs available all year round they cannot be, will the minister explain the justification for this change in methodology? Is it not entirely inappropriate to categorize people who would prefer to be employed all year round in such a way that they do not even show up now in the unemployment statistics?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. S peaker, to deal with the ultimate question of the hon. gentleman in the previous series of questions, the answer would be, of course, this government has been taking the lead within Canada in making certain that the principles of International Women's Year will be carried forward hereafter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to the question about seasonal workers, of course, the critical factor is whether someone is actually in the work force or is actually seeking work. The questions that have been proposed by the Chief Statistician are for the purpose of elucidating a sample on that basis. I might just say again that there have been a number of technical changes which commended themselves to the Chief Statistician and others. Perhaps the hon. gentleman and his colleagues would like to examine the Chief Statistician and others responsible when the estimates come before the House.

February 10, 1976
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister, of which I gave him advance notice.
On October 15, Mr. Justice Haddy made a judgment about the Unemployment Insurance Act, by declaring inconsistent and non applicable section 158, which theretofore prevented a teacher from receiving unemployment insurance benefits under certain conditions during summer. The Unemployment Insurance Commission had then appealed that decision, but withdrew its appeal last week.
Can the minister tell the House if it is true that an administrative decision must be made today to delete section 158 from the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to settle this problem which a great number of teachers have faced for several months?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the umpire appointed under the Unemployment Insurance Act ruled that Section 158 of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations was invalid. However, the Unemployment Insurance Commission is reviewing the umpire's decision and the possibility of an appeal to the Federal Court of Canada against this decision is still in abeyance.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
Since this section of the act seems to have been removed and reinstated many times, can the minister indicate whether the deletion of section 158 in the regulations will be definitive this time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the important question is what happens to the various rights of those who might be affected. I should add to what I said previously that should the commission appeal and the decision of the Federal Court of Canada should result in a favourable decision for the teachers, all teachers who have appealed the commission's disentitlement under section 158 and are not otherwise disentitled will be paid benefits.


POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE BALANCE WHEN STATISTICS ISSUED BY STATISTICS CANADA
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is responsible for Statistics Canada. As the government's new method of reporting on unemployment shows a spectacular improvement in the situation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Just wait-when more than 100,000 additional people become unemployed during a month, will the minister tell the House if we can expect that when Statistics Canada makes its next report on our international trade balance we will see an equally spectacular improvement in that trade balance as our exports continue to decline rapidly and our imports continue to increase rapidly?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member I am bending every effort to have the next report of Statistics Canada show a spectacular increase in exports but it will not be because of the statistical position but because I am following the very good example of the hon. member when he was Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce which is getting up off my butt and selling something.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is very simple. I would ask the minister whether it is true that during the last month he has ordered that Alice in Wonderland to be required reading by all employees of Statistics Canada so that they can produce the extraordinary result we have seen today.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the skepticism over the new methodology employed by Statistics Canada in arriving at unemployment figures in the country, especially when we consider for example that one wave of the Statistics Canada wand can reduce unemployment in Newfoundland from 17 per cent to 11 per cent, which the minister and I know is not the case, may I ask the minister if he would, in order to reassure members of the House, refer at the earliest possible moment to an appropriate committee of the House the whole new system employed by Statistics Canada in arriving at the unemployment figures in the country in order to assure members there is in fact no hanky-panky taking place between the government and Statistics Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member was using a little rhetoric at the end when he referred to "hanky-panky", but he knows perfectly well that Statistics Canada has developed this system independently over the past few years.
On his other point about the Newfoundland figures, he and I may know differently but the Newfoundland government is now saying very clearly that these statistics prove what it has been saying all along. In any event, so far as the member's question about explanations is concerned, not only am I prepared to make a reference but I am sure that if members, either individually or as a group, wish to have a thorough briefing on the technique and incidentally
February 10, 1976

to see last year's experiment, in other words to see the new technique as well as the old so that they can compare the two sets of figures because they were carried out over all of the past 12 months, then that can be arranged at very short notice by Statistics Canada through reference to my office.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, normally my question would be for either the Prime Minister or perhaps the Minister of Finance. It relates to the same labour force statistics released today. I am sure the minister is well aware that in 1975 these figures showed that while the number of people employed increased by roughly 31/2 per cent in both Atlantic Canada and Ontario the number of unemployed dropped 6 per cent in Ontario and rose by 9 per cent in the Atlantic region. Since this would indicate a further widening of the disparity between the Atlantic provinces and Ontario, and since there has been no announcement in recent months by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance of effective programs to deal with this regional disparity, I should like to ask the minister if he has taken into account the new figures and whether he would indicate what steps are to be taken by the government.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that we do acknowledge there has been a shift in regional employment. I suppose a recent decision with a negative import perhaps is that we have decided not to take the suggestion of the treasury of Ontario that DREE might be cancelled.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am a little surprised that the minister should deal in this frivolous way with this very serious matter inasmuch as his government has in effect, frozen or continued to reduce the profile and effectiveness of DREE.
Perhaps I could ask either the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion or the Minister of Finance, specifically with respect to the Atlantic economy where employment in the manufacturing sector has increased by 7 per cent but in the primary sector decreased by 18 per cent, in view of this further weakening of the primary sector in the Atlantic provinces and with respect to the recent changes announced by the Minister of Fisheries-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


GOVERNMENT ACTION IN CONNECTION WITH BOOK ENTITLED &quot;BENDED ELBOW''-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is not in the House, may I direct a question to his parliamentary secretary? Last spring I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development about a piece of hate literature called "Bended Elbow". I wanted to know if his department had considered laying charges under the existing hate literature legislation. He said his department was "looking into the matter to see what action should be taken". Last week the same book turned up in the mail box of one of my colleagues. What action, if any, is being taken in this regard?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I do not have that latest item here for the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, but the minister will be in the House on Thursday when, I am sure, he will be pleased to respond.


REQUEST THAT EXPORT OF BLOOD BE CONTROLLED- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up a question put by me last week to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that Connlab sold blood abroad through export order at a time when Canada had a shortage of blood, can the minister assure the House and the Canadian people that before any future export orders are issued they will come before the Department of National Health and Welfare for discussion so that the Canadian people can be assured that when they donate blood it will be used by the proper agencies?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the hon. member that at the end of last year regulations were enacted under the Export and Import Permits Act to control the export of blood. This particular act comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. These regulations are currently in effect and are designed to ensure a supply of blood in this country.
With regard to the safety of blood to be exported, this would be a matter coming under the Food and Drugs Act. We are presently examining whether there is any possibility of enacting regulations under that act to ensure that blood which is exported from this country meets the same standard of safety that is applied in Canada. But this is another related matter.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I think the minister is referring to the plasmapheresis centres that are across Canada. Can he assure the House that where these centres are established across Canada proper tests will be made to ensure that this

February 10, 1976
Oral Questions
blood is free from viral infections, hepatitis and other viral diseases?


Marc Lalonde: The regulations I am referring to would not deal with blood for sale inside Canada. There is doubt whether we had any power to exercise such safety control over products for export, and we are therefore looking into this matter very carefully.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General. In light of the fact that I have been advised that the peace and security legislation will be brought in and that there is a definite date set, can the Solicitor General, in the absence of the Attorney General of Canada, give us that definite date? Will he also advise the House whether he or the Minister of Justice will be presenting the bill?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: As the Minister of Justice said recently, there will be two bills introduced with the announcement of the peace and security legislation, one bill will deal with capital punishment and the other will deal with all the other measures. I will introduce the bill on capital punishment and the Minister of Justice will introduce the other bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, one supplementary question should clear the air. Can the Solicitor General assure us that the changes in the Parole Act or in the regulations on day passes will be in the peace and security bill rather than in the bill to abolish capital punishment which, as the Solicitor General has said on several occasions in the House, qualifying it with some adjectives, will be brought in separately and apart from any other measure in the Criminal Code?


William Warren Allmand: There may be some misunderstanding. The bill on capital punishment will also deal with the alternatives put forward to the present regime for murder. Whenever we have had a bill on capital punishment, that has happened. In other words, the bill on capital punishment will deal with proposals we suggest for those who are convicted of murder, including the rules on parole and imprisonment which will apply to them. But all other changes in the Parole Act that apply generally will be in the second bill introduced by my colleague.


CITIZENSHIP
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he would strengthen soon the manpower at the Toronto citizenship court by filling long overdue vacancies and appointing

more staff to clear the backlog of more than 3,000 citizenship certificates and applications, as Canadian citizenship delayed is a denial of citizenship rights and privileges to eligible and qualified residents of Canada.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of .State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. It is a serious problem in Toronto. It is a reflection of the success of our citizenship promotion program. It will need a complement of more people.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since Quebec's Social Affairs Minister has recently declared that, in his view, the guaranteed annual income program cannot be implemented until 1978 and even later because economic and financial conditions will not allow it, can the minister tell the House whether or not he agrees with this statement and if not, will he put forward a bill aiming at an earlier implementation of this program so as to correct the injustices which have been caused by the social measures now existing?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on many occasions, our prime objective is to complete the review of social security and to come to an agreement with the provinces as early as possible. I hope it will be reached by next summer. Any legislation which might result from such an agreement will have to be presented at a later stage, probably during the next session. Now, I do not think it is realistic to expect such a program to be in effect this year or the next. As for the following years we shall have to wait and see what has developed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Inasmuch as the minister I quoted did specify that even if the federal government and the provinces come to an agreement, this program could not be implemented, as I said earlier, before 1978-he specified this-and even several years later, does he think this should be the case or that efforts are being made to come to an agreement only on a contingency or that we really want to implement the program?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that all governments want to implement such a program as soon as possible. As I indicated in a previous answer in this House, the federal government proposes that this program be administered by the provinces. So it is the provinces that will have to decide when the program is to be implemented in each province. As far as the federal government is concerned, we made an extremely generous offer concerning cost sharing, and I think financial motives should not
February 10, 1976

be a real reason for postponing indefinitely the implementation of such a program.


POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE IN COST-SHARING FORMULA FOR PENSIONS FOR BLIND AND DISABLED
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that a guaranteed income is not foreseen in the near future, and in view of the fact that those who are disabled through no fault of their own-the blind and the disadvantaged-are suffering as a result of inflation, has any representation been made by the provinces about increasing the cost-sharing formula, particularly for the province of Newfoundland, to allow these people to be able to cope with the high cost of living which exists?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications, born of some frustration, not with the minister but with the telephone system. I understand from usual channels that the Liberal caucus decided on the weekend that improved communications would assist the faltering image of the government. Would the minister agree that unless the communications system is improved nothing can be done to help the image of the government, and will something be done to improve what must be one of the worst telephone systems in western civilization?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I think what is going on in British Columbia this week might do much to improve the image of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jeanne Sauvé: But I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that that has nothing to do with the telephone system. To answer his question, rate increases like the ones which have recently been allowed are related to development and expansion of telephone services. In many cases that would mean an improvement of the service. However, under the new legislation providing for the regulating of the telephone system under an enlarged CRTC there will be more opportunity to take into account social factors and also to have an input as to the possible concern the hon. member has about coverage and quality of service.
Oral Questions


Mr. Fairweather:: Is it not somewhat anomalous that while we congratulate ourselves for having one of the most wonderful telecommunication satellites in space, here on earth one cannot get the government switchboard, in or out?


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I should like to ask the minister what is happening within the Canadian Pension Commission. Veterans who submitted their applications as long ago as three years have not had their applications processed. What steps does the minister intend to take to speed up these applications?
Will he reorganize the commission and if necessary add more members, or, as has been so brutally suggested because of the annoyance, perhaps withhold pay cheques to see if they extend their hands and determine if rigor mortis has set in?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member knows of any cases which have lasted over three years-because I do not think we have any-he should bring them to my attention. To answer in respect of the processing, previously there were 10,000 applications, now it is in the vicinity of 4,000 and the commission is working quite well. I would be very glad to take notice of any particular cases the hon. member has in mind. Sometimes there are applicants for pensions who do not qualify, and to determine what their qualifications are is quite a process, and takes much time. It would take a very detailed answer to give the many reasons for this, but I would be very interested in obtaining information about the cases to which the hon. member makes reference.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REASON FOR REDUCING AMOUNT OF WAGE INCREASE FOR UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY WORKERS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of statements made by the minister during a debate in the House and in the committee during the discussions on the antiinflation bill that people earning less than $3.50 per hour would be permitted to get increases of more than the 10 per cent maximum permitted by the guidelines, would the minister explain why the University of Toronto library workers, for many of whom the 20 per cent increase would still leave them earning less than the $3.50 an hour, had their agreements scaled down by the Anti-Inflation Board?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have referred a question of that nature to the

February 10, 1976
Oral Questions
board. I would be glad to report to the hon. member when I have a response.


David Orlikow: When the minister discusses this question with members of the Anti-Inflation Board, would he ask them if they can explain why they turned down this increase to people who are on a relatively low pay scale while teachers in some Ontario communities have had increases of more than 20 per cent approved? Also would he ask members of the Anti-Inflation Board if they could do more than just issue a directive, that is give some explanation of their reasons for making the rulings they make?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will very carefully discuss with the board the questions of the hon. gentleman.


POSSIBILITY OF REASSESSMENT OF STANDARDS FOR MERCURY IN SWORDFISH-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On Friday, December 19 at page 10193 of Hansard the Minister of State (Fisheries) informed the House that he had asked the Health Ministry to reassess and re-evaluate health standards relating to mercury in swordfish.
In view of the importance of re-establishing, if possible, this industry, worth some $4 million to Nova Scotia alone, while at the same time giving new job opportunities to fishermen who have been refused the renewal of their lobster fishing licences, will the minister give the House a progress report from his department, and has he made any representations to Washington in the hope of re-opening this important market?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there have been no representations made to Washington, but this is a matter of great significance and obviously of great economic importance to fishermen. However, it is also of significant importance with respect to health. This is a very complex and difficult matter which is actively being studied by my department and fisheries officials, and I hope there will be a resolution of this question reasonably soon.


REQUEST FOR NEW MARKETS FOR SWORDFISH-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since swordfish are consumed in some states of the United States and in Japan, South Africa, Italy and Latin American countries without apparent damage to health, has the minister made any attempt to open up new markets for swordfish in the countries I have mentioned, and if not, will he endeavour to do so?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that the issue certainly has not come to my attention, and I have not done anything along the lines suggested by the hon. member. However, I will be glad to look into this matter to see what we may be able to do.


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF REDUCTION IN BUDGET FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the remarks made by the Prime Minister yesterday at the University of British Columbia, where he was accompanied by most of the missing members of the cabinet and where he dedicated the TRIUMF project, the $36 million joint universities meson facility which contains the largest and most complex cyclotron ever built, wherein the Prime Minister indicated that the cabinet had decided to extend money because they were, and I quote, "mindful of the potential in meson research of international significance," will the minister seek reconsideration of the announced freeze of medical research budgets for next year so that much needed medical research at the University of British Columbia and other medical schools, which also have international significance, will not need to be curtailed, to the lasting detriment of existing research establishments?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the budget restrictions have already been announced by the President of the Treasury Board. It is obvious that if the President of the Treasury Board ever get hold of additional monies, I am sure he would consider with much sympathy any endeavour to increase the grants offered for research. But I have not yet been advised that such additional resources were available.


TARIFFS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I wonder if the minister could give the House an explanation of why tariff item 17200-1 was changed so that now the King James Version of the Bible as well as the Concordance to the Septuagint and books of that nature, which are clearly religious books, are now dutiable?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if that information ought not to be sought in some other way.



February 10, 1976


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General which relates to the questions put by the hon. member for Victoria yesterday.
Can the minister tell the House whether, in the light of revelations about the activities of the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation of Canada, particularly the kickbacks paid on an international scale to get lucrative contracts, the RCMP has conducted, is conducting or considers conducting an inquiry to ascertain if that corporation did pay kickbacks to obtain from the Department of National Defence a contract estimated at $1 billion for the replacement of the long range patrol aircraft.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the RCMP is not investigating this matter. To the best of their knowledge no Canadians have received kickbacks in this matter.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the value of Canadian money on foreign exchanges has remained high because of the continued inflow of foreign capital, which may lead to trouble down the road as it were, has the government considered avenues of relief such as lower domestic interest rates, direct controls on international capital flows or devaluation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, to deal with the hon. member's specific suggestions, we have indicated that we would continue to maintain restrictions on the increase in the money supply and therefore the kinds of actions proposed by the hon. gentleman, which would involve a very substantial increase in the money supply, do not commend themselves to us. I specifically indicate that we have given no consideration at all to the imposition of foreign exchange controls.


COMBINES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Stick with Sine.
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister consider broadening the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration, to allow that commission to review the relations between big corporations and the government, particularly such relationships as may exist between the present administration and such corporate giants as Power Corporation and its subsidiaries.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to have the hon. member back in the House, and to understand the basis on which he is conducting his election campaign. The answer is, no.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of his reluctance to refer this matter to the Bryce commission, would he consider referring it to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, of this House, in order that the committee can consider the relationship of such big corporations with the present administration?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, knowing the hon. gentleman, I am quite sure it would not require any reference to any committee to permit his raising the question.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In the past week the minister stated that the $88 million construction program for the Canadian Forces Base at St. Jean had been approved in 1973. The 1975-76 estimates, published some ten or 11 months ago, called for a total cost of $47,220,000. Can the minister explain this apparent increase of 86 per cent in projected cost in some ten months?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely it would be appropriate to ask this kind of question when the minister's estimates are before the standing committee.
=k *	*


FOOD COLOUR ADDITIVES-DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT OF RED DYES TWO AND FORTY IN CANADA AND UNITED STATES
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering the controversy regarding the possible carcinogenic properties of Red 2 and Red 40, used by the industry to colour food, and as the minister on the basis of information he received has seen fit to ban Red 40 but not Red 2, whereas the United States has done exactly the opposite, will the minister consider consulting with his counterpart in the United States in order to interchange information and research data on these two chemicals so that a uniform decision may be made which would help
10792

February 10, 1976
Oral Questions
greatly to allay the fears of the general public of both countries?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we in Canada have when necessary adopted a more restrictive approach to food colour additives than most other countries and the United States. In Canada we recognize only nine of these, whereas I believe other countries recognize as many as 20. May I advise the hon. member that I am advised that the court of appeal yesterday reversed the decision of the court of first instance to do away with red dye No. 2. Red dye No. 2 is at least temporarily again valid in the United States. We asked the FDA of the United States for all its scientific information on the matter. This has been transmitted to my department, and the health protection branch is studying at present the scientific studies which were carried on in the United States. Consultations on this subject this weekend were held with European countries; but we are still of the opinion that, at this stage, it would be premature to ban red dye No. 2.


Mr. Baldwin:: I suppose you are an expert on red dye.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Recently one Chris Squires, a twice convicted rapist, took two females hostage at Kingston penitentiary. It is reported that Squires had requested a pass to attend his father's funeral, but was refused; that he had also requested psychiatric treatment, which he was unable to obtain because of his low priority rating. Will the minister tell the House what methods or criteria are used by the Canadian penitentiary system to determine who shall receive priority for psychiatric treatment?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my information on this inmate is this: He was convicted only recently and had been at the regional reception centre in Ontario, being tested for programs like psychiatric treatment, and so on. On the other hand, we know that he underwent psychiatric treatment in the past. He spent some time at the Penetanguishene institution, in Ontario, and at Kingston psychiatric hospital during his teenage years.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are there criteria relating to priorities for psychiatric treatment, or is the House to assume that treatment is given on the basis of the arbitrary decisions of the officials in an institution? Are there any criteria; if there are, will the minister table the criteria in the House?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are. Actually, two years ago we set up a committee of psychiatric consultants right across the country and asked them to help develop such criteria. They suggested a system of five regional psychiatric centres. We have now built three of those five

centres and will build the other two shortly, one in Saskatoon and one in Halifax. I know there are criteria but cannot give them to the hon. member right now. We will send them to him as soon as possible.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs? I am not asking the minister today about the proposed legislation respecting veterans who were prisoners of war, because I await with hope the statement he has promised to make on Thursday.
In view of representations made to the government directly by the Royal Canadian Legion, and also made editorially in a recent issue of Legion magazine, calling for the simplification and broadening of the provisions of the War Veterans Allowance Act, may I ask the minister if this act is under review in his department, in the hope that there may be amending legislation some time in 1976?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I also received correspondence from the president of the Canadian Legion. I answered him and told him that, at this time, the possibility of having that legislation for 1976 is not very good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point order. It concerns yesterday's Hansard and the Minister of National Defence. At page 10742, the Minister of National Defence declared:
Under the rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, I will table this correspondence, Mr. Speaker.
The minister was referring to a letter from the chairman of Lockheed Aircraft Company which he produced, rather naively I thought, as proof positive that Lockheed would never attempt to bribe a Canadian. The document appears not to have been tabled and I would like an explanation from the minister.


Mr. Richardson:: Mr. Speaker, the letter in question was put on the table yesterday.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some reluctance to raise a question of privilege which I believe affects my right as a member of this House to ask a supplementary question. Your Honour chose not to allow a supplementary question. For some reason, there seems to be a blind spot in this area. For several days-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. An hon. member close to that area recently raised the same question by way of a point of order. I think all members understand that there is a discretion in the Chair as to whether to allow supplementary questions. The exercise of that discretion may dis-
February 10, 1976

please hon. members from time to time; it is bound to. The fact is there is common ground among us all. The refusal from time to time to recognize a given member on a supplementary does not constitute either a question of privilege or a point of order. It is a matter that hon. members have to accept from time to time. In this case, the hon. member put a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs about the backlog of the board with regard to veterans' pensions. Some, he said, had built up over three years' duration. That precise question was put to the minister only a few days ago, and answered.
If the Chair had wanted to take a very hard line against the hon. member, it could have refused to permit him to put the question at all. However, the minister was permitted to give an answer, which was the same answer that he gave a few days ago, namely that they are trying to clear up the backlog. If there are any specific cases, the hon. member should bring them to the minister's attention. That goes beyond the ground granted to the hon. member. He can bring specific cases to the minister.
We face a continuing problem. Every member wants to ask supplementaries. I do not, and will not, recognize every member on a supplementary. There is one thing about which we can be absolutely clear. If every time that a member is not recognized on a supplementary he proposes to take it as a personal gesture of prejudice or discrimination against his particular line of questioning, we will have to face this matter every day at three o'clock. There are times every day in the question period when I have to exercise discretion either to allow or not allow supplementary questions.


Stanley James Korchinski: With all due respect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley James Korchinski: I do have a case of three years' duration.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley James Korchinski: I do have a letter from the minister indicating that he will take this up on a priority basis. This dates back two years. I still have not got any answer. Since we are continually told by the commission that we should not-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley James Korchinski: It would lose its priority.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Yesterday I indicated that at three o'clock today I would invite discussion on the question I deferred on two occasions, namely, a tax matter that was sub judice. I wonder if before launching into that discussion today we might complete routine proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table copies of a report by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, dated December, 1975, entitled "An examination of possible ways of reducing the election period".


