1975-06-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Newfoundland shrimp for which the fishermen receive 24 cents per pound from the fish plants sell to the consumer in Ontario for 25 cents an ounce, or $1.49 for a six-ounce package or $4 per pound, a difference of 1,666 per cent. In view of this alarming difference from the fishermen to the consumer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That the matter be a cause for investigation to determine whether the fishermen are being exploited, or the consumer is being ripped off, and that the matter be referred to a joint committee of fisheries and forestry and consumer affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be presented to the House without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED MEASURES TO RESTRICT USE OF TOBACCO BY CHILDREN-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that smoking is the leading cause of death in North America, that it leads to the largest number of illnesses, disabilities and premature deaths and owing to the persistency, the increasingly generalized and deeply rooted habit of smoking among children who are not yet over 20, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the Committee on Health should consider a preventive program now carried out in Sweden to avoid smoking among children and that
the said committee report to the House so that it may see to the implementation of such a program in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, therefore the motion cannot be put.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion arising from current information that a CBC employee was involved in the government's refusal to permit Soviet journalist Konstantin Geivandov to enter Canada. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Cumberland-Col-chester North (Mr. Coates):
That the House requests the Prime Minister to make a statement giving full details of any involvement with Soviet journalist Konstantin Geivandov by a senior CBC employee including the name and position of that employee, the names of members of this House and of the press gallery on whom the employee allegedly compiled files in return for large sums of money and a full explanation as to why this employee under the circumstances should continue to hold a sensitive CBC position where public opinion can be influenced.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that at least 140 doctors in Quebec have recently admitted aiding in illegal abortions, and in view of the

June 4, 1975
Oral Questions
fact that the evidence in the Morgentaler trial was that he had performed 5,000 abortions most of which had been referred by qualified doctors, and in view of the unusual and unique legal procedure that prevailed in Dr. Morgen-taler's case, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the Minister of Justice immediately intercede with the Minister of Justice in Quebec with regard to the treatment of Dr. Morgentaler while in prison; with regard to the decision of the Quebec Minister of Justice to continue the prosecution of Dr. Morgentaler on further counts arising at the same time; and with regard to the reasons why other doctors have not been charged despite the overwhelming evidence now available.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that it is extremely unlikely that native peoples in communities such as Fort Chipewyan or any other remote community can be expected to even receive responses from companies on tenders for amounts as small as $100, and since requiring tenders on all items that cost in excess of $100 imposes an extreme rigidity on the native people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development make a statement to this House to explain the workability of Program Circular D-l.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of his statement in the committee of the

whole on May 13 as reported at page 5749 of Hansard where he said he could give no explanation for the successful dredging bid in connection with the so-called north traverse, this bid being the same as the estimate made by his own department as to what the cost should be. I quote the minister. He said:
But how can I explain it if the RCMP and the courts cannot explain it? .. . They searched everywhere.
Would the minister indicate to the House why the government is now claiming that there was collusion and that the successful dredging company had prior knowledge of the estimate made for the contract by the minister's department? What has happened since May 13?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this case is before the court now.


Mr. Woolliams:: Oh, yes.


Jean Marchand: Yes, it is. I think that the government estimate was about $18 million and the contract was awarded for $20 million. I think I have a letter ready to be sent to the hon. member for South Shore. The hon. member can read it, and if he has another question I can answer it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have another question right now, Mr. Speaker. The successful bid was, I believe, $20,860,000, which was exactly the estimate made by the minister's department as to what the cost should be. I should like to ask the minister why the government is now claiming, in a counterclaim against the dredging company that is suing for payment, that the successful bidder on that contract knew at the time he bid what the departmental estimate was. What has happened since the thirteenth day of May? The minister said that there has been no indication that a civil servant was involved in this. Who was involved? Was a politician involved? How did the successful dredging company find out, as the government now claims what the department's own estimate was?


Jean Marchand: I think that the answer will come from the courts. I do not see how the court, which is aware of all this, is not going to try to clarify the situation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister having said in the committee of the whole House that nobody knew whether or not there was collusion and the government having now asserted in a public document that there was collusion, I suggest with all respect that the House is entitled to some information, statement or indication from the minister as to what has happened since the minister made his statement on May 13 and why the government is now claiming that in fact there was collusion and is defending itself against this dredging company by making that assertion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: I do not see why it is so complicated. The inquiry was started in Hamilton after a charge was made by the city of Hamilton and after the
June 4, 1975

RCMP decided to look into some other contracts. They discovered certain facts which were not known by anyone at that time. At no time was I informed by the RCMP or the Attorney General that any civil servant was accused or charged with anything in this matter. I personally have made no inquiry in order to find out if there was a civil servant involved. I think that it is not my job.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My supplementary is for the Prime Minister since the Minister of Justice is not in the House. In view of the remarks made here this afternoon by the Minister of Transport, why is the government, in defence of a suit for payment by this dredging company, counterclaiming that the deposit being withheld is not owing because the dredging company before the bid was privy to information in the Department of Transport as to what its estimates were? As we charged, in connection with the minister's statements, the successful bid was exactly what the department was estimating, and the government is now apparently defending itself against the claim on that basis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to unduly restrict the questioning on this very important subject, but it is a clear rule that matters before the courts ought not to be raised in the House, and the question which indicates that the government is defending itself upon those grounds before the court at this very moment, certainly makes it clear that the questions are directed very pointedly at an issue which is before the courts. There may have been questions to which there might have been some desire to give an answer, but the matter certainly appears to be before the courts.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the question of collusion is not before the courts, and the question as to what transpired since the minister made his statement in the House on May 13 is not before the Courts. In the light of these new developments if the Prime Minister cannot answer, we will pursue the matter on another day.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, on May 13 I just told the truth, and that is all. The police are doing their job and doing research. They are not in contact with me, but they are in contact with the Crown attorney. This case is discussed between them and this is where you are going to get your answer.


Mr. Nowlan:: The counterclaim isn't the place.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that the Minister of Transport is being quite honest when he says he does not know what is going on. We will have to try to find out who does know what is going on.


DREDGING CONTRACT FOR NORTH TRAVERSE-INQUIRY WHETHER ENGINEERING CERTIFICATES ON WHICH QUANTITIES DREDGED WERE PAID FOR WERE ASSESSED
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Transport. In evaluating this contract and the payment of the amount of
Oral Questions
some $20,860,000, would the minister inform the House if an assessment was made of the engineering certificates on which the quantities dredged were paid for. Was this undertaken by him or any officials in his department?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will consider this matter and answer later on.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. Yesterday the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby asked about an alleged internal report dealing with a big narcotic smuggling ring at the Montreal airport involving some 60 people working at the airport. Can the minister now tell the House whether such a report exists, when it was made and whether it was brought to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Transport, whose departments' employees were allegedly involved?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was no question about a report. 1 was asked whether I had given an authorization or whether the commissioner had given an authorization to a member of the RCMP to make certain statements about a police investigation, but there was no question about a report. As far as I know there was no such report. I did not state yesterday that I would look into such a thing. If the hon. member wishes, I could look into that, but I do not know of any, and I did discuss this case at great length with the commissioner of the RCMP yesterday afternoon.


REASON REPORT CONCERNING ALLEGED NARCOTICS SMUGGLING RING IN MONTREAL NOT BROUGHT TO ATTENTION OF MINISTER
Francis Andrew Brewin: When the minister is looking into this matter will he also be prepared to give some explanation to the House as to why the contents of this report or its subject matter involving a highly important matter were apparently not called to his attention until the story was given to a Globe and Mail reporter and made public by that newspaper?
[DOT] (M20)


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know there is no such report. There was an investigation. I do not know what report the hon. member is talking about. As a matter of fact, there was not even an allegation that there was such a report until right now. I should point out to the House that it is not usual for the RCMP to discuss every investigation that is going on with me; there are thousands going on in the country at any one time. If a matter is raised in committee or the House of Commons, of course I approach the RCMP for information or if an investigation is at such a level that questions might be asked I would be informed; but I was not

Oral Questions
informed about this investigation. It is not usual to give details of an investigation while it is under way.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister agree that a question involving government employees involved in huge narcotics rings is of sufficient importance that it ought to have been reported to him, even if it were not?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that necessarily should have been reported to me. The RCMP investigate and when they have enough proof they bring it to the attention of the Crown prosecutor and charges are laid. Unfortunately, in this case the report appeared in the newspaper in the middle of an investigation. The investigation is well under way so I do not feel I should say anything further about it at the present time.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rimouski.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this: the hon. minister just said that he was not asked about a report yesterday. 1 asked him a very direct question about that which is recorded at page 6375 of Hansard as follows:
Can the minister tell the House when he was first aware of this alleged internal report of the RCMP and of the investigation.
That is as clear as the Queen's English can be, and I cannot understand the minister's answer to the hon. member for Greenwood today. I was amazed at his answer to me yesterday that he was first aware of this internal report when a Globe and Mail reporter told him. I have some questions that will come later, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that the minister was questioned about an internal report and while his answer was not completely responsive, he certainly was questioned directly about it. I should like to know why he answered the hon. member for Greenwood the way he did today, and why he could not answer my question yesterday.


William Warren Allmand: Unfortunately, there has been some misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker. I thought the hon. member was asking yesterday about a report of the investigation, merely meaning a report in the general sense of the report that was given to me. That is the situation. I never had any information about that investigation until yesterday. It is not customary for the RCMP to inform ministers, either at the provincial or the federal level, of every investigation that is under way.


Mr. Speaker:: I propose to recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley in just a moment. The hon. member for Rimouski.


SUGGESTED MEASURES TO RESTRICT USE OF TOBACCO BY CHILDREN
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, I regret, but unless I am mistaken I think his intervention was out of order because when I rose you had recognized me.
Now, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in his absence I shall put it to his parliamentary secretary. Can the hon. lady tell the House whether she is aware of a program being applied in Sweden to prevent children from starting to smoke? If so, does Canada intend to take similar steps?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the department is aware of this. I will be happy to look into the matter and report back to the hon. member.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In the question period yesterday the minister said that he was going to have a discussion with the commissioner of the RCMP yesterday. That is why I thought the question of the hon. member for Greenwood was relevant. Can the minister tell the House now if he knows anything more about the internal report of the RCMP on the alleged drug smuggling activities in the Montreal airport and if not, why not?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, yes, I discussed this matter yesterday afternoon with the commissioner and deputy commissioner. After the discussion we decided that it would not be in the public interest to say more about the matter at present.


POSSIBLE INVOLVEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN ALLEGED NARCOTICS SMUGGLING RING IN MONTREAL
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? I appreciate, as every member of the House does, the problems involved in an investigation of such alleged magnitude and sensitivity. Since the story did appear in the national press, since officials of various departments are alleged to have been involved and since the Minister of National Revenue yesterday said he is working with the Solicitor General on this matter, can the Solicitor General tell the House, without compromising the investigation, if officials or personnel either of the Solicitor General's department or of the Department of National Revenue are implicated,
June 4, 1975

and is a ministerial in-House inquiry being undertaken, in addition to what the RCMP are doing?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, for reasons which the hon. member mentioned at the beginning of his question, we considered yesterday whether we should make more information available; but, on balance, having considered all the alternatives and possibilities, we felt that, for the time being, it would not be in the public interest to say more about this investigation. I can only say that a police investigation is under way; it has been under way and is continuing, and I cannot say any more at the moment.


STATEMENTS BY SERGEANT LEDUC CONCERNING ALLEGED NARCOTICS SMUGGLING RING IN MONTREAL-REASON FOR MAKING STATEMENTS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question? The House may be interested to know that the hon. member for Central Nova also wishes to ask a supplementary question on this topic. Has the minister been in touch with Sergeant Leduc who is on another investigation, or on an investigation outside the country, and with any other police officer whose name appeared in the report, to find out why so many "statements" appeared in the national press?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have not tried to get in touch with those men. The Commissioner of the RCMP and officers of the force are attempting to get in touch with them as soon as possible. They were out of the country yesterday and will return shortly.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the House to miss my supplementary question. Can the Solicitor General tell the House what prompted members of the RCMP to divulge, apparently prematurely, details of this investigation? Was the reason their sense of frustration at the way the investigation was being handled? May I also ask the minister if any private security or guard agencies were involved?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, at present we are not even certain if the officers mentioned in the article actually gave that information. Until other officers of the force have had a chance to speak to them, we will not know the full story, and I cannot say any more about it at present.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the government House leader? I ask it pursuant to my duty to facilitate the smooth operation of the House. It arises from the fact that yesterday the hon. gentleman brought in a changed royal recommendation pertaining to Bill C-62. Although the recpmmendation has been changed it still provides that the bill is to cover only those people who are married to and living with
Oral Questions
pensioners. As the bill appears to cover people who are living together in illicit relationships, including incestuous relationships, something that is clearly contrary to the royal recommendation, does the government intend to secure a new recommendation from the Crown, and was what I just raised made known to the representative of the Crown before he was asked for that particular recommendation.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to change the royal recommendation. Indeed, I intend to call the bill on Friday.


Gerald William Baldwin: You are in trouble. You had better read the bill.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: My question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On one previous occasion when the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi asked for order to present his question, I indicated in criticism of him that he ought to get to his question quickly. On this occasion he ought to be given the opportunity to get to his question quickly.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Apart from the normal considerations involved in the dockers' strike in the port of Montreal, can the minister inform the House the reason for the excessive delay in the shipment of 10,000 tons of bagged wheat from that port to the countries of Ethiopia and Somalia?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will make inquiries.


William Heward Grafftey: Can the minister advise whether in fact much of this bagged shipment became destroyed during storage in the port of Montreal and, at great cost to the Canadian taxpayer, is now being reopened bag by bag?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will ascertain that information and give it to the hon. member.

June 4, 1975
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


PRATT AND WHITNEY-PROPOSED GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF COMPANY IN VIEW OF FAILURE TO SETTLE STRIKE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister whether the government would take action in the very long and difficult Pratt and Whitney strike, a company in which the government of Canada invested some $60 million. In view of the refusal by the company to accept the recommendations made by the arbitrator appointed by the provincial government and the announcement today that that company now says it did not make a commitment to Premier Bou-rassa that it will re-hire 1,000 people on strike immediately, will the government consider taking over that company as it has taken over or proposes to take over two other very large aero-space companies as a government corporation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: That is not being considered, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said it was not being considered, Mr. Speaker.


David Orlikow: Two weeks ago the Prime Minister would not answer my question because it was hypothetical. The company has now indicated very clearly that it still refuses to follow the Canadian law and customs. Will the government now give consideration to taking over that company so that Canadian workers can work and work in peace?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is a repetition of the question in a non-hypothetical way. We are not considering taking it over.


FISHERIES
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Fisheries.
Following the controversy in Quebec about the "Quebec Approved" seal and the provincial government's intentions of revamping the meat inspection system, will amendments to regulations also apply to fish inspection in Gaspe and Iles-de-la-Madeleine?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec passed complementary legislation to federal laws on fish inspection. Since 1959, if I remember well, federal inspectors have been checking all fish for consumption within and without Quebec. Shying away from entering the present debate on another kind of food, I would strongly advise hon. members to use mackerel when baking pizzas in the future.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. John Reynolds (Bumaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. As President Ford has not signed the necessary documents to allow Pacific Western Airlines to fly a direct route from Vancouver to Seattle, has the minister protested this delay by the president of the United States? If not, when will he protest?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand the route; between Vancouver and-


John Douglas Reynolds: Seattle.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know it is in the agreement, but I do not know if the airline has decided to fly it. However, I will inquire and advise the hon. member.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the airline has tried to fly and has had to announce a cancellation of the schedule because the United States president has not signed the necessary documents, if this is not done within a three or four day period from now, will the minister take unilateral action against United States airlines already flying the routes given to them to come into Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if I get from the company the same information which the hon. member has-


John Douglas Reynolds: It has been in every newspaper.


