Mr. Fisher:

Mr. Chairman, will you call the items because I intend to attempt to bring this subject before the committee in relation to item No. 10.

Mr. Lambert:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Acadia referred to these matters relating to the regulations before the dinner hour, and to fast appreciation on farm grain storage facilities, and increased depreciation in respect of pollution projects. I should like to know why it was decided to do this by regulation rather than by direct provisions within the Act.

Mr. Gordon:

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to answer that question. Everything related to capital cost allowances, including different rates of write-offs, are provided for in the regulations and not in the Act as special items.

Mr. Cowan:

Mr. Chairman, in rising at this time to speak on the resolution I wish to direct my remarks particularly to clause 12A, which is that part of the resolution having to do with the newspaper and periodical industry. In commenting on this subject I should like to emphasize that this has been my life, and if I should be rejected in any

CMr. Fisher.j

future election I shall return to this business, about which I believe I know something. The hon. Member for Port Arthur was kind when he suggested that I was an authority in this field and I thank him for that reference, but let me say that I would not make that suggestion.

The question relating to Time magazine and Reader's Digest in this country is something which has received a great deal of attention, particularly since the O'Leary report was presented in 1961. However there are other facets of the game which should be considered before precipitate action is taken whereby naturalization is granted to these two magazines which have been established in this country, at least in the case of Time magazine, for about three years, particularly when one considers that it takes five years residence in Canada for a human being to become naturalized.

The interesting thing about foreign ownership of Canadian periodicals is this. I subscribe to at least ten foreign-owned magazines printed in Great Britain and the United States of America. I read the New Republic, of the United States, as well as the New Statesman and Nation of Great Britain regularly. I subscribe to United States periodicals, British publications, and to one French paper, and I have done so for many years. Is there something the matter with my reading a foreign-owned periodical when it comes into the country openly, when anyone can read it and know its contents?

[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)

It is stated that it would be bad for Canadian newspapers to be owned by foreigners. I am not going to argue the point one way or the other. But no matter who owns the paper, does not the reader of the periodical make his own judgment as to the ideas being advanced in the periodical? I have read magazines which have been published in Germany on technical aspects of the printing trade, and I think no less of them because they are owned and printed by a firm in Germany than I would of the finest printing trade publications printed in Canada or the United States of America. The fact that a publication may be foreign-owned is certainly nothing to be held against the publication, unless one is so weak-minded that he cannot form a conclusion of his own. The idea that you should not be able to read a newspaper printed in Canada which is owned by foreign interests runs counter to the fact that you can buy books printed in

June 15, 1965

Great Britain, printed in the United States, printed in Germany, printed in Australia, bring them into Canada and read them. Or are we soon to have laws which say that you cannot read books in Canada unless they have been printed in Canada? I hope we are not living in a hot-house economy in this held.

To grant naturalization to two United States-owned periodicals such as Time and Reader's Digest will be a body blow to the Canadian consumer magazine industry. At the present time those two magazines are taking from the advertising agencies and the few direct advertisers who are left, something over 54 per cent of the total amount spent on advertising in consumer magazines.

I am of an age that I can recall Canadian magazines which are no longer in business but have gone the way of all flesh, due to competition. I can remember the Canadian Courier. I remember when Saturday Night was a weekly publication. I remember when Maclean's magazine was a weekly publication. I can remember when the Montreal Standard was a great and strong publication under Lord Atholstan. Today the Montreal Standard is perpetuated in the form of Weekend, which is a gravure supplement appearing in a large number of Canadian newspapers. It is making a handsome profit on its present operation but has had to change its entire format to remain in business.

I can remember when Canadian Homes and Gardens was a separate magazine but could not meet the competition of those that the hon. Member for Port Arthur called bastard editions, if I may quote him; and if he is out of order we can both be ruled out of order. Now Canadian Homes and Gardens is a gravure supplement with the Southam chain. It is a pretty fine publication today, but it is not an independent magazine.