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, the report of the Study Group on Dissociation or, as it is known, the Van tour report.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,171, 3,651, 3,708, 3,723, 3,773, 3,775, 3,823, 3,824, 3,826, 3,827, 3,867, 3,899 and 3,963.


Mr. Paproski: 1.	Are general contractors constructing the buildings in Hull, Quebec known as Place du Portage Phases I to V and the underground parking garage and, if so, who are they?
2.	(a) Which of the buildings are being constructed under contract with the government (b) what is the contract price (c) what are the estimated costs?
3.	Are there any extras in addition to the contract or estimated price and, if so, what are they?
4.	Does the government plan a contribution to any scheme for the eventual use of any building not being constructed by the government and, if so, what is it?
5.	What was the cost of land acquisition by the government or any agency of the government for the Place du Portage sites?
6.	Is any person or corporation participating with the government either as partners in construction or under any agreement as to the leasing of space in the completed building by the government and, if so, what are the terms of the agreement.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. (a) (i)
Phase I, Yes. (ii) Phase II, Stage "A", Yes; Phase II, Stage "B", Yes; Phase II, Stage "C", Yes. (iii) Parking Garage Former City Hall Site: Excavation, Yes; Footings, Yes; Structure, Yes. (iv) Maisonneuve Parking Garage, Yes. (v) Phase III, No. (vi) Phase IV, No. (vii) Phase V, not available. 1. (b) (i) Phase I, Thomas Fuller Construction Co.
2 1 1 30-61 (4

February 10, 1976
Order Paper Questions
(1958) Ltd. (ii) Phase II, Stage "A", Pitts Quebec Ltd. Phase II, Stage "B", V.K. Mason Construction Ltd. Phase II, Stage "C", Thomas Fuller Construction Co. (1958) Ltd. (iii) Parking Garage Former City Hall Site: Excavation, V.K. Mason Construction Ltd.; Footings, J.R.B. Construction; Structure, Thomas Fuller Construction Co. (1958) Ltd. (iv) Maisonneuve Parking Garage, Thomas Fuller Construction Co. (1958) Ltd. (v) Phases III, IV and V, not available.
3.	(a) Yes.
Insert Table 3171
2.	(a)	(b)	(c)(i)	Phase I	$12,595,000.00	N/A(ii)	Phase II, Stage "A"	568,802.00	N/APhase II, Stage "B"	1,021,700.00	N(APhase II, Stage "C"	11,720,000.00	N/A(iii)	Parking Garage-Former City	Hall Site	Excavation	675,300.00	N/AFootings	49,961.00	N/AStructure	2,262,000.00	N/A(iv)	Maisonneuve Parking Garage	2,515,000.00	N/A3.	(a) Yes.	3(b)	Number of	Change	Orders	Net Increase(i)	Phase I	225	1,129,599.77(ii)	Phase II, Stage "A"	5	49,737.60Phase II, Stage "B"	16	230,765.93Phase II, Stage "C"	139	1,873,369.47(iii)	Parking Garage-Former City Hall Site	Excavation	2	14,635.00Footings	1	15,817.82Structure	53	249,124.57(iv)	Maisonneuve Parking Garage	60	645,862.324.	(i) The Crown intends to lease to Campeau Corporation approximately 68,000 square feet of land (present Post Office and Hydro sites) for a term of 35 years at an annual rental of $1. If the Crown does not exercise its option to purchase the building at the end of 35 years, the Crown will charge Campeau Corporation the market land rent in effect at that time, (ii) The Crown intends to lease to Cadillac-Fairview the land on which the Federal portion of lease-purchase complex to be known as Place de Centre will be built. The lease is for 73 years and for the first 30 years of the agreement, the rent will be one dollar per annum. If the Crown does not exercise its option to purchase the building at the end of the thirtieth year, the land rent will be at the market rent for the last 43 years of the lease.5.	Agreement on land acquisition costs have not been finalized between the N.C.C. and D.P.W. therefore this question should be directed to the National Capital Commission.6.	(i) The Crown has approved entry into a lease-purchase agreement for Terrasse de la Chaudiere with Campeau Corporation, who own most of the site, based on a 35 year lease with an option to purchase. The terms of the

agreement have not yet been finalized, (ii) The Crown has approved entry into a lease-purchase agreement with Cadillac-Fairview for a Federal building in Place de Centre. The term of the lease is 30 years at a rental rate of 3,006,384 dollars per annum for 410,148 square feet of rentable space. At the end of the thirtieth year, the Crown has an option to purchase the building for 6,000,000 dollars.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has an offer to sell sugar to Canada been received from a Caribbean country and, if so (a) which country (b) on what terms?
2.	Has consideration been given to use foreign aid in assisting in the stabilization of the export markets of developing countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and External Affairs as follows: 1. The purchase of sugar is in the hands of the private sector which makes its own arrangements for sugar supplies, including quantities from Caribbean countries. During the first nine months of 1975, imports of sugar from Caribbean countries were: Trinidad-Tobago: 2,556 metric tons; Cuba: 105,840 metric tons; Total: 108,396.
2.	Two techniques are used internationally to cope with the problem of stabilizing commodity export earnings. The first is to stabilize commodity prices by negotiating commodity agreements and the second is to stabilize export earnings by providing compensatory financing when export earnings fall, through arrangements such as the IMF compensatory financing facility. While both these approaches may result in the transfer of resources from developed to developing countries, neither approach makes direct use of aid funds. The direct use of aid funds to maintain LDC export earnings would, in effect, be similar to providing direct subsidies to the countries concerned which is contrary to Canadian aid policy.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Do persons involved as bureau chiefs, news editors or producers of news and public affairs programmes for CBC Radio or Television operate under any instructions to keep such programmes free of their own personal political bias and (a) if so (i) are they instructed to edit and report but not to manage the news (ii) what are such instructions (b) if not, for what reason?
2.	Is the government prepared to insist that CBC follow a policy of reporting news from Parliament and elsewhere without (a) political bias (b) news management, etc. so that the Canadian people can have access to opinions on all sides of every public issue?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. CBC information programming staff are under explicit instructions to keep programs for which they have responsibility totally free of their own personal political bias. They are instructed to edit and report fairly and, to quote program policy directives, to strive for a maximum subjective detachment from the events and opinions of the people which constitute the news. He can report, he can background, he can explain and he can analyse, but he must not express his personal opinion.
February 10, 1976

2.	The government believes that the CBC's own standards and directives are adequate to ensure that objective reporting is maintained.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does CBC maintain a Parliamentary Liason Officer in Ottawa for purposes of dealing with inquiries from Members of Parliament and, if so, does this individual assist in the preparation of answers to questions on the Order Paper concerning CBC?
2.	For what reason have answers been declined in regard to CBC in many cases on the grounds that it is not the customary policy to reveal such information?
3.	Is the government prepared to (a) establish a policy of allowing full answers to questions pertaining to CBC (b) make public the names and salaries of all persons involved with any CBC news programme or public affairs programme if such information is requested by a Member of Parliament?
4.	Has secrecy been applied to many aspects of CBC operations when questions have been placed on the Order Paper and such information has been refused and, if so, for what reason?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The CBC maintains a Parliamentary liaison service which coordinates the preparation of answers to questions on the Order Paper concerning CBC.
2.	See reply to parts (a) and (b) of Question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.
3 and 4. See reply to part (c) of Question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the (a) names (b) job designations (c) annual salaries of all persons employed by CBC in Toronto who have jurisdiction of any kind in regard to what news items filed by the Parliamentary Bureau of CBC in Ottawa are used or not used in CBC radio and television newscasts?
2.	In each case (a) on what date were they hired by CBC (b) what previous positions, if any, did they hold with CBC (c) what previous experience, if any, did they have with any other news media?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (a), (b), (c), and 2. It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide the names of individual staff members, their employment histories or salaries. (The background of this custom is explained in detail in the reply to Question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975). For information about the line of responsibility within the CBC News department, see the answer to Question No. 548, October 23, 1974.


Mr. Cossitt: Will the Canada Council within the next year expand the space it occupies in the La Promenade Building on Sparks Street, Ottawa and, if so (a) for what reason (b) how many additional square feet will it
Order Paper Questions
occupy (c) in what way is this consistent with the government's declared policy of restraint and non-expansion of the Public Service?


Coline M. Campbell: 
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On the Saturday following the British Columbia general election did CBC national television news carry a sequence on the loser, Mr. Barrett and, if so, what amount of air time was devoted to the item?
2.	Was a sequence carried on the same programme of the winner, Mr. Bennett and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Does this lack of balanced coverage indicate a policy of certain CBC personnel applying their personal political views to the news rather than balanced reporting of the news?
4.	What are the names and job designations of all persons involved in compiling the items that appeared on this particular edition of the national television news?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. On Saturday, December 13, The National carried a one minute, 42 second report on the defeat of the NDP government in British Columbia, not specifically on Mr. Barrett.
2.	Not on December 13. Coverage of Mr. Bennett on The National immediately before and after the election was as follows: December 10, a one minute, 37 second report on the strong possibility that he would become the next Premier of British Columbia; December 11, reports on the election, updated in each time zone, all including sequences with both leaders; December 12, a two minute, two second report on the results of the election, including footage of Social Credit victory celebrations and a statement by Mr. Bennett.
3.	CBC does not agree that there was a lack of balanced coverage.
4.	It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such information about its staff. The background of this custom is explained in detail in the reply to Question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On CBC national television news on December 15, 1975, did CBC give coverage to comments of the federal NDP leader on the matter of certain remarks made by the United States Ambassador to Canada, William Porter, on United States-Canadian relations and, if so, what amount of time was allotted?
2.	Did the same programme give any coverage to comments on the same subject made by the federal leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Are CBC officials aware that CTV national news appearing at the same hour provided coverage of the comments of both party leaders?
4.	What are all the reasons for this unbalanced CBC news coverage and what are the names and job designations of all those involved in

February 10, 1976
Order Paper Questions
deciding the material to be used on this particular edition of CBC national TV news?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. On December 15, following remarks made by Mr. Broadbent in the House earlier in the day, The National carried 43 seconds of Mr. Broad-bent's comments regarding the new U.S. ambassador, Mr. Enders. He was not interviewed with regard to the remarks made by Mr. Porter.
2.	No. Mr. Stanfield had made no comments in the House regarding Mr. Enders and was not interviewed on the subject.
3.	Yes.
4.	CBC does not agree that there was unbalanced coverage. With regard to the names of staff members involved, it has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such information. The background of this custom is explained in detail in the reply to Question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On the Sunday following the British Columbia general election did CBC programme "Capitol Report" include any unbiased details of Mr. Bennett's victory and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Did the programme include an attack on the Social Credit Party by columnist Trevor Lautens and, if so, for what reason?
3.	What are the reasons for this lack of balance in political news and comment by CBC?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Trevor Lautens did a tongue-in-cheek review of the campaign, dealing with both the government and the opposition.
3.	CBC does not agree that there was a lack of balance.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On CBC radio programme "The World at Six" on the day following the British Columbia general election was Mr. William Bennett or any members of his party interviewed during comments on the election results and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Did the coverage on the British Columbia election on this programme consist of two CBC newsmen making allegations that ex-Liberals elected as Social Credit members might seize control of that party?
3.	What were the reasons for this lack of balance in political reporting?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. No. Mr. Bennett was in the B.C. interior that day. For that reason he was interviewed by telephone and the results fed to Toronto. The technical quality of the interview was too poor for any of it to be used.
2. No. The discussion between the two reporters was based on matters raised by the result of the election,

including the fact that many members of the new government formerly belonged to other parties.
3.	The CBC does not agree that there was a lack of balance.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What is the total amount budgeted by the Office of Tourism to be spent on (a) promotional activities (b) travel brochures (c) other items promoting tourism in Canada by its offices in the United States for 1976?
2.	How much will the Office of Tourism be spending for transportation and accommodation of the contingent being represented in (a) the Rose Bowl Parade in Pasadena, California, January 1, 1976 (b) "Canada Day" at Disneyland (c) promotional events that all or part of the contingent will be participants in (i) Los Angeles (ii) San Francisco, in the first week of January, 1976?
3.	What is a list of the events that the Office of Tourism will be involved with in (a) Los Angeles (b) San Francisco, during the first week of January, 1976?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. The total amount budgeted by the Office of Tourism to be spent by its offices in the United States for 1976 on: (a) promotional activities, Special Promotions, $396,000 (travel trade exhibitions, consumer travel exhibitions, ski seminars); Travel Industry Promotions, $100,000 (travel trade seminars), (b) travel brochures, produced and provided by CGOT H.Q. for distribution through its offices in the U.S., $250,000. (c) nil.
2.	CGOT has made no contribution to transportation and accommodation directly. However, following interdepartmental development of a program for Canadian participation in the commemoration of the U.S. Bicentennial, and further discussions with provincial and municipal tourism authorities the CGOT made a commitment of $25,000 towards the total budget for the project. Because of unexpected increased costs, most of which were brought about as a result of unanticipated opportunities for significant television and media exposure in addition to those events in which Canada was already participating, the CGOT is considering an increase in support by $5,000-$10,000. This financial support is based on the CGOT's assessment of the share of gain it anticipated in tourism publicity from the series of promotional events.
3.	The CGOT was not involved directly in any events in the two cities during the first week of January, 1976 beyond consultation during the development of the program of events and its contributions towards the projects as noted above in 2.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	How many 1976 calendars were printed for free distribution by the Post Office Department?
2.	What is the total cost to the taxpayer for such calendars?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1.	750,000.
February 10, 1976

Privilege-Mr. MacKay PRIVILEGE
2. $146,480.


Mr. Murta: 1.	Is Adrian Lang, listed as Special Assistant to the Minister of Transport, related to the Minister and, if so, what is the relationship?
2.	Was she appointed by Order in Council and, if so (a) on what date (b) what is her salary range and what are the details of any other remunerative consideration she is receiving (d) what are her duties?
3.	How long has she been in the office of the Minister of Transport and/or the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board?
4.	Has she made any trips on government business and/or government public relations and, if so (a) to what locations (b) on what dates (c) for what purpose (d) at what expense?
5.	Does she have an expense account and, if so, what are all the expenses she has incurred, the purpose for each such expense and the dates incurred?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes; spouse.
2.	No; not applicable.
3.	Since September 26, 1975.
4.	(a), (b) and (c) Adrian Lang has accompanied the Minister of Transport on official trips in her capacity as Special Assistant to the Minister of Transport when deemed necessary, (d) Adrian Lang has not caused any expense to the Government of Canada in her capacity as Special Assistant to the Minister of Transport.
5.	No.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 3,796 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Orlikow: By department, what was the increase in the number of senior officers (a) SX1 (b) SX2 (c) SX3 (d) SX4 for each year 1969 to 1974, or in the case of new departments, commissions, agencies, etc. from their inception to 1974?
Return tabled.


Mr. Symes:: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice today that I intended to move a motion under Standing Order 26 as it related to the national dispute of paperworkers. Due to certain developments, I request Your Honour's permission not to put that motion today but at a later time, possibly tomorrow.
MR. MacKAY-QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS ON MATTERS SUB JUDICE


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief on this question of privilege. It is my feeling that there may be other members more senior than I who can contribute more to this debate and who will want to participate when I have finished speaking. I submit there is a plain distinction between my questions regarding tax aspects and possible police investigations with regard to Sky Shops and the specific area of the civil libel suit against myself and others brought by Thomcor Holdings Limited. If I were to be technical, there is no evidence before parliament to indicate conclusively that Thomcor Holdings are one and the same as Sky Shops.
The matter of the libel suit, of course, is civil, not criminal in nature and the Crown, not being a party, ought to be free to give information. In addition, the pleadings of the civil action in which I am involved are at such a preliminary stage that there is a question as to whether the matter is before the courts in more than a very technical sense, it has not yet been set down for trial and there is no judicial decision pending. In any event, the questions that I have asked are not part of those matters which form part of the libel suit.
A member of parliament, I submit, has a right and a duty to pursue investigations and ask questions on behalf of his constituents and the general public, and any interference or obstructions in this respect must be undertaken very carefully and supported by citations and predecents of the greatest weight and substance. Our House leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), will proceed to deal with the precedents and will develop the case on my behalf in greater detail. Indeed, I am so closely involved, as Your Honour pointed out, in being a participant in or party to the action that if I were to become too closely involved I might lose my sense of objectivity and be in the position that is often applied to those who act on their own behalf, that of having a fool for a client. I would not want that to happen.
I appreciate the opportunity to make these few remarks on my behalf and want to point out once more, Mr. Speaker, that the reason I originally brought this matter to your attention as a question of privilege was not because I was concerned about the litigious aspect of the matter but, rather, to give Your Honour an opportunity to make certain that the way the action was instituted against me and my co-defendants did not affect the traditional rights and privileges of Parliament and the Chair itself.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly want to invite contributions from other hon. members who are interested in developing the point. My interference with the hon. member in the first instance was more from the point of view of giving us an opportunity to review this question, one which is surrounded by considerable confusion. I think I have indicated that a review would show that in the particular instance of a civil law suit, the hon. member and all other hon. members are free from any restrictions. But it might be opportune, before we go further with this subject, to clari-

February 10, 1976
Privilege-Mr. MacKay
fy from the chair the whole question of matters sub judice, and for that reason I welcome the contributions of other hon. members.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, let me say at once that I believe Your Honour and members on both sides of the House will accept the fact that my hon. friend from Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) has been completely objective in his whole approach to this matter. This might not be relevant to a decision on the issue, but I submit it is something the House should bear in mind.
After giving this matter a good deal of attention over the weekend since Your Honour intervened, after looking over the precedents and checking the facts, it is my opinion that rather than the House considering the extent to which the hon. member for Central Nova should be inhibited in dealing with this issue, we would be in a far better position and doing much more justice if this House were considering invoking its penal jurisdiction and sanctions against the plaintiff in the action, as I hope to show during the course of my argument.
What are the facts? As the hon. member said, he was pursuing a reasoned and studied inquiry, in a very objective way, of what was an extremely difficult problem and in the course of this investigation he had occasion to ask questions in the House, to bring motions and to participate in debates. During a period when the House was not in session, if my information is correct, the hon. member issued a press release accompanied by a statement and a document dealing with the question of the comparative prices of goods in certain duty-free shops in the airports in Montreal and shops in the city of Montreal.
I want to pause at this point to say that in doing what he did the hon. member was only doing what had been done by the department of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). Unfortunately, I do not have the release here, but a report was issued by the minister in October, 1975, which was in the same general terms. It did not deal precisely with the plaintiff in the action against the hon. member or with any of its subsidiary companies, but it was a statement and a report by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs drawing attention to the fact that there was a grave discrepancy between prices and the publication of those prices in the duty-free shops and in the ordinary stores in the city and suggesting to tourists and others that they should exercise great caution in making purchases. So the hon. member, in issuing a statement related to these prices, was doing only what he had a duty to do, not only as a citizen but as a member of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Subsequently, the plaintiff in this action, Thomcor Holdings Limited, issued a statement of claim and a writ against the hon. member for Central Nova and three other people alleged to be-and actually they are- employees of the research bureau of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I do not intend to take the time of the House or of Your Honour by going over all the details of the statement of claim, but it was a statement of claim for libel based on allegations contained in the statement issued by my hon. friend.