Jean Marchand: That may be, but I have not read those newspapers. If the hon. member will send them to me, I will obtain an answer.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As Judge Estey is nearing the end of his hearing and in order to clear up all situations relating to Air Canada that have arisen, does the minister know if and when Mr. Pratte will appear before Judge Estey?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is up to the judge and Mr. Pratte to decide, not to me. I do not know why the hon. member is asking me.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is the minister aware of a directive sent by the assistant deputy minister to regional directors on February 17 of this year regarding local government programs?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am not clear whether that is the directive dealing with local government guidelines. I am aware of that, yes. There was a whole series.


Cecil Morris Smith: In view of the fact the directive indicates program circular D-l is the cornerstone of Indian local government policy and contains non-negotiable conditions which terms and conditions remain mandatory, will the minister now indicate if the directive is government policy or will he confirm his previous statements concerning consultation with the native people by rescinding the present guidelines until such consultations are complete?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in this House on several occasions that they are negotiable in the sense we regard them as being of an interim nature. We are prepared to make changes. In fact, if I could refer to the Standing Order 43 motion put by the hon. member for Battle River, the tender figure has been changed from $100 to $500.


PROVISION IN CIRCULAR D-l FOR TENDERS FOR ITEMS OVER $100-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the minister stated, and it is recorded in Hansard, that that review would take place following one year. He might explain to the House the workability of this example in program circular D-l of asking for a tender on all items of Indian money in excess of $100. How is that going to be workable in places like Fort Chipewyan and other remote areas where they will not even receive a response to tenders?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, that has been changed from $100 to $500. It is no longer $100.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. It arises from the statement by Mr. Wally Koe-gler of Kitchener, Ontario, the former chief inspector of the Ontario Humane Society that long before the establishment of the Quebec inquiry into organized crime, the RCMP had been investigating a ring with possible organ-
Oral Questions
ized crime connections that had been selling meat from dead and dying horses in Ontario for years. Is that correct? If so, are such investigations continuing and are charges expected to be laid in connection with this in the near future?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the individual named by the hon. member. However, the RCMP told me they had investigated allegations of bad meat in Ontario as far back as 1969. On each occasion that an allegation of this nature was brought to their attention, they did not find sufficient evidence to lay charges or to prosecute.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Has the minister any knowledge of the case mentioned by Mr. Koegler? According to Mr. Koegler, prosecutions were dropped after a key witness changed his story following a threat by a man with a revolver.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that particular case, but I will check it. When I asked the RCMP about these stories, I was given an answer in a general way. I will check that situation in more detail.


MANPOWER
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question in order to clear up a fuzzy answer he gave me the other day. Has the minister developed any contingency plan to deal with this worsening situation? Can he take the House into his confidence and tell us just what options he is looking at?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: If and when a decision is made on such a program the information will certainly be conveyed to the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In the light of the fact that the LIP program is about to expire, can the minister assure us that those who will be unemployed this summer will be able to find employment?


Robert Knight Andras: I do not think I can add to my previous answer.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare being away, I shall direct my question to his parliamentary secretary.

June 4, 1975
Oral Questions
After the tabling of Bill C-62 yesterday by the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning the possible payment of a pension to the spouse of a person in respect of whom payment of a pension has already been authorized under the Old Age Security Act, may I ask the parliamentary secretary whether, once this bill has been adopted and should the older of the spouses happen to die, the surviving spouse will automatically lose his or her pension entitlement under Bill C-62?


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member, but since the President of the Privy Council has already indicated that this bill will be introduced in the House later this week, presumably on Friday, perhaps the hon. member for Bellechasse would wait until then to ask his questions about Bill C-62.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for advising me that Bill C-62 will come this week before the House.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
Could he advise the House on the progress made in the few last hours to straighten out the situation in the Montreal harbour?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: It is my understanding, following a gathering of longshoremen in Montreal this morning that they are going back to work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises from the announcement on May 28 that Canada had signed a contract for the sale of a CANDU reactor to South Korea and that the negotiations have been completed for a $380 million loan. Would the minister advise the House whether his department embarked on any reassessment of the safety of this sale following the surrender of the Thieu forces in South Viet Nam? Has he been advised that the strategic situation in South Korea remains the same or is there an increased risk in the sale of this reactor?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: At the present time we are continuing negotiations with respect to the conclusion of a bilateral safeguard agreement with South Korea. As the hon.

member knows, South Korea has ratified the non-proliferation treaty with the result that the total nuclear system within that country will be under internationally inspected safeguards-the maximum possible safeguard system which can be devised at the present time. This, combined with the Canadian bilateral agreement will be adequate in the circumstances. To reply more directly to the political aspects, we have not reached a conclusion that the political situation has changed to warrant a change in our position.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Perhaps the minister would table the proposed agreement, or the agreement, in the event one is reached. Would the minister tell us what sanctions are contained in the proposed agreement? What penalty would be imposed on the government of South Korea in the event that South Korea diverted plutonium from its reactor and joined the nuclear club as India has done? I ask this question in the light of a report that the South Korean ambassador has stated that safeguards were an interference with South Korea's affairs. What sanctions would be imposed and how would they be enforced? Would we send Canadian troops into Korea?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member will be glad to know we are not proposing to send Canadian troops to South Korea. The safeguards are under international inspection, under an international agency, and any contemplated or active diversion of plutonium for non-peaceful purposes would quickly become apparent to the inspectors and the devices they install. That, of course, is the purpose of the overall inspection system.


An hon. Member:: And then what?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member realizes that ours is a bilateral agreement and that the NPT is a multilateral agreement; we count, as does the international community, on member states adhering to their commitments.


SALE OF URANIUM TO JAPAN-GUARANTEE OF PEACEFUL USE-SANCTIONS IN SAFEGUARD AGREEMENT
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With reference to the contract with Japan which I understand calls for delivery of 2,000 tons of uranium, may I ask what guarantees there are that this material will be used for peaceful purposes? Is there really any form of guarantee, when we make these deals, that the material we provide will be used for commercial and peaceful purposes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The inspection system is entirely focused upon the objective of ensuring that this material and this technology are not diverted for non-peaceful purposes. That is the objective, and it is secured within these safeguard agreements.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What penalty or sanction would Canada impose if it were found after inspection that there had been improper use of this material-that it had been turned to use as a weapon rather than applied to a commercial purpose?
June 4, 1975


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In the case of the particular country which has been mentioned, the sanction would be the withholding of further sales.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of questions addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development by the hon. member for Battle River. In the course of his reply the minister stated that the local government guideline system was subject to further negotiation. Has there been brought to his attention the very serious situation in the James Smith band in the immediate vicinity of Prince Albert, one of the oldest reserves in our provinces, where the Indian band council has complained to him that the operation and maintenance of its programs are being held back because the band is being coerced into accepting the guidelines to which I have referred. The result of which is that these Indians, by reason of the dictatorial and stubborn attitude taken by the department, find themselves in the position of having to lay off staff and terminate programs, with the consequence that many Indians who would otherwise be self-supporting are now obliged to fall back on welfare? In giving that answer would he also assure me and these Indians, who after all are wards of the Queen, or believe themselves to be, that an investigation will be immediately entered into by his department to the end that if coercion is being practised it will end here and now?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the suggestion that coercion is being practised. These guidelines went out and, as the right hon. gentleman is aware, there has been considerable discussion and opposition to them on the part of some of the bands in Saskatchewan, and in particular by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians. I have stated in this House on several occasions that they are of an interim nature and we are prepared to change them. As I would like to indicate in reply to the hon. member for Battle River, we have in fact changed the figures as far as the tender amount is concerned and we
Oral Questions
are prepared to look at other aspects as well, but they have gone into force as of the first of June.


John George Diefenbaker: In addition to changing the figures, Mr. Speaker, has the minister received a complaint from one of the most distinguished chiefs in the province, Chief Sanderson, concerning the fact that so anxious is the Department of Indian Affairs to obtain acquisition to these guidelines the services of the Indian Affairs staff have been terminated, and because this particular band will not accept Mr. J. Wright in an official position? This is a serious matter and one that deserves attention, and I would ask the minister whether he would have these particular complaints looked into because there is a grave injustice being done here if the Indians are being forced or coerced into the position of accepting something they do not want?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I will state again that I do not accept the suggestion that they are being forced or coerced. I have had several complaints from Chief Solomon Sanderson of the reserve on this subject. As I indicated, we are prepared to make changes. As to the question of Jim Wright, the Acting Regional Director, this was put to me the other day as well, and I have indicated that his appointment is of an acting nature. When the permanent appointment comes up this summer the Indian people will have their representative sitting on the board which will pass on that appointment.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Finance had an opportunity to review the Barrett bank proposal in British Columbia which is contained in a bill now introduced to that legislature to incorporate a new financial institution which is to be 90 per cent owned by the province, and is to have almost all the powers of a regular bank? If so, does the minister agree with Premier Barrett that such a new institution comes within provincial constitutional rights?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the situation but it does not become other than hypothetical until the bill is passed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the present government House leader, when Minister of Finance, adamantly opposed Premier Barrett's attempt to establish a provin-cially-owned bank of British Columbia, and in fact amended the Bank Act to ensure that this would not happen, will the minister indicate why he appears to have such little concern in respect of the proposed incorporation in that province?


John Napier Turner: Simply because, Mr. Speaker, until the bill becomes law it is not a proposition I would have to consider, but any precedent invoked in favour of the House leader is a weighty precedent I would have to consider.

June 4, 1975
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


POSSIBLE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO TRUCKING
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, on May 23 I asked the Minister of Transport whether the government had finalized a decision in respect of the payment of compensation to the trucking industry for the losses which were incurred as the result of the imposition of the railway freight freeze. He indicated that the matter was going before Cabinet very rapidly, and I wonder if he is now in a position to give an indication to the House whether a payment is to be made to the trucking industry and, if so, in what amount?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is on its way to the proper committee.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Canadian Trucking Association is holding its annual conference in Calgary on June 13, would the minister indicate whether a decision will be announced before that date?


Jean Marchand: I cannot give any promise, Mr. Speaker. This has to go to the committee and then to the Cabinet. I cannot tell the hon. member at what moment the Cabinet is going to decide something.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board, I would like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Last Friday, answering one of my colleagues, the President of the Treasury Board stated:
The government is considering the requests of COJO to find procedures to increase revenues. As soon as the decision of the cabinet is taken, we will probably be introducing legislation in the House in the near future.
Given that answer may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister if the government is trying to establish a new way of financing, and if so what measure does the government intend to bring forward in the House to help the Olympic Games?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that question. I will very gladly take notice of it and get in touch with the President of the Treasury Board.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Manpower and Immigration confirm that he has received the information from the United States authorities relating to General Quang's activities, and is he now in a position to tell the House whether General Quang will be allowed to remain in Canada, particularly since he has had this information for several days?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to compile and analyze the information on General Quang. As I have said previously, there are many potentially legal complexities in this case which do not lend themselves to a simple and easy decision, but I expect to make one very shortly.


OIL-POSSIBLE PRICE ADJUSTMENT IN VIEW OF REDUCTION IN EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the apparent volume of exports of oil to the United States is falling below the amount approved, could the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicate whether the government is exploring a series of adjustments in the price so the market will be cleared?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may recall that the National Energy Board recommended a price adjustment last month, which is a clear anticipation that there will be a slight increase in the volume of exports. I think one can say that the volume of exports has been affected as much by the rather soft market for crude oil in the United States during this period, not unrelated to the performance of the United States economy.


FINANCE
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Can he tell us in rough proportions how the decline in exports of oil to the United States is affecting the draw down in the general revenue fund as it relates to the equalization program for oil prices across Canada? Can he just give rough figures?


John Napier Turner: It is
throwing that account into deficit.
June 4, 1975


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, since there appears to be a very serious lack of funds for agricultural research, especially at the university level, and in light of the fact there has been a statement calling for more funds and staff to prevent the by-passing of important research projects in the agricultural field, will the Minister of Agriculture indicate what action he is going to take to correct what is potentially a very serious situation?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have done some checking and we find that the amount of research money we put in at the university level compares favourably with that of any nation with a standard of living comparable to ours, and is better than most. We do research as well in our own department. We are concerned about this situation and we are looking at it very closely.


POSSIBLE ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL POLICY BY FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the minister really did not answer my question. The fact is that there has been some reduction and it could be very serious. Noting the statement that Canada must develop a fully articulated set of national agricultural policies, and taking into account the fact that the Food Prices Review Board is planning to come up with a statement of new agricultural policies by the end of this year, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture what action his department is taking, or is the Food Prices Review Board slowly moving into the area of formulating agricultural policy under the Minister of Agriculture?


Eugene Whelan: They are perfectly welcome to do so if they find the money that goes along with it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated yesterday, I have given some consideration to the extremely difficult questions of privilege that have been put before us over the last few days. I think hon. members will understand it is not without some difficulty that I will try to resolve the matter.
In view of all the disagreement that has come about in the discussion of these various questions, perhaps it might be wise to start with as much agreement as does exist and
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker; Mr. Trudeau in fact, that is considerable. The first is that the definition of privilege is one that has been strictly adhered to and narrowly interpreted constantly. This has been said many times by my 'distinguished predecessor whose words I have had a number of occasions to refer to in this parliament:
On a number of occasions I have defined what I consider to be parliamentary privilege. Privilege is that which sets hon. members apart from other citizens, giving them rights which the public do not possess. I suggest we should be careful in construing any particular circumstance which might add to the privileges which have been recognized over the years, and perhaps over the centuries, as belonging to members of the House of Commons. In my view parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a member to discharge his duties in the House as a member of the House of Commons.
The second thing that seems to be agreed upon is the way in which privilege should be interpreted and that we ought not extend it lightly. It was suggested during the course of the discussion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that because there was an indication by both principals in this matter that perhaps they would be agreeable to having the matter aired before the committee, and if I thought that should be done or if I thought there was a prima facie case of privilege, it certainly might be a welcome and easy way to attempt to encourage the House to come to that view. It seems to me, however, that would be shirking the fundamental part of my duty, which is to make those findings I have been asked to make. Whether or not it is of particular joy, it does seem that that is my responsibility and therefore I will set out on that course now.
The third point on which there is agreement is that a dispute as to facts, a dispute as to opinions and a dispute as to conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege. The fourth thing that then becomes germane to the case involved is, can an attack by one member of this House upon another, in respect of his conduct as a member of the House of Commons either now or in the past, constitute a question of privilege? That is a very serious consideration.
I might indicate to hon. members at the outset that there are indeed some clear and forceful precedents which indicate that it is almost impossible that an attack of that sort can be made to constitute a question of privilege. I would refer hon. members to a very clear and explicit decision enunciated on December 17, 1964, by Mr. Speaker Mac-Naughton. That is reported at page 1011 of the Journals of the House of Commons for December 17, 1964. It concerned, at the time, a question of privilege raised by the then member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I am sorry; perhaps I have misled the House. The ruling I am about to read is from an earlier ruling by Mr. Speaker Michener. In any case, it has the same effect:
In my view, simple justice requires that no honourable member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the House or a Committee until he has been charged with an offence.
There are clear reasons for the wisdom of that process to be followed, that if one member seeks to complain about the remarks of another he ought to put it in the form of a charge and take those members before a committee, for the very simple reason that in that circumstance the proponent of the charge or complaint then is saddled with the onus of proving the case before the committee. Often,