This question of allowing these bogus Canadian papers to continue on with the blessing of the Government has to be faced. Are we going to have a Canadian magazine industry, or are we going to have bogus publications dominating the field? The O'Leary Commission recommended that Time and Reader's Digest be taxed in a certain manner, one which would discourage advertisers from patronizing them. Senator O'Leary, who is a very much respected man in the publishing world, knows the business. At the time of the report he was President-Publisher of one of our great Canadian daily newspapers and familiar with the problems of publishing in this country. This is shown by

Income Tax Act

the fact that the owners of the periodical of which he was President-Publisher and chief shareholder found it advisable to sell the publication to a much stronger organization, F. P. Publications, who are turning out the paper today.

I do not know whether or not the Members of this House favour individual ownership of newspapers as compared with chain ownership. I personally favour individual ownership. But the competition which is arising in the magazine and publishing industry in this country is such that it almost appears that no one can stand on his own feet, even in the daily newspaper field in Canada unless he has chain support.

Reference has been made during this discussion to the Thomson chain. I have a brother working for the Thomson chain. Reference was made to the McGraw-Hill trade publications. I have a brother, now a naturalized United States citizen, who has been working for McGraw-Hill publications in New York since his graduation from the University of Toronto in 1948. Reference was made to the Toronto Star Weekly by some speakers today. I have a third brother who works for the Toronto Star Weekly.

Mr. Cyr:

Keeping it in the family.

Mr. Cowan:

I believe that with the connections I have in the publishing field I know all the facets of it viewed from any side. In answer to the hon. Member for Gaspe I might say that I even have a daughter who is at present working for the Toronto Star.

With regard to Time and Reader's Digest this is a problem which is faced by no other nation on earth. The United States of America is a nation whose people speak the English language, read the English language and are educated in the English language. In Canada there are 19 million people whose predominant language is English. The largest portion of the population reads English and the largest portion of magazines read are published in English. It is possible for publishers in the United States to try to invade the Canadian publishing market by issuing these bogus editions and soliciting advertising in Canada which is the lifeblood of the magazines. This is done, as far as the United States is concerned, in a foreign country. You do not run into a situation where publishers in France publish editions in Spain, or where publishers in Denmark publish editions in Germany, or where publishers in Sweden publish editions in Russia, because the editorial content of the French publication is in

June 15, 1965

Business of the House

a different language from that spoken in Spain, and so on. But here on the North American continent there is a publishing enigma which is not faced by any other two countries in the world, and so I believe a separate direct method of treatment is required to handle such a situation.

To allow the United States publications to come into Canada and solicit advertising without let or hindrance is a serious matter to Canadian publishers. We talk of the "brain drain" from Canada to the United States. I believe there are a large number of well educated and very capable people continuously emigrating to the United States, and I should like to illustrate how the term "brain drain" originated.

The Chairman:

Order. It being ten o'clock, shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again later this day, or at the next sitting of the House?

Agreed.

Progress reported.

Mr. McNaughl:

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue the budget resolution. If they should be concluded we will then take up item No. 10 on today's order paper, resuming the debate on the motion of the Minister of Justice to set up a joint committee on penitentiaries, followed by item No. 21, the resolution preceding the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, and item No. 22, the resolution preceding a bill to provide for the construction of the Canadian National Railways line at Froomfield spur near Sarnia. Then if we have time we will consider Supplementary Estimates A, relating to the Department of Labour, payments under the winter housebuilding incentive program. These estimates were tabled on May 18.

[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)

Mr. Starr:

That is a longer program than the Prime Minister announced.

Mr. Lambert:

On a point of information, Mr. Speaker, in what order will the budget resolutions be called? Will the Customs Act resolution or the Customs Tariff resolutions be first?

Mr. MacNaughi:

The Customs Act will be first.

Mr. Lambert:

And then the Customs Tariff resolutions?

Mr. MacNaughi:

I am informed that is correct.

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Speaker, I wish tonight to raise the question of the treatment of narcotic addicts by doctors. I do so as the result of a report that appeared in a Toronto newspaper last week that a doctor in Etobicoke was being harassed by the chief of the Federal Narcotics Control Division of the Department of National Health and Welfare. An article in the Toronto Star of June 4 quotes the doctor as alleging that the chief of the Narcotics Control Division "is trying to interfere with anyone who treats narcotic addicts because he is afraid that we may show his department up".