In particular, paragraphs 11 and 12 of the statement of claim said the statements issued by the hon. member for Central Nova were published and were understood to mean that the plaintiff sold goods at prices which were not lower than most, if not all, retail outlets; that the plaintiff, in any event, did not sell its goods at prices which represented 25 to 60 per cent savings as advertised; that the plaintiff was misleading the public and that the plaintiff was, or was probably, guilty of a criminal offence under the misleading advertising provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. Then there was a claim for damages and loss of profits in the amount of $250,000.
That is a broad allegation against the hon. member for Central Nova, but it is nevertheless restricted to allegations made in the statement he issued and which was made the subject of the action for libel and damages. I submit, therefore, that we must consider the rights of the hon. member in light of the terms of the action taken against him. While it is true that the hon. member came to this House and, quite manfully, said in a question of privilege which he raised and upon which Your Honour commented yesterday, I believe, that he had done what he had done as a private citizen and was not specifically seeking any special rights and immunities as a member of parliament, I would call to the attention of the Chair and all hon. members that it is not easy for a member of parliament to achieve that objective, no matter how desirous he might be to stand alone as a private citizen. He is a member of parliament and his rights and immunities must be considered in that light. This becomes important as I shall show a little later in the course of my argument.
On the basis of the facts to which reference has been made, the hon. member asked a question in this House on February 4. That question, of course, will be recalled by Your Honour; it appears on the record at page 10622 of Hansard for February 4, 1976:
Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of National Revenue. Has the hon. gentleman checked to determine under what circumstances the retained earnings or other assets of Sky Shops Limited from its Bahamian subsidiary or subsidiaries were brought into Canada and whether all of the requirements of Canadian tax law were satisfied in this respect?
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it requires the greatest ingenuity to place the context of that question within the framework of the action brought against the hon. member and his co-defendants, and action for libel commenced by Thomcor Holdings Limited. The style of cause for this action did not include Sky Shops Limited about which the question was asked; it was on a different tack entirely. The action for libel had nothing to do with the question asked by my hon. friend.
Up until 1961 it was only in respect of criminal actions that sub judice could be raised. At that time it was also an action for libel and a question was asked relating to that action which the Speaker ruled out of order. The members of the House at Westminster were so concerned about this that a special committee was set up to examine the issue and to bring in a report. That committee examined the matter very extensively, as a result of which the rules and Standing Orders of the British House were amended and
February 10, 1976

there is now in the British Standing Orders a provision that deals with sub-judice questions.
I admit that this is not necessarily binding upon Your Honour or this House. Standing Order 1 provides that the rules and practices of the British House shall apply so far as is possible in the Canadian House of Commons, but certainly we do not follow changes made in their Standing Orders from time to time subsequent to the date when we first received our Standing Orders. However, I think it would be wrong not to examine with care and to take into account the law that now prevails in the United Kingdom, which is simply this: I shall read from the Journals of the House of Commons at Westminster for July 23, 1963, and the Standing Orders which I believe are still in existence:
Resolved, that, subject always to the discretion of the Chair and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter,
(1)	matters awaiting or under adjudication in all courts exercising a criminal jurisdiction and in courts martial should not be referred to-
(a)	in any motion (including a motion for leave to bring in a bill), or
(b)	in debate, or
(c)	in any question to a minister including a supplementary question;
(2)	matters awaiting or under adjudication in a civil court should not be referred to-
(a)	in any motion (including a motion for leave to bring in a bill), or
(b)	in debate, or
(c)	in any question to a minister including a supplementary question
from the time that the case has been set down for trial or otherwise
brought before the court-
I think those are the important words, Mr. Speaker, that under the time element in the British House in regard to civil actions, the right of the Chair to prohibit the asking of questions or proceedings in the House regarding a civil matter comes into effect from the time that the case has been set down for trial or otherwise brought before the courts. It is interesting to notice that a little further on it states that where a case has been settled, the right is resumed in the House to ask questions unless and until an appeal is set down, in which case the right is suspended again.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the British practice and I do not think it is so very different from what has been the decision of other Speakers, particularly Your Honour's predecessor, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux. In 1971 there was a case that was debated at length in this House. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was involved, as was I and other members including the hon. member from Halifax at that time. It dealt with a case that had achieved some prominence because the government had failed to pay moneys it was required to pay under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and we had raised the issue in the House. An action had been commenced in Saskatchewan by some Saskatchewan residents seeking relief from the courts to compel the minister of finance and the government to pay out the moneys due under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.
An attempt was made to carry forward the discussion of certain legislation. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised a point of order, arguing that the debate on the legislation should not be continued while this action was still before the courts. I am sure Your Honour has had occasion to read that decision, but I will put on the record for the benefit only of members of the House some of the points Mr. Speaker Lamoureux made as they appear in the
Privilege-Mr. MacKay
Journals of this House of Commons under date October 4, 1971. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux referred to the precedent known as citation 149(c) in Beauchesne's fourth edition, which provides:
It has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada that a member while speaking must not refer to any matter upon which a judicial decision is pending.
Mr. Speaker Lamoureux had this to say in the next paragraph:
-"judicial decision pending" means that the case has been heard in full and that the court has before it the matter on which a decision will be rendered in the near future, in which case debates in the House might not be interpreted as influencing or attempting to influence the decision of the court.
He went on to say:
A matter, whilst under adjudication by a court of law, should not be brought before the House by a motion or otherwise. This rule does not apply to bills.
Mr. Speaker Lamoureux went on to say that his opinion of the matter was such that the mere issue of a writ did not bring into effect the sub judice rule so as to inhibit the right of a member of this House to ask a question or to pursue a debate in the House. I would say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the House that that is a very reasonable and proper interpretation of the law both as it is and as it should be. If attempts are made to inhibit a member of this House in asking questions merely by the issuance of a writ, I can see our opening the door to wholesale abuses.
For example, in a case where a member of the House had had occasion to make an inquiry or investigation into the conduct of some individual or company, all that would be necessary would be for that individual or company to issue a writ, whether it be a writ for debt, or anything else against that hon. member. If the law were applied as some might contend, this would shut the door and would constitute a very grave abuse of the rights of members of the House in the exercise of their duty on behalf of their constituents and the people of Canada. I submit that under such conditions the House should give effect to the decision of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux and to the proposals contained in the report of the British House which is now incorporated in their Standing Orders.
But there is more to it than that, Mr. Speaker. I have ample precedents not involving decisions but where questions have been asked and no challenge was made. On July 9, 1973, an issue was raised in this House by myself and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) dealing with students' co-operative projects, a report of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and certain challenges with respect to the tendering programs and practices of CMHC. The issue was based on some evidence given by a party to an action then being carried on in the city of Toronto, where one of the parties to the action had given evidence that there had been improper practices in tendering by CMHC which, according to the documents we had, I suggested amounted to improper and perhaps even criminal practices. Questions were asked by myself, by the hon. member for Calgary North and others and no one challenged our right to ask those questions or to have answers given.
21 130-62

February 10, 1976
Privilege-Mr. MacKay
In the same context, there was a debate on a somewhat different but related issue in this House when Mr. Reg Stackhouse, at that time the hon. member for Scarborough East, participated in an adjournment debate and asked the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), then minister of state for urban affairs, to deal with the question of foreclosure proceedings then pending against Rochdale College. I think it is rather fascinating to read the reply made by the present Minister of Justice because, after all, I assume he was made Minister of Justice because he has some knowledge of the law. The minister was then dealing with the question of foreclosure which was the subject before the courts and he said this as recorded at page 3991 of Hansard for May 22, 1973:
I hope the Chief Justice of Ontario, who is responsible for placing matters on the trial list, will see that the action of Central Mortgage and Housing on foreclosure receives an early trial and is handled expeditiously in the Supreme Court of Ontario. That is not under my control. As the hon. member knows, the setting of the trial date is a court proceeding in itself. However, I hope it would not be improper of me to suggest, in regard to these proceedings, that the Chief Justice take note of their special nature and the need for the protection of the interests of the taxpayer and give this matter an early trial.
In that case there was an action commenced in the Supreme Court of Ontario for foreclosure in respect of which the present Minister of Justice made a comment, in effect inviting the Chief Justice to render an early decision. No objection was taken to that, as I do not think any objection could well have been taken, and this was infinitely more flagrant, of course, than the situation which we are now considering, namely, the question asked by the hon. member for Central Nova. Under those conditions, I submit it would be wrong to inhibit the hon. member in asking this and other questions which are related unless they come squarely within the four corners of the style of cause in the action in which he is a co-defendant and the matter which is involved in that style of cause. Outside of that, I submit with great deference that the hon. member should have full leave to pursue his inquiries.
Before I sit down, Your Honour invited some study and I have one more brief comment to make as I think this is an issue we should face in this House before too long. About 18 years ago in the United Kingdom a Mr. Strauss, a member of the Liberal party, had occasion to write a letter to one of the ministers, I think of the then Conservative government, in which he alleged certain irregular practices on the part of the London Electricity Board, an independent board which sits with all the powers of a corporation sole. The minister passed the letter on to the London Electricity Board which, after considering it, wrote to Mr. Strauss and said that if he persisted in this course of conduct in challenging its practices, it proposed to take libel action against him. Mr. Strauss then brought the matter into the House of Commons and alleged, on a question of privilege, that there was intimidation and an attempt by the London Electricity Board to prohibit him in the proper discharge of his duties as a member of the House of Commons.
The matter was debated in committee, it went to the House and ultimately there was a further committee report in 1967, I think it was. That committee reported to the House that, in its opinion, when people in a position such

as Mr. Strauss received letters of the kind he had received from the London Electricity Board, it constituted an interference with the rights and immunities of a member of the House of Commons.
I suggest and argue, from that basis, that if it is wrong to write a letter threatening libel, it is an infinitely far more dangerous practice to try to inhibit a member in the discharge of his duties as a member of this House of Commons by bringing a libel action against him.
I should like to think that before we have lost sight of this matter, irrespective of the decision made, this House will consider setting up a small select committee to deal with this whole problem. With the possible introduction of television facilities, we are getting into an area surrounding what are the rights of members, what are the precincts of parliament, and what are the proceedings of parliament. Your Honour has probably discovered that not only are there debates of parliament, but also proceedings of parliament which are areas in which a member is free to disclose, make statements and write letters. This dates back to the time of William and Mary, some hundreds of years ago. When heading into this area, as we are, with some of the problems we face in respect of some of those matters which have received some notoriety, I think it would be very wise for us to review this whole question. Your Honour might agree with this. I have spoken to my friend opposite, the government House leader, and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I think this is an area to which we should devote some attention, not only for our sake but for the sake of the proceedings of this House and the people involved.
I conclude on that note, because there is a broader issue raised here than the one which involves the hon. member for Central Nova. I conclude, in respect of that branch of the argument as it affects him, by saying that it would be invidious and a great disservice to the political life of this country and to the affairs of this parliament if it were possible to prevent an hon. member from discharging his duty and continuing an inquiry into a matter which needs inquiry merely by issuing a statement of claim against him.
I rest my case on that and suggest to Your Honour that the hon. member for Central Nova, rather than being prohibited from asking his questions, should be entitled to the approbation of members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the suggestion Your Honour made to the effect that we might deal with this matter as briefly as possible. But as Your Honour knows, research into a matter of this kind can be far more intriguing than reading James Bond, and surely we should share with other members what we have discovered.


John Edward Broadbent: There may be some dispute about that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are quite a few things the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has said which I had planned to include in my argument, most of which I will not repeat because he has said them very well. However, there are a couple of things
February 10, 1976

he has said which I want to underline and emphasize a few moments from now. Let me say at the outset that I come down completely on the side of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). I feel that his freedom of speech as a member of this House takes priority over any other rules or suggestions that may be found in various rules books.
Initially when one looks at this issue, he comes up against two apparent absolutes. Life is full of situations like that and you have to decide which one is more absolute than the other. One of the absolutes is in Beauchesne's fourth edition at page 127, where we read in citation 149(c):
Besides the prohibitions contained in Standing Order 35-
That is what it was when this book was produced.
-it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
(c)	refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending-
As I say, that sounds absolute. I intend to join with the hon. member for Peace River in a few minutes in pointing out that if one goes back to the origins of that statement he will find that it is not as absolute as Dr. Beauchesne suggested when he digested the original citation for the purposes of his book. On the other side of the coin, again if we look in Beauchesne's fourth edition, at page 109 we will find the other absolute which is freedom of speech. Citation 117 (1) states:
The privilege of freedom of speech enjoyed by members of parliament is in truth the privilege of their constituents.
Then citation 117 (2) states:
Freedom of speech is declared by the Bill of Rights in the following terms: "That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament". "This, as the Right Hon. Sir Donald B. Somervel, D.B.E., K.C., M.P., said before the committee in the Sandys case, in 1939, is not necessarily an exhaustive definition of the cognate privileges." But even assuming that it is, the privilege is not confined to words spoken in debate or to spoken words, but extends to all proceedings in parliament. While the term "proceedings in parliament" has never been construed by the courts, it covers both the asking of a question and the giving of written notice of such questions, and includes everything said or done by a member in the exercise of his functions as a member in a committee in either House, as well as everything said or done in either House in the transaction of parliamentary business.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that citations of that sort-and there are quite a few of them-underline the proposition that freedom of speech is one of the absolutes that apply to members of the House of Commons. We find this again in May's eighteenth edition, at page 70:
Freedom of speech is a privilege essential to every free council or legislature.
Later we find this:
There could be no assured government by the people, or any part of the people, unless their representatives had unquestioned possession of this privilege. Thus only the House of Commons was concerned in its vindication, and only in its connection with that House could it be a matter of constitutional importance.
The point I am making as a theme to what I am saying is that of the two absolutes, freedom of speech is superior to the dictum that there cannot be reference to a matter that
Privilege-Mr. MacKay
is sub judice. However, in addition to these general pronouncements there are some interesting precedents. This is where James Bond is pushed out of the picture. It is true I have to go back to the year 1512. I would have gone back further, only the difficulty with an instance in 1455 is that even in May's eighteenth edition the references to it are in Chaucerian English.


John Edward Broadbent: And Mitchell would not understand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would have difficulty reading it, but by 1512 the English was understandable and I shall start there. The case was that of a member of the House of Commons at Westminster by the name of Strode. I gather from the interruptions I am hearing that some members would say he strode across the pages of history, but far be it from me to suggest that. In case members think I have had to dig pretty deeply to find this case, I would point out that even in this most recent edition, May's Eighteenth, it is indexed and there are frequent references to the Strode case as the beginning of the establishment of the precedent that parliament is superior to the courts. The Strode case took place during the fourth year of the reign of Henry VIII. We have all heard of him.


An hon. Member:: Simma was not here then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When I said earlier that procedural research is more intriguing than James Bond, my friend from Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) said there was no sex in it, but since I have mentioned Henry VIII that should satisfy him. I shall read from page 71 of May's eighteenth edition:
-Strode, a member of the House of Commons, was prosecuted in the Stannary Court for having proposed certain bills to regulate the tinners in Cornwall, and was fined and imprisoned in consequence (h). Upon which an Act was passed (i), which, after stating that Strode had agreed with others of the Commons in putting forth bills, "the which here, in this High Court of Parliament, should and ought to be communed and treated of," declared the proceedings of the Stannary Court to be void, and further enacted that all suits and other proceedings against Richard Strode, and against every other member of the present Parliament, or of any Parliament thereafter, "for any bill, speaking or declaring of any matter concerning the Parliament, to be communed and treated of, be utterly void and of none effect".
If I carry on with what happened in the Strode case, instead of just defending the right of the hon. member for Central Nova to ask questions about Sky Shops here on the floor I might be challenging the right of the courts to deal with his case at all. I will not push it that far, but certainly the Strode case is ah interesting one. Lest hon. members think that was a long time ago, in 1512, I would point out that it was referred to in quite a few subsequent cases. A long time later, in July, 1641, there was some discussion of another case and a member of parliament quoted the Strode case. Somebody else said that since that was 100 years earlier it did not count, whereupon the House of Commons on July 8, 1641, declared the proceedings in the Queen's Bench to be against the law. Again, at page 73 of May's eighteenth edition we find this:
The judgment had been given against the privilege of parliament, upon the false assumption that the Act of the 4th Henry VIII had been simply a private statute for the relief of Strode, and had no general operation. To condemn this construction of the plain words of the statute, the Commons resolved, 12 and 13 November, 1667, "That the Act
21130-62'^

February 10, 1976
Privilege-Mr. MacKay
of Parliament in the 4th Henry VIII, commonly intituled 'an Act concerning Richard Strode', is a general law," extending to all members of both Houses of Parliament.
I hope I have whetted a few appetites for the reading of this material which, as I say, is not at all dry. But the point I am making is that it was established long ago that what is done outside cannot interfere with the freedom of speech of members in the House of Commons. Perhaps members will take my word for it when I point out that immunity does not apply if a member is charged with some crime, but in civil cases the freedom of speech of a member is not interfered with or limited.
Now I will quote a bit of what the hon. member for Peace River said. I come back to the absolute I started out with, namely, Beauchesne's statement that a matter which is sub judice cannot be referred to at all, which sounds as though there is no way to get around it. But I find that Dr. Beauchesne-he was good at this-when he produced his books did some digesting and frequently left out important parts. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux said of a Beauchesne quotation that it was too bad the full quotation was not there. So I refer hon. members to page 328 of May's eighteenth edition:
Matters sub judice.-By a resolution of the House matters awaiting or under adjudication in a criminal court or a court martial, and matters set down for trial or otherwise brought before a civil court may not be referred to in any debate or question.
The point about civil matters is that they have to be set down and brought forward for trial. So far as the present action is concerned, nothing has happened, and if the stricture that Your Honour had in mind the other day-I sense that maybe Your Honour's research has changed your mind a bit-was applied, then just the fact that this notice was given to the hon. member could keep him from exercising his freedom and his right to ask questions about Sky Shops month after month, maybe year after year.
The hon. member for Peace River also referred to the ruling given by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on October 4, 1971. I am coming ahead several hundred years. I think the interesting thing-and I quote it, again for emphasis-is the statement that Mr. Speaker made about the citation in Beauchesne's; the one which says stay away from things that are sub judice. This is what Mr. Speaker Lamoureux said:
I think this citation should be interpreted as narrowly as possible.
In other words, freedom of speech takes priority. He went on:
I doubt very much if the Chair should be called upon to intervene whenever a member refers to a matter which is before the courts.
He goes on to point out that notice of the matter then being dealt with had been given but no proceedings had been underway. If Your Honour has done some of this same research, you might have fun pointing out that I more or less on the other side of the argument in that debate. When I asked some of my lawyer friends this morning what that would do to my status as my kind of lawyer, they said I would probably get a Q. C. if I could argue one way one year and the other way later on.


Mr. Lawrence:: Yes, a federal Q.C.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The reason I was arguing that way at that time was that because of the action taken in Saskatchewan, ministers were refusing to ask questions about the matter, but then the government brought in a bill, dealing with the same issue. So I suggested that the matter should be settled one way or the other.
So, sir, Mr. Speaker's ruling was clear, namely, that the kind of notice that had been in the Saskatchewan court at that time did not stand in the way of the bill proceeding. I go back to the Strode case and all the others, and I feel that on all counts Your Honour should come down on the side of freedom of speech rather than on the side of imposing a rule which Dr. Beauchesne quoted in his fourth edition but in which he did not quote all that was there in May from which he took it.
I am about to conclude, sir. I make the same argument that the hon. member for Peace River made. If the hon. member for Central Nova can be stopped from asking questions about Sky Shops because notice of a libel action, has been served on him, just think what could happen in this House. For example, I think the CPR is the meanest employer in Canada and I say that the CPR is particularly mean towards its pensioners. Is the CPR going to sue me for libel and shut me up? My friend, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), thinks Imperial Oil is making huge profits by gouging its customers, and he says so. Is Imperial Oil going to sue him and silence his voice? The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) also have things to say about Weston, Loblaws, Ziggy's; yes and INCO. Are they all going to be stopped by suits for libel, being filed against them? I am carrying it to the absurd, but sometimes one has to do that to make the point.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to Your Honour for giving us a few days in which to deal with this matter and for suggesting that we do some research, because it is really very interesting reading, and my conclusion from the reading I have done is to come down completely on the side of the hon. member for Central Nova.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, and most of all I would be clear enough to convey the point of view of the Social Credit Party of Canada on this issue.
First I have to thank you for having provided us with a few days of reflection before voicing our views. I believe it essential to draw your attention on the very principle which is at stake in this discussion. I leave it to my knowledgeable colleagues to bolster their positions with technicalities like precedents or citations by such or such parliamentary jurists who are authorities with respect to the decision to be taken today.
I am very concerned with the orientation you will give to your decision today, if you do so. In my opinion, it is the very principle of the right to ask relevant questions on ticklish subjects which is at stake. The precedent which could be established by any decision directly affecting the case under study could serve-and I would dare say could dangerously serve-the interests of present or future gov-
February 10, 1976

ernments which would not in any way want to answer such questions and would claim that a matter is sub judice to prevent a member from asking any relevant questions regarding matters which are before the courts.
There is only one word to describe that-the imposition of the gag, a restraint on the right to speak of a member of parliament. The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), considering in fact that he is at the origin of the Sky Shops case and of some other matters which are far from suiting the party in power, becomes I think the scapegoat in all that story. Mr. Speaker, the ruling to be made should encourage the hon. member to keep on bringing to light the venial or maybe mortal, sins on the conscience of this government or future governments when other similar questions will surface.
Mr. Speaker, I urge you to allow any member, in the circumstances the hon. member for Central Nova, to ask direct questions on the Sky Shops case, provided those questions are not intended to exonerate him in this case, should he be at fault. I therefore ask that this assembly be not a place where everyone who attacks the government may be sued, making thus the matter pending and automatically preventing any discussion of the subject by the House. As the previous speaker just said, it would be total distortion of the parliamentarianism principle. It is on this decision, Mr. Speaker, that rests the assurance of keeping our parliamentarianism intact. The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) is highly esteemed by the members of my party. We believe that his research and questions should not, in any way, be limited by a decision taken too quickly which would create a regrettable precedent in respect of our basic right to know all there is to know. We have no need for scapegoats in this House.
Lastly, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe the statement you made in this House on Tuesday, February 3, concerning procedures to serve a writ on a member of parliament or on a House of Commons employee has somewhat overshadowed the basic problem of your specific role, that of guardian of our freedoms. The matter is not addressed to the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, but indeed to your role as guardian of our freedoms. No stranger has the right, by virtue of the privilege which is yours as Speaker of this House, to come between an hon. member or an employee of the House and Your Honour. The matter at hand has nothing to do with the right of visitors to enter Parliament, it deals strictly with the authority, other than yours, to come between yourself and any other person directly related to you. I beg of you to consider those principles, Mr. Speaker. They are dear to us and of the utmost importance to all of us.
In closing, I should like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this Parliament is, to us, a sacred forum in which we should be free to deal with any and all possible matters, to enlighten the Canadian people, and particularly our electors, with regard to the actions of the present and future governments.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance that I join in this issue because of the seniority of the hon. gentleman who spoke previously. However, I
Privilege-Mr. MacKay
think there are two points which have to be made and which were not made by the hon. gentleman. I agree fully with and do not dispute the view that there is absolute freedom of speech within this House, and I would not attempt in any way to limit that. I fully agree that the discharge of the obligations of a member of parliament ought not to be hindered in any way by anybody outside this House, and I am very grateful to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who indicated that there is authority in the Strode case-there was a beginning of authority there-recognizing the superiority of this parliament over the courts.
However, in this instance-and I refer to the specific facts we have before us as recited very accurately by my friend, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin)- the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) indicated in this House that with reference to the action which has been launched against him, he was not seeking the protection of parliamentary privilege. He accepted responsibility for the release which he issued which is the subject matter of the case and which was issued freely. He indicated that he was defending the case on its merits and that he would not bring to the attention of the court or this House any question of personal privilege. That is the first distinction.
I agree that when we are dealing with the sub judice rule we are limiting it in the case of civil action. I agree wholeheartedly that there has been a tendency-and if there has not been as great a tendency as in the British House of Commons, there ought to be-to limit the application of the sub judice rule with reference to civil cases in order to avoid situations where writs are issued in order to prevent further debate on certain issues. I agree, as well, that the time-namely, the setting down for trial-is a very judicious time, if I may use that term, in which to bring into effect the sub judice rule. However, by the same token I agree with the position which was taken by the British House of Commons, that that could be subject to exception in situations where the trial of an action could be prejudiced by matters raised in the House.
None of the precedents which have been brought to the attention of this House deal directly with a case similar to that which we have before us. The hon. member for Central Nova has refused the immunity of parliament and has indicated that he is defending the case on its merits. The hon. member for Central Nova is a party to the action. Usually, the sub judice rule is brought into play when a question is asked of a minister the subject matter of which is under review by a tribunal. At that point the sub judice rule applies and protection can be sought under that rule. However, in this instance the question which gives rise to this matter was posed by the hon. member for Central Nova who is himself a party to the action. Therefore, there is a distinction.
The hon. member for Central Nova and the hon. member for Peace River have indicated that the issue in the libel cause of action is a very narrow one, namely, the pricing policies of Sky Shops, and that the proceedings are at a very early stage. However, there have been a number of declarations outside this House by the hon. member for Central Nova which give me cause for concern. I quote from the Ottawa Citizen of Tuesday, February 3, as follows:

February 10, 1976
Privilege-Mr. MacKay
Conservative MP Elmer MacKay said Monday that a $250,000 law suit launched against him may provide the courtroom forum he has sought for a judicial look at Sky Shops Export Ltd., under investigation by the RCMP.
From the Montreal Gazette of Tuesday, February 3, I quote the following:
After the suit was filed, MacKay said in an interview: "Maybe here's the judicial inquiry we requested."
Again, in the Ottawa Citizen for Wednesday, February 4:
Mr. MacKay said he regards the law suit as a chance to raise in court questions about Sky Shops Export Ltd., bought out in 1972 by Thom-cor-
I am concerned because the question of prejudice of the proceedings before the tribunal applies not only to a member of parliament but also to the other parties involved in the suit. It has been recognized that this House is a tribune, or a podium of considerable power, and while I am very conscious of the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that on the one hand a member of parliament cannot be shut up by commencing a law suit against him, neither should this chamber-and here is the dilemna-be used by a party to an action in order to prejudice the case of his opponent.
It is true that in this instance the proceedings are at a very early stage. However, as a barrister of some experience and reputation, Your Honour knows that it is a determination to be made by the defendant as to whether he will retain a civil jury of six individuals, and the jury notice has yet to be served. I am not attacking or attempting to attack the hon. member for Central Nova; I am attempting to develop an argument relating to the dangers which there are in the positions being taken. There is a danger that a member of parliament might use his privileges in this House to prejudice a trial in which he is involved.
I agree with the hon. member for Peace River that the matter in its whole context is one which could well be referred to a committee for study. In conclusion, therefore, I suggest that the original ruling of Your Honour was the proper ruling. In this instance there has been an indication by a party to the action, who is also a member of this House, that he regards the action as a forum in which to deal with the matters he has brought to the attention of this House. He has said that expressly. In addition, he has forgone the immunity which otherwise might be available, and I am not prepared to debate whether that immunity is available in this case, or at least that immunity subject to the nature of the release and the facts which were attempted to be communicated therein.
In conclusion, I suggest that this is a novel case, that in this instance freedom of speech has been voluntarily forgone by the hon. member and therefore is not in question. He also chose voluntarily to extend the whole matter that he has brought to the attention of the House within an action that was brought outside the House. In those two particulars, this case is distinguishable from any matters which have previously been brought to Your Honour's attention or to the attention of your predecessors.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to traverse any of the arguments advanced by

my colleagues in the House on this important question. I simply point out that the arguments as to whether the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) waived his rights and privileges as an hon. member go only to the question of a bailiff or somebody attending upon him to serve documents. That is all that is to be said on that point. That is the only waiver he made. He did not waive any of his other rights as a member of parliament, and therefore the other argument about the statement made by my colleague for Central Nova is totally irrelevant to this particular question.
In this instance there has been started a civil lawsuit against an hon. member on a narrow issue, in this case libel with regard to a statement made by the hon. member as to pricing policy. That is the only thing in that lawsuit. Having had some experience in this House and some experience in the chair which you occupy, Mr. Speaker, it is my view that the rights of members-the parliamentary secretary insisted on this and admitted it-to ask questions which are relevant, which are urgent, which seek information, should be as wide as possible. The contention of sub judice would place a limitation on that right.
I suggest, as other speakers have, that every exception placing limitations on the right to ask questions must be interpreted narrowly. It is not the right which must be interpreted narrowly; it is the exception or derogation of the right which should be interpreted narrowly. I therefore contend that a party commencing an action against an hon. member on a very narrow, definable issue, should in no way preclude that hon. member or any other hon. member from asking the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) or any other member of the treasury benches questions about an investigation predating the commencement of the action and dealing, as we know, with a search in the precincts of parliament and elsewhere by the RCMP. That is an entirely different question.
There are two considerations. Firstly, the identities of the parties, shall we say, on the other side, or outside, have not turned out to be the same, while the hon. member involved has turned out to be the same. Secondly, I repeat, the right of hon. members to ask questions should be as wide as possible and any derogation from that right should be interpreted narrowly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With regard to the last statement made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the House will recall that I permitted the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) to put a question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) about the general investigation. It seemed to me that there could not be any possible connection between that answer, as to the timing of that particular investigation, and any lawsuit.
In any event, I am reluctant to put the Chair in the position of attempting to analyse issues at stake in any lawsuit in order to determine which questions ought to be put and which ought not to be put. That would put the Chair in an impossible position. I wish to seek general guidance with regard to the question of sub judice, particularly to do with lawsuits, and to clarify it if possible. I also wish to understand if there is anything of special significance which may restrict the hon. member because he is a party to the litigation. Orders of the day.
February 10, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, February 9, consideration of Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, when participating in debate on this bill on second reading I expressed serious misgivings concerning the principle of this measure, and I am constrained to say that nothing has been said to alter my views on the government's proposal. On the contrary, I am more convinced than ever that, while some unrevealed accommodation has been reached which makes it possible for Reader's Digest to continue publishing its Canadian edition, some of the features of the bill remain unacceptable to many members of this House.
Many views have been recorded with respect to the blundering manner in which the government has approached this question. However, I must say the government has been consistent in that it has established a reputation for confrontation that has never been approximated by any previous government of Canada. In this instance, it has acted true to form. Perhaps the best assessment is that made by Mr. Geoffrey Stevens who wrote the following in the Globe and Mail of December 6, 1975:
Anyone who cares about fair play, straightforwardness in government, and freedom of discussion cannot help but be appalled by the shabbiness of the government's methods on Bill C-58.
It is evident that the government has failed to recognize basic flaws in the legislation and the basic injustice of the measure proposed. Rather than review the situation and come to an accommodation, the government has chosen to bulldoze the measure through and disregard the attitude of the general public and of members of this House, including government supporters. I wish to call attention to some of the arguments advanced by the government. One of them is that in some way our media should contribute to the development of a truly Canadian culture. I am appalled when I note the ways in which our media tries to accomplish this. When one compares Canadian periodicals and Canadian programs with periodicals and programs produced elsewhere, one cannot help concluding that the Canadian-made product does not portray that which we wish to recognize or acknowledge as truly Canadian culture.
Not too long ago I spoke with a young couple who had spent a number of years in the United States and had re-established their residence in Canada. They told me they were shocked at some of the programs aired by the CBC. They voiced the opinion that this would never have been tolerated across the border. I mention that to point out that just because something originates elsewhere does
Non-Canadian Publications
not mean that it is not good, and because it is produced in Canada it is good.
I again refer to the statements that have been made and the affirmation that one of the purposes of this measure is to strengthen the Canadian publishing industry. I could quote from the speech I made on this measure on May 26, but I do not propose to do that this afternoon. Nevertheless, I believe there are ways in which we can strengthen the Canadian publishing industry. If we must resort to this type of procedure to build the Canadian industry, I say that we are not complimenting it in any way, shape Or form. Some of the fault lies with the Canadian publishers. If their periodicals leaned more in the direction of the desires and reading interests of Canadians, there would not be such a tendency to choose other magazines ahead of those published in Canada.
Let us look at it from the other point of view, that is, the money saved by advertisers not being able to claim advertising expenses for income tax purposes. If that were directed into the Canadian industry, it would be in a much more viable position. May I again point out that there is no indication that any substantial amount of such advertising money will be redirected to Canadian enterprise. Indeed, figures that have been quoted show that it will be a very small amount. When requests have been made for proof that this would substantially increase the financial position of the Canadian industry, that proof has not been forthcoming. It is a matter of "it should accomplish this purpose", or "we anticipate that this is going to happen". I do not believe that the position the government is taking in this particular measure is going to strengthen the Canadian publishing industry or put more money into its coffers.
I wish to make reference to the attitude of the government on this issue, particularly with regard to the operations of the committee. I do not have to go into detail about what happened in committee; that has been placed on record on a number of occasions. Because some members of a committee choose not to go along with the measures before it, it would be reprehensible for them to be removed from the committee and others placed on it. However, that action has been taken with regard to members of this committee. It is a reprehensible position for the government to take. This afternoon we were speaking about the freedom of individuals and freedom of speech. That also applies to this measure. Every member who has been on the committee has the right to express his view, regardless of whether it corresponds with the government's proposal. Members on the government side have been taking a position on this measure that is opposed to the proposal of the government. When I spoke on May 26,1 referred to the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart). The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt)-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but several members have attempted to speak outside the scope of motion No. 4. Motion No. 4 is a definition of a Canadian magazine. Perhaps the hon. member would limit his remarks to that.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I accept Your Honour's ruling, but respectfully suggest that this comes within the bounds of the measure. It has been dealt with by many other mem-

February 10, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
bers. In presenting arguments on this bill, surely it should be our right to discuss the position that has been taken. However, I accept Your Honour's ruling and will endeavour to conform to it.
A great deal of attention has been given to what is known as the Cullen rule which deals with the matter of material being substantially different from that published abroad. I do not suggest I would support the law of the Medes and the Persians that that cannot be changed, but there should be something in this measure setting out what is the rule. It should not be left to the discretion of the minister or others; it should be clearly stated so that people will know where they stand in this regard.
What we have been saying with regard to Reader's Digest in connection with rules and regulations carries over into the operations of other news media. They are faced with exceedingly difficult situations in attempting to comply with and come under the rules laid down in this measure by the government. I think of the provisions dealing with television. Reader's Digest have been doing their best to conform to the requirements of the bill. Apparently they have come to the point of accommodation. That company has endeavoured to be a good corporate citizen; it has tried to meet all the requirements and fit in with the program that the government has outlined. Because of the representations that have been made, some accommodation has been reached.
There are others who have been making every attempt to conform with every requirement of legislation. They have been trying to govern their affairs and arrange their enterprises in order that they might fit in. In so doing they have made a tremendous contribution to the Canadian economy. They have paid their taxes, provided job opportunities and have made a tremendous contribution to the development of other types of operations. I am thinking of television and particularly of KVOS which covers most of the area in such an admirable way. Here is an organization which is making a worth-while and appreciated contribution to the community and to the national economy. Yet it is being faced with restrictions severely limiting its operation and it will not be in a position to carry out its activities in the same manner as hitherto. They have made suggestions as to how they could co-operate in the further development of the industry, but no co-operation has been received, with the result that KVOS is facing the same problem as the magazines.
Bringing all these factors together, I am prompted to suggest that the government should take another hard look at this question, reconsider its attitude toward the motions before us today and recognize the validity of the representations which have been made in this chamber. I trust the minister and his colleagues will bring themselves to agree that in the interests of organizations which have made their contributions to the economy, as well as in the interests of the community generally, they should be willing to make the necessary adjustments and allow some of these amendments designed to soften the impact and permit the organizations concerned to carry on the valuable work they are doing and the contributions they are making to Canadian life.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am looking through my papers, Mr. Speaker. There has been a change in the documentation I have here, a lot of the preparation for my speech having been made for yesterday afternoon.


Mr. Roberts:: Has somebody given you a speech to read?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That would be the last thing on earth, to suggest that anyone prepares a speech for me to read. If the hon. member spoke yesterday, as I believe he did, he broke his eternal silence.


John (Moody) Roberts: On Friday.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the hon. member spoke on Friday, he broke an eternal silence. There is usually a muted voice coming from that seat. As to the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), an amendment to the motion put down by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), I find it makes eminent sense with regard to what it is purporting to amend.
The hon. member for Ontario put down a twin-barrelled modification amending the Income Tax Act in clause 1 by adding two paragraphs. The first raises the question of the extent of ownership of the publication. That matter has never been an important issue. However, it could be argued, for instance, that 75 per cent is no better than 60 per cent, say, or that 75 per cent is somewhat less than 100 per cent. But I suppose this began originally when a former minister of finance, Walter Gordon, brought in changes to the Income Tax Act to make it possible for certain benefits to flow to corporations operating in Canada and owned abroad, provided they would sell or list on the stock exchange 25 per cent of their equity stock.
The complementary figure is, of course, 75 per cent. All this means, in this instance, is that 25 per cent of equity stock in a foreign-controlled publishing company established in Canada and publishing in Canada shall be owned by Canadians. At one stage, the "Canadian" requirement only went as far as residence, but if my memory serves me correctly this has now been changed to Canadian citizenship. That, of course, is the correct position.
As originally put forward by Mr. Gordon back in 1964 or 1965, the position was somewhat ludicrous since the only requirement was one of Canadian residence. One could, of course, be a citizen of Timbuktu and still be a resident of Canada qualified to hold shares under whatever regulation was in existence in those years. However, this does not appear to have been an issue of great moment in the course of the present extensive debate.
I am astounded that a reasonable man like the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen)-when he was a private member and parliamentary secretary he showed eminently good sense-could have applied the interpretation he did to the words "substantially the same" and determined the figure of 80 per cent; in other words, that there would be 80 per cent difference. First of all, I find it repugnant that the minister, under the Income Tax Act, should be exercising discretion in determining what is meant by "substantially the same". This point has been argued by a number of hon. members in the course of the debate and I do not propose
February 10, 1976

to go over it again. However, the hon. member for Ontario added these words:
-and not more than 40 per cent of its content, including advertisements, were first published in a single periodical outside of Canada.
Here, with the greatest respect, my interpretation is that the contents could be entirely foreign and not one line Canadian because the limitation, as I read it, is that not more than 40 per cent shall have been published in any single publication outside of Canada. Therefore, Reader's Digest or Time could pick up 35 per cent from one publication, 35 per cent from another and 30 per cent from another pool. In fact, you can break up these percentages so long as they are under 40 per cent, and be merely a digest or a compendium put together from other sources. So long as no single publication could claim to be the origin of 40 per cent of the editorial content, the magazine would qualify if it otherwise qualified under ownership.
This is not what we are trying to cure. We would, of course, like to see some Canadian content in a publication, but the motion of the hon. member for Ontario does not establish any Canadian content in it at all-not one line. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway establishes the same freedom, shall I say, simply by striking out the provision having to do with 40 per cent content from any publication. The hon. member's amendment is strictly limited to ownership-at least to that extent it is clear-and is certainly preferable to the proposed motion of the hon. member for Ontario which I have criticized.
The Parliament of Canada is a place of debate and of mobilization of public authority. The extensive debate that has taken place in this House has tended to mobilize some public opinion. Since the debate started we have seen a number of newspapers take up the question in their editorial pages. It is not attracting much further debate among news reporters. They have reported the debate, which has continued for a good number of days, in every imaginable form they can find, which I suppose is not the way to write stories which sell newspapers, and as a result this debate does not rank as a front page attraction so far as a news feature is concerned.
As a result of the debate in this House, the attitude of the Minister of National Revenue has been modified. Following the debate on second reading and the discussions in committee, the public was astounded by the statement of the minister that "not substantially the same" was going to be interpreted as meaning 80 per cent. Further, he assumed the fiat that should anyone discover a means whereby these requirements could be circumvented in any way, then either the law would be changed so as to clamp down, or the interpretation of the law as it might exist following passage of this bill would be changed so as to catch everyone. There is about as much principle in that as there is in the most tortuous of crooked arguments.
Then we had the other day, I think to the astonishment of the press and the whole of the Canadian public, the statement by the Minister of National Revenue that the government has come to an accommodation with Reader's Digest. I don't know how much thinning oil was put into the works by either side in regard to interpretation.
Non-Canadian Publications
I should like to lend whatever influence I have-I was almost trapped into saying whatever weight I could lend- to the argument of my colleagues that this bill be returned to the committee. I should like to know through my colleagues on the committee what changes have been made in the thinking of Mr. Zimmerman and his board and that of his principals in Reader's Digest Incorporated to enable them now to live within the spirit and letter of the law as amended by this bill.
I have before me, Mr. Speaker, a file which, for the purposes of the record, is about an inch and a half thick, containing representations from Reader's Digest and from an aroused citizenry, most of them readers of Reader's Digest, lamenting, fulminating and generally deploring the lack of principle and the insidious action of the government in trying to take away the position that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order. I regret to interrrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I promise to finish within two minutes, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, protestations have been made. The governement decided, for its own reasons which I will not go into at this time, that the status of Time and Reader's Digest should be changed, ten years after a governement of the same stripe had given that particular status to those two magazines. The members of this House would like to know from the Minister of National Revenue just what the government has done to change its mind, and what inspired it to insert some oil into the works that has induced rapprochement, shall I say, between Reader's Digest and the government in this particular matter. Also, we would like to know whether anything is developing in regard to Time Incorporated. May I thank the House for its indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and say I certainly support the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that a number of government members called for the question when you recognized me. I think about the only questions that still confront us are, why are they so silent and why are they backtracking so rapidly as they go back to their constituents to discuss Bill C-58?


An hon. Member:: They are all asleep.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If they are all asleep, then that is an attitude they are familiar with and perhaps it is where we should leave them. The amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) has my wholehearted endor-sation and support. The government and its supporters would be very wise to consider what that amendment does in essence. It really bails the government out a very sticky situation in which it finds itself.

February 10, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
Many government members felt that once they were able to give a last-minute reprieve to Reader's Digest, all members of this House and Canadians in general would be pleased with the result and Bill C-58 would receive speedy passage through the House. The government is now surprised to find that some people who believe in principles do not like back-room deals. The government is finding out that in spite of the fact Reader's Digest feels it can continue to function, we are not accepting a contents regulation.
During my two previous interventions in this debate I said I did not in any way like the content rule or percentages in that context, but at least I can support this amendment for the simple reason that we would have the regulations written into the law. I commend the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway for having the courage, as a member of the government, to say that there should be absolutely no content control by virtue of Bill C-58 or by virtue of any regulation passed by the minister or officials of the Department of National Revenue. Her amendment has my support.
It is interesting to note the government hoped that by getting this legislation passed very quickly after the recess, it would not attract too much editorial comment. It is interesting to note that in general the newspapers of Canada are not supportive of the Reader's Digest deal. This whole question goes far beyond the existence of one magazine. While that may be the focal point at this juncture, the critical question for us, as members of parliament, and for Canadians in general is whether any government or any minister of the Crown should have the power, through legislation or regulation, to control the press. I am sure that government members will immediately argue that this does not involve control of the press. However, as soon as a content rule is brought in, a certain amount of press control becomes the fact of life.
I also find it exceedingly strange that the NDP, which likes to clothe itself in the righteous cloaks of civil libertarians, has remained silent about this amendment. If a so-called left wing magazine were threatened by government legislation or a back-room deal, I wonder if we would see every NDP member moving amendments and subamendments one after another. They are strangely silent on this amendment.


Mr. Peters:: We never consider Time a socialist magazine.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is not what I was saying, and if the hon. member had been listening he would know the difference.


An hon. Member:: We are listening.


William Arnold Peters: I don't find it either right-wing or left-wing.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I wonder if the hon. member wants to make a speech from a seat other than his own.


An hon. Member:: We want to listen. We are trying to get some wisdom from what you are saying.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The NDP, supposedly the proponents of Canadian nationalism-by their own definition I might add, which has been rejected time after time by the Canadian electorate-is now strangely quiet. We have
[Mr. Epp.)
legislation which goes to the very root of civil liberties, yet members of that party have nothing to say. By saying nothing, I suppose one could assume they are in favour of the legislation. I suppose the only civil liberties they believe in are those they advocate for their own support. That is not a principle but a cheap political move. They obviously think this is not fighting ground for them and they should abandon the field to come back and fight another day when they have something to fight about.
No contents legislation or regulation should be supported by this House or by Canadians generally. I might suggest that if the whips were not doing their job it would not be supported by a number of government members. This amendment lends itself to the support of every member of this House. The amendment retains the ownership provision, that is, the 75 per cent rule. I am sure every member of the House can agree with that. It also retains the provision that editing will be done in Canada, that the publication functions will be retained in Canada and performed by Canadians. That is where it stops. If the House were debating a bill in that form, I am sure it would have been passed through the House long ago.
What the government has tried to do is close the door still further. This would have eliminated Time magazine and would have been in support of the Canadian Periodicals' Association. Time and time again supporters of that association stressed the fact that 80 per cent "not substantially the same" was the absolute minimum with which it could live. In fact, that association wanted 100 per cent. These supposedly great writers of Canada were saying they could not compete with the rest of the world. They asked for complete control of the industry through a 100 per cent rule in order that they might compete. They were very gracious in their concessions and dropped from 100 per cent to 80 per cent.
The regulations as interpreted for the purpose of Reader's Digest and the so-called deal have not changed. The application of the word "digest" to the rule is now being viewed differently, and that is the whole essence of this debate. Even before Bill C-58 passes through the House, the minister has changed his interpretation and the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has had to agree. I imagine the Secretary of State takes the low road home every day now. He has had to concede to this change in interpretation. I do not know what other changes will take place after the ten ministers return from the province of British Columbia. I understand they are being absolutely decimated by the arguments of the lumber association and other people in British Columbia to the effect that Bill C-58 not only is regressive and wrong but it will not achieve the purpose it is supposed to achieve, and will be counterproductive. It will result in a backlash from their best neighbour, the United States.
Having passed the ownership clause, why must the government insist on going further in respect of content? Not one good reason has been given for this. What the government hopes to accomplish is that editorials will be such that they will be able to survive. The other day the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), when I quoted from the Toronto Sun called it a progressive paper. I commend him for his insight.
February 10, 1976


Reginald Cyril Symes: I was being facetious.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Having been back home to the west where clarity of thought prevails, I thought I would find out what the people were saying back home. The Winnipeg Tribune, I understand, is a paper that is at times supportive of the present administration. I wish to quote from an editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune of February 9, headed "Arrogant action". I do not think the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie would have too many complaints about the editorial policy of that paper.
The editorial reads in part:
Now, with the bill stalled in the Commons and with several MPs ready to propose amendments which would tone down the severity of its terms, the government has taken it on itself to interpret the law before it is even passed.
Mr. Cullen said the agreement with Reader's Digest would permit the publication, based in Montreal, to use the same articles as the parent magazine in the U.S. As long as they are edited and condensed in this country, they will qualify as Canadian content.
That's rather like saying if one imports milk from Wisconsin and processes it in Thunder Bay, one can then call it Canadian condensed milk.
No wonder Mr. Stanfield and other MPs, some of them Liberals, are shocked. As Mr. Stanfield pointed out, interpreting the law is for the courts, not the cabinet.
If governments can decided what the law means, they are endangering the painfully-won and dearly-bought concept that making the laws must be a separate function from interpreting them.
The government has, in effect, taken control of a segment of the press. Further extension of this control may lie in abeyance, but it is a precedent which this or future governments could use for their own purposes and to their own ends.
That is the critical issue, no matter whether the minister wants to think of it in another way. That is the central point of Bill C-58, whether or not his brainwashed officials want to think of it in another way. I found it interesting that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway compared this bill, at the time she moved her amendment, to the 1930s and early 1940s in nazi Germany when there was also content control. One might say that this will not reach that point, but why does the government want in any way to have content control? That question has not been answered by the Secretary of State or by the Minister of National Revenue to the satisfaction of anyone. Government members are silent on this point. If they were given the opportunity to speak, I know many of them who are in sympathy with the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway would do so.
In recent months we have also witnessed other totalitarian governments exercise control over the press in their own societies. One need look only to the USSR and the role played by persons such as Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn. As I say, the New Democratic Party members are strangely silent about that. Such governments are quite willing to use thought control, press control and content control. Some members of this House and some Canadians might think we will never come to that. I say this legislation opens that door. In no way should the government become part and parcel of any regulation or legislation which allows any government or any minister to decide whether or not a publication meets the criteria of the government relative to content.
Let the government bring forward legislation relating to ownership and those involved in the editorial and publica-
Non-Canadian Publications
tions business. Let them bring forward that kind of legislation, but not content control which is abhorrent to Canadians. This government, supposedly a Liberal government, surely cannot at this point in time justify a position whereby it will control content or give officials of the government an opportunity to interpret regulations relating to control.
One could mention many other instances in the last few months where governments have tightened up in respect of the press. The process we are witnessing in this House these days is not very dissimilar to what we have seen in other parts of the country. The importance of this bill to the government can be interpreted in only one way. The government is dedicating a disproportionate amount of the House time to this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, there are certain strange rumblings from the NDP again. No member of the NDP seems to want to stand and make a speech in respect of content and control of the press, but if there were a left-wing press involved I am sure they would be on their feet.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: The
hon. member may continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) may continue for a reasonable period of time.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House. There is one last comment I wish to make. I believe the subamendment brought forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway should find support in all quarters of the House. It retains the right of advertisers in editorial publications, papers and magazines to have a privilege for tax purposes. I say to the government, again, that surely they can support that type of amendment to this type of legislation, but let them not become a party to a proposition which would also bring in content and thought control, as Bill C-58 does.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to make a few remarks to support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), because it seems to me it is not only a sensible amendment, one which is an attempt to improve the legislation, but it comes from a member who has a background in, and presumably a feeling for, journalism in this country. Too often in government lately inexperience and lack of knowledge are held