June 4, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker; Mr. Trudeau
the difficulty when one member complains about remarks by another is that if it were to be accepted as a prima facie case of privilege and voted to the committee, when the committee assembles, in fact no one clearly has the onus of proof upon him and no one has the responsibility of carrying the specific case or charge before that committee, and accordingly if any hon. member concerned desires not to appear there as a witness the function of the committee becomes a nullity and a bit of a farce.
Accordingly, there is some wisdom in the process that if one wishes to complain about what another member has done or said, it should be done in the form of a complete charge rather than by way of an alleged question of privilege. That, however, is a very strict view but, again, I might be tempted not to set aside the proposed question of privilege in those circumstances and rely on the precedents to say that if it is not in the form of a charge, it ought not to be considered at this time. However, citations were cited, notably citation 108(3) of Beauchesne which says that libels upon members have been considered as questions of privilege or grounds for them. The fact of the matter is that in looking behind that citation, it turns out to be a situation in which a member of the United Kingdom Parliament placed placards around the county of another member decrying him and calling his conduct degrading and inhuman. That, thankfully, is different to the situation we have here today.
I must also indicate that citation 113 of Beauchesne says that libels upon members and aspersions upon them in relation to parliament have been considered questions of privilege. In light of that, I have, I believe, to address myself to the question of whether or not that is the case now. I certainly do not pretend to speculate on what sort of remarks might constitute a question of privilege or get into a hypothesis of what they may be, but I refer directly to the particular instance that is before us at the present time.
It seems to me that in this particular instance the complaint that is sought to be made the subject of a question of privilege would need to be at least, as a minimum, an allegation of some wrongful conduct or some wrongdoing on the part of the member complaining. That is why the allegation in this case would have to be specifically that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in describing the conduct of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in his former capacity as prime minister, had accused him of doing something wrongful.
Surely, the motion of the right hon. member which is before me now indicates that slanderous and libellous remarks or allegations were made by the right hon. Prime Minister, and surely slanderous remarks would have to refer to some wrongdoing. That is, of course, the essence of the difference of opinion that is before the House. The right hon. member for Prince Albert says that is exactly what was implied, if not said, by the right hon. Prime Minister; but the right hon. Prime Minister, on the other hand, said it was a criticism or reference to the conduct of the former prime minister but not in any way an allegation of wrongdoing.
In order to come to a conclusion about that, I have to look at the context. The fact of the matter is that the context of the remarks involved an exchange, not only the

second but perhaps, if one goes back far enough, the third instalment of a continuing debate which has continued over several weeks in the House between those very distinguished and prominent members. Unfortunately, on the particular occasion when these remarks were made, a direct confrontation between the two of them could not be carried on. I say that very seriously and wish to make it absolutely clear that I do not say it in criticism of either member. All members of this House realize that both right hon. members involved have tremendous obligations about the country, on behalf of this country, in their capacity as leading and prominent members and it simply is not possible for them to be here confronting each other every day, much, I am sure, to the chagrin of the press gallery and other hon. members who find it entertaining.
In any event, I am convinced, in looking at the context of the case, that had that confrontation taken place, probably the remarks upon which I am asked to deliberate now would have been the subject of questions, of points of order, of rebuttal, of reply and the kind of cut and thrust of debate that has made this chamber the very distinguished place it is. Unfortunately, however, that did not take place.
The remarks involved fall into three categories. The first had to do with the stocking of fish in Harrington Lake. The result of that intervention has caused the Prime Minister to come before the House to apologize to the House and withdraw the remark. That obviously had its effect. Surely, now, there can be nothing to go to the committee in that regard. Another dealt with the bombshelter at 24 Sussex Drive. It has been pointed out that there is a considerable dispute as to the extent of the expense. The significance of that whole issue is a matter of opinion; it is a subject of a debate in which the listener should judge.
In the final analysis, the remarks that are the most significant have to do with the acquisition of Harrington Lake. In that regard, I think it is not appropriate to listen now to the words of those who say that the words were not intended this way or that way; I think that would be extending leniency beyond the point to which I should go. If I were to accept only now the expression that these words were intended to suggest wrongdoing, it might be better for me to put the question to the House and let the House decide. Instead of doing that, I have gone back to the original remarks of the right hon. Prime Minister, which I will now quote. The Prime Minister said:
In the same speech, the right hon. gentleman talked about Harrington Lake. I think that was another unfortunate reference, because I suppose he made the largest land grab when he was in office that was ever made by any private citizen of Canada. He did so when he decided that Harrington Lake and the buildings on it should be the country residence of the prime minister. I do not think anybody then sitting on my party's side of the House criticized that decision. He was adding thousands of acres of land for his private enjoyment. I think it was a justifiable gesture, one from which I personally have benefited. In the same way I hope the next prime minister will benefit from the swimming pool at 24 Sussex Drive.
It is for the House and for the public to judge, in so far as they are interested, the wisdom or nicety of those remarks but that is not the question which is before me: the sole question before me is whether those remarks

intended to cast aspersions upon the character of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. In view of the admission or expression contained therein, that whatever action was taken at that time was taken with the support of the whole House of Commons without a contrary voice-and if there was any doubt about that, the Prime Minister added that in retrospect, in his personal opinion, that action was proper and appropriate at the time-I cannot reconcile those public expressions of approval of the action that was taken with a finding that there is an allegation of some impropriety or misconduct on the part of the right hon. gentleman.
I therefore find, in examining them-and I have to come to a decision one way or another-that there is a serious dispute and disagreement as to what the facts were, and there is a further dispute and disagreement as to what implications or significance should be taken from those facts. Those are ingredients for debate and not ingredients for a question of privilege. Therefore, that is my view and it is my hope that the matter will end there.


CRIMINAL CODE
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: for leave to introduce Bill C-392, to amend the Criminal Code (control of weapons and firearms).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to place firearms which are not now prohibited or restricted, in the restricted category and require a licensing system for the ownership of all firearms. The purpose, in short, is with some exceptions to apply to rifles the law presently in place with respect to handguns.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, for the chairman of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Dupont):
That, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 99, the petition requesting the incorporation of the National Commercial Bank of Canada-La Banque nationale de Commerce du Canada, tabled after the time limit stipulated by Standing Order 90, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, with the 8th report of the Clerk of Petitions tabled in the House on Thursday, May 29, 1975, that the committee might be in a position to make the recommendations it deems pertinent.


Mr. Speaker:: Does it please the House to pass the motion?
Order Paper Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['Agreed.']
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 224, 1,979, 2,093, 2,103, 2,156, 2,188, 2,237, 2,239, 2,252, and 2,350.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2,470?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



Mr. Howie: On what date will tenders be called for the government building to house a post office in Oromocto, New Brunswick?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Tenders for the proposed new Government of Canada Building in Oromocto were called by public advertisement in the last week of May, 1975.


CONTRACT TO CARLETON UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded February 20, 1974 to the Carleton University Faculty of Engineering, Ottawa, Ontario for a study testing the capability of interactive video communications systems?
2.	What is the necessity of the study?
3.	Could the information have been available elsewhere as assessed by other governments or with the Department of Communications?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: 1.	Yes, the contract was issued on January 30, 1974.
2.	The study was initiated by the Educational Technology Program Branch of the Department of Communications to assist the Provinces in the field of educational technology. The overall objective of the Wired City Simulation Project is to evaluate and demonstrate the techniques, economics and utility of integrating two way interactive video communications into the education process. The Simulation Laboratory will provide the capability of evaluating several prototype systems.
3.	The Department of Communications does not have this type of Laboratory and it is not available anywhere else in Canada.

Order Paper Questions


UIC-NUMBER OF CLAIMS OFFICERS IN EACH REGIONAL OFFICE
Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many claims officers are there in each regional office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission?
2.	What is the total of claims expected to be handled by the Commission officers?
3.	Do the officers have the debtors' records?
4.	For each regional office, how many salary seizures were made?
5.	For each regional office, how many seizures were made on joint
accounts?	,
6.	How many beneficiaries availed themselves of the provisions of section 175 of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations for each (a) regional office (b) province?


Robert Knight Andras: 1.
Region	No.
Atlantic	10
Quebec	51
Ontario	52
Prairie	18
Pacific	8
Total	139
2. Not available.		
3. Yes.		
4.	Region	No.
	Atlantic	841
	Quebec	54
	Ontario	510
	Prairie	631
	Pacific	302
	Total	2,338
5. None.	
Insert Question No 2093C	
6. (a) Region	No.
Atlantic	100
Quebec	583
Ontario	391
Prairie	71
Pacific	160
Total	1,305
(b) Not available
Note: With respect to 1 above, as the commission does not have claims officers, the question has been interpreted as referring to collection officers.


UIC-PAYMENT OF BENEFITS IN QUEBEC BY PAYMENT CENTRES
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	For the Province of Quebec are UIC benefits paid from certain centres and (a) if so, is the Commission the owner (b) if not, (i) who is the owner (ii) at what rent?
2.	How many employees work in the Payment Centre?
3.	What is the average processing time for the payment of a benefit?


Robert Knight Andras: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. There is only one payment centre in the Quebec Region, (a) This centre occupies two floors of the building located at 1441 St-Urbain Street in Montreal, (b) It is a federal building belonging to the Department of Public Works.
2.	As of April 3, 1975, there were 258 employees working in the payment centre.
3.	The payment centre's average unit cost for issuing a warrant was $0.65 in 1974. The average unit cost incurred from January 1975 to March 1975 was $0.52.


UIC-NUMBERS OF APPEALS SUBMITTED AFTER PRESCRIBED DEADLINES, 1974
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): In 1974, how many appeals were submitted to UIC arbitration boards after the prescribed deadlines and, of this number, how many were heard?


Robert Knight Andras: No records are maintained but the Commission is usually lenient in accepting appeals filed after the 30 day limit provided by the Unemployment Insurance Act.


EXPORTS OF FARM PRODUCE
Mr. Hurlburt: 1.	What quantities of farm produce (a) red meat (beef, pork, others) (b) poultry (c) dairy produce (d) fruits (e) vegetables are exported from Canada?
2.	What was the amount exported of each item each year 1960 and 1965 to 1974 inclusive?
3.	What is the percentage increase (decrease) for each year and overall for each item over the past five and three year periods?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports the following: 1, 2 and 3. Domestic exports from Canada of the specified farm produce in the years 1960 and from 1965 to 1974, inclusive, are shown on the following table. The percentage increases (decreases) are also provided.
June 4, 1975

Order Paper Questions
External Trade Division
Canadian Domestic Exports for Selected Years, 1960, 1965-1974
1 and 2.		I960	1963	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974
Meat (including												
beef, pork &												
others	CUT	1,303,814	2,074,274	1,779,537	1,531,219	1,881,628	1,737,742	2,474,509	2,562,384	2,668,633	2,867,754	2,312,919Poultry	CVVT	1,782	19,215	19,117	5,092	5,363	11,590	27,704	107,657	31,653	49,309	204,881Dairy	Produce	( VVT	1,085,879	1,757,281	1,294,879	1,404,673	1,858,201	2,902,934	3,637,944	2,895,898	1,554,720	2,873,133	1,456,705Fruits	CVVT	414,342	1,839,886	1,846,464	2,433,376	2,107,116	1,841,243	1,606,805	1,459,072	1,407,417	1,703,142	1,351,333lilf.	2,438,164	Vegetables	CVVT	110,375	7,576,861	6,777,270	7,808,042	6,968,908	8,861,696	8,293,524	6,477,996	6,662,782	6,772,853	6,133,834[DOT]>.	HU.	1,938,569	(Percent)	Annual Changes	Meat	-14.3	-14.0	+ 22.8	- 7.7	+ 42.3	+ 3.5	+ 4.1	+ 7.4	- 19.4Poultry	- 0.6	-73.4	+ 5.3	+ 116.1	+ 139.0	+288.5	-70.6	+55.7	+315.5Dairy Produce	-26.4	+ 8.4	+32.2	+ 56.2	+ 25.3	- 20.4	-46.4	+84.8	- 49.3Fruits	+ 0.3	+31.7	-13.5	- 12.7	- 12.8	- 9.2	- 3.6	+21.0	- 20.7Vegetables	-10.6	+ 15.2	-10.8	+ 27.1	- 6.3	- 21.9	+ 2.8	+ 1.6	- 9.5
5-Year Changes
Meat
Poultry
Dairy Produce
Fruits
Vegetables
(60-65) +59.0 +978.2 + 61.8 +344.0 +3,864.6
(65-70) +19.2 + 44.1 + 107.0 - 12.7 + 9.4
(69-74) - 9.8 + 90.3
-	49.7 + 7.4
-	5.4
3-Years Changes
Meat	(65-68)
Poultry
Dairy Produce
Fruits
Vegetables


PROVINCIAL POLITICAL BROADCASTS-CBXT EDMONTON
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	During the period February 14 to March 25, 1975, by day and by time, how much coverage in scheduled news broadcasts was given to each provincial political party in Alberta by CBC Station CBXT in Edmonton, Alberta?
2.	For the same period, by day and by time, how much coverage in scheduled news broadcasts was given to each Leader of each provincial political party in Alberta by CBC Station CBXT-TV in Edmonton, Alberta?
3.	For the same period, by day, what were the (a) names of provincial political candidates (b) times used by them participating in the "Hour Glass" programme on CBC Station CBXT-TV in Edmonton, Alberta?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. No daily breakdown is available, but the following are the cumulative totals by week: Feb. 17-23: Progressive Conservative, 4V4 minutes; Liberal, 5 Vi minutes; New Democratic Party, 3 minutes; Social Credit, 9 Vi minutes; others, 3 minutes. Feb. 24-Mar. 2: Progressive Conservative, 3 Vi minutes; Liberal, 1 Vi minutes; New Democratic Party, 4Vi minutes; Social Credit, 2Vi minutes; others, -. March 3-9: Progressive Conservative, 6 minutes; Liberal, 2 Vi minutes; New Democratic Party, 4 minutes; Social Credit, 7 Vi minutes; others, -. March 10-16: Progressive Conservative, 12 minutes; Liberal, 7 minutes; New Demo-
+ 9.3	(68-71) +'36.1	(71-74) - 9.8-72.1	+ 1,007.4	+ 90.3+ 5.7	+ 55.8	- 49.7+14.5	- 30.8	- 7.4- 8.1	- 7.1	- 5.4
cratic Party, 7 minutes; Social Credit, 6 Vi minutes; others, 5Vi minutes. March 17-23: Progressive Conservative, 13 minutes; Liberal, 7 Vi minutes; New Democratic Party, 9 minutes; Social Credit, 8 minutes; others, 1 minute. March 24: Progressive Conservative, 4 minutes; Liberal, 30 seconds; New Democratic Party, 2 minutes; Social Credit, 3Vi minutes; others, -. March 25: None.
2.	No breakdown has been made of coverage given to leaders, but amount of time is included in the totals given in part 1.
3.	(a), (b) March 7: Julian Koziak, Progressive Conservative, 55 seconds; Gordon Wright, New Democratic Party, 32 seconds; Arthur Yates, Liberal, 28 seconds. (Only candidates nominated in their riding as of March 7). March 17: Grant Notley, New Democratic Party, 27 seconds; Betty Howrey, Liberal, 27 seconds; Werner Schmidt, Social Credit, 47 seconds. (Four main party leaders were invited). March 19: Gordon Minieley, Progressive Conservative, 2 minutes; Howard Rubin, New Democratic Party, 1 minute. (Subject was sale of T-4 slips, not election). March 21: Vera Lane, Independent-Liberal. (Subject was water-sewer problem in Peace River, not election. Ms. Lane was invited as a leader of citizens' group seeking action. Item was 11:38 minutes in length, much of this consisting of interview with Ms. Lane and another member of the group).
6436

June 4, 1975
Order Paper Questions


NATIONAL DEFENCE-INVESTIGATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF, CFB SHILO, MANITOBA
Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	Was there an investigation into the behaviour of instructional staff at CFB Shilo, Manitoba, during Phase 1 ROUTP School Summer 1974 and, if so (a) has it been completed (b) have the results been released?
2.	Was any wrong-doing revealed by such investigation and, if so, what action is contemplated?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes. (a) Yes. (b) A summary of the investigation was forwarded to Training Command Headquarters.
2. No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-NON-RECOVERABLE EXPENSES
Mr. Herbert: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,242, what records are kept of expenses incurred by the Department of National Defence in providing emergency assistance requested by other departments?
2.	Is provision made in the estimates for such possibilities?
3.	Are supplementary estimates ever requested to cover such expenses?
4.	Are additional expenses incurred in providing emergency assistance transferred to the department making the request and, if not, for what reason?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The Department of National Defence maintains records of recoverable costs on a case by case basis.
2.	No.
3.	The cost of providing extensive emergency assistance could cause a shortfall in program funds, which would result in supplementary estimates.
4.	Yes.