The doctor referred to the fact that he has been treating a narcotics addict who has spent most of the last 20 years in jail for illegal possession of narcotics as well as for theft, in order that this addict may get the narcotics he required at a cost of about $100 a day. The doctor's statement has been confirmed in a letter to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) from the director of the Anglican Correctional Chaplaincy for the Diocese of Toronto, the Reverend S. G. West.

According to the doctor, this patient, one of a number whom the doctor has been treating, has been able to stay out of trouble to stay out of jail and to refrain from theft since he has been treated by him. The director of the Narcotics Control Division of the Department of National Health and Welfare has written to the doctor as follows:

The Department of Health and Welfare has no desire to interfere with medicine in the treatment of drug addiction so long as it is within the concept of good medical practice.

The Government and the Department talk frequently in another context about not interfering in the doctor-patient relationship, but there we have a classic example of Canadian practice in that the treatment for drug addiction is being decided, not by the doctor, not by the medical profession but in fact by the Government, by the enforcement officers of the Department along with representatives of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

June 15, 1965

This question was discussed in a recent issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal and it was stated that it would be better and safer on the whole for doctors to stay away completely from treating addicts. What we are faced with in Canada is a policy which we do not admit exists because we have adopted the very pleasant and safe habit of ignoring all problems. The policy is that if you do not talk about these problems and sweep them under the rug people will be convinced they do not exist.

We have been following the same policy as the United States for the last 50 years in trying to deal with the problem of drug addiction. We have declared drug addiction to be a crime. We have followed the policy of believing that the crime can be eliminated or at least controlled by being ever harder, ever tougher on drug addicts, by watching them by keeping them under the closest surveillance by methods which can only be described as being part of a police state.

It is not my intention to discuss that aspect tonight. We can put the methods on the record on another occasion. This policy has been as complete a failure in Canada as has been a similar policy in the United States, in so far as reducing the number of addicts is concerned. Now, the medical profession, and this doctor in Etobicoke so far as I can find out, have been attempting to experiment with methods which have been used so successfully in Great Britain for a number of years. These methods have been described and explained in Canada by people in recent years, one of whom was Lady Franklin. I am suggesting to the Minister and to the department that they stop working so closely with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and stop following the police mentality and police methods. They should give the doctors a chance. They should give an opportunity to a few doctors in Canada who have not been harassed, who have not been browbeaten and who are not afraid to try this treatment. They should be given a chance to use medical methods of treatment. They should be given a year or two, whatever is required, so that they would be able to treat these persons as successfully as they have been treated in Great Britain. Then, we may well evolve a policy which may work, in contradistinction to the methods which we have used up until now and which have been a complete failure.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):

Mr. Speaker, after the hon. Member raised this point I referred him to the position taken by the Department with respect to this Etobicoke doctor, and to the Department's feeling that any inference they were interfering with the right of a practitioner to carry on his practice was resented by them. They point out that, in the first place, the narcotics legislation was brought directly in line with the comparable British legislation as regards the right of a doctor to treat narcotics addicts and utilize narcotic drugs in such treatment. The hon. Member has just referred to the British system.

The department has been prepared to give full support to any doctor who undertakes the usually thankless task of treating drug addicts. At no time has the department sought to interfere with the doctor's efforts in this difficult area. The department added that the purpose of treatment in any medical sense is to lead to the reduction of an addict's daily drug requirements and eventually to his ability to abstain completely from reliance on drugs. They do not regard substantial increases in daily requirements as constituting treatment in any medical sense.

I suppose what drew the matter to the attention of the department in the present case was the substantial increases in the quantities of narcotics purchased by the doctor in question. He was asked for an explanation, as is provided under the authority of the legislation. When the explanation was given it became apparent that the daily requirements of the addicts under treatment were progressively increasing over a given period. In the case of one at least, the increase was six times the amount he was being given initially. This was drawn to the attention of the physician, with the suggestion that if he co-operated along the lines recommended by the Canadian Medical Association, there would be no further need to correspond, nor would any further difficulty occur. It is my understanding that the physician has agreed to do so. The physician himself has indicated that he will follow the suggestion of the Deputy Minister, Dr. Cameron and that he will work with these patients through the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario. He is most happy to comply with that suggestion.

June 15, 1965

2476 COMMONS

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion

[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)