February 10, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
up as virtues, and lack of expertise has a positive advantage in holding a portfolio or in espousing a particular cause. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is an experienced journalist and one would expect her colleagues to pay some attention to what she has to say with regard to this legislation.
As we on this side of the House have pointed out, the whole concept of this legislation is fraught with the most ridiculous and contradictory perceptions. Torpedoing magazines or periodicals which are first-rate in content, regardless of the national origin of the content, is not going to help to any extent their Canadian competitors. Whether it is in journalism, athletics or practically any field of human endeavour, one does not improve standards by eliminating competition, particularly in an unfair way. Good journalism is an art form, and Canada is being perceived by other nations of the world as trying to restrict the free flow of information and ideas to its citizens for crass economic reasons which do not even meet the test of business logic, much less more aesthetic considerations.
My general feelings on what is being done are summed up very well by a distinguished Canadian writer with one of Canada's finest newspapers, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, in a recent column. I am referring to William Smith, commonly known as Bill Smith. Let us consider what Mr. Smith had to say, admittedly with tongue in cheek but also with a certain amount of irony and logic, on the general subject of content control. He writes:
Some little while past, I had drawn to my attention that Canadians, including those in their formative years, are being exposed to the writings of a relatively ancient Englishman named Shakespeare. Not only is he a non-Canadian, but I gather there is some question about his authorship of some material put out under his name.
A number of helpful people have since been in touch with me, recognizing and sympathizing with my concern that the Canadian content regulations are not sufficiently strong.
It has been suggested that a blanket Canadian content requirement in the arts could include an escape clause in application to authors, composers, painters, sculptors, whose work was completed prior to confederation.
Reluctantly, I concede that such an exemption might have some merit, provided that it were offset by a rigid requirement of Canadian content of 75 per cent or more in any work completed after July 1, 1867.
Examining my own small collection of books the other day I was shocked to find it almost entirely made up of the writings of foreigners-many of them ancient foreigners whose works are out of date and obviously of no application to the Fortress Canada we are attempting to build today.
I have an acquaintance who has some small familiarity with music, who tells me that the situation is no better in that field than in literature. Perhaps worse.
Accepting his assessment as accurate, which I must do on past record, it appears that we are exposed to people named Handel, Bach, Chopin, Grieg, Lahar, Strauss, and on and on the list goes-foreigners every one.
Obviously more, much more has to be done to encourage Canadian culture.
The thought was expressed to me that our cultural guides in Ottawa might, after dealing with Time, Reader's Digest, cable TV and such matters, turn to the modern application of the excellent work of Thomas Bowdler, a onetime editor of Shakespeare.
Mr. Bowdler had the public interest at heart.-
If I might make a comment here, Mr. Speaker, probably in the same way as the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner).
-and in his editing expurgated the so-called Bard of Avon of words, phrases and suggestions "which cannot with propriety be read aloud in

a family." He was so successful that to this day we recall him in the term "bowdlerizing".
The approach might be-in the case of Shakespeare, for example, to leave the middle act as it stands, but have a Canadian write a new first and third act, thus bringing the whole into line with Canadian content standards.
With some difficulty, perhaps, the same principle could be applied to Shaw, Pope, Shelley, Swift and all the rest.
There would remain the problem of what to do about the mass of foreign material now in the hands of Canadians. I don't favour direct police action, at least until the carrot technique has been tried ...
We might, for example, call in all albums containing the works of Mendelssohn, giving in return a Canadian album of the works of a Canadian composer-the job financed by the government.
Similarly, in the case of literature, and, of course painting. One could turn in a Titian and get in return a good, solid Canadian painting by a Canadian painter.
Nor should we destroy the material gathered by the government. It would be sufficient to return it to the nation of origin, with a suitable covering letter.
Some of these comments obviously are satirical in nature but unfortunately, from the point of view of what this government has tried to do, they reflect with telling accuracy and Thurber-like perception some of the specious logic that my friends on the treasury benches are using. Mr. Smith continues and concludes his interesting column by saying:
I know I am beginning to feel self-conscious about the foreign material, particularly the books that I have been reading for years, unaware of their subtle anti-Canadian influence. Without them I will be the better when they are gone, and are replaced by sound, nationalistic Canadian volumes.
The only problem is that it is not that easy to get meritorious works by Canadians unless they have some standard to which they can reasonably hope to relate and be measured in competition. With the various machinations of this incompetent government it is easy to lose sight of the basic raison d'etre for Bill C-58. It is worth recalling, however, that the supposed reason we have this bill before us is the government's stated desire to assist the Canadian periodical industry. Perhaps it is worth taking a moment or two to analyse the kind of legislation we now have before us against that basic goal.
There is no magic to the rudimentary facts of life of the magazine industry. Stated in simplest terms, they are that a readable product and effective promotion produce circulation which in turn produces advertising, which earns the revenues with which both the product and promotion can be maintained and expanded. That is how the business works, and any government program which purports to assist Canadian periodical publishers must fit within that framework if it is to be effective. Bill C-58 simply does not meet that test. What we have before us is not a bill of any worth-while assistance to Canadian magazine publishers but, rather, an example of this government's dual penchant for the most narrow and chauvinistic nationalism and the most arbitrary and unfair use of administrative fiat.
I want to come back to both of those points, but first let me take a moment or two to examine C-58 in its present form within the basic context of how the magazine industry works. In terms of assisting Canadian periodicals to achieve increased circulation, this bill offers virtually nothing. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that running the Canadian edition of Time magazine out of the country, as this government seems bent on doing, will
February 10, 1976

affect the end circulation of Time very much. It can either print and publish its U.S. edition here, perhaps with Canadian advertising inserted at reduced rates to offset the loss of tax deductibility, or it can simply mail the U.S. edition directly to its Canadian subscribers. Either way, as I say, there is no evidence that its circulation will suffer significantly or that Canadians will desert this magazine, with its unique style and format, for Maclean's or any other supposed Canadian alternative.
So the bill is a total failure in terms of being a negative aid to circulation, that is, by driving circulation away from the big, bad American competitors. In positive terms, in terms of offering any concrete assistance to Canadian periodicals effectively to promote and build their circulation, Bill C-58, of course, offers nothing whatsoever. Indeed it seems beyond the imagination of this government-and this Secretary of State in particular-to think in anything approaching positive terms when it comes to strengthening Canadian cultural institutions.
After all, it is much easier to punish the supposed villains than it is to provide positive encouragement to Canadians, and this is true not only of periodicals and the publishing industry but in business as well.
The claim of the government, of course, is that Bill C-58 will be of direct benefit to Canadian periodicals in that advertisers who are denied access to Time would reinvest these funds in other-in the government's terms-more suitable publications. That is pure sophistry and if the Secretary of State does not know that he is even more divorced from reality than his unbelievable performance on this bill would make us believe.
Advertisers or their agencies choose the media in which to place their advertising and their dollars on the basis of which outlets reach the largest number of consumers at the best price. The "cost per thousand" approach is what they use. On a more sophisticated basis, they will combine this basic factor with a medium's ability to reach a particular kind of audience which is seen as especially relevant to the goods or services they seek to sell: women's products in women's magazines, travel and luxury goods in media whose readers have an above average income range, and so it goes.
I defy the Secretary of State to tell me that, given the extent of Time's audience in mass terms, and given the kind of audience the magazine traditionally reaches, there are other more Canadian periodicals, periodicals with a higher Canadian content, available to pick up these advertising dollars. There just are not any and the minister knows that as well as I do. In terms of practical assistance to Canadian periodicals, this bill is a non-starter. As I have already said, it represents, instead, a startling example of this government's misguided sense of nationalism and its utter disregard for a sense of administrative regularity or fairness of any kind.
Non-Canadian Publications



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: It is
my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-National Defence-Proposal to lease Leopard tanks-Government position-Alleged overpricing of tanks by senior officials; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt)-The Canadian Economy- Anti-inflation program-Possibility that insurance corporation will be addendum to agreement with British Columbia; the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health-Lassa fever-Possibility of interference with regulations by World Health Organization-Effectiveness of quarantine measures.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, at this point in the debate on Bill C-58 it seems that everything which could be said has already been said, but I should like to say a few words on this bill on behalf of my constituents. I might add that in my time here I have never seen a piece of legislation debated in this House which has met so much opposition from every corner of the House. Some of the most damaging statements made to date on this bill have been made by hon. members on the government benches.
Most, if not all, hon. members who have spoken on this bill have stated that mail from their constituents has been 90 per cent or more against the provisions of the bill, especially those relating to the status of Time and Reader's Digest. My mail has been almost 100 per cent in favour of leaving those two magazines as they are. However, we know now that the government does not care what the people of Canada want. The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) are out to get Time magazine, and after the recent accommodation which was made between the government and Reader's Digest it should be clear to everyone that that was the whole purpose of the bill.
The mere fact that the government chooses to ignore the weight of argument in this House against this bill, and that

February 10, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
both the Secretary of State and the Minister of National Revenue know that the Canadian people have voted overwhelmingly against this bill with their letters, leads to only one conclusion: Bill C-58 is purely and simply a vendetta against Time magazine. We were told a few days ago that the government had backed down and made an accommodation with Reader's Digest, so all we have to do here is debate the merits of whatever the government accepts with regard to the publishing guidelines for Time magazine. I do not think a watered-down version of Reader's Digest is an acceptable compromise. I do not believe there has been any real purpose in tying up this House for days on end simply to lend an air of respectability to the private war of the government against Time magazine, crippling Reader's Digest in the process. This House has been used by the Secretary of State and the Maciean-Hunt-er interests to carry on a one-sided fight against two fo the finest publications in Canada, and it is a fight no one can win. Maclean-Hunter would not have to fear Time and Reader's Digest if they were able and willing to produce and publish a magazine of the quality of Time. The people of Canada will not win, because they will lose two of our best magazines and they will not be given anything in their place. It will just be a case of losing. Usually, when people are asked to give up something, it is because they are being given something else which is just as good, or better. That is not the case here.
There is another thing about this bill which concerns me and I know it concerns the people in my riding. There is little doubt that this bill will be passed, as my colleague the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) has pointed out, because there are enough hon. members on the government benches who will vote for it, knowing that their constituents would rather they voted against it. Once this bill becomes law, the government will be able to say that it has been given approval by parliament to exercise censorship of the press in this country. It has been pointed out over and over again that this will only be the starting point for this type of government interference and government intervention into the editorial content of press, radio and television. We have already seen recent examples of interference in broadcasting by the new chairman of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, and this bill will help to tighten the circle.
I cannot believe that the Secretary of State, or anyone else in the government for that matter, has thought out the matter of editorial content. During the hearings of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts last December, the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) made a very good argument for the impossibility of determining the Canadianism or the non-Canadianism of a group of words as a mathematical percentage. The witness at that time for the Department of National Revenue, Mr. Hodgson, also made the point that this determination would have to be a matter of judgment. In other words, one person on a given day would make his or her own interpretation of a page of editorial matter in a magazine and make a judgment as to whether it was Canadian enough to meet these guidelines; on another day, another person might presumably arrive at a different interpretation of a similar page of editorial matter and therefore make a different judgment.

Under the present structuring of the Department of National Revenue, it will be impossible for that department or any other department to undertake the mammoth task of reviewing and interpreting every page of editorial matter published in the magazines this government has indicated are suspect. It appears that the only answer to this dilemma is to establish a federal board of censorship, under a master censor, and it might also be a good idea to deny the right of appeal. As we all know, judgments of the Department of National Revenue can be appealed. What would happen if one particular magazine decided to appeal the judgment of the revenue department on a page by page basis? Each appeal would deal with a page on which someone had made a judgment, and this could go on forever. Mr. Hodgson tried to explain the manner in which these judgments would be made when he said to the committee:
In a 100-page periodical, for example, we would be looking at each page in turn to see whether that page was the same or different from something else; and if it were the same, we would then ask ourselves, "Was that page procured under a continuing arrangement, or not?"
I wonder how many members of the government or of this House can make anything out of that nonsense. At the same time, the government, through the Secretary of State and the Minister of National Revenue, is talking about percentages the witness from National Revenue is saying that it will be a matter of personal judgment. We just keep getting deeper into a mess that nobody understands. It will get even messier and even more impossible to understand.
Considering the wave of opposition that continues to mount against this bill, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the government should release its members and allow a free vote on these amendments and on the bill itself. It is common knowledge that members of all parties in this House have received a considerable amount of mail on this subject, and common knowledge that the weight of public opinion expressed in that mail runs heavily in favour of Reader's Digest and Time magazine and against the government. Several members on the other side of the House have spoken against this bill, and there must be many more who are against it but who have not spoken out. Let us determine in the most democratic way possible whether the government can muster the support it needs on a free vote to pass this bill.
When I decided to speak on this bill I also decided to support motion No. 5, standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). After thinking it over I decided to take it a step further. Before I do, may I commend the hon. member for her courage in standing throughout the debate so firmly on a point of principle. I, and others in this House, watched the hon. member being harassed and hampered in her efforts by her own colleagues. They went so far as to deny her the right to sit on the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts while it considered the bill.
The hon. member's amendment is a step in the right direction, but I have thought about the whole question of ownership as spelled out in the law and cannot find any justification for specifying any degree of ownership for any corporation, commodity, or anything else, including magazines, other than the 51 per cent required by existing
February 10, 1976

Canadian law. Federal, as well as Ontario law, defines ownership as being in the hands of anyone holding 51 per cent of the stock in a corporation, or 51 per cent or more of the established value. I do not see any reason for a new rule of thumb for magazines or anything else. If ownership is established in present law, why should we discriminate against magazines or any other types of corporate endeavours in Canada?
Present federal and Ontario laws concerning foreign ownership of corporations doing business in Canada specify that 51 per cent of stock in such corporations must be owned by Canadian residents. I would therefore move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That amendment No. 4 to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be amended in clause 1 by deleting the figure '75' in line 3, and substituting therefor '51 per cent or more'.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. We will take this proposed amendment under advisement and consider it.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my remarks with respect to the proposed motion to amend Bill C-58 will be quite brief. The government has made it clear that it intends, whatever the opposition might be within the country, within this House or within its own caucus, to force this bill through parliament as rapidly as possible. I think it is bad legislation. I think the government should take a second look at it before requiring it to be passed. I support the motions which would result in one year's delay in the implementation of the legislation because this would give the government a chance to reconsider its policy and reverse its direction.
There was an interesting development with the announcement by Reader's Digest that it feels the deal cooked up with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) will enable that publication to continue in business. This is an important development. We were told time after time, as government members spoke on this legislation, that it was vitally important to the survival of the Canadian periodical industry that Reader's Digest of Canada be put out of business and that its advertising revenue be made available to the other Canadian publications.
It is interesting that the government should have changed its mind on this issue. It does not feel this is important any more. It does not feel it is crucial that Reader's Digest be put out of business. The government felt the pressure within its own caucus, within the country at large, and it has finally retreated. It has recognized that it would be extremely unpopular in the country at the present time to force this legislation upon the Canadian people. So it has left one target. The government is not terribly concerned about peripheral publications such as MD of Canada which would be affected by this legislation, but it is concerned about Time.
I am sure hon. members opposite do not realize the difficulties they are apt to encounter from trying to proceed with this legislation at this point in time. There is no reason for this House to be asked to deal with legislation of this kind, especially in view of the information that came to the attention of members of parliament as a result of the
Non-Canadian Publications
circular all members received from Reader's Digest. What is to happen to other publications? Other magazines and periodicals will be affected by this legislation. What will happen to TV Guide, to our medical journals and other journals which the Canadian people like to read? I suggest that the House would be well advised to delay this legislation for 12 months, which is what the motion suggests, and to reconsider the entire gamut of the matter.
The statement of the Minister of National Revenue regarding the 80 per cent content, 80 per cent the same as, or 80 per cent different rule-whichever way you want to interpret it-was most unfortunate and dangerous. I do not care what the minister says, and I care less for the government. I say emphatically that the minute any government begins to decide what the Canadian people shall read, it becomes very, very dangerous. I am surprised that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) goes along with the government in this regard. You do not build up the weak by tearing down the strong. It seems to me that there are other ways to help Canadian periodicals develop, other ways to help them become strong.
The magazine Country Guide is not nearly as large a publication as it once was, mainly because of the cost of postage. I suggest we can support Canadian periodicals in many ways. Why are we not looking at those ways and means of supporting the industry within Canada? I am sure we in the opposition are just as great Canadian supporters as anyone else in Canada. Nevertheless, why do we have to try to tear down the strong in order to build up the weak?
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) mentioned that this bill has generated a lot of mail, pro and con. I agree with him to some extent. However, the great majority of mail that came into my office was in favour of continuing Reader's Digest. I would say it was about 50 to one in favour. I know at one time I had received about 500 letters or more. I point out to the Secretary of State that the letters are again starting to come into our offices. Therefore people must be concerned about this matter.
Many people have questioned the 80 per cent rule set by the Minister of National Revenue. They feel that Reader's Digest will not be as good a magazine. Many people stated in their letters that, of all the magazines that came into their houses, Reader's Digest was the only one they really liked and respected. They do not want anything done to change that. I hope the minister gives that matter serious consideration. The directive issued by Reader's Digest officials came as a shock and surprise to many members including, I am sure, some on the government side.
The government would be well advised to really consider this amendment. The bill should be taken out of the House for 12 months and sent back to committee. It is unfortunate that the minister has become dogmatic and is going to force this issue, even though there have been so many inconsistencies. Since the presentation of this bill, changes have been made. We had content rules requiring 50 per cent, 60 per cent, 70 per cent, and 80 per cent Canadian content. This is frustrating for anyone. We had to wait 12 months for this legislation, then at the last moment the statement concerning Reader's Digest was made. We have no guarantee that the statement will be lived up to, that there is provision for Reader's Digest to survive.

February 10, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
We then encountered a real difficulty. Who is to decide if any publication is 80 per cent different? I cannot accept the government's action. I believe the Canadian people have the right to decide for themselves what they want to read and when to read it. If there is to be more state control in all facets of our way of living, I suppose we will have to accept it. Yet merely because we are embarking on a program of economic controls which may last three years is no reason for accepting a publishing control which may last for all time.
It is most unfortunate that any minister, not necessarily this Minister of National Revenue, or any government, by any whim of fancy can change the whole aspect of this. This is a very dangerous precedent that we are setting here today. I hope the minister and the government will reconsider and accept this amendment. They should take the legislation back to committee where it can be reconsidered once again and dealt with adequately. This is an unprecedented move. It is beneath the dignity of this House of Commons. I hope the minister will give it further consideration
I think of certain members of the standing committee on the government side who were in fact against the bill. I think of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and others. There are a great many more who may not have spoken, but those were members of the committee and they did their best to get the government to change its mind. That is one reason why I am speaking in favour of the amendment recommending that the bill be given a year's hoist during which the government can reconsider its position, allowing us to consider the matter a second time.
This is probably one of the most evasive bills we have had in this thirtieth parliament. It has generated more mail than any other piece of legislation. One need only read the speeches that have been made. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has been on his feet twice with regard to this bill. It is very interesting to read his arguments. No one in this House will question his integrity and concern with regard to this or any other bill. I wish to read some of the points he made with regard to these amendments. I quote:
Some years ago this House laid down the principle that if advertisers wanted to qualify for income tax deduction, their advertisements had to be placed in publications not substantially the same as foreign publications or, more accurately, that income tax deductions would not be permitted in cases where those advertisements were placed in publications substantially the same as foreign publications. I make the point that "substantially the same" could not, by any stretching of the English language, mean "80 per cent different." Neither can the English language be so tortured that "substantially the same" means "20 per cent the same." For example, to suggest that a publication "25 per cent the same" as another publication is "substantially the same" is a misuse of the English language. Clearly, the government is changing the law which parliament adopted, and not by asking parliament to change the law it is doing it simply with a ministerial interpretation.
A few days ago the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) was surprised that I should be surprised at the Minister of National Revenue's interpretation of this law. The hon. member suggested that the minister and the department must as best they can frequently interpret the various laws they are called on to administer, particularly the Income Tax Act.. .