METRIC SYSTEM ADVERTISING
Mr. Howie: How much money was paid and to whom, from March 1 to March 31, 1975 to advertise promotion of the metric system in Canada?


Gaston Clermont: $125,494.97 was spent to advertise promotion of the metric system in Canada from March 1 to March 31, 1975; the advertising agency was Maclaren Advertising Co. Ltd.


PASSPORT OFFICE, WINNIPEG-PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Does the passport office in Winnipeg process applications by mail and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What facilities are available to residents of Manitoba outside Winnipeg where there is urgency in processing an application?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no. The six Regional Passport Offices were established to bring a personalized service to as large a segment of the Canadian population as is economically feasible. They were not intended to

duplicate the mail service in Ottawa which is centralized for reasons of efficiency and economy. The difference in mailing time between Ottawa and Winnipeg or other locations in Canada is not a significant factor in the overall period of passport processsing time requested on the application form of two weeks plus mailing time.
2. The answer to the second part follows. Emergency service is available at any of the six Regional Offices or at Ottawa. All Regional Offices are located in cities with major Canadian international airports from which travellers going abroad can be expected to leave Canada. This was one of the considerations in the planning of the locations of the Regional Offices which are and should be used for urgent service.


MOTION FOR PAPERS
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 23 is acceptable to the government.
I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


COPIES OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF MONTREAL
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 23-Mr. Diefenbaker:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence from or to the Prime Minister or other Minister of the government with Mayor Drapeau or representatives of the Corporation of the City of Montreal in connection with the 1976 Olympic Games and in particular any letters that have to do with the matter of federal assistance to the City or Olympic organization.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
June 4, 1975
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my particular pleasure to speak on this bill today. I wish to indicate to the House that I have received over 200 letters opposing the bill and possibly only ten letters in favour of it. Thus far, that is the input of my riding of Kootenay West.
On examining the bill and hearing the genuine concern expressed in the contributions to the debate by members on both sides of the House, I find it very difficult to come to any other conclusion than that this bill is both foolish and a pack of nonsense. The minister is demonstrating no concern for the facts and no concern for the Canadian employees of Reader's Digest. He is not really concerned about the tax dollars which will be generated; he is concerned about the tax shelters which he would supposedly remove.


Mr. Paproski:: He is not even here today.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I noticed that, and that happens frequently. He has not concerned himself, nor has he indicated to the House any concern about the revenue generated by Reader's Digest for the Post Office-and the Post Office needs all the revenue it can get nowadays. The minister has not said anything about freedom of the press, unless it is the Heritage press. What has happened to the Bill of Rights? What is the minister trying to do for the Canadian magazine industry? The Toronto-based Liberal mandarins and eggheads want to build their left wing empire on the backs of Canadian taxpayers, and if not by government grant then the minister will build it by grant of government legislation.
What does the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) have against Reader's Digest? He was not satisfied just to introduce Bill C-58. As an interesting aside, it should be noted that he had to tangle his department in a web of confusion and intrigue with the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada, and he showed not a shred of conscience over the creditors of this bankrupt, so-called non-profit society. Not only has the Secretary of State not demonstrated any concern for these creditors, but neither has the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), and so on. But what has that to do with Reader's Digest? There is an organization in France called the Foreign Study League. The Foreign Study League is a creditor of the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada, to the tune of $106,000, and the Foreign Study League just happens to be a subsidiary of Reader's Digest.
I wonder what else the Secretary of State can dabble in besides this mess. He talks about 80 per cent Canadian content. I can only imagine that about 40 per cent of this Canadian content will be heifer dust cranked out by a mindless amateur in the office of the Secretary of State. Let us go back to the very basics of the Reader's Digest confrontation. Let us go back to the people who really demonstrate some concern, the average citizen, more particularly the senior citizen and his $3 per year subscription to pleasure. One of the beauties of this particular magazine is its variety of content and the contributions by
Non-Canadian Publications
authors and writers from around the world. Some say it is not very factual and there are times when the medical profession finds Reader's Digest to be the bane of its existence, when patients come in with a new set of symptoms which they have diagnosed from the pages of "Joe's Liver" taken out of Reader's Digest. But beyond that it is a gentle magazine which is easily read and thoroughly enjoyed, particularly by senior citizens.
It probably is of no consequence at all to the heartless Secretary of State, but I wonder how many senior citizens across Canada buy a subcription for a grandchild, son or daughter. It is an inexpensive Christmas gift, and God knows senior citizens can ill-afford anything but an inexpensive gift. I wonder why the minister is so concerned when all the senior citizen wishes to demonstrate is a monthly reminder of love and affection.
This fiasco of Bill C-58 reminds me very much-sicken-ingly so-of the attempt of the British Columbia government to grab a so-called educational television channel for its own use. I cannot help but feel that with this bill the federal government seeks to impose itself again upon the public, against the will of the public, leading them blindly down the garden path with soft chatter, vague innuendos and platitudes and saying that everything is all right, but that the government wants to be damned sure it knows what we are going to read and it has to be something of which the government approves.
I wonder why the government does not demonstrate the same concern with regard to Playboy magazine and magazines of similar type. We have not heard anything from the Secretary of State about those. I wonder if he considers them to be highly educational. I am awaiting the suggestion by the minister that we remove sex instruction from the schools and buy all the students subscriptions to Playboy. That seems to be a very liberal proposal.
I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the intelligent Liberal opposition to this bill-the only Liberal speeches which, in my view, have made any sense. Obviously, those hon. members are demonstrating their concern that the new philosophy and the new policy is porno first and intellect last. What an epitaph for a government! Next week I suspect that a magazine which is now on the stands, Nous magazine, with the blessing of the Secretary of State will lift the maple leaf from the nether regions of that full page fold-out of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I saw an hon. member over here who was smiling but concerned. He was shuddering to think what would happen and what would be revealed upon the lifting of the maple leaf. I am not going to address myself to that, nor will I suggest, as one hon. member did, that we might find there the presence of Michael Pitfield. Indeed, I will not say that. I shudder to think what would happen to the National Geographic magazine if it were to publish in Canada. I can just see the Secretary of State insisting upon a full page fold-out of his own anatomy.
I have heard very little about the French issue which is now heavily in debt and operating at a loss. On the one hand, the minister says no subsidies by tax benefits, but if the Digest is to subsidize the French Canadian issue that is
29561-63%

Non-Canadian Publications
different. A government subsidy, fine; a Digest subsidy, never.
Some ridiculous and restrictive legislation has been introduced by this government and I feel that this bill is a classic example of the type of legislation that is drafted from time to time in a blundering, unthinking fashion. Mr. Speaker, I am having this bill framed, to hang it in my office as an example of how this government serves Canadians, especially our senior citizens.
Has the Secretary of State really addressed himself to the effect that this bill will have on other magazines- magazines such as MD of Canada? What does this bill impose upon that and other professional magazines? Let us just deal with MD of Canada. This is a controlled-circu-lation magazine without an assured subscription revenue. Paid circulation magazines might have the alternative of sending non-Canadian editions into Canada for sale to readers. MD of Canada does not have that choice, yet it is affected by this bill. Its only source of revenue is advertising. If MD of Canada, which is an important medical publication that has been sent to physicians in this country for more than 15 years, ceases to publish in Canada as a result of Bill C-58, the MD concept behind this magazine, the purpose and thrust of it, will be lost and will not be replaced. I say that the Secretary of State has not addressed himself to this concern, Mr. Speaker. He probably has never heard of the magazine.
MD of Canada is not a Canadian edition of a parent magazine; it is neither a split-run edition nor the result of overflow circulation of a parent magazine. It is a fully integrated Canadian medical publication whose editorial content is based upon the MD concept. MD of Canada has always purchased all of its mechanical production from Canadian suppliers, typesetting, printing and labelling, mailing-more revenues for the Post Office-and yet what concern, what mention has been made of it by the Secretary of State and those who would support Bill C-58?
By definition, MD of Canada is a magazine of medical culture and of cultural medicine. It carries a completely Canadian medical news section. It prepares original features which, when researched, appear along with Canadian medical news in MD, the medical news magazine in the U.S.A., MD en Espanol and MD Pacific. This magazine reworks editorial material prepared internationally before it appears in MD of Canada. It publishes an English edition and a combined English-French edition at no subscription fee; the advertisers pay for this fine magazine.
Physician readers identify strongly with MD of Canada for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the magazine is researched, written and edited for them. Another reason is that MD of Canada is always responsive to the requests of its readers. Thousands of reprints of essays which have appeared in the magazine have been distributed to physicians who requested them, free of charge, yet the Secretary of State would have the magazine expunged from the Canadian market.
The contents of MD of Canada are not the same as any other edition of MD, the U.S. edition, the Latin American edition or the edition for the Far East. There is no simultaneous publication of contents in any of the four magazines; all items published in this magazine are especially scheduled and edited for that edition. The magazine plays

an important role by serving a numerically small but professional, highly dedicated and important segment of the population and responds to the full range of physicians' interests. Surely it should have imposed upon it this silly, indeed this ridiculous, little bill, C-58.
In the busy, nay, hectic life of a member of parliament, I find that one of my few moments of rest and repose is on the occasion when nature makes certain normal demands upon the nether regions of the digestive tract. It is at those times that I digest the Digest and pause and reflect upon the multitudinous follies of the Secretary of State. Surely this government is not-indeed it must not-denying me and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) and thousands like us the former condition while aggravating the latter. Mr. Speaker, I unequivocally reject the bill and the premise of the bill.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to have the floor on Bill C-58 because, in my opinion, it is a bill that could have very serious implications for Canadian publications, if passed unchanged.
The bill attacks a magazine that I have been reading for numerous years. I know little about Time but I am very familiar with Reader's Digest. I feel it is a magazine that is within everyone's reach and that meets very well the requirements of readers, be they English or French Canadians.
Where the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) announced his intention to amend section 19 of the Income Tax Act, I thought it would be a good thing to seek the opinion of my constituents to know what they thought of the bill and the possibility of having Reader's Digest cease publishing, because I knew that it was being read by a great many persons.
As a result, I received several replies to the letters that I had sent out. Several of my constituents read the magazine, and 36 per cent replied that they were in favour of it, and consequently against Bill C-58. Only one letter was in favour of Bill C-58, and I realized that the person concerned was ill-informed, since she believed that Reader's Digest did not pay any taxes to the Canadian Government or that of Quebec. This is completely false, Reader's Digest and Time or any other magazine must pay their taxes.
Mr. Speaker, among the letters which I received, I would like to quote a few to the House. The first comes from La Reine, Abitibi:
Having read the documents which you sent me, I feel that we must keep our magazine even if we have to pay something.
I have based my opinion on three points:
Contribution of Reader's Digest to the Canadian economy.
Number of jobs created by the magazine.
And finally Reader's Digest has served to unite the Canadian people.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that those are very important facts which sum up quite well the word of Reader's Digest.
From another letter from La Sarre, I quote:
Needless to say that like most French Canadians, I presume, I would be very unhappy to witness the demise of this monthly magazine of high literary, curtural and moral quality. I just cannot believe there are no other means to favour Canadian publications. In any trade,
June 4, 1975

competition usually serves to improve service and quality and has always been an excellent incentive.
There is another very interesting thought and much to the point.
In another letter coming, this time, from Amos, I read the following comment:
Really, I deplore this gesture on the part of our governments, because this magazine is very well written, in a clean language. Why would we deprive ourselves of good reading suitable to all ages? Does the government prefer dirty magazines filled with photos of the same quality, which make us feel ashamed only by looking at them on newstands.
Now, this person from Amos is concerned because of the possible disappearance of a magazine like Reader's Digest which features articles that can be put in the hands of almost any member of the family, while other Canadian magazines which make us ashamed just by looking at them on the newsstands are allowed to be published. The disappearance of an honest and well written magazine worries those people.
In another letter coming from a Mont-Brun resident, I find another version, another interesting viewpoint:
Here is what I think. Reader's Digest is perhaps the only magazine giving almost complete information on sensible issues. Its articles are not solely devoted to murder, rape, violence, sex, etc., and many other wrong food for the mind. As far as we are concerned, we have been receiving the magazine for 22 years. The children read it and we are not worried about leaving that publication in their hands. I know the time spent reading it is not lost.
Mr. Speaker, that is the general tone of the letters I received from my constituents in favour of the continued existence of Reader's Digest and against Bill C-58. Indeed, it is an interesting publication that can be read by all members of the family. In many families, the young people find interesting articles and material that help them in their studies. As we know, many of them cannot afford more expensive books. Mr. Speaker, this again is something we must preserve because this publication is useful to both Canadian families and students.
A number of the letters I have received mention that the articles in this publication are so interesting that current issues of Reader's Digest are kept for reference, along with past issues which may date back many years.
Well, Mr. Speaker, not only because of the adverse reaction I have received from my constituents, but also for personal reasons, I am against Bill C-58 which I feel would not benefit Canadian publications in any way, but would only serve to jeopardize the cases of a couple of publications which have received, as has been fully demonstrated, the seal of approval from their Canadian readership.
With regard to the figures which have been quoted, I think that we must keep in mind what they mean in terms of the Canadian economy. Let us consider what the contribution of a publication such Reader's Digest is. An annual turnover of $30 million-in Canada, not the United States-90 cents out of every revenue dollar being spent in Canada, with a capital investment of $8 million. Land: $557,000; buildings: $2,729,000; and over $4.5 million in machinery and equipment.
We know also that nearly 500 employees in Canada are working at publishing Reader's Digest. That magazine patronizes mostly Canadian suppliers, even if some ma-
Non-Canadian Publications
terials or services could be imported from elsewhere more cheaply.
Such an input in the Canadian economy is therefore significant. Perhaps we could find in Canada, if we took trouble to analyse the financial assets of every magazine, some Canadian corporations which are more foreign than
Reader's Digest is.
As for the contribution to Canadian culture, first of all, the choice, editing or writing of the full content of every issue is done in Canada, whether in English or French. Second, about 80 writers, artists and graphists are working at the preparation of magazines and books published by Reader's Digest. We know that Reader's Digest does not produce only a monthly magazine, it markets and has marketed a variety of quite interesting, quite instructive and quite well prepared books. And those 80 writers, artists and graphists put out those magazines and books.
Furthermore, 80-odd free-lance writers work for Reader's Digest and some 140 Canadian authors saw their articles published in Canadian magazines since 1960 and for some it was the first time a magazine published their work. That too is important.
Mr. Speaker, we know that articles written in Canada by Canadian authors were published in Reader's Digest magazines in other countries of the world, and that allowed articles of Canadian origin to be translated into 13 languages and be exported, if I may put it that way, all over the world.
For Canadian authors that too is very significant indeed. So, I think that wanting to deprive Canadian readers, wanting to deprive Canadian authors and workers of a very lucrative source of income, and an equally very eloquent means of expression, goes against the whole Canadian interest.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must say that Reader's Digest-the one I know best of the two magazines involved in that legislation-is very well presented. Again I repeat that it may be put into the hands of all members of the family. With respect to other Canadian publications, I perused a few of them to realize that in a magazine containing barely some twenty pages I found at least 15 pictures of 40-ouncers alongside a glass with ice praising the merits of alcohol coming from English distilleries or imported wines from France, Italy or elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, considering the quality of a magazine like that I think one must oppose Bill C-58, and allow magazines which proved themselves to continue to exist and serve the Canadian reader.


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I was in this House the day the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) brought in this bill to rescind section 19(2) of the Income Tax Act. Unfortunately, obligations of extreme urgency in Vancouver prevented me from being here to speak earlier. I feel very strongly about the publishing business in Canada since I am a writer and have been involved in it throughout my whole career.
It is a comparatively small industry. It is not strong, except for the newspapers, Maclean-Hunter, publisher of

June 4, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
two majors general interest magazines and numerous trade magazines and a book publisher who I do not think cares for anyone outside of Toronto, certainly not outside the Ontario region. I have experienced this personally. I do not see why members opposite feel it is essential, in this important debate, to attack the Secretary of State personally or his party. This is not a question of personalities or of politics. It is a matter of general public interest, of public concern. The Secretary of State may have misinterpreted the powerful vocal minority out of Toronto as public opinion. That group controls the media and is mistakenly believed to be the voice of Canada. They have tried to dictate public interest to achieve action that will enhance their vested interests, at the cost of two strong and valuable publications. Members on this side, members opposite, and all Canadians in other words, have misinterpreted public opinion because of that vocal minority. Too many Canadians misinterpret this as the voice of Canada. Actually, it is the opinion of a few people who control publishing in this country.
Newspaper publishing in Canada is controlled by three major publishers-FP Publications, Southam, and Lord Thomson who has taken to himself a British title. The publishing of books in Canada seems to be controlled by one or two people who started the organization called Committee for an Independent Canada which has been distorted into a anti-American clarion in this country. It is an embarrassment to me because I do not hate my neighbour who was my friend.
I regret that the Secretary of State is carrying this bill through despite what is really public opinion, the opinion of the people. There are those who claim, in this House, that we who are opposed to Bill C-58 are reacting to "one of the most powerful lobbies" in Canadian parliamentary history. I maintain, conversely, that this bill is here because of a small elitist voice, albeit a very powerful group with great influence-talented-but who would dictate culture for all Canadians out of the east.


An hon. Member:: The Secretary of State.


Simma Holt: It is not the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State was hearing a voice that is very loud in eastern Canada. We do not hear it as well in the west. In fact, we ignore it in the west because the only national news that many of us get is in Time magazine; in other words, objective reporting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Toronto in no way reflects the public interest, but the private vested interest of a small group. They are an impressive group that has done good things for Canada. Maclean-Hunter had the money some years ago to put out a news magazine. Why didn't they? I was very much involved in a magazine which started out of Montreal, called Canada Month. We worked very hard. We donated our material. I got writers from across Canada. I even found advertisers to try to keep the magazine alive. But it died. The massive advertising that Maclean's, Chatelaine, the newspaper could have shared did not go to Canada Month, a good young magazine, because the advertisers-in a free enterprise country-chose strong, established vehicles through which to sell their product.

There are two major newspapers in Vancouver. There were three, but the monopoly shared the pot and one was killed. We learned very early in Vancouver that in order to build a new newspaper-and I take it this applies to any city in Canada-you have to be prepared to spend $25 million or more, without return, before becoming viable and getting fully supportive advertising revenue.
Of the vast amount of mail I received, only four letters out of approximately 800 to 1,000-I never counted them- were opposed to the bill. It is apparent that some people think this is a lobby being carried on by the magazines. It is a lobby by Canada's citizens. I must admit it was not until Reader's Digest and Time told what it meant in simple terms that the public was aware of the meaning of Bill C-58 and what could happen to two very popular publications. They responded. However, I was receiving letters before that.
I read the reports of the Gallup poll released in January. Less than 1 per cent of the Canadian public wants Reader's Digest to lose equality with other magazines in this country. Reader's Digest and Time have been landed immigrants in Canada for 31 years. It is rather strange that after that period the rules of the game are being changed. It is similar to the situation of an immigrant in this country who has developed some roots here, built a home and felt secure as a Canadian, suddenly being told he cannot live here under the same terms.
Reader's Digest, and Time to a lesser degree, are the only vehicles for Canadian subjects and Canadian writers to be aired internationally. This gives Canadian writers a chance of a job in an extremely small market. In other words, it is not as easy for Canadians in the publications and allied trades to find a job with Newsweek, U.S. News, World Report or other American magazines. If you are an established writer, you might very well find work. It has not been a problem for me in recent years. However, for young people just starting out, they get their first chance from magazines like Reader's Digest.
There are those who compare Reader's Digest with other American magazines like Playboy, which does not have any Canadian content-unless there was one Canadian girl who posed for the centrefold. Those who compare Reader's Digest with Playboy, Newsweek, U.S. News, World Report and all the others sent here from outside forget that those publications did not offer to set up business in Canada, to provide jobs for Canadian writers, or to recognize Canadian subjects as significant enough for their attention. Reader's Digest and Time did come here; they did provide jobs, set up plants and send stories by Canadians, on Canadian subjects, around the world. Despite what anyone says, Reader's Digest does not have a tax privilege. It is on the same footing as other publications. In a free enterprise country, the advertiser should have the right of choice. I looked at one issue of Maclean's magazine. It had about 70 per cent advertising content, this means they are pretty fat and sassy; they do not need any more.
If anyone thinks that advertising lost to Reader's Digest and Time will go to start other magazines, they are wrong. It will go to these already overstuffed magazines and newspapers. While I was grateful that the newspapers were rich because they could pay me a good salary, they are not suffering. In addition to the newspapers, the ad-
June 4, 1975

vertising will go to television and radio. On some television and radio stations which have top-flight commentators you cannot even buy time.
The story about dumping is rather an interesting one. Why do we not look at the material which is dumped by way of so-called syndicated material in newspapers- comics, Marmaduke, Ann Landers, and all the rest. It is very cheap to buy these syndicated columns. It is dumping. Despite this, there are thoughtful journalists and some publishers I know who have stated strongly that these two healthy magazines should stay in the country in order that the rest of the magazine industry shall stay strong. It is like bringing in a great department store in the middle of a dying business neighbourhood; it strengthens the whole neighbourhood. The day we build only on the weak and destroy the strong, whether it is people or whether it is the magazine industry, is the day we are doomed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: I do not hear many Liberals applaud.


Simma Holt: What difference does it make whether it is Liberal or Conservative? Aren't we all here as members of parliament?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: As a matter of fact, I am very tired of this whole concept that speech here is simply a matter of toeing a line. If the only reason you are talking against this bill is because of your politics, then shame on you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: You should be talking because you care; because you care about the right of the people of Canada to have freedom to read what they want, to advertise where they want.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: I, personally, do not want all-Canadian content. I don't want to see this country one in which we are narrow and uneducated to what is happening in the rest of the world. I am very grateful for the five pages of Canadian news in Time and the many human, well researched features in Reader's Digest drawn from all parts of Canada. We live on the other side of the mountains, and I believe that if the people from central Canada lived there they would understand what I mean. We don't hear in depth about Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island or Manitoba. We hear a great deal about Ontario and Quebec. All the news across this great country, we do not hear it except in the very condensed, tight, objective reporting that comes to us in Time. One column in Time is worth a whole page of what is called depth reporting in most newspapers. I am not going to name names. In either case I know, as a journalist, that quantity isn't always quality, nor is it depth reporting.


An hon. Member:: Then just sit down.
Non-Canadian Publications


Simma Holt: Oh, you're going to get it! You people have been talking for a long time. I know you did a great deal of talking when I was away-out of necessity.
I love Canada very deeply and I consider myself a patriot. I am not a narrow nationalist, though. I will quote someone who wrote better than I do, because his work survived for the century.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: Speaking culturally. Aldington said, "Nationalism is a silly cock crowing on its own dunghill." Or to quote Einstein, he described it as an infantile disease. Let us hope, like the measles of the world, this will just go away.
But let me talk about money going to Reader's Digest and Time, and the threat to the life of the magazine industry. Since this tax equality-I call it tax equality because it isn't a tax benefit; there is no special tax benefit given to these magazines-came in, 88 new Canadian magazines have been born and are flourishing with a circulation of over 10,000 each. They have been established in the last ten years. Seventy of them are in English and 18 in French. They have 209 million circulation annually.
The magazine industry throughout the world is a struggling industry. Even John Bull, the great British magazine, died. Look died in the United States. Life died. Why should we, in Canada, contribute to the death of our strong magazines?
Reader's Digest offers opportunities to young writers who will never get a chance to write for a great magazine or get international exposure. Those who write for it do get international exposure. Digest receives 6,000 manuscripts a year. They do not return a manuscript without reading it and giving advice to the writer. There are two readers for every manuscript. Thus, they have nurtured young Canadian writers. This is a great public service to one profession in this country.
I can read off this list of magazines which have come into being since tax equality with other Canadian magazines was given to Reader's Digest and Time ten years ago. It is propaganda to say that the industry has been killed. It is misinformation which is bandied about that the two magazines, Time and Digest, cream off advertising money which is taking the place of advertising which would be placed in Canadian magazines. People who have the statistics have already admitted this, so I don't need to repeat it other than to say that the information is simply not true and that I can-if necessary-put the statistics on record.
As for the corporate behaviour of the two magazines, I think it has been excellent. I think they have set a high standard. Maybe it is too pure for the swingers in this country, but I feel very strongly that these two magazines have been good corporate citizens; they have followed every guideline of corporate conduct set out by the federal government. In the simplest terms, I would say that Digest has done this by having more than 30 per cent of its shares owned by Canadians. Four out of five of its directors are Canadians. What is most important to me is its full-time Canadian staff numbering 455 people.
I worked with the associate editor, Charles Smith, one of the best editors of any magazine anywhere, in my

June 4, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
opinion; and Charles Smith is a Canadian. Reader's Digest has already lost one editor because of the job insecurity created by this bill. These Canadians are suffering great trepidation over this whole debate. They do not know whether they are going to have a job when this is done. Reader's Digest owns its own presses in Montreal and has done so since 1948. It is now investing $3 million in new printing equipment. Incidentally, in first-class mail revenue alone, Canada will lose $3 million from Digest's operation. It has an editorial, art and production staff of 76 people. In a comparatively small industry, as it is in this country, that number is a good size.
Every word which appears in the French and English issues of Digest is edited by Canadians. Articles about Canadian go out from here to 26 international editions, in 13 languages, with a potential readership of over 105 million. I can tell hon. members that long before I came to this place, I worked for them; I made a bit of a living out of writing, and Reader's Digest was one market I occasionally used. One story I wrote is one about a Canadian subject, a Canadian man, a western man who this month was named a Good Citizen of British Columbia for 1975 by the Native Sons. He is Ben Wosk, an immigrant who came here and helped to build a great corner of this country. He performed many humanitarian acts. Now he is rich enough to be called a great philanthropist-once he was a humanitarian. In either case, that story has now been printed in three countries, Canada, Holland and Japan.
There was one about Canadian leadership in prison reform started in 1960. The subject, the prison reformer, was Allen J. MacLeod, Q.C. commissioner of Canadian penitentiaries from 1960 to 1969-a non-political person. This story is published in at least two countries this year-Canada and France. The story on Ralph Bunche by Lester Pearson, a great writer and statesman, has been circulated throughout the world. "A Whale for the Killing", by Farley Mowat, has been printed in about 15 countries. Only "One Earth", by Noel F. Bush, has as many printings. These are only a few of the opportunities for Canadians and Canadian subjects. Lester Person's "Golden Opportunity" of August, 1963, was printed in the U.S. and French Canadian editions. That would have gone around the world, I am sure, because of its greatness, except for the fact that there was some contractual limitation.
Time and Reader's Digest are very important to westerners. We do not feel out there that Maclean's, that alleged national magazine, is truly national. Nor do we feel that Maclean-Hunter Publishing, which is the national publishing company that seems to be giving strong support to this bill, is serving the whole country. It is serving the country in a token way. They deign to give one page to British Columbia. Sometimes they include accounts of westerners in what we call their wrap-up news or features. On occasion they even have one or two British Columbians as special subjects for their magazines.
Maclean's magazine seems to be overly saturated with advertising. If this company had an obligation to this country, it would cut back on editorial advertising to the 35 to 40 per cent limit Reader's Digest has imposed on itself. Also, I wish Maclean's, the "national magazine", could be a
[Mrs. Holt.)	.
little more honest and objective in its reporting. I suggest that its editorials are slanted. Many of us here, I'm sure, would prefer honest and objective reporting. I know they will probably be annoyed at me and I will never get a chance to write for Maclean's magazine again, but that is fine.


An hon. Member:: I will see to it.


Simma Holt: You are going to see to it; that is fine. As members of parliament-and I do not care whether you sit over there or over here-you know as well as I do that the whole system of parliament has been deliberately held in disrepute. No one knows better than the people in Toronto how parliament works, because they are closer to it. Has anyone ever really seen an objective report in that national magazine about this job, or how hard and conscientiously members of parliament work, or even what they do?
I do not see this matter as a partisan thing at all. I wrote a letter to Charles Smith, who I knew before I came here, a senior Digest editor, a Canadian and a very good man, asking him about Canadian content. I like a balance of content or a mixed content. I like to know what is happening all over the world. Reader's Digest contains general interest articles on issues that affect us all. Many of them are of universal interest. These articles do not have to be simply Canadian or relate to Toronto or Montreal. Their accuracy in recording universal human issues, touching subjects of interest to people of many parts of this world, is the reason for Digest's success. This is the type of thing we should all be interested in, because we are the people they write about.
I wrote and asked Charles Smith last fall about Canadian content-since it seems to be important-and he wrote back suggesting I look at the October current issue, then, of the United States and Canadian editions of Reader's Digest. I may say that there is quite a difference, and Mr. Smith admitted that. He stated that our edition contained eight Canadian stories, and he pointed out that four were written by women. That was just to make me feel good, I think. Out of eight Canadian stories there were four written by women. These women were Michele Landsberg, June Callwood, Carolyn Katariya and Lois Neely.
Mr. Smith also pointed out that additional Canadian information had been inserted in articles "Natural Childbirth Comes of Age," "A Breath of Hope for Asthmatic Youngsters," and "How to Make Houseplants Behave." I suppose the latter explains how much Canadians love their houseplants and can make them grow better. I guess that was what he meant by that injection. He pointed out that there were pure American interest subjects that were pitched out, as he said, including "Labor Drives for a Veto-Proof Congress," and Barry Goldwater's "Second Wind," and others. These U.S. interest articles did.not get into the Canadian issue, whereas the universal ones did.
The Institute of Canadian Advertising has suggested that we should note that the news and entertainment media are to a large degree international in scope. I cannot understand the great striving for cultural nationalism, especially in a world where we have satellite communication and we are going to the moon, and where we have international conflicts and international co-operation. Why in the cultural field must we keep ourselves in a
June 4, 1975

corner and cut back on our own associations with the rest of society?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: I ask those questions because you are making this a partisan thing. I am not filibustering, but I do want members to know how I feel about this. I want people here to know that I wish somehow this situation had not occurred; that this bill had not been introduced. Now that it has occurred, I must say I have still a great respect for the parliamentary committee system because it is less partisan than this place. We work on the rules, the laws and the regulations of this country, and we serve our country best through our committees.
I am opposed to this bill and I have made no secret about it. Since it is inevitable that it will go to the committee, I will vote for it on second reading and then do everything in my power-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: I am not going to be a party to any filibuster, but if anything has turned me against this whole thing it is the fact that hon. members opposite have made it such a partisan thing. I am going to join the committee today, and when we study this bill I hope we will together do our best to change it, kill it or do whatever is necessary in committee. I respect the committees of parliament but I do not respect what has happened in this House on many issues.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: This is not the worst; this is one of the minor ones. What worries me most about the situation is that one of the weak parties in this House-so I do not worry too much-has made this into an anti-American thing. They think this is a good way to get at the Americans. Let me repeat what I have heard said; "If we little budgies go after the great American eagle, we are in trouble because she," or he, "can turn"-whichever you want; there is no sexist selectivity in that regard.
This is a time when we are seeing our free democracy being gradually eroded. We are becoming more and more isolated in our freedom. We have seen South Viet Nam go to the communists, and I am sure we will soon see South Korea follow. The Arab states could be picked off just like Czechoslovakia by the Russians. Many European countries and African states have been lost, to totalitarianism. Therefore, we stand alone in our freedom with the United States on this continent.
In conclusion, let me quote from a greater writer and a greater contributor to international literature than myself. That is a man named Shakespeare. In repeating this quotation I have in mind our friends to the south. Shakespeare wrote:
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel-
With those words, I hope we can get on with the work of this House.