I recognize that in connection with radio and television the CRTC is following a policy involving the determination of Canadian content. The CRTC lays down rules about what proportion of the programming has to be Canadian content; it determines what it will accept as Canadian content. I am not happy about this set-up. I am not happy about the fact that television and radio stations have to renew their licences every two or three years. I would think that in the six-month period before a licence has to be renewed, the owners of those stations are perhaps a little nervous about the CRTC's attitude. They might be inclined to be a little careful about what they put on their stations during that period. I emphasize that I am not suggesting any improper motives as far as the CRTC is concerned; I am just saying that it is an unfortunate situation. There may be no way of avoiding it.
These speeches go on and on. It is unbelievable that the government is being so adamant with regard to Bill C-58. I hope that the two ministers most involved with this bill and the members of their party who have so clearly spoken out against aspects of it will now give serious consideration to reviewing all aspects. With such strong feeling all across Canada, it is unbelievable that they are taking such a strong stand against the opposition and the Canadian people. I certainly hope the two ministers will reconsider.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I will add only a few words before pointing out that I almost entirely approve the amendment now under consideration. We must not forget, Mr. Speaker, when discussing that amendment and the bill that we recognize, that I at least recognize, the laudable intention of the government which is trying to promote the typical Canadian periodical. The intention is fine, it is even praiseworthy. Unfortunately, we are moving towards a rather narrow nationalism and there is sometimes a tendency to resort to law and show some pettiness.
That is why I think the proposed amendment would seem to correct the mistakes that occurred as this famous bill was being prepared. Mr. Speaker, a very objective analysis had to be made of the context of this bill to be able to judge it adequately. We all agreed on that, which is why I support the amendment that a periodical be considered Canadian if 75 per cent of its directors and owners are Canadians, if its writing and publication operations are carried out and controlled in Canada, and if no more than 40 per cent of its content, except advertising, had first been published in a single periodical outside Canada.
I think that nobody objected to control, owners and publishers being 75 per cent Canadian but progress stopped at a certain moment with the famous 80 per cent difference in content and that was a mistake and the minister himself seems to have recognized it by interpreting his bill in a particular way to provide that Reader's Digest be considered a Canadian periodical with a content of 80 per cent as set forth. That interpretation is still not as clear as if it were contained in the bill. That is why I think the amendment before us becomes very good since a point had been reached where things were being judged backwards. How can a periodical which by its very nature is a digest of articles relating what is happening all over the world and written by people the world over have an 80 per cent different content from what might be published abroad? We were faced with a dilemma.
Mr. Speaker, when the committee sat I asked the question to a representative of Maclean's who said that if Reader's Digest disappeared his own company could never
February 10, 1976

create in Canada a similar magazine because that would cost too much. All that explained why we stood for the interests of Reader's Digest. It was impossible in any event to have a substitute. The minister and the government have forgotten certain facts that arise from the very nature of these periodicals. I am wondering why Time should not be considered as a Canadian magazine if it meets the same conditions that are imposed to Reader's Digest.
Even though I do not affirm that the bill has been strongly influenced by Maclean's owners, one must contemplate such a possibility. It is all very well to promote Canadian periodicals, we are all for that, but we should not create a monopoly of inferior quality to other magazines that seem to serve Canadian interests very well. Mr. Speaker, we should not make such a mistake.
That is why, in my opinion, this amendment is highly justified and all members in the House, including of course those on the treasury benches, should accept it. Thus would an issue which has been under study for far too long be settled in a reasonable and precise manner. There is a time when the government should curb their arrogance and accept what appears more and more to correspond to the opinion of the majority in this House, regardless of political allegiances.


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate on Bill C-58. I have just been reading the speech made by my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka who at one point quoted comments made by Mr. Gordon Sinclair. One of Mr. Sinclair's comments as reported at page 10755 of Hansard for February 9, reads:
For months I have been saying and believing that the legislation being passed in Ottawa requiring that publications be 80 per cent Canadian content in order to be considered Canadian was discriminatory and immoral and was being rammed through parliament for one reason only, to get rid of the Canadian edition of Time magazine. By the way, if the rule was to be strictly enforced they might get rid of most Canadian newspapers as well.
My hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka then went on to quote Ian McKenzie of Station CJAD, who said on February 4:
As you know, the Trudeau government has been trying to boot the Canadian editions of Time and Reader's Digest out of Canada, and now the government has backed down on Reader's Digest. That's good news for the hundreds of Reader's Digest employees in Montreal and it is also good news for anybody who values the free press in this country. The government should now back down on the Canadian edition of Time and withdraw Bill C-58 and its own interpretation of Canadian content. The real problem here is with the Canadian content rule.
He went on to say:
More than 80 per cent of the contents of a Canadian periodical must be material which has not appeared in prior issues of foreign publications. And I should like to add here that "foreign publication" refers to one with which the Canadian periodical has a continuing arrangement. Now this so-called Cullen rule gets right down to the arrangement and size of photographs on a page. Suppose a photograph appears in the Japan publication and a similar view of the same photograph then appears in the Canadian magazine. It will not be considered Canadian content.
But here is the rub. Who decides what is Canadian content and what is not? I expect it's the boys in the Revenue Department in Ottawa. They are the same gang which decides for all of us what is a dirty book.
Non-Canadian Publications He went on to say:
Mr. Robert Stanfield said this legislation is not acceptable to anyone who still believes in the fundamental principles of a free democracy. Mr. Stanfield is right. The government should withdraw Bill C-58 and review its 80 per cent content rule.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: An amendment was introduced just prior to six o'clock. It was moved by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott), seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That amendment No. 4 to Bill C-58, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be amended in clause 1 by deleting the figure "75" in line 3, and substituting therefor "51 per cent or more".
The House is presently studying an amendment to motion No. 4, and the hon. member's amendment does not seem to be relevant to motion No. 4. The Chair would advise the hon. member that at present it is not receivable as an amendment to the amendment to motion No. 4, but it could be offered later on after we have disposed of the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). The question is on motion No. 4 and on the amendment thereto. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
As the House is undoubtedly aware, there is some affinity between motion No. 5, standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, and the amendment moved by the same hon. member to motion No. 4. This raises a question of procedure which perhaps could be avoided, at least for the time being, if the House would agree to standing motion No. 5 until a decision is taken on motion No. 4. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 5 stood.


Benno Friesen: motion No. 6:
That Bill C-58, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be amended by deleting clause 2.

February 10, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
He said: Madam Speaker, as the mover of this motion I ask leave of the House to have it stood until we have dealt with motions No. 7, 8, 9, and 10, and then to return to the debate later.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: This can be done only by unanimous consent. Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 6 stood.


Benno Friesen: motion No. 7:
That Bill C-58, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be amended in clause 3 by striking out line 12 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"of being extended or renewed; or
(c) a written agreement entered into after the coming into force of this section with a Canadian subsidiary of a foreign broadcasting undertaking if the Canadian Radio-Television Commission and the Minister of the Department of National Revenue have 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 commission may require as a condition for entering into any such agreement that a percentage, to be stipulated by the commission, of the voting shares of such subsidiary be beneficially owned by Canadian citizens.".
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-58, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be amended in clause 3 by striking out line 12 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"of being extended or renewed; or
(c) a written agreement entered into after the coming into force of this section with a Canadian subsidiary of a foreign broadcasting undertaking if not less than seventy-five per cent of the voting shares of the said Canadian subsidiary are beneficially owned by Canadian citizens and a percentage of the gross revenues of the said Canadian subsidiary, to be agreed upon by the said Canadian subsidiary and the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, less only normal advertising agency and sales agencies commissions, is allocated directly to Canadian television program production, extension of Canadian television service, or other broadcasting objectives for the benefit of Canada: an allocation so made to be pursuant to a plan made by the commission and approved by the Minister of the Department of National Revenue.".
Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-58, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be amended in clause 3 by striking out line 12 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"of being extended or renewed; or
(c) a written agreement entered into after the coming into force of this section with a Canadian subsidiary of a foreign broadcasting undertaking if a sum of money in the amount of twenty-five per cent of the gross revenues of the said Canadian sudsidiary less only normal advertising agency and sales agency commissions, is used for Canadian television program production, extension of Canadian television service, educational television or other broadcasting objectives for the benefit of Canada: the method of utilization of such amount to be determined by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission and approved by the Minister of the Department of National Revenue.".
Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-58, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be amended in clause 3 by striking out line 26 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"aircraft not registered in Canada and which fails to observe guidelines for such foreign broadcasting undertaking jointly established
by the Minister of the Department of National Revenue and the
Canadian Radio-Television Commission.".


Benno Friesen: motion No. 11:
That Bill C-58, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be amended by deleting clause 3.
He said: Madam Speaker, where is all that hearty response I got yesterday? It seems to have diminished a little today. I was sure there would be a standing ovation.
I have introduced these amendments and I rise now to speak on them, certainly not on my own behalf because I get to view television less and less all the time and obviously do not get to see it at home. I am speaking on behalf of the people of British Columbia, southern British Columbia in particular, and in principal for the people across Canada affected by the spirit of this legislation.
At the outset we should concede that there is, it is to be hoped, at least one area of basic agreement among hon. members, and that is that each country should have sovereignty over its broadcasting facilities. All of us need to determine the ownership and the direction of broadcasting in our country. We cannot ever give up that sovereignty and accede to the pressures of any foreign country. Having said that, it makes me wonder how genuinely and consistently we believe in that theory.
I recognize, as has been mentioned in this House I am sure on more than one occasion, that a company like Maclean-Hunter has a cable vision company in the United States, and that surely is a violation of the spirit of the philosophy we have in this country. If we do not want the Americans to control broadcasting in any form in Canada then surely we should not be invading the United States in that area.
Then I learned that there is a radio station in the Windsor area which calls itself "Detroit's largest rock station". Practically all of the advertising on it is U.S. advertising, and here is this station in essence a kind of pirate radio station. No one seems to frown on this at all.
It does not seem to bother Canadian viewers that much of the advertising we see on CBC is U.S. advertising. I think all of us are probably somewhat guilty of inconsistency in this matter of sovereignty over our broadcasting policy.
One of the things that bothers me about this legislation is that there is a lot of confusion. It is intermingled with cable policy. All the while we have been talking about Bill C-58 in the House, and we have been talking about it intermittently for a year now, there have been discussions going on in the country in areas relating to Bill C-58. For example, the whole matter of cable deletion, or commercial deletion of cable is being discussed at the same time. In the public's mind this is all one package. If this is true in the public's mind then surely it is our responsibility to sort this out and make certain we give a clear understanding of what the issues are.
Again there is another related problem, and that is that this is essentially a broadcasting policy, and again the

February 10, 1976

government is coming in by the back door wanting to control broadcasting but not through a revision, an updating, or an amendment to the Broadcasting Act, but rather an amendment to the Income Tax Act. As one hon. member mentioned this afternoon, this is a case of trying to exercise control over cultural policy by tax policy. That seems to me to be inconsistent and not the way to handle this.
If anything exemplifies the confusion that has been perpetrated on the people of Canada as a result of the fusion of the two issues, namely, cable policy and Bill C-58, it is a little brochure that came to us a day or two ago from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. I submit to you that this is a very reputable organization. I believe it is a good organization whose purpose it is to further the aims and goals of Canadian broadcasters.
There are several areas I will be discussing in this brochure to illustrate the confusion that has been brought about by this legislation. I might interject just at this point that all legislation ought to have some universal qualities about it. It should affect all people equally and not create undue hardship on anyone.
The fact of life in Canada is that there are regional differences. Everyone in this House has spoken of these regional differences at some time or another. This is certainly true in the area of broadcasting. It strikes me that one of the over-riding pieces of confusion in this literature, as well as in the public's mind, is the contention that there is essentially no difference between the Ontario experience in broadcasting and the west coast experience in broadcasting. That is where the error lies.
There can be really no prolonged argument that New York border stations have done well by Canadian broadcasting. They are reaching a high impact area with very little investment, or at least no extra investment. They have a ready market which probably has been highly developed by the Canadian broadcasting systems. There is minimal investment in Canada. Certainly there is little return to Canada. So, no one in that sense can argue that the United States stations in New York which are broadcasting into Canada have not been doing very well, thank you. But there is a great difference which exists in Canada which this legislation does not recognize.
I have introduced several amendments, and I confess I introduced some of these at the committee stage, but because of the way in which the committee was structured and handled there was no hope of them receiving full study and attention let alone passage. As I have already indicated there are differences in Canada. The amendments I have submitted are designed to alleviate the hardship created by this legislation if those differences are not recognized.
I refer again to motion No. 7, the first motion I have submitted in this group, which is designed to show the difference between the situation on the west coast and that which exists in Ontario. What strikes me forcefully is that when these amendments and this whole matter were before the committee two members from British Columbia at times were notably silent about the interest that should have been near to their hearts. I refer to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) and the hon. member
Non-Canadian Publications
for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines), both of whose constituents are very greatly affected by this legislation.
They both refused to give these amendments adequate study and voted against them with the government. I simply want their constituents to know to what degree those two members have at heart the needs and desires of their constituents.
I should like to refer to this brochure I have mentioned to show the inequity is increased because of the confusion which exists in the public mind. The first question is:
Why are Buffalo stations threatening to jam their signals to Toronto and Hamilton?
I suggest that is a cablevision problem. The answer given here is:
Because the Buffalo broadcasters stand to make less profit if their commercials are deleted by cable TV companies in the Toronto area.
Then the question is asked:
Why has the American TV station, KVOS-TV in Bellingham, been lobbying so hard against Bill C-58?
Because the Canadian government is taking action to prevent stations, that are not licensed to serve Canadians, from making money in Canada. This threatens to reduce the profits of these American stations. KVOS derives about 90 per cent of its revenues from the Vancouver area, and Buffalo stations about 30 per cent from Toronto-Hamilton.
Is that why the Buffalo stations are threatening to jam their signals to Toronto and Hamilton? I suggest this merely perpetuates the confusion which exists in the public mind.
Then I would refer to question No. 9 which reads:
Do American border television stations receive any special protection against Canadian stations?
The answer is:
Yes. For example, American programme producers regard Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, as one 'market'. The end result of that attitude is that neither the CBC, nor CTV, nor Global, nor any Canadian television station can broadcast in the Windsor area any program broadcast by a Detroit station.
They forget to mention that the CBC does very well from the advertising it takes in from the Detroit area. The next paragraph states:
If Canadian broadcasters buy these programmes, it is on the express condition that they not be shown in Windsor if Detroit has them already. This means that Windsor residents, Canadian citizens, cannot see the full Global or CBC schedule, or previously the CTV schedule, when CTV had a Windsor affiliate.
Now I ask what that has to do with the problem which faces KVOS television on the west coast. There is confusion in the public mind, and there is the inequity with which this legislation fails to deal. If this legislation were to pass, the immediate consequence would be the depreciation of programming on KVOS television in Bellingham. If we compound that problem with commercial deletion and that were to become a policy, the combination of Bill C-58 plus commercial deletion would totally destroy KVOS television in Bellingham.
I suggest to hon. members there is at least an element of a moral problem involved. KVOS television developed the market when there were few television sets around in British Columbia and when no Canadian entrepreneur was ready or willing to gamble on the market and wait for the long term profits. I remember those days when the boob-

February 10, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
tube was being introduced in Canada. I remember when there was only black and white television and there were only two stations, channel 2 in Vancouver and Channel 12 in Bellingham.
When KVOS-TV first came on the air it really did not have a very good signal. It was very weak and very fuzzy, with many ghosts. Several years later its transmitter was moved and the reception increased dramatically. As I say, those were the days when there were very few television sets around, but KVOS-TV took that risk and invested in a market that was largely a Canadian market.
I want hon. members to know that Canadian businessmen of that day were mighty happy to see KVOS-TV come on the scene. They were looking for another avenue by which to advertise their products. They wanted another way to expose their products to the market place. When KVOS-TV came along they were mighty glad to see it. I might add that the fact that the CBC and KVOS-TV were there in itself developed a further market for television.
Because these two pioneers in the television industry developed that market this created another market which encouraged other television stations to be built. It was not a Canadian entrepreneur who did this. It was an American entrepreneur. Now we say, "Look, the market has been developed, you have done very well, thank you, and now we will take it away". I suggest what the government really wants to do is penalize the station for its success.
Perhaps it would be correct to suggest that this kind of penalty for success is more in keeping with a socialist response than a free enterprise response. I know the government always prides itself on being a free enterprise party, but when it turns around to penalize success and the entrepreneurial spirit in this way it betrays its own policy. It seems that you are great when you are an entrepreneur trying to make a go of it, but you are a villain if you are a success.
The next question which we must ask ourselves is what will happen if the combined programs of Bill C-58 and cable deletion take their full effect by taking television off the air. The first obvious thing is that it leaves the advertising market to the few remaining stations in the lower mainland of British Columbia. I think all of us would agree that CBC does not care; it is not much interested in the advertising market. With 80 per cent of its revenue coming from the taxpayer, it is not much interested in advertising.
There is another station being built at present by the Western Approaches group, that is a UHF channel which will certainly not be in a strong competitive position, certainly not for another year or two. Then there is the CTV station which has at this time what could be called a saturated advertising schedule. That is good. I would never berate a television station for having grown to the proportions that CTV, channel 8, in Vancouver has grown. I think that this is a compliment to their enterprise, to their managerial skill, and to their pioneering efforts, and I would compliment them rather than berate them for it. They took a risk in moving into a market which was already shared by two existing television stations.

But if the remaining two television channels have all that is left of the advertising medium and one channel already does not care for commercial advertising, namely, CBC, it simply means there is nowhere else for advertisers to go, there is a virtual monopoly of the advertising industry in British Columbia. If the law of supply and demand takes its full effect, it will inevitably mean increased prices for advertising.
But there is another effect which the loss of this channel would have for Canadians in British Columbia, that is, less view selection.


Mr. Leggatt:: Nonsense.


Benno Friesen: My hon. friend says, nonsense. We will hear from him soon. He will obviously show us that this is nonsense.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: You can watch Mary Tyler Moore five times a week.


Benno Friesen: Cablevision viewers will get all the same channels and programs they get now if they get the Seattle programs. I suggest to him that they will get the balance of them from the CBC. Nevertheless, he will have to concede that there are a number of locally produced programs on the Bellingham station that we could lose if the station went off the air. But leaving the cable viewers aside, as the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) knows there are still large sections of the lower mainland of British Columbia that are not on cable, that are rural in nature, and they will effectively lose another station if this station goes off the air. So they will lose infinitely more.
The truth of the matter is that while the base of operations of KVOS-TV is American and is owned by Americans, it has been in operation in Canada for more than 20 years and it has been a good landed immigrant for 20 years. It has taken its profits, it has paid its taxes, and it has reinvested its profits in Canada. In the past ten years it has returned to the Canadian economy something like $75 million.


An hon. Member:: This does not mean a thing to the government.


Benno Friesen: If the station goes off the air, it simply means $75 million over the next ten years or better than that with the inflationary spiral which we are experiencing, which the Canadian taxpayer will lose. But let us move beyond that.
I should like to point out to members of the House that none of the revenue produced by the two western film corporations created by KVOS television, Canawest Film Productions in Vancouver and Canawest-Master Films of Calgary, goes to KVOS-TV Incorporated; all of it stays in Canada. I suggest to you that that is a good landed immigrant. All of us have numbers of landed immigrants in our constituencies living among us and we have welcomed them and welcomed their entrepreneurial spirit and their investments. When they succeed, we are happy about it. But when a company such as KVOS-TV comes to Canada as a landed immigrant, we say, shame, they are taking money out of the country, when in fact they are making money for the country.
February 10, 1976

I want to illustrate for you how KVOS-TV is making money for Canada. Some time ago this station, wanting to invest more in the Canadian economy, made a proposal to CRTC which reads as follows, and I commend this for study and perusal to hon. members. KVOS-TV proposed to CRTC the formation of a television motion picture development society of British Columbia.
The Secretary of State has been evangelical in his zeal to bring before us the Canadian Film Development Corporation. This, he suggested to us, is a good way of helping the feature film industry in Canada because there are many producers, directors, designers, and so forth, in the industry who are underemployed and who do not have ways of exposing their talents to the Canadian people. Furthermore, he suggests, and I think with justification, that the market has not been very friendly to Canadian producers. So he is always advertising the merits of the Canadian Film Development Corporation. At this time I will not discuss the merits or lack of merits of that corporation, but I suggest that what the Secretary of State wants to do through the CFDC, KVOS-TV wants to do through the television motion picture society of B.C. Again I commend this to hon. members' attention. Let me read part of the proposal as follows:
There are at present two major television program production centres in Canada-Montreal for French television and Toronto for English television. Vancouver, and British Columbia in general can become a third major production source.
We propose that a corporation be set up under the name "The Television Motion Picture Development Society of B.C.". The primary and original funding source will be KVOS (B.C.).
KVOS (B.C.) will fund the society in three ways:
(a)	by actual cash on a yearly basis calculated on a percentage of its
gross sales in Canada, as will be set down in the following paragraph;
(b)	by an original loan against future grosses; and
(c)	by supplying Canawest executive personnel who will screen and
evaluate projects offered to it for the appointed board of directors.
KVOS (B.C.) will contribute to the fund as follows:
A minimum per annum of $150,000 cash based
on gross sales in Canada up to 4.5 million
dollars	$150,000
6% additional cash on the gross between
4.5 million and 5.5 million	60,000
7% between 5.5 million and 6.5 million	70,000
8% between 6.5 million and 7.5 million	80,000
9% between 7.5 million and 8.5 million	90,000
10% between 8.5 million and 9.5 million	100,000
We agree to start this fund as of January 1, 1972 so that there will be an accumulation of available moneys to start operations immediately. Future payments to the fund will be made quarterly. KVOS (B.C.) will originally start the fund with $100,000 and lend the fund as needed another $100,000 at prevailing bank interest rates against future quarterly payments.
Canawest Film Productions Ltd. is willing to act as the screening and evaluating arm of the society to the extent that and as long as the directors wish. Eventually a full time executive director with appropriate staff will be required by the society. Until that time, it is estimated Canawest's executive help will save the fund up to $50,000 per year. The society's board of directors will decide in every case how moneys are to be invested and how administrative costs are to be allocated.
The society will be a non-profit organization and the fund will be a revolving fund similar to that operated by the Canadian Film Development Corporation. Profits will be returned to the fund for further investment.
Non-Canadian Publications
Canawest Film Productions Ltd., if it is voted as the operating arm, will bring projects offered to it before the board. It will be the board's function to consider any project on an equal basis of merit be it from Canawest, British Columbia Television or any other production applicant.
Other sources of financial contribution to the revolving fund should be sought out. Some of these sources, which will be examined in the months ahead, include:
(a)	the provincial government of British Columbia;
(b)	federal government agencies;
(c)	business corporations; and
(d)	private foundations.
Assuming even modest returns from these additional funding sources and regenerative investments by the board over a period of three to five years, the society will become the third largest source of television production dollars in Canada; (after the CBC and CTV networks). It would thus extend and develop television and motion picture production into Western Canada where, without substantive help, development has been slow.
The details of the operation of the society are envisaged as being closely analagous to the operation of the Canadian Film Development Corporation or the National Film Development Corporation of Britain. That corporation is authorized to make investments in Canadian feature films, to make loans to producers of Canadian feature films and to make certain grants-all as contributions to the establishment of a feature film industry in Canada. The Television Motion Picture Development Society of B.C. operate against a background of similar general objectives with the discretion as to the fulfillment of these general objectives and the qualification of individual proposals being vested in a "board of directors".
I suggest that that kind of proposal does not sound like a company trying to bleed the taxpayers and industries of Canada of all the advantages it can get. That sounds to me like a landed immigrant who is trying to be responsible and responsive to the needs of Canadians. It took the initiative years before the Canadian government thought of putting any restrictions on the television industry in Canada. I suggest that this is a rather shoddy way of treating a good immigrant in Canada.
I suggest that the legislation before us is intended to have national application, but in this case, because of the national scope, it does not take into account the regional differences which exist in Canada. Because of the unfortunate experiences the industry has had in the province of Ontario this legislation will penalize the industry, the viewers, and the advertisers in British Columbia, and if we want to be responsible members of this House and representatives of our constituencies we cannot afford to pass a piece of legislation which will further restrict the selection of viewing by the Canadian people. I therefore ask hon. members to study the amendments I have presented carefully, give them honest consideration, and vote in favour of them.


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam
Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: As I stand here in support of the amendments I just cannot figure out who gains by this bill. I was deeply concerned about content control, and I am more concerned now about the Reader's Digest situation, where Canadian content simply becomes the rewriting of pages torn out of other magazines in the United States and Europe. As a journalist it is frightening to me that that rip-and-rewrite foreign is called something Canadian.

February 10, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
As I consider what will happen to television, particularly in my own area, I become more and more concerned. There are many more remifications to this bill than anyone ever dreamed of when the plan was drawn up initially. It seems that it must have been a negative plan or it could not have got into so much trouble. Law drafted with positive conceptions can only be good law if it serves the mass of people, but law drawn up with negative objectives is extremely dangerous, and we are seeing the results.
My argument is in support of the amendment and for doing everything we can to save KVOS. I can only speak for the west. I am not an expert on border stations generally. Canadian advertisers should have the right to buy in a competitive electronic market in the lower mainland of British Columbia, again it is freedom, the right of choice. Part of the available time is now provided by KVOS. I am sorry that I cannot use another word besides time, because I am not now talking about Time magazine. Even with the new Western Approaches station coming in there is less advertising time available in Vancouver than in any comparable market in North America. In other words, our networks are already jammed, and Western Approaches, the new baby which is coming to life in September, will be of some help.
If KVOS is taken out of the area, BC-TV, which is already saturated, can charge virtually whatever it wants, and I have no doubt that the advertising rates will soar. In addition, smaller advertisers, smaller retailers, and small brand advertisers will find it difficult to get efficient time in this medium. They will be literally frozen out. Once again it is the little guy and the independent advertiser, just as it is with the Canadian writer, the Canadian artist and others, who are going to be injured for the sake of saving the big conglomerates.
KVOS was invited to come into Canada, as many industries were, to build our country. It was 22 years ago KVOS was asked to come here to provide an outlet for advertisers. KVOS was in the area before BC-TV. Ray Peters, who is the head of BCTV, came before the broadcasting committee as a witness, and I heard his evidence. He said that the life of BC-TV was threatened by KVOS. That is a very interesting comment from a station with over $12 million yearly and which is part of a great and growing conglomerate.
They are on 25 cable stations in the state of Washington. That, for the edification of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), is in the United States of America. They are able to enter that market without suffering from the discrimination they would like Canada to impose on our invited guest, KVOS. I point out that BBC-TV came into the market after KVOS was established. No doubt it was difficult for BC-TV to get started. But it is always difficult to start a business, whether it is the corner grocery store or the little television station.
As I recall, the early years of CHAN-TV, part of the CTV network, was not exactly honourable. A friend of mine, a photo journalist, who founded the station and struggled to keep it going, was crowded out as the big money people took over and built the network into what it is now. Any business which is iust getting started, whether it is a 
newspaper, grocery shop or TV station, must be prepared to lose money the first three or four years, must be prepared to spend money before making money. All the same, $12 million a year is not exactly chicken feed-with all respect to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). In that period of early struggle no business ever gets rich.
I raise another point. CHAN-CHEK or BC-TV are now almost in the position in which the Vancouver Sun and Vancouver Province found themselves when they were charged under the Combines Investigation Act. The two newspapers, under the holding company, Pacific Press, were ordered to cease and desist from further combining in their advertising sales. I understand an advertiser must buy in Vancouver, Victoria and the Okanagan if he wants to be on BC-TV and if he has distribution in those areas. Hon. members will remember why we passed Bill C-2. It was intended not to restrict competition. Perhaps we will need to impose some of the provisions of Bill C-2 if Bill C-58 becomes law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: In the Vancouver area CBC accepts ads but is not over-zealous in taking ads. One major local advertiser said, "we have contacted CBC to give them a contract, but they can't be bothered." They have it easy-on the public purse.
Western Approaches will open new doors but not get advertising until it becomes a station people will watch and, therefore, has a measurable circulation. In other words, if there is not an alternate station to take the advertising, the advertising will probably go to the already overfat newspapers in the area and hot line radio shows. It is interesting to note that KVOS offered to work on a 50-50 basis, to share its advertising revenues to help Western Approaches grow. This offer, including the plan in 1971 to establish an all-Canadian television production studio to promote the work of our artists and actors, was turned down by the CRTC. The offer, among others, has been pushed aside, in an attitude strongly punitive to American culture.
I must say that the Americans have produced great culture. They have great sources to draw on and I do not know why we think it essential to treat them with contempt. Their history, as portrayed in art, literature, and the movies, is remarkable; yet we sit here because we are fat and think we can treat them with contempt. We will feel the repercussions some day.
Bill C-58 is actually an anti-competition bill. It nurtures big business and is in line with what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has defined as the danger of nationalism. That is, it makes the rich richer.
Without KVOS-TV fully in the market place Canadian advertisers would be able to purchase only the product of a massive combine-BC-TV or a weak new UHF, Western Approaches, or the CBC. And you know what I said about the CBC selling advertising. As I see it, the effects of the bill are all negative. We want to save the arts in this country.
What are the negative effects? As already mentioned, BC-TV will be in such a position of power that it will be able to demand almost anything in advertising rates and
February 10, 1976

conditions. The big multinationals such as General Foods, Proctor and Gamble, Lever Brothers, General Motors and other giants will monopolize the best times on a 52-week contract basis, which little advertisers cannot possibly afford. These small brand advertisers and retailers who cannot afford long-term contracts will be showed on to the least efficient time on BC-TV. The rich national brand advertisers will by-pass the new station and the smaller business people will buy bits and pieces of time without getting the equal competitive opportunity of the giants who advertise on BC-TV. With KVOS providing a necessary service in the lower mainland, the availability of time will mean that there is equal opportunity for all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: There is one point which may pass unnoticed now, but you who sit here supporting this ill-conceived, dangerous bill will one day have to answer to your constituents for the results.


Some hon. Members:: Right on!


Simma Holt: I am sorry, gentlemen, I say this with great sadness. It is very, very difficult for me to stand here, on this side of the House, and say this. But I say it because I feel a great duty to my constituents and to that larger constituency we all share, Canada.


An hon. Member:: The people in Vancouver say the same.


Simma Holt: If this bill passes, one day we will have to answer for the results. I will have to answer for the results.


An hon. Member:: You are all right.


Simma Holt: No, I am not all right. I say that more corporate Canadian citizens will be hurt than helped by the bill. As I said, you will have to answer for that if you vote for Bill C-58, without amendments. If we had only handled this properly in committee we would not have spent two weeks as we have. Why not compromise?


Some hon. Members:: Right on!


An hon. Member:: It's the Whip's fault.


Simma Holt: No, it is not the Whip's fault. The Whip put me on, but he cannot be everywhere at once. There are too many committees.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Even those smaller citizens, the smaller TV stations, may not be aware of the inevitable result. All of you, whether you come from Halifax or Regina, or the other small towns and cities of this nation, will see what will happen to your stations, because the national brands will only be able to advertise in the big centres. Let me explain. National advertisers must have major markets, which in English Canada means Toronto and Vancouver. I don't know enough about Quebec advertising to say much about it, so I will only discuss KVOS and the English language market. If it costs more to get to those markets, the national brand advertisers will pay it.
Non-Canadian Publications
The big national brand advertisers operate on both sides of the border. They must advertise in the big market place, but they do not have unlimited budgets. Therefore if national advertisers are forced by Bill C-58 to pay huge increases because of the anti-competitive reaction to the bill in both Toronto and Vancouver, the money must come from somewhere-and that somewhere is right out of the budgets now being spent in less important marketing areas ranging from Saint John and Halifax, to Thunder Bay, Yorkton, Wingham-the constituency of the hon. member from Bruce-Regina, and Prince George.
Also, if advertisers cannot find efficient time available in the two big markets, they will not spend their money making their TV commercials. Incidentally, it costs between $10,000 and $25,000 per 30 seconds of film. Only because a spot campaign is purchased for the major markets do minor markets receive their share.
These are economic facts that any major advertiser or advertising agency will bear out if only you, as members, will do a bit of questioning and learn what is happening in Canada, happening right here.
I said, when talking about publishing, that this bill protects the big publisher but not the Canadian writer and Canadian talent. Protecting Reader's Digest does not mean you are protecting Canadian writers. Your are protecting people like Norman Mailer, and that was said in committee. The bill protects the rich, major market station, to the detriment of the small advertiser and the small Canadian TV station.
Further, to damage our U.S. signal in the west, KVOS-TV, is to eliminate opportunity for artists, animators, film technicians, writers and musicians in the electronic media and production-those talented people obtaining their first opportunities in these fields in western Canada. KVOS has been providing this for some time in Calgary and Vancouver. People are getting jobs in this. It is the largest production and animation studio in the west. The animation work is going out from Vancouver to all parts of the world. Canawest of KVOS (BC) Ltd. Studios are supplying work for Hollywood and England. This will be lost if this bill goes through.
Basic to all the amendments involving publishers there are guidelines given to allow them to become a Canadian industry. That is fine. We have KVOS (BC). It is prepared to do the same. Over the years it sought repeatedly to become Canadianized, but somehow the CRTC always put blocks in its way.
In the case of the electronic media we are just slamming the door on them and not giving them the opportunity or the guidelines to Canadianize, even though such Canadi-anization should be the objective of everyone of us here. I cannot help but feel that this bill was not designed for the good of Canada but with simple immature motives of destructions to destroy Americans who came here many years ago, often at our invitation. I remember when we were searching for American investors. I remember the headlines saying "New Industry to Come to Canada". The premiers would brag that they brought investors here.

February 10, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
That is how KVOS came to Vancouver. They became good corporate citizens. Now like some banana Republic we want to throw them out. It is so easy to destroy, and so hard to build.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about "Terror in The Name of God."


Simma Holt: Terror in the name of Bill C-58.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: In fact it rather reminds me of George Bernard Shaw's line, "Assassination is the extreme form of censorship". That is what they are doing here-Assassination of KVOS, Time, Reader's Digest, MD, and the rest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: My constituents have let me know by hundreds of letters and phone calls what they want me to do. Now, some here say it started when Reader's Digest, Time and KVOS began their campaign. But I received letters even before I became a member of parliament asking me to write about this and, after, asking me to fight here for them. The citizens know their rights. They are not stupid. The citizens know as much as we do. We have an educated, well informed public. They resent any action by government or government agencies such as the CRTC to remove their right of choice, to get Time with Canadian content? Why should we in the west not get Time magazine with Canadian content? Over here on this side of the Chamber they say you can still get Time. But that is the imported version. My constituents and I are entitled to get a magazine with six, seven or eight pages Canadian, and all the world news at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: I want Reader's Digest. Reader's Digest has provided true Canadian content, not Toronto content.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: It is produced by Canadian writers, editors and printers. KVOS is a television signal that we enjoy. If you don't watch it, Stu, that is not my problem. It is yours. I am sorry, Madam Speaker, we get very personal around here when we get to know each other too well. I should have said the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).
Canadian advertisers and Canadian agencies composed of Canadian citizens also know their rights. They believe they still have the right of choice and opportunity, whether rich or beginners in business, whether large or small agencies selling advertising. It is remarkable that the big companies, the rich multi-nationals which can afford it, can advertise outside Canada and deduct it as an expense toward earnings.
You can send a salesman down the west coast of the United States to sell commodities, and that is deductible. However, how incongruous, how patently petty and discriminatory that we can behave so crassly toward Canadian settlers, these landed immigrants of 22 years who settled in our city, in this case KVOS. That is 30 miles. Do hon. members know that the border is only 30 miles from 
Vancouver? They are not only neighbours; they are friends.


An hon. Member:: Trudeau is out there pacing it off.


Simma Holt: Yes, and I wish I could be there so I could share in his glory.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: There is not unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jeanne Sauvé: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think that before we go on with the discussions of the various proposed amendments to this bill, we should indicate from the start that all these amendments aim more or less at granting special status to a foreign radio station. In the final analysis, that is about all was said in each of the proposed amendments to this bill.
All the measures which are included in each of these amendments make possible the exploitation of the Canadian market by an American station-and this is precisely what is happening in the situation we are now discussing: American stations are coming here to exploit the Canadian market. All those measures which would enable-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jeanne Sauvé: . . . which would enable them to continue-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. For the time being the minister has the floor. If the hon. member wants to participate later, he will be given an opportunity.


Jeanne Sauvé: And the measures proposed by hon. members of the opposition would certainly be contrary to the purposes of the Broadcasting Act.
But in practice, because of our tolerance, those TV stations operate in a country where, we must admit, they are not even licenced. And we must react promptly, something we should have done long ago, in front of a situation that built up slowly because it is so easy for American programs or publicity to penetrate into Canadian territory.
Traditionally our country has no frontiers and obviously, when dealing with waves, it is still more difficult to mark the boundaries. It remains that ads which normally should be placed here to support Canadian industry cross those frontiers.

February 10, 1976


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like an explanation as to whether the minister rose for the purpose of asking a question of one of her own backbenchers or whether she has been recognized by the Chair to participate in the debate. If that is the case, then I would think that the order of speaking has been determined well in advance, that after a government member has spoken a member of the opposition has the right to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It has been common practice to recognize a minister when a minister wants to participate.


Jeanne Sauvé: Thank you, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Brisco:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, it has been common practice since I have been in this House for Speakers, including Madam Speaker, to draw to the attention of those who are debating that they are wavering from the point that is up for discussion. Frankly, I do not think the minister is dealing with the amendments which are before us.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: We are studying motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and I am sure the minister is speaking on one of those amendments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jeanne Sauvé: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Indeed I rose to participate in the debate on Bill C-58 to discuss the amendments under study tonight, to answer the arguments of hon. members of the opposition as well as those of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) and I shall come to the statement she made during her intervention a moment ago.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is not at her desk.


Jeanne Sauvé: Nevertheless I wanted to say that our policy in opposing the amendments moved by the opposition is important because how could we require, Madam Speaker, what we require from Canadian broadcasters if we did not have at the same time a policy to protect their income? The Canadian television and radio industry is in a precarious situation in many ways. We do not have as large a market as our American neighbour. It is not possible for us to get as large an income as that which feeds the American industry. If we want to develop a Canadian industry in this country, it is absolutely necessary for us to protect its income, because without income there cannot be any really Canadian production; there cannot be any original production in this country; above all, there cannot be any possibility for us to protect the income of the many Canadian actors, artists and artisans involved in the professions related to television and radio.
If we want to attain a certain level of quality in our production, a certain level of excellence in our-
Non-Canadian Publications


Benno Friesen: On a point of order, I am sure the minister would not want to mislead the House in the remarks she has made in that there would never be any money for the film industry in Canada. If she had listened to my speech very carefully she would have noted the proposal made by KVOS TV in Bellingham. The proposal was that $100,000 would be invested in the film industry-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Benno Friesen: -which would not be tax money but would be direct investment on the part of the company.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the speech of the hon. member. The compensatory payments suggested in his amendment, that is that a foreign company which received authorization to obtain revenues in Canada would contribute to a compensation fund which would be allocated to Canadian production, will never have the value of a truly Canadian production, made with Canadian funds, by Canadian workers and producers. In spite of the optimism of the hon. member, this fund could never reach the proportions which will be possible if we protect our industry in such a way as to allow it to sponsor its own production. The hon. member is much too optimistic concerning the possible effects of this fund, which would moreover be created by foreigners.
I reread Motion No. 7 in which it is stated that this fund created by foreign production companies could even aim at increasing television and radio coverage of the Canadian territory.
I do not think that the hon. member should like to delegate to people who are not Canadian these responsibilities which are essentially ours. I believe that these responsibilities must remain solely in the hands of Canadians who know their own territory and the coverage requirements of their own country. We are the ones who must decide what our priorities are and how we can best serve Canadians. In the place of the hon. member, I would be ashamed to leave that up to people who are not Canadian.
These amendments as well as the others proposed by hon. members constitute for all practical purposes unfair competition for Canadians companies which try to produce acceptable programs in Canada with the means provided by the market.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) suggested that the provisions of Bill C-58 are negative. Of course, legislation aimed at forbiding something always seems negative. But we took those steps for positive reasons, precisely to protect the Canadian industry. All countries in the world protect their cultural agencies, the creativity of their country, their cultural activity. Canadians should do otherwise? Specially when one is aware of the existence of a neighbour to the south, endowed with considerably more powerful means of developing its cultural production, its radio-television production? Extremely powerful countries do so; there is therefore that much more need for us to protect our Canadian production.
These measures are not negative; on the contrary they are positive; they are designed to help Canadian industry,
10824

February 10, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
Canadian artists and artisans. It is merely sane realism on our part, and not anti-Americanism, despite what some hon. members opposite may say. We opted for this bill, not as an anti-American gesture but because we have to protect our own interests. Moreover, the very principle of the provision providing exemptions is debatable, for it creates a special tax status for the advertisers of a given area which may not necessarily be granted in others. The very principle of some of those amendments is quite agreable.
Moreover, the proposed amendments transfer the responsibility for the application of the legislation from the House to the CRTC or the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen). Now, in my opinion, Parliament alone has the authority to confer a special status to a foreign television station. Only Parliament can do that. Do hon. members realize that the CRTC only has the responsibility to deliver Canadian licences and to administer Canadian affairs? How could it administer what hon. members propose? This would create such a delicate situation for the CRTC that I think it would be unable to carry out its mandate with regard to the Broadcasting Act without facing many conflicts. I therefore think there is no reason whatsoever to believe that exemptions such as those proposed would be of any advantage to the Canadian broadcasting system, and that is precisely what we are talking about, advantages for the Canadian broadcasting system. Obviously, hon. members are forgetting that.


Robert Hylton Brisco: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has referred to the fact that the CRTC cannot accept responsibility for managing or being involved in any way with KVOS.


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: What is your point of order?


Robert Hylton Brisco: Don't get excited. I should like to ask the minister how she relates that statement to the fact that KVOS is now paying $75 million in taxation to the Department of National Revenue. I will now sit down and let the rabble on the other side continue.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, again I say there is no ground at all to believe that deductions would help the Canadian broadcasting system. But there are many reasons to think and to believe that if American broadcasting stations bearing their signal toward our markets were given a stronger status, then our industry would be affected and get a blow with everlasting consequences. This is why it is urgent to indicate immediately to hon. members on the other side of the House that we will not second this amendment because we on this side want to protect our Canadian broadcasting and television industry at any cost.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose some members will ask why I, a member from Ontario, am concerned about this matter since the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) is primarily interested in a station in British Columbia, KVOS. At least the action is in the province of B.C.

I must say I listened to the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) in utter amazement and misbelief. She conveniently forgot to indicate to the House what a good corporate citizen KVOS has been and will continue to be. Then she started to talk about special status, conveniently forgetting that just a couple of days ago the government brought about a particular type of special status for Reader's Digest. She then has the nerve to say that we on this side are talking about special status. It was the government that introduced special status as a result of its decision on Digest.
I want to know what is the rush here. Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Speaker, commercial deletions will not come into effect in the immediate future, until such time as an arrangement has been made between the CRTC and the FCC. What we are talking about here is the removal of some $20 million of revenue spent on advertising through U.S. stations. The Americans at the border stations are in an uproar about it, and as a result of that uproar the government has indicated that it will search for some solutions.
All the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock is trying to do in his three amendments is to ask the House to hold tight for a minute and try to arrive at a solution in order to save a good corporate citizen. This organization has been in existence, I understand from listening to the debate this evening, for some 20 years and has proven itself. It is paying taxes, it has invested in Canada, it has employees in Canada, and it has an unblemished record in regard to Canadian interests. There is a question of principle here involving Canadian nationalism versus a good corporate citizen which happens to be a subsidiary of a U.S. corporation.
I think it is time we took stock of what is going on in Canada. I had no intention of getting into this debate and I said that yesterday. I am not even prepared. But looking down the road the government is travelling in terms of Canadian nationalism, I am becoming a little scared and so are a lot of other members, mostly on the other side. It is our job to put forward constructive criticism, but when three or four Liberal backbenchers stand up and join in the debate there must surely be something wrong with the direction the government is taking.
What I see in this debate is a very dramatic attempt to save a good corporate citizen. After hearing the reasoned arguments of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, for the life of me I cannot understand why this matter cannot be held in abeyance. This corporation has been of some significant benefit to Canada and Canadians, yet with one stroke of the pen we are trying to destroy it. With the implementation of Bill C-58 and commercial deletions, station KVOS goes down the drain. Is this what we want to do, Mr. Speaker? Let me also put this to hon. members; I do not want to go too far.


An hon. Member:: You never do.
February 10, 1976


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If my hon. friend wants to get involved in this debate, let him stand up. I am trying to do the right thing because I think a lot of Canadians are concerned. I have just returned from a trip-I will not say where-and it seems to me that this is just a small irritant or one of some insignificance. But when you start thinking, Mr. Speaker, about the number of irritants that can come about at any particular time, then I am wondering whether there can be any retaliation by our cousins or brothers or friends south of the border. I think we have to be very concerned about this situation, because I understand that a certain executive said last night that if Bill C-58 went through we can expect retaliation.


Jeanne Sauvé: What's the matter, are you scared?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I did not interrupt the minister but perhaps she would stand up and answer this question. Can she assure this House and the Canadian people that if Bill C-58 is passed there will be no retaliation? I will sit down if she will answer that question.


Jeanne Sauvé: I will answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I am not guided by the kind of retaliation that can come from our American friends. We have policies for Canadians and we apply them as best we can. We stand on what we do, no matter what retaliation may come, and we accept that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, that is an unacceptable answer to me. I want to know why we cannot work hand in hand with our American friends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is no answer to me, so do not give me that nonsense, Madam Minister. I have seen some funny things happening around here in the past couple of weeks. I do not want to digress, but first of all, there was the Cuba trip. Who did that help?


An hon. Member:: Canada first.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am talking about irritants, and that is another one. Now, what did the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock have in mind?


Mr. Railton:: Two out of three is a good average.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Doctor, perhaps you should have stayed with medicine. No, I will take that back. It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to jibe at my favourite members. I know that that hon. member goes back to his riding from time to time and says what a good fellow the hon. member for Hamilton West is, and I know that that hon. member is a great Canadian.
Perhaps hon. members will now give me a chance to continue with my remarks. What the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock is proposing is a pause. He very ingeniously in motions Nos. 7, 8 and 9 is proposing a pause in the government's action because, as I understand it, it seems that the government thinks it can do anything-
Non-Canadian Publications


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). We had a discussion earlier in the day, at which time it was understood that the debate would cease at 9.30 and a vote would be taken. I am sure it would be the wish of the hon. member for Hamilton West to facilitate the carrying out of that undertaking on both sides of the House. I would suggest further that, if my impression is also the impression of the minister, we should now proceed to take the votes according to that understanding we reached earlier in the day.