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate today. At the
Non-Canadian Publications
outset, let me say I am of the opinion that this bill must properly be considered in two parts. Firstly, we have before us the provisions pertaining to television. Allow me to say a few brief words on that subject. The government's plan to disallow advertising write-offs for television when that advertising is shown on American station aimed at Canadians is one that should and must be applauded.
A limited number of Canadian advertising dollars are allotted for television, and to see many of those dollars going to United States border stations in preference to our own Canadian stations has been and is cause for concern. Television stations in southern Ontario, for example, have been adversely affected by the loss of potential advertising revenues for many years due to the unchecked continuance of this most undesirable practice. There is no guarantee, of course, that Canadian advertisers will cease advertising on American stations. Let us hope that it will become and will remain unprofitable for them to do so. I must give the government credit for attempting to adopt a positive approach with respect to this aspect of the legislation. One only wishes the Secretary of State had acted sooner and with more vigour in this regard.
The same positive approach is not evident in the other provisions of this bill; that is, those relating to the tax exemptions now enjoyed by Time and Reader's Digest. Once again, the government has chosen to tackle a serious problem in a negative manner instead of offering positive assistance to the Canadian publishing industry, particularly to the smaller periodical and book publishers who really need it. The government has, regrettably, chosen to take a backward step and remove privileges from two established magazines, one of which, Reader's Digest, has contributed much to the Canadian way of life, and if left to its own devices would surely continue to contribute in a worth-while and responsible manner.
The report of the Royal Commission on Publications emphasized that in an area as vital and sensitive as that of the press, whatever is done should be positive rather than negative, with the goal the promotion of the Canadian periodical, not the suppression of the foreign. We are discussing here solely an amendment to the Income Tax Act. According to a survey of advertising executives in an objective survey conducted, as other hon. members have mentioned, by Canadian Facts Inc., it was determined that the Canadian publishing industry will not benefit substantially from the removal of tax advantages for advertising in Time and Reader's Digest. Advertisers and their agencies explain that they advertise in search of an audience, not to support a magazine industry. Most of the money diverted from Time and Reader's Digest would likely go to newspapers, radio and television, they say. A magazine would only receive advertising dollars if and when it could deliver a substantial readership.
In fact, it is estimated that at most only 25 per cent of the revenue taken away from these two publications will find its way into other Canadian periodicals. Of this amount, more than half-or closer to 60 per cent-will go to one publication chain, Maclean-Hunter, which can well exist and prosper as it is now, without it. Indeed, half the advertising revenue in Canada would be controlled by Maclean-Hunter-not exactly a healthy situation in an
6444

an extremely low literary calibre, such as movie and other scandal magazines.
If one turns one's attention to the paperback section of novels, one will again find an almost exclusive American selection of generally low calibre. At least the situation in speciality book stores is somewhat of an improvement. The quality of some American issues is of a somewhat higher calibre, and European and other foreign publications can usually be found as well. Canadian books and magazines are displayed also, but generally in fewer quantities and with little promotion or fanfare.
I am not for one minute suggesting that American and other foreign publications should be prevented from coming into Canada. What I am saying is that a positive stimulus should be introduced to encourage the display, promotion and sale of Canadian books, periodicals and magazines. Why does the government not aid in the organization of a national distribution company in order to ensure the promotion and circulation of Canadian publications? Why is a grant program not introduced that would recognize the peculiar needs of this sensitive industry? Why is more advertising space not purchased in small, speciality periodicals, by the federal government and its agencies? Why cannot the Canada Council's present book purchase program be expanded to include Canadian magazine subscriptions for public and school libraries? Madam Speaker, these questions are crying for answers. Legislation introduced to fill any one of these needs would certainly create a more positive impact on the over-all wellbeing of the Canadian magazine industry that the misguided provisions of this bill could possibly hope to achieve.
I have one further recommendation to make; one recommendation that I hope the government will see fit to consider. It has to do with the very much to be desired improvement of the postal system today; but I will not linger on that point at this time. I cannot be accused, Madam Speaker, of not offering anything in the way of alternatives to the government. There exists an unlimited number of positive avenues that the government could well choose to travel. Instead, this government and in particular this minister have chosen to negate many of the worth-while contributions of the Canadian edition of Reader's Digest and the actual advertising advantages of Time Canada in favour of the interests of one particular pressure group.
This legislation will not lighten the load of those who are heavily burdened, the small and struggling magazine and book companies, the dedicated and little published writers who desperately seek avenues of expression for their work. This legislation, Madam Speaker, is another step in the abrogation of the rights of Canadians. It is unfortunate that this bill has been divided into two separate entities, for while I sympathize with the provisions relating to advertising on foreign television, I cannot and will not support the loss of the tax exemption for advertising in Time and Reader's Digest.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, since the start of this issue-it has been around
Non-Canadian Publications
since I became a parliamentarian in 1968, and before-I must admit that I have had some grave reservations in connection with our particular approach to Time and Reader's Digest. I have already mentioned my reservations publicly. I must admit that subsequent to my initial reservations I looked into the question more thoroughly than I had a chance to do in the earlier stages, and the background work that I did led me to the conclusion even more firmly that my initial reaction was right. I believe that the bill before us is founded upon very good motivation, namely, a desire to help the Canadian magazine and periodicals industry. I subscribe to anything we could do that would be productive toward that end.
However, I am not one who is in favour of the position that we would adopt which appears to be doing something that I do not think it will achieve and that has some real beneficial result to the Canadian magazine industry. I do not think any loss of revenue that would occur to Reader's Digest, Time and others would be directed to Canadian publications, and I feel that way quite strongly. I am not prepared to see what I think are perfectly good institutions in this country which may have originated in another country, go down the drain for the sake of some hypothetical principle which in my view will not serve any useful function toward the advancement of Canadian industry or the enlightenment and well-being of Canadians.
So, basically, I have grave reservations. I am prepared, because of my confidence in the over-all committee system of our parliament, to see the bill go to committee. I hope that I will have the opportunity of being a member of that committee, because I intend to do everything within my power to propose amendments to this legislation so it will not have the adverse effects that I fear will occur if the bill goes forward in its present form.
I would like to talk about two or three aspects of this problem. One is in relation to two magazines that I have not heard too much about. One is Modern Medicine and the other is MD of Canada. Both magazines relate to the medical profession. They are affected by the legislation before us in a way that is totally unacceptable to me. It seems to me that people in the medical profession have the right to information, from whatever source it may come, which would enlighten them and increase their skill and knowledge of the profession. We should encourage that to the maximum extent. I do not think we need some kind of cultural nationalism which would insulate Canadians against the benefits and technological changes and advances, in terms of medical research and practice, that take place around the world. I believe that one of the provisions of this act would very adversely affect these two magazines. I gather that there may even be more magazines affected, but I have only been acquainted with the two I have mentioned. I do not think it is in the national interest, in the interest of the profession or of Canadians generally to see these magazines adversely affected in this way.
The other aspect that I wish to speak about concerns Reader's Digest. I know that many hon. members have spoken about Reader's Digest in connection with this bill. I feel more strongly about the legislation in relation to that publication than I do in relation to Time magazine,
295 61 - 64)4

June 4, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
because I think they present different problems. Reader's Digest is unique in the sense that it is primarily concerned with the republication of articles that appear around the world. Its very function is the condensation of articles of interest and general enlightenment to people anywhere, and I think the magazine does an excellent job in this respect. But what is important is that I do not think the magazine can meet one of the provisions in the bill, that is, the provision which speaks about being substantially the same as some other publication or periodical that has been published, in order to comply with this legislation.
In this respect, I think there is a great deal of confusion. I have a vague feeling that many members of parliament think that the provision which deals with "substantially the same as" another publication means that a certain issue of Reader's Digest, Canada, must relate to a certain issue of Reader's Digest, U.S.A., or whatever other part of the world it may be, and if they are not substantially the same for that particular edition, they are substantially different and therefore they could get around this particular provision. In my view, that is not the case because the "substantially the same as "provision, in effect, means substantially the same as any other article published in a multiplicity of magazines, newspapers or periodicals throughout the world. This means that one could take 50 articles out of the December issue of Reader's Digest and relate them to 50 other articles in 50 different publications-not by Reader's Digest-anywhere in the world, and one would have to conclude, under this legislation, that in fact Reader's Digest, Canada, is producing a periodical which is substantially the same as something published elsewhere. In my view, that is an absolute absurdity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: It has been argued by some-with or without sufficient knowledge, I do not know-that this is not the intent of the legislation. If that is the case, then we should change the legislation to say what we mean and mean what we say, because anyone who knows anything about the British system of justice knows one simple point: the law stands or falls on its own feet and the disposition of the minister or of parliament itself means nothing in terms of the application of the law.
The law must be interpreted by its own words and in no other way. That means the wording of this particular clause of the bill is couched in such a way that in my view no court would have any choice in the matter but to conclude as I have concluded, that "substantially the same as" refers not to an individual publication but to a multiplicity of publications at any point in time. I say that that is not acceptable.
In the same way, a medical journal or any number of other journals could also be caught. Are we in effect saying that we, the Canadian people, have access to all the scientific knowledge in that area? Is it not appropriate that we allow Canadian magazines and publications to reprint articles from Russia which would be of scientific value to our doctors, or from Germany, Britain, the United States or elsewhere? If someone published a publication which was a compendium of all the excellent articles
(Mr. Cafik.)
which would be useful to those in the field of medicine, effectively it would be ruled that the edition which contained those articles was in fact substantially the same as the multiplicity of articles which had appeared anywhere in this country or anywhere in the world. I think that is a bad clause and it must be amended.


An hon. Member:: Or done away with.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Or done away with if it cannot be amended in order to correct it. Let us for a moment look specifically at another aspect of the Reader's Digest question. I think this aspect refers more specifically to Reader's Digest itself. I hold no brief for Reader's Digest as a corporation per se, except for one thing: I think it has been a good corporate citizen of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I do not think there is any doubt about that, and surely we ought at least to recognize that good corporate behaviour. Across our country we find many foreign-owned and controlled corporations which could learn a great deal from Reader's Digest with respect to the responsibility it has shown and the co-operation it has tried to give to the Parliament of Canada and to the laws of Canada to meet the regulations laid down a few years ago. It has complied with them without any difficulty.
According to statistics, Reader's Digest is a fairly significant employer in Canada. It employs 467 people directly in this country. About 1,000 people are indirectly employed on payrolls of other companies doing work for Reader's Digest. Their direct payroll is about $4 million per year; the indirect payroll is about $18 million. I hear from people from time to time who are concerned about employment, employment opportunities, and so on. Therefore I do not see why we should dismiss that argument in relation to this particular question because it does affect the livelihood of a considerable number of Canadian citizens. Many of these employees are illustrators, graphic specialists, control specialists, authors, writers, editors, and so on- the kind of people we are trying to protect with this legislation. I think we would be wiping out a great number of them if we were to close down Reader's Digest by some arbitrary action of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: In terms of straight capital investment, that magazine has invested over $8 million in plant and equipment. About $3 million of that is comprised of materials or machinery supplied to their suppliers in this country. I think this is quite important. In terms of the Reader's Digest English edition here in Canada, the Canadian content, which is composed of articles written by Canadians or about Canada, is now about 25 per cent of each of their magazine publications. That is a pretty significant amount, and I understand that that particular element will be increased to about 30 per cent in 1976 if the magazine is allowed to continue. Canadian content of this amount would match that of Canada's two leading consumer magazines, Maclean's and Chatelaine, put together. I do not think we should take advantage of Reader's Digest because of its willingness to do that kind of thing in this country.
June 4, 1975

The next point is that 70 per cent of its articles are reprints from other articles either at home or abroad. Only between 40 per cent and 45 per cent of those articles are about the U.S.A. or written by Americans, which means that 55 per cent to 60 per cent of all the articles appearing in the Canadian edition are either on Canadian or international subjects.
I think another point should be made. Reader's Digest is not a news magazine like Time. In my view it is a magazine which does not in a significant way direct itself to political or news issues but to issues which are people-to-people oriented. They are related to the uplifting of the spirit and perhaps the well-being of man by articles of good example and a whole series of things which in my view are quite wholesome. I see no objection to that, and it would not be in the interests of Canadians for any of us, or all of us collectively, to try to insulate ourselves culturally from that which takes place throughout the world, not in a news sense but in a very human sense. I think we ought to have that kind of opportunity, and any step by a government to limit our access to that kind of international flavour is not really in the best interests of ourselves as a nation or as a cultural people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: There are many arguments about nationalism which make a great deal of sense, but in terms of cultural or intellectual nationalism they are just a lot of nonsense. I do not accept the principle that because Aristotle was not born in Pickering, where I come from, I should not be reading his works or someone should not be publishing them. I think that intelligence, rational thinking, philosophy, music and art and that sort of thing do not have national boundaries: these are the common heritage of all mankind from wherever they might come.
I should like to consider Reader's Digest a little further, Mr. Speaker. On a monthly comparative basis, the Canadian edition of Reader's Digest would be approximately 40 per cent different from the American edition. That ought to take it around one of the provisions of the act but, as I pointed out earlier, it does not. There is a significant difference between the Canadian edition in a given month and the American edition in a given month, or in any of the 27 editions of Reader's Digest published around the world.
In excess of 50 per cent of the articles written by Canadians or about Canada which appear in the Reader's Digest appear in international editions of the Digest. I think that is very important because it provides an opportunity for Canadians to have a window on the world or for the world to look into Canada.
One sees articles in Reader's Digest about Toronto, Expo, Vancouver, or individuals. I think of one written by an hon. member of this House about a man in Vancouver, Ben Wosk, I found it very stimulating. I suppose I can use the name of the author rather than the name of the riding: Simma Holt has written for this magazine and some of her articles have appeared around the world. I see nothing objectionable in that; I think it is commendable.
Non-Canadian Publications
There is another aspect of the Reader's Digest question. It publishes two Canadian magazines, one in English and one in French. In terms of national unity and the development of our nation, I think that type of thing should be commended. Many publishers in this country who are applying pressure to have this legislation passed have not bothered to publish in both languages. I think this is something they ought to practice before they come to the Government of Canada seeking special dispensation from legitimate competition in this country.
When one speaks of competition it raises a question that I think a lot of Canadians do not understand. Some people seem to think that the present law gives preferential treatment to Reader's Digest, Time, Modern Medicine and a couple of other publications that is not available to Canadian publishers. As we all know, that is not true, but it is the impression that people have. They want to get rid of the special status of Time, Reader's Digest and the others. But that special status has no relationship to anybody who is publishing in Canada. As a matter of fact, they are treated in exactly the same way as anybody else who publishes in Canada, because Reader's Digest and the others publish under the conditions laid down for them a few years ago. I think it is important for people to understand that what this bill is trying to do is make sure that they do not have an opportunity to compete in a normal competitive way against Canadian publishers, with the same rules and regulations under which they operate.
The last point I want to make is primarily addressed to the committee that will consider this bill. I suggest they consider some amendments so that the bill does not have the adverse effect that I have mentioned. I think it is not inappropriate that we ask Reader's Digest, Time and these other publications to have a majority Canadian ownership. I think at the moment the ownership of Reader's Digest is 33 per cent Canadian, and I see no reason why we should not ask them to increase that to 50 per cent or 51 per cent. I think they could live up to that kind of commitment.
The committee should consider asking that we allow an exemption under certain conditions, one being that the firm be majority Canadian-controlled. If a publication is published by a Canadian corporation which is incorporated and registered under federal or provincial law, and is majority-controlled by Canadians, I think it is appropriate that such things as typesetting, plate-making, printing, circulation, advertising, and so on, be carried on in Canada. That should be made a condition for continuing to publish in this country, and they then should have the same tax advantages as any Canadian publisher.
The policies of such publishing corporations must be controlled from Canada, I believe, and I am sure that Reader's Digest could conform to this. Editorial direction should be Canadian, although there is one problem here in relation to the copyright law. In light of the fact that Reader's Digest is largely a reprint operation, we should make sure that they are allowed to conform to the copyright law in order to protect the authors. At the present time there is a licensing arrangement which is a violation of one of the provisions of the bill before us, and I think we should make sure that the publications are allowed to conform to the normal copyright laws.