James Hugh Faulkner: That was our understanding, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have been following my leader since 1968 and I will continue to follow him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: The
question is on motion No. 7, moved by Mr. Friesen, seconded by Mr. Alexander (Hamilton West), that Bill C-58-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: And
on motion No. 8, moved by Mr. Friesen, seconded by Mr. Alexander (Hamilton West), that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Income Tax Act-


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: The
question is on motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, the agreement was in respect of the four deferred motions. Surely someone is in charge of the House. What is going on here?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My speech excited everyone.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it was understood that the votes would be on the motions that were deferred at an earlier date; that is motions No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 and No. 12.


An hon. Member:: If you can count that high it is one to four.


An hon. Member:: Get the House leader.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Get the House leader. What kind of a shop is this?
21130-63%
February 10, 1976

Non-Canadian Publications


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I think that everything that has been said up till now should be thrown out.


An hon. Member:: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: The
question is on motions Nos. 1, 12, 2 and 3 deferred from earlier dates.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker:: The first question is on motion No. 1. I take it the sense of the House is that the vote on motion No. 1 will also take care of motion No. 12.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before tabulating the results let me say that I think the record will show that Mr. Pelletier was identified, after Mr. Kaplan, as Mr. Duclos.
I declare motions 1 and 12 lost.
Motions Nos. 1 and 12 negatived.
Alexander
Allard
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Baldwin
Balfour
Bawden
Beatty
Beaudoin
Brisco
Cadieu
Caouette
(Villeneuve)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Cossitt Crouse Darling Dick
Diefenbaker
Dionne
(Kamouraska)
Elzinga
Epp
Fairweather
Forrestall
Fortin
Abbott
Andres
(Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate) Bechard Begin (Miss)
Blackburn
Blais
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Brewin
Broadbent
Bussieres
Caccia
Campbell (Miss)
(South Western Nova) Caron Chretien Clermont Collenette Condon
Messrs.
Friesen
Gauthier
(Roberval)
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Hargrave Hnatyshyn Holt (Mrs.)
Howie
Huntington
Hurlburt
Jarvis
Kempling
Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand) Korchinski Lambert
(Bellechasse)
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Lavoie Lawrence MacDonald (Egmont)
MacKay
MacLcan
Macquarrie
Marshall
++NAYS
Messrs.
Corbin
Corriveau
Daudlin
De Bane
Demers
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Douglas
(Bruce-Grey)
Duclos
Dupras
Duquet
Ethier
Faulkner
Fleming
Fox
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Gilbert
Goodale
Goyer
Gray


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 2, in the name of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather).
The House divided on motion No. 2 (Mr. Fairweather) which was negatived on the following division.
Masniuk
Matte
Mazankowski
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinley
McKinnon
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
O'Sullivan
Paproski
Patterson
Ritchie
Roche
Rynard
Schumacher
Scott
Stanfield
Stewart
(Marquette)
Towers
Wenman
Whiteway
Whittaker
Wise
Yewchuk-73.
Guay
(St. Boniface) Guay (Levis) Guilbault Haidasz Harquail Herbert Hopkins Isabelle Joyal Kaplan Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Lajoie Lalonde Landers Langlois Laniel Lapointe Leblanc (Laurier)
Alexander
Allard
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Baldwin
Balfour
Bawden
Beatty
Beaudoin
Brisco
Cadieu
Caouette
(Villeneuve)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Cossitt Crouse Darling Dick
Diefenbaker
Dionne
(Kamouraska)
Elzinga
Epp
Fairweather
Forrestall
Fortin
Abbott
Andres
(Lincoln)
Appolloni (Mrs.)
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate) Bechard Begin (Miss)
(Division No. 102)

Messrs.
Friesen Gauthier (Roberval)
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hargrave Hnatyshyn Holt (Mrs.)
Howie Huntington Hurlburt Jarvis Kempling Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand) Korchinski Lambert
(Bellechasse)
Lambert
(Edmonton West)
Lavoie Lawrence MacDonald (Egmont)
MacKay MacLean Macquarrie Marshall
++NAYS
Messrs.
Blackburn
Blais
Blouin
Boulanger
Breau
Brewin
Broadbent
Bussieres
Martin
Masniuk
Matte
Mazankowski
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinley
McKinnon
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
O'Sullivan
Paproski
Patterson
Ritchie
Roche
Rynard
Schumacher
Scott
Stanfield
Stewart
(Marquette)
Towers
Wenman
Whiteway
Whittaker
Wise
Yewchuk-74.
Caccia
Campbell (Miss)
(South Western Nova) Caron Chretien Clermont Collenette Condon
| Mr. Fairweather.
February 10, 1976

Messrs.
Corbin	Joyal	Nicholson (Miss)Corriveau	Kaplan	NystromDaudlin	Knowles	O'ConnellDe Bane	(Winnipeg	OrlikowDemers	North Centre)	OuelletDionne	Lajoie	Parent(Northumberland-	Lalonde	PearsallMiramichi)	Landers	PelletierDouglas	Langlois	Penner(Bruce-Grey)	Laniel	PetersDuclos	Lapointe	PhilbrookDupras	Leblanc	PinardDuquet	(Laurier)	PoulinEthier	Lefebvre	Prud'hommeFaulkner	Leggatt	RailtonFleming	Loiselle	RichardsonFlynn	(Chambly)	RobertsFox	Loiselle	RobinsonGauthier	(Saint-Henri)	Rodriguez(Ottawa-Vanier)	Lumley	RompkeyGendron	MacDonald	RooneyGilbert	(Cardigan)	RoyGoodale	Macdonald	(Laval)Goyer	(Rosedale)	SaltsmanGray	MacEachen	Sauve (Mrs.)Guay	MacFarlane	Sharp(St. Boniface)	MacGuigan	SmithGuay	Mackasey	(Saint-Jean)(Levis)	Marceau	StolleryGuilbault	Marchand	SymesHaidasz	(Kamloops-Cariboo)	TessierHarquail	Mclsaac	TurnerHerbert	McRae	(London East)Hopkins	Morin (Mrs.)	WatsonIsabelle	Munro	YanakisJamieson	(Hamilton East)	Young-111.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 2 lost.
Motion No. 2 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on motion No. 3 (Mr. Roy (Timmins)) as amended.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 3, as amended, lost.
Motion No. 3, as amended, negatived.
Alexander
Allard
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Baldwin
Balfour
Bawden
Beatty
Beaudoin
Brisco
Cadieu
Caouette
(Villeneuve)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Cossitt Crouse Darling Dick
Diefenbaker
Dionne
(Kamouraska)
Elzinga
Epp
Fairweather
Forrestall
Fortin
Friesen
Gauthier
(Roberval)
Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek) Hargrave Hnatyshyn Holt (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Howie
Huntington
Hurlburt
Jarvis
Kempling
Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Korchinski
Lambert
(Bellechasse)
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Lavoie Lawrence MacDonald (Egmont)
MacKay
MacLean
Macquarrie
Marshall
Martin
Masniuk
Matte
Mazankowski
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinley
McKinnon
Mitges
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
O'Sullivan
Pa proski
Patterson
Ritchie
Roche
Roy
(Timmins)
Rynard
Schumacher
Scott
Stanfield
Stewart
(Marquette)
Towers
Wenman
Whiteway
Whittaker
Wise
Yewchuk-76 .


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik)-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the understanding was that we would vote only on the deferred votes that have now been taken. I think all votes that it was agreed would be taken tonight have been taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House is aware that until such time as a decision has been taken on the amendment to motion No. 4 it will be difficult to proceed, in a procedural way, with motion No. 5. However, if there is no understanding-


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the understanding was that we would take all votes that had been deferred up to this afternoon when the arrangement was made. At that time the vote had not been called on the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). Therefore, I believe the point of the Leader of

February 10, 1976
Adjournment Debate
the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is well taken and that all votes that have been agreed on have been taken.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss briefly a question I posed a week ago Monday, on February 2. As reported at page 10518 of Hansard I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) about the forthcoming trials between the German Leopard II tanks and the American XM-1. I specifically asked:
-will the minister and the government now consider the opposition suggestion that Canada consider leasing Leopard I's until the winner of the U.S.-German competition is determined?
To which the Minister of National Defence replied in part:
-we are at this time considering the two main options which are to refit the Centurions or to purchase the Leopard I.
My further question to the minister was the following:
Mr. Speaker, the minister, the deputy minister and the chief of the defence staff have priced the Leopard I at anywhere between $1.4 million and $1.8 million. The Economist says the competition winner will be in the "just over $500,000" class.
Those are the two parts of the question to which I wish to address myself tonight.
The confusion in prices quoted for LRPA's pales when compared with the shambles surrounding the tank replacement program. On November 25, 1975, General Dextrase said a retrofit of the Centurions would cost about $400,000 per tank, while new Leopards would cost $1 !4 million each. However, he went on to say:
On the basis of retrofitting 113 Centurions, the cost would be $85 million (i.e., $752,000 per tank) and $200 million to acquire 113 Leopards.
-which is $l3/i million each.
The minister added to the confusion by telling a press conference, according to the Ottawa Citizen of November 28, 1975, that to refit 233 Centurions would cost $80 million, that is, $343,000 each, while 180 new tanks would cost from $180 million to $200 million, or just over $1 million each. I phoned the German Embassy and they assured me that they would sell Leopard I tanks complete with spare parts for $700,380 each.
We have the minister claiming that retrofits cost less than half of the price quoted by the chief, and the German Embassy claiming they will sell us new tanks for half the price the chief says they cost. It gets even more ridiculous

when we consider that for slightly less than the refit to the old Centurions at the price quoted by the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Germans would sell us brand new tanks.
I am disturbed by the answer given me by the minister on February 2 when he said:
-we are at this time considering the two main options which are to refit the Centurions or to purchase the Leopard I.
This in fact discards the other option of waiting for the competition between the American tank and the Leopard 2. This was spelled out in last night's Ottawa Journal in a story headlined "Detroit vs the Leopard". It refers to the two tanks, stating:
Both also carry a price tag of $507,000. General Motor's entry is a bit faster, getting 48 miles an hour from its 1,500 horsepower engine compared with 45 m.p.h. for Chrysler's.
It mentions the Leopard 2, a West German tank already in production. This is all in spite of the fact that the Chief of Defence Staff told the defence committee a couple of months ago that it would be years before the Leopard 2 would be in production.
I should like to point out one thing that was omitted from the Journal story of last night, and that is the rather startling new tank motor that Chrysler is putting into their version of the XM-1. In the Chrysler version the power is provided by a regenerative turbine engine using diesel fuel. This may be a great leap forward in respect of tanks in coming years. I should like to quote something about these tanks which I have obtained from the International Defence Review. It states:
In some tests, the XM-1 has traversed the cross-country course at speeds three times greater than the M-60A1 thank over the same course.
The M-60 is a tank in use at the present time by U.S. forces. The article goes on to state:
A large part of this high-speed capability is due to the 1,500 horsepower engine.
It goes on to refer to the new Chrysler version using the diesel fuel turbine engine.
I would also like to point out that another article mentions that these tanks are to go to the United States army for three months competitive testing in January, 1976. The winner will be selected in July or August of 1976. Starting in September the winner is to be evaluated against the German Leopard II.
There are a few things the House should know about the difference between the Leopard I and the Leopard II. the first Leopard, which is the only modern tank the minister says they are considering, left the production line on September 9, 1965, over ten years ago. The old Leopard tank, the Leopard I we are considering buying, has an 830 horsepower motor while the Leopard II has a number of new interesting features which will doubtless set the trend for future MBT's. It is powered by a 12-cylinder engine which develops 1500 hp.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
February 10, 1976


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in the process of deciding which is the most suitable tank for use by the Canadian Forces our specialists are keeping a close watch on the development and trials taking place in the tank field in many countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States.
To put this into perspective one has to appreciate both the short term and the long term implications, and it should be noted that the Economist article to which the hon. member referred in his question on February 2 made the point that the trials of the Leopard II and XM 1 in the United States will not be completed until late 1976 at the earliest and that it will then take some time to select the winner. The competition winner is then still a long way from production. The hon. member should understand that the trial of the next generation of Leopard tank and its American competitor will not produce an in-service tank until the late 1980's, more than ten years from now.
The immediate problem for the Canadian Forces is that at the end of 1976 the existing Centurion tanks will require replacement or rebuilding, and therefore the military staff is examining two options.
The first option is the replacement of the Centurion tank by the Leopard I tank now used by Germany, Belgium, Italy, Norway, and Denmark. For your information, Mr. Speaker, there have been over 4,000 Leopard I tanks produced to date which have a useable life of about 20 years. Within the spirit of the NATO Alliance, acquisition of the Leopard I would strengthen our position through the procurement of an effective, current piece of equipment with logistic and standardization advantages.
The second option is to refit, that is to modernize, the existing Centurions to give them continued life, possibly an additional ten years. However, at the moment it is considered unwise to state any conclusions at least until the present technical assessment is complete and we have analyzed all aspects of the alternatives. We expect to receive the results of this analysis and the recommendations of the military staff early in April.
Again referring to the Economist's article, the cost of the new tank referred to was a general design estimate for the unit cost of the vehicle in 1972. As we all know, there has been considerable inflation in both Europe and North America, and we think it would be most unwise to put a firm price on the cost of a tank which we will not see in production for probably 8 to 10 years. Certainly our indications are that the Leopard II will be considerably more expensive than the Leopard I. Finally, I should point out that the figure which the hon. member quoted for the Leopard I was a gross estimate of the program costs per tank, that is, it includes such things as spare parts, manuals, training aids, and so on, whereas the price quoted for the Leopard II was obviously basic unit cost.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member might procure more reliable figures than those one might expect to find in the Ottawa Citizen and in the Ottawa Journal.
Adjournment Debate


HEALTH-LASSA FEVER-POSSIBILITY OF INTERFERENCE WITH REGULATIONS BY WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION-EFFECTIVENESS OF QUARANTINE MEASURES
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, they say there is nothing new under the sun. This does not apply in the field of medicine. Quite recently a new disease called Lassa, a virus, was discovered and isolated in 1970 at Columbia University.
It is true, we do know that viruses mutate. We also know that in a family, three or four children can come down with chicken pox and one of them will also come down with herpes zoster. We know that these viruses jump around like this. However, I have been very interested in this new disease which was discovered in 1970. It is a virus which was labelled Lassa fever. It is endemic, so far as I know, only in west Africa, which includes Ghana, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone.
This disease was first discovered, as I have said, in 1970 when three American nurses attended a sick patient in west Africa who was thought to have a flu-like disease. He was first treated with quinine because of his malaria-like symptoms; he had fever and chills. When that did not help him, he was given an anti-typhoid inoculation. All three of the nurses died one after the other, but before the third one died she was flown home to New York, and at Columbia University they were fortunate enough to isolate the virus which caused the sickness.
Lassa fever is hard to diagnose because it comes on with flu-like symptoms, high fever and chills, and then the disease continues on its course. It has a mortality rate of 20 per cent to 25 per cent among adults, and the mortality rate among pregnant women is as high as 50 per cent. It is generally believed that the immediate host is a rodent, but it is not known whether the disease is transmitted through food or through a bite. Certainly this lack of knowledge points out the necessity for a good deal of research to be carried out to find out a little more about this disease and its causes. Its existence was not discovered until the death of the three nurses. Blood samples were taken from the third nurse who was flown to the United States, and the virus was isolated at Columbia University. This was in 1970.
I understand that the United States has gathered some immune serum from known cases of Lassa fever. It is difficult to be sure how valuable this serum is at present. However, most of the pool of immune serum is banked in Nigeria, with small amounts being kept in New York City, Sierra Leone, and Ghana. Most of the immune serum on the North American continent is kept very carefully in Georgia.
One wonders whether the native population in these west African countries have developed any resistance to this endemic disease which might not be possessed by the North American population. This is my concern. A good example of it was when the white man came to North America and brought with him tuberculosis, measles, and other disease which almost exterminated the North American Indian.
Lassa fever is hard to diagnose and very serious if it is contracted. I feel that the Canadian people should be

February 10, 1976
Adjournment Debate
protected by keeping a strict isolation on those people coming from West Africa until the incubation period of the disease is over, and that runs for a period of from 14 days to 21 days. I feel this should also be done because we do not know how an epidemic could come to the population of North America because there are rodents here, and yet we do not have Lassa fever. As I stated before the disease is very much like 'flu. Muscles and bones ache, and there is high fever and delirium.
I hope that the people who are put on an advisory committee with respect to health precautions at the Olympic Games will be people with skill and some knowledge.
I also hope that in another five years we will have learned much more about this disease, its diagnosis and treatment. In the meantime we should not subject the Canadian people to risks which are not necessary. It was with this hope that I brought this strange new disease to the attention of the House, and hopefully by doing so that will stimulate research, further study, and observation of this very interesting disease about which we know so little.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by assuring the Canadian people that all precautions are being taken to protect them from this odious new disease, Lassa fever. As the hon. member indicated, it was discovered on the west coast of Africa, and it is believed to be spread by a species of field rat. While the primary source is believed to be the wild rat, there is also an indication that secondary infection can occur from direct contact with an afflicted patient. Health personnel working in a mission hospital in Africa have contracted the disease in this manner; however, spread of infection beyond these health personnel is rare, and it appears that such spread is unlikely.
Since Lassa fever was first discovered there has been no accidental transmittal beyond the borders of the west African countries other than a small outbreak which occurred in laboratory personnel who were involved in culturing and handling the live virus in the United States. One European, who contracted the disease in Africa, was evacuated by air to Europe from Africa, and no secondary infection of health personnel occurred in Europe.
With respect to the Olympic Games in Montreal in 1976, as the minister has already stated in response to earlier questions put by the hon. member, the government intends to seek amendments to the Quarantine Act to allow the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to detain any person arriving in Canada from abroad who is suspected of carrying an infectious disease in either the incubatory or active state. These amendments will also safeguard the civil liberties of any person suspected of having a disease such as Lassa fever by requiring the minister to make an application to a judge of the superior court of the particular province within 48 hours, if the disease has not yet diagnosed, to request further detention.
A committee has been established with the provincial government of Quebec and the city of Montreal to review requirements for special precautions to arrest and prevent the spread of infectious disease should any prospect of danger arise.
(Mr. Rynard.]
I am pleased to inform the House that the federal government is also in close contact with the United States and United Kingdom authorities who have first hand knowledge of Lassa fever. Moreover, the Department of National Health and Welfare is in continuous contact with the World Health Organization, which monitors and reports outbreaks of infectious diseases on a global basis. Contrary to the fears of the hon. member, no interference from this world body is anticipated. Rather, a close, co-operative and harmonious relationship exists with the World Health Organization.
As I indicated previously, a committee is presently investigating the feasibility of developing a new isolation facility in which patients suffering from extremely infectious and dangerous diseases, such as Lassa fever, can be treated. The results of the deliberations of this committee should be available within the next few months.
May I conclude as I began by reassuring the Canadian people that all due precautions are being taken, and consideration of the problem is well in hand.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM- POSSIBILITY THAT INSURANCE CORPORATION WILL BE ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I intervene this evening because the reply of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to my question of February 5 was unsatisfactory. Usually the replies to that minister in the House are succinct and useful, but I am afraid his answer left a good deal to be desired.
My question was prompted by a meeting involving the federal Minister of Finance and provincial ministers of finance. After the meeting the federal minister issued a press release saying that certain minor difficulties needed to be worked out. A great many people in British Columbia hoped that the difficulty could be ironed out and that rates charged by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia could be brought within the government's anti-inflation guidelines.
I did not ask the Minister of Finance whether the subject was negotiated or discussed; I asked the minister to go on record and say, on behalf of the government, that the rates charged by ICBC, a Crown corporation, ought to be brought under the federal guidelines and that the government would thereby offer relief to British Columbians who are being charged absolutely incredible insurance rate increases for the cars they drive.
The minister did not reply to that specific part of the question asking for an indication of the government's position, an indication vitally necessary if the government is to give some leadership in controlling inflation and the rates charged by ICBC. It is time the federal government and the provinces stopped playing their perpetual game of ping pong, stopped saying, "Shall we put it under the guidelines or not?"
I hope the parliamentary secretary can make some positive statement this evening on the government's decision to include ICBC in the addendum to the agreement made with British Columbia and make the Crown corporation a controlled Crown corporation. There is ample precedent for this. For example, the Globe and Mail of February 3
February 10, 1976

mentions inflation rules governing 17 Crown corporations. Most of those corporations provide services, as ICBC does. There is ample precedent in the Province of Ontario. We hear, for example, that Ontario hydro rates now are under AIB guidelines.
It seems passing strange that two things have not happened. First, Mr. Pepin, of the Anti-Inflation Board, has not said anything publicly about ICBC rates. He was quick to interfere with teacher negotiations in Ontario, but strangely slow about speaking of the insurance rates in British Columbia. He was strangely silent, even though a consulting actuary to the Crown corporation said that ICBC rates in British Columbia are unnecessarily high. He said that the corporation is adopting the most pessimistic view on the basis of past experience, and charging unnecessarily high rates. Surely the AIB ought to control the rates charged by the corporation in British Columbia, rates which are unnecessarily high.
Consider the human implications of the high rates. For example, a driver under 25 years old of a 1974 Ford Fair-land will pay, even though he has not been involved in any accidents, between $315 and $1,102. Such a young driver will, typically, very likely be employed in one of our local industries, say a mill. His wages have been frozen but he is asked to pay one-tenth of his salary for car insurance. When he turns to his shop steward and asks what is to happen to his wages the answer will be, "I'm sorry, the federal government froze your wages." So far the government has done nothing to bring ICBC rates within antiinflation guidelines. Is it any wonder little consensus has developed on the federal government's program? The sooner the government recognizes that there are poor people in this country who are not prepared to fight inflation alone but want the rest of the community to participate in that fight, the sooner it will have some chance of seeing that program obtain some success.
I will resume my seat in the hope that some positive statement may come forward from the government that in fact it does favour ICBC rates being placed under the anti-inflation program so that they can make a judgment that they represent not merely the federal presence, but individuals in the province of British Columbia, many of whom placed their faith in the government in the last election. I hope that faith was not misplaced in terms of its attitude toward inflation.
Adjournment Debate
I would welcome from the parliamentary secretary a positive statement that now we can see that ICBC rates will come under the anti-inflation guidelines, regardless of the position taken by the province of British Columbia.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Wednesday, February 11, 1976