June 4, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
In summary, Madam Speaker, I believe that Reader's Digest has been a good corporate citizen and a good employer. They have a great deal of Canadian content and are involved in a unique type of publishing, an almost exclusively reprint operation. They could not, therefore, conform to this regulation as it stands, and I believe that should be taken into account. I believe we can impose stricter controls; we can impose ownership requirements, but we must not take the negative step of imposing cultural controls which would deny Canadians access to international information, access to genuine human stories from around the world, in the name of Canadianism. If there is one kind of Canadianism that appeals to me more than another, it is to be found in our heritage, our diversity, our ethnic background. I allude to those things which make up the Canadian spirit. I do not think we will fortify that spirit if we look inward. Rather, let us develop a healthy attitude to things of the mind and spirit, and these are international in character.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Madam Speaker, being aware of how things are done in the House of Commons and of complaints about the poor quality of debate in this House, I am particularly pleased to participate this afternoon in the debate on the bill before the House. Although Canadians are sometimes under the impression that the standard of debate in this chamber is not high, let me say that speeches made this afternoon should correct that impression. They have made clear what Canadians are, who they are and why this country is unique.
I am impressed by the speeches which have been made today, impressed by speeches my colleagues have made, impressed by the earlier contribution of the Social Credit member, and particularly impressed by the speeches of the two Liberal members who spoke this afternoon. I am particularly impressed by their contribution because I know how difficult it is for government supporters, who are expected to support measures brought forward by their party, to differ from their party. At times it is difficult for Liberal supporters to be as honest and forthright as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) were this afternoon. That members who are under special constraint should stand up and speak their minds, as those two hon. members did this afternoon, speaks well for parliament. They both deserve the commendation of this House for what they said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: We must thank the government for bringing forward a bill which allows members to speak in this forum about Canada, about what it means to us and how we are to make it a better place in which to live. When you talk about publications and support for the arts, you are talking about culture. Surely our Canadian culture makes us unique, makes us different from those with whom we share the North American continent: it is our culture which makes us different as a people, which makes each and every one of us proud to be Canadian.

If the constituents of the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway and the hon. member for Ontario had been in the House to hear their elected representatives, they would have been proud of them. No doubt the people in those two constituencies feel much the same as the people in my constituency do on this subject. I can judge my constituents' feelings by the letters they send me. This debate is also good for parliament. It is good to hear members of parliament discussing in a reasoned, realistic, unemotional way something as important to Canadians as this bill, especially, when our credibility has been stretched almost as far as it will go.
About six million Canadians read Reader's Digest. That fact alone shows how many people in this country this piece of legislation will affect. This bill, if passed, will endanger the present form of Reader's Digest. I, and many who have participated in this debate or will participate, consider this legislation as a danger to the future of Reader's Digest. We say that Reader's Digest has been a good corporate citizen of Canada since 1943 when it first began its existence in this country. DUring its existence it has tried to improve its image and become a better corporate citizen. This bill endangers its life, which should concern not only its readers but its contributors. For example, if it were solely a Canadian magazine, contributors might expect a fee between $300 and $400; but when they contribute to an international publication with an international readership, they can expect a fee four or five times greater.
Already a substantial proportion of the Reader's Digest sold in this country is Canadian content. Considering the numbers who subscribe to and read the magazine, it touches the lives of more Canadians every month than any other magazine, and, touches them in a wholesome way. Reader's Digest is not a sensational magazine; it has not built its reputation on sensationalism but on good, factual reporting and on good writing, which is a worth-while addition to the literature of Canada and the culture of the world.
I shall repeat a number of points already made four or five times by previous participants in the debate. Some things need to be said again and again so that Canadians who read Hansard and government members who read Hansard will know the effects of the proposed legislation. Let me quote from "Facts about the Digest's status in Canada," an article which appeared in May, 1975. It says, among other things:
The effect of section 19(2) has been to put the Digest on exactly the same footing as other publications in Canada by allowing companies that advertise with us to deduct the cost of their advertising on the same basis as any other business expense when computing income taxes. The Digest pays corporate income tax at the same rate as other companies; it has no tax advantages that other magazines printed and published in Canada do not have.
Further on, the article says that if section 19(2) is rescinded-
-it will not remove "special tax privileges" since they do not exist. Instead it will create special penalties which apply to no other Digest edition in the world.
We must consider the last point seriously. Let me put on record some other facts concerning Reader's Digest. Its economic contribution to Canada is significant. It does $30 million worth of business annually in Canada. At least 90
June 4, 1975

per cent of every revenue dollar stays in Canada. It employs directly, in its Canadian operation, between 460 and 490 people and provides employment for 1,000 others through suppliers. I could go on and on. The point is that ever since 1943 the magazine here has made a positive contribution to this country. It has become a good Canadian corporate citizen. The Reader's Digest Association of Canada says in a news release:
We are proud of the fact that:
-five out of a board of six Digest directors are Canadian -all of the officers of the company are Canadian citizens -all 500 of our employees are permanent residents of Canada and the company gives work indirectly to at least 1,000 other Canadians -our two magazines are fully edited in Canada for Canadians -we employ some 80 editors, graphic and production staff on our books and magazines
-both magazines have substantial Canadian content, amounting to an annual average of 24 per cent English and almost 15 per cent French
-almost 80 Canadian freelance writers, researchers and artists look to our books and magazines as a market for their work ...
We have respected Canadians' expressed wishes in many ways. One has been to make some 32 per cent of our common stock available to Canadians through a public issue, the only Digest company in the world to do so. Shareholders, of course, bought their stock with the understanding that the company's operations were not under any threat. At the time the stock was issued, we had that assurance from the government.
Surely we are not going to break a commitment we gave this company when they endeavoured to release their stock so that Canadians could purchase it. However, that could well be the effect of this legislation if it is passed in its present form. I again quote:
Despite our record of good Canadian corporate citizenship, we apparently have been tried by the government and found wanting. Surely we can expect to be told what further standards we should meet, with at least a fair opportunity to meet them.
As the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) pointed out, when this bill is before the committee it should be given a fair opportunity to meet whatever conditions are possible to allow the company to remain in existence as a Canadian entity with a Canadian edition in both English and French. It is not only important that we give our point of view and that of Reader's Digest. We should also put on record what some of our constituents have said to us regarding this legislation. It has been suggested that because Reader's Digest wrote their subscribers and asked them to write their members of parliament to make them aware of their personal views about the magazine, this was unfair and should not have been done because it was an endeavour to promote the writing of letters to members of parliament.
Quite often I write my constituents asking their views about various things happening in this country. I only wish that on every occasion I write my constituents I could get a response as overwhelming as was the case with my constituents writing about Reader's Digest. I would be very impressed if on some other proposition my constituents wrote in the same way they have written to me about Reader's Digest. If the subscribers had not been written to by Reader's Digest, many of them would not appreciate how dangerous the situation is, as far as the magazine's
Message from the Senate
existence is concerned, if this legislation is passed in its present form.
I wish to put on record what some of my constituents have written to me. I will not take up too much time of the House. I have some very bright constituents, not just because they have elected me on eight separate occasions but because they produced the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) whom I consider to be the finest man in this nation at the present time, from the leadership point of view. This is what some of my constituents have written to me:
We have always felt that the Reader's Digest has had the interests of Canada at heart, has been fair and conservative and a bastion against communism.
For the past 42 years I have been a subscriber to the Digest and it is like a friend who keeps me in touch ...
I am writing on behalf of the magazine that I have taken and read for over 30 years.
We really enjoy this book.
I always look forward to the Reader's Digest: I think it should be left alone.
I, too, think it should be left alone.
This is to voice a protest, as loudly and clearly as I can, the government's announced intention that threatens to deny me the enjoyment, relaxation and education which the Reader's Digest has provided me over a period of many, many years.
If I lose it, I'll be losing a friend.
To a great many Canadians, that is exactly what will happen. I believe the Canadian people want parliament to guarantee that Reader's Digest will be allowed to continue to exist in this nation. They want us to do that in no uncertain terms. Maybe we will have to go down the road a way to find the right set of rules and regulations to govern publications in this nation. Personally, I am not happy about any kind of censorship, and that is what will occur in one way or another: by way of legislation we are determining what people may or may not have a right to read.
I believe there has to be a spirit of compromise on the part of this parliament and the committee that considers this legislation. Amendments will have to be accepted before this legislation is credible. I sincerely hope that all members will look at the legislation, especially with regard to Reader's Digest, with this thought in mind: we must be careful not to endanger a Canadian magazine that, as far as I am concerned, is as Canadian as any magazine in this nation. It provides tremendous enjoyment to at least six million people in this country. If that were to happen, it would be a very serious loss. It is something for which parliament will not be forgiven if we act in the wrong way as far as Reader's Digest is concerned.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-32, an act to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to

June 4, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade, with amendments, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


INCOME TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Madam Speaker, may I preface my remarks by supporting the sentiments expressed by my colleague, the hon. member for Cumber-land-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), when he discussed the quality of the debate and those who have participated in it. I, too, wish to compliment those who have spoken. In particular, I wish to direct my compliments to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik).
I will be completely frank with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I was somewhat affronted when she referred in her opening remarks to a filibuster. I say to you, Madam Speaker, that when we as members are recipients of an outpouring of genuine emotion from our constituents, a concern which is not prompted by bigotry or anything else of that kind, and when in consequence we participate in debate at some length, I do not like to think that this falls within the category of a filibuster. Possibly the hon. lady did not intend it that way, and I do not accept that we were filibustering.
This legislation, Bill C-58, will apparently have the effect of preventing Time, Reader's Digest and other lesser known magazines from publishing Canadian editions. I know the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and other government spokesmen have said this is not the effect of the measure. In a technical and legal sense they may be right. However, I prefer to look at the practical rather that the legal or technical results which will flow from this proposal. I have concluded, as I have said, that the result will be the loss of the Canadian editions of Time and Reader's Digest. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I oppose the bill and will vote against it on second reading as will, I am sure, many other members.
I wish to say at the outset that I am among those who could have been persuaded to support sending this legislation to the standing committee for detailed examination if I had found or if I had been convinced that this new law was necessary, or even desirable, to support certain principles. Again, I would have done so, if there had been more evidence of flexibility on the part of the minister in following a course which in my view is certain prevent the publication of these Canadian editions.
(The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).)
For example, I believe in and would support reasonable measures which would develop and nurture a distinct Canadian culture and identity. I believe in the principle that we should strive for a tax policy regarding periodicals which applies equally to all. Again, I support the principle that the benefits of Canadian advertising revenue should, generally speaking, go to Canadian media. In this area I would add one word of caution, however. I would not want to be a party to legislation which would discourage Canadian industry altogether from advertising in foreign or foreign-owned periodicals, since I can conceive of situations in which advertising in such periodicals might be the only way in which Canadians could reach the audience they needed-in developing new export markets, for example. In general, though, I believe most members support the principle that Canadian tax law should provide an incentive to Canadian business to spend its advertising dollars in Canadian media.
I said a few moments ago that I would not support this legislation. The basis of my disagreement with the Secretary of State concerns the tests or standards imposed to determine whether magazines such as Time and Reader's Digest qualify to receive the benefits of such incentives. I wish to discuss these tests and standards a little later, but before I do so, and while I am discussing principles, I believe it is only fair to state my opposition to other principles inherent in this legislation.
First, I reject the notion that I must be anti-American in order to be pro-Canadian. I reject the principle that we must punish Americans in order to encourage Canadians. Any bill which is penal or negative in its very nature, such as the one before us, must be subjected to the closest scrutiny. I reject the principle that we should enact this piece of legislation in the abstract without knowing in some detail the nature of the government's over-all publications policy for Canada. All we have to date are some vague hints of what is to come: the use of Canada Council grants, financial assistance for a national distribution service for Canadian periodicals, possible increased advertising spending by government, and so on. This is not good enough; it is too vague and uncertain.
I reject the principle that officials of the Department of National Revenue are best suited to judge what is Canadian content and what is not. I am not prepared to go so far as to say that our tax department would become censors under Bill C-58, but there have been suggestions to this effect from responsible individuals and groups, and considering the source of these suggestions I believe we should be wary of the legislation before us.
Finally, I reject the proposition that in order to guarantee the publication of a Canadian news magazine we must eliminate the Canadian edition of Time and that to guarantee the publication of a Canadian news magazine we must eliminate the Canadian edition of Time and that to accomplish the latter we must throw Reader's Digest, out of the country as well. I have not reached the stage of accusing the minister of this yet The minister seems obsessed, or at least preoccupied, with attending at the birth of a Canadian news magazine or, more properly, of at least two such magazines for it is evident to me that he expects Maclean-Hunter will publish one; and certainly whoever purchases Time Canada's mailing list, at what-
June 4, 1975

ever astronomical cost, would publish a second. I need only refer to some of the speeches made recently by the Secretary of State. On January 24, speaking at Trent University, he said:
Discussions I have had with several people in the magazine industry have led me to believe that if the intent and purpose of section 19 were restored, a Canadian news magazine would follow. I now expect that to happen.
On the previous day, in a statement on motions the minister said:
It is my hope and expectation that this decision of the government will result in the creation of a Canadian news magazine.
At an address given at White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, the hon. gentleman declared:
No Canadian news weekly could even be born, let alone live, in the face of that kind of overwhelming occupation by a magazine which is produced almost free as far as the Canadian market is concerned.
I would not argue that a Canadian news magazine is not a good thing: it would likely make a significant addition to Canadian literature. I am not yet prepared to say that two Canadian news magazines are twice as good as one. What I do question is the use of tax legislation to accomplish this purpose. I also question the integrity of suppressing two existing periodicals, Time and Reader's Digest, to accomplish this purpose.
I spoke earlier of examining the tests or standards by which it can be judged whether Time and Reader's Digest are entitled to continue to enjoy the benefits or incentives afforded Canadian publications. The minister himself has given us some assistance as to which factors to consider in judging whether a periodical is Canadian or not. In an article submitted to Canadian Weekly Newspapers on March 26, 1975, the minister had this to say:
Criteria were established whose purpose was to ensure that only Canadian magazines and newspapers could benefit from special tax advantages allowed to advertizers who use them to publicize their products. The criteria relate to ownership, management, editorial control, printing, typesetting and possible conditions of licensing.
Some of these criteria are, in my opinion, quite acceptable but others do not go far enough in their emphasis on Canadianization. With respect to ownership, the government talks about a figure of 75 per cent. This is simply an arbitrary figure, I suppose-there is no magic in it. I suggest to the Secretary of State that there are other tests of ownership even within the Income Tax Act, and I would be pleased to take part in a discussion of this aspect should the bill reach committee state.
With respect to management, I support substantial control by Canadians at board of director level, though here again I should have thought the measure would have gone further and talked about executive management, not just the members of the board, and required that all of them be resident in Canada. That is the kind of thing I support. General statements about management being Canadian are not sufficient.
Again, I support editorial control but I think it is a great deal more important to support editorial freedom. I am amazed that the Secretary of State has not taken it upon himself to emphasize the independence of editing rather than just the fact that it is Canadian controlled.
Non-Canadian Publications
The minister talked about printing and typesetting as tests 4 and 5, and this is one area in which I suggest the minister has not gone nearly far enough. Printing and typesetting are two of a number of production functions. What about other production functions in the publishing industry and, what is more important, what about other business functions of the typical commercial enterprise? I think immediately of a circulation department, a payroll department, a bookkeeping department and an advertising department. I am sure there are many others. Surely it is as important to Canadianize these as it is the two small operations of the production department.
In respect of conditions of licencing, which was the final criterion, I have no comment and claim no expertise whatsoever in this area. There is no indication of some other factors which I regard as equally important. I refer to those aspects of editing and publishing which should be independently Canadian as well, devoted to encouragement, not censorship of Canadian content, particularly the export of Canadian content to foreign countries as Reader's Digest is so ideally able to do. Let me now say a word about Reader's Digest. The Secretary of State and, indeed, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and others have noted the need for a tax policy regarding periodicals which applies equally to all. This is a desirable aim, as I have said before, but in establishing such a uniform policy we must first set standards by which it can be decided who will qualify.
These standards should, I submit, not be so rigid as to exclude categorically publications which have been published here in good faith, which have acted as good corporate citizens and which have hitherto met all standards and guidelines laid down by previous governments. One standard that should be applied is the extent of the corporation's economic and cultural contributions to our country; in short, its worthiness to be considered or to become a full-fledged Canadian citizen.
Of those publications affected, may I join others who have said that it is clear that Reader's Digest has advanced furthest along the road to Canadian citizenship, whether the criterion is employment, whether it is public ownership, whether it is Canadian control and direction, whether it is the dollar contribution to the Canadian economy or whether it is the content of the magazine itself.
Other speakers have discussed the economic benefits that accrue to Canada through the Reader's Digest Canadian business. I do not minimize this in any way, but I should like to spend a few minutes dealing with the cultural and content aspects. This magazine is essentially a selection of articles from a variety of published and other sources on subjects of wide interest to many people. The articles are acknowledged to be accurate, professionally edited and condensed to a point where they are highly readable, designed so that they will appeal to exceptionally large and diverse audiences and so they will stand the test of time.
These articles, many of them of a consumer or factual nature, others reflecting a variety of viewpoints, do not and cannot represent a unified editorial policy. Nor do they represent news. It is hard to see how such articles, many of them designed to help people with the problems they encounter in their everyday lives or to provide infor-

June 4, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
mation on subjects as diverse as the pyramids and the Stanley Cup, can be regarded as harmful to Canadian culture. Moreover, the evidence shows that the Digest is making an actual contribution to the dissemination of information about Canadian affairs, accomplishments and ideas. First, it condenses and republishes articles from Canadian magazines and books, helping to give these articles and their authors a wider audience in Canada. Second, it publishes many Canadian authors of note and many lesser known writers who are making their debut in magazine journalism in this country. Both its fee scales and its reputation with the writers themselves seems to be high. I am reminded here of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway this afternoon.
Let us consider a few of the people who have written for or been published in the Digest: they include Pierre Berton, Senator David Croll, Morley Callaghan, W. Earle McLaughlin, John W. Holmes, Norman Ward, Trent Frayne, Farley Mowat, June Callwood, Stephen Leacock, Bruce Hutchison and Hugh McLennan.
Third, the majority of these articles are circulated to other Digest editions and many subsequently appear in these 26 editions in as many as 13 languages. The example given by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was excellent. The article written by former Prime Minister Lester Pearson about his United Nations colleague, Ralph Bunche, appeared in 16 foreign editions of the Digest and was read by almost 100 million people. No other Canadian communications medium, except perhaps the CBC or the National Film Board, could deliver such a worldwide audience for Canadian matters. If the government had to buy advertising space equivalent to that provided by the Digest for its articles on Expo '67, I am informed it would have cost more than $6 million.
There is a fourth and lesser known cultural benefit from the Digest magazine activities, which is that the Canadian editions of the Digest serve not only Canada but also the English and French-speaking peoples of the Caribbean and a spill-over French-speaking audience in the United States. Any decision taken by this House, therefore, directly or indirectly affects readers in these countries and the Canadian material included in their editions.
Finally, there is a cultural benefit from the book publications of the Digest. In the last six years the Digest has published such highly praised books as "The Canadians at War", "Canada-This Land", "These People", "In Search of Canada", "You and the Law", and "Explore Canada", the latter being an illustrated travel book describing 1,200 places and communites throughout Canada, published in collaboration with the Canadian Automobile Association.
In sum, these activities add up to substantial value for Canadian cultural enrichment which, I would argue, should be encouraged rather than restricted. It is interesting to note that the standard applied by the foreign ownership review board in assessing what foreign investments are in the national interest is whether the investment is of "significant benefit" to Canada. If this were one of the qualifications for Canadian advertising status established in section 19 of the Income Tax Act, I submit to this House the Digest would pass with flying colours.
Finally, I should like to deal with one other aspect of the legislation which causes me more concern than any other

single factor. It has also been touched upon by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and others. Indeed, I thought it was touched upon in principle in a very fair manner by the hon. member for Ontario. This is the sensitive question of government regulation of content. The Secretary of State has said there was no intention of introducing a new Canadian content rule or formula for deciding how substantially different a magazine published in Canada must be from one published abroad in order to qualify for section 19. Such a criterion, he said, has been in the act since 1965.
This is true, and I do not question the Secretary of State's desire to stay away from any measure that might smack of government control. But to my knowledge this criterion or clause has not been applied to any major magazine in the ten years since the act was passed. There has, in fact, been no reason to apply'it since all the major Canadian magazines concerned already qualify under the act. Now, however, a very different situation prevails. Two major magazines and a number of smaller publications, including some newspapers, may lose their status under the act. Suddenly this clause, in my opinion, takes on new importance.
It is clear that this clause disturbs not only members of this House but a great many other people. The Toronto Globe and Mail has repeated several times that such a clause is unacceptable to Canadians. In the May 10 editorial, for example, it was stated:
Ottawa has a right to define, for income tax purposes, Canadian ownership of a publication, down to the last share if it likes. But once a publication has qualified as Canadian-owned, there the government's power should end, apart from enforcement of laws against libel, breach of copyright and obscenity ... If no "editorial interference" is to have any meaning it must mean that the editor is free to put whatever he likes between his magazine covers, subject to no restraints or directions of any kind from the government, that no magazine can be ruled un-Canadian because the government finds its contents unsatisfactory.
In the Financial Times of Canada, and I hesitate to quote from that because the minister takes great umbrage about whatever it might have to say, we find this comment in the May 12 publication:
In practice, virtually no publication could have "Canadian" tax status without carrying mostly Canadian content, unless it could afford the astronomical cost of commissioning a lot of foreign material for its exclusive use. And the rest of Mr. Faulkner's speech indicates that is just what he is after. He wants, among other things, to make it harder for "the world view of Canadian readers" to be "influenced by American periodicals." No censor could have put it better.
These are harsh words. But they have been echoed in a dozen or more newspapers across Canada in recent months, from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald to the Montreal he Devoir and the Calgary Albertan. We cannot, we must not, ignore such comment for it concerns one of the very fundamentals on which this nation's press is based.
I have read many articles, editorials and speeches which deal with the "substantially the same" clause. Regardless of what the Secretary of State has said, surely we must acknowledge that this is a content test, and he who knows it best in the world is the Minister of National Revenue. He knows that if a publication is 80 per cent different there is no problem. He knows, as well, that if it is less than 60 per cent different from its United States counter-

part it will fail to qualify under the act. The Minister of National Revenue knows, finally, that if it is between 60 per cent and 80 per cent different his tax department people will have to examine it very carefully.
I submit that the tax collectors of our country have many other things to do than measure the content of our periodicals. I was interested to hear the hon. member for Ontario agree today that substantially the same clause, in his interpretation of the way it is contained in this legislation, would apply the Canadian edition against all other foreign editions. If I chose to disagree with him, as I believe the Secretary of State disagrees, I would not say we must match the Canadian edition against its United States counterpart. I cannot accept that clause as having any basis whatsoever. I suggest that the servants in our tax departments are not editors or censors, if one prefers to use that name, by their very nature, background, inclination or expertise.
The Secretary of State says this is not a content test. I do not agree. I suggest the Minister of National Revenue does not agree either. I suggest the Minister of National Revenue is very well aware of a decision in our courts in respect of a test concerning words that are very similar. As a matter of fact, if I recall the words correctly, they were "substantially different", which is just the reverse of "substantially the same." I am informed that the conclusion from that particular judicial decision is simply that if it is 80 per cent it is substantially different, and if it is less than 60 per cent it is not substantially different. If it is between 60 per cent and 80 per cent, then one should have a hard look at it. I do not wish to be a party to asking our tax collectors in respect of about 28 publications to see whether they fall below the 60 per cent mark. I think that is an absolutely ridiculous exercise in futility and has nothing to do with the enhancement or preservation of Canada culture.
This test leads to the opportunity of ridiculous editorial decisions. For example, if I were the editor of Reader's Digest I would run three or four stories on the 1976 Olympics in the March, 1976, Canadian edition and let the same stories run a month or two later in other editions around the world. Surely this does nothing for Canadian culture or Canadian content. Those stories should run simultaneously in 26 editions of Reader's Digest around the world to encourage those readers to come to Canada. I want them to read these articles at a time when they are planning their holidays for 1976. For an editor to have to go through this exercise of holding back stories from editions so that he can escape the 60 per cent or 80 per cent Canadian content test is simply ridiculous. I do not think any party in this House would support that.
The hon. member for Ontario suggested that this provision could be amended in committee. I am not that optimistic. One of the main reasons I shall vote against this bill on second reading is I do not believe this test is capable of being amended. The only thing that should happen to it, in my opinion, is that it be deleted. I do not think the Secretary of State and the Minister of National Revenue know just what is meant by "substantially the same".
To sum up, I suggest that two considerations should be uppermost in our concerns when examining this bill. First,
Non-Canadian Publications
we should consider whether the publications affected by it have proved themselves of significant cultural and economic benefit to Canada, and whether it is just a consequence of the bill that the ground rules under which they operate are changed; changed, moreover, in such a way that they are classed overnight in the same category as foreign publications who have made no attempt nor shown any desire to serve the Canadian purpose. Second, we should be clear in our minds that no Canadian government and no Canadian law should even hint at control or interference in editorial content. The "substantially the same" clause which contains this implied threat should be deleted from the act.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, even though it would appear that everything has been said that can be said about this shabby attack on the Canadian edition of Reader's Digest, I feel that I should make some comments on this bill. I am still getting letters from constituents, all of which support Reader's Digest, and I must say that some of the writers have some most uncomplimentary remarks to make about the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner). I am sure the minister has been getting letters from his own constituents, and I know he has been getting letters on the subject from most other ridings as well.
Looking over some of the speeches that were made in 1965 when the government of that time brought in the bill to give Reader's Digest and Time magazine status as Canadian publications, I find that Liberal governments can be pretty inconsistent-not that that is any secret. Member after member on the Liberal side of the House, and some ministers as well, stood in this House and defended the government's move to exempt Reader's Digest and Time from the bill that removed the special tax status enjoyed up to that time by foreign magazines published in Canada.
At that time Reader's Digest and Time were called good Canadian corporate citizens. In the ten years since then, both magazines have become even better Canadian corporate citizens, especially Reader's Digest. It has been stated over and over again that Reader's Digest has an enormous payroll, something in the order of $4 million or $5 million per year, and that the magazine has about 500 Canadians on its payroll. What has not been said, and I have been waiting for the Secretary of State to tell us, is who is going to hire all those writers, editors and artists who will be put out of jobs if this bill is approved by this House.
It is no good saying that Maclean's, Saturday Night or any of the other Canadian publications will hire them. Saturday Night is on the verge of going under again, and right now that magazine is being held together with public subscriptions and donations. Saturday Night might be putting even more writers and editors on the labour market, rather than hiring those displaced by the scuttling of Reader's Digest.
I think it is interesting to note that on June 15, 1965, as recorded at page 2429 of Hansard, Mr. Steven Otto said that Maclean's, Saturday Night and the Star Weekly magazines were in serious financial difficulties. According to some comments that have been made in debate on this bill,

June 4, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
it seems that nothing has changed, in spite of the fact that the tax bill in 1965 was supposed to make everything rosy for those magazines. It was pointed out at that time, and it has been pointed out in recent debates, that freezing out all the quality publications in Canada will not ensure the financial health of any of the publications that will be left. I think Canadians know what they want to read, and I think Canadian advertisers know where they want to advertise.
It is also interesting to note that back in 1965 the government was deluged with letters and telegrams from publishers of Canadian newspapers and other publications, objecting to the government's bill to remove the tax exempt status on advertising on all except Canadian-owned publications. They considered it unwarranted interference by the government into the realm of free enterprise and of freedom of speech and the press. Again I have to say that nothing has changed. The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) was active in the debate on the tax bill in 1965 and I think that one of his comments at that time is worth repeating. In Hansard of June 17, 1965, the hon. member said, and I quote from page 2550 of Hansard of that date:
No one in his right mind would bring this kind of legislation before the House unless he had an ulterior motive.
I have to agree with that assessment, Mr. Speaker. We have been waiting throughout the debate on this bill for the Secretary of State to tell us just why he brought in a bill to reverse a decision of a previous Liberal government respecting Time and Reader's Digest. Many of us on this side of the House, and some members of the minister's own party, cannot help wondering if it is simply a move to get revenge for some real or imagined slight. I know that the minister has been accused by some segments of the press of being a do-nothing minister, but this is certainly not the way to prove them wrong. The real victims will be those who want to continue to read the English and French editions of Reader's Digest and those people who now work for Time and Reader's Digest. With the permission of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North I would like to read another of his comments into the record from Hansard of June 17, 1965. The hon. member closed his remarks by saying:
Smarten up; take this legislation off the order paper, and let us get on with the business of the country.
Madam Speaker, many of the other speakers here this afternoon voiced their opinions as well as the opinions of the ordinary constituents who have written them. I have received many interesting letters from people residing in the great riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. I should like to read one letter from an elderly widow who writes regarding Reader's Digest. It reads:
I believe the time of parliamentarians and our money could be better spent by encouraging Canadian publishers to look for Canadian writers to create text books for all the grades in our school system.
It is beyond belief that any government would be sniping at a magazine of the high quality and excellent content as is the Canadian edition of the Reader's Digest. Published in Canada with many Canadian employees, do leave the content to the editors who are doing a superb job. Ignorance of other parts of our world is not bliss but a
danger. One has only to look at the results of the long years of suppression of good and wide scope of educational material in the province of Quebec to be appalled at the possibility of so good a magazine as the Reader's Digest being put out of business in Canada.
That was from a lady in my own village of Burks Falls. A teacher from Gravenhurst writes:
To the degree that you can fight this measure to throttle the Reader's Digest's availability in Canada you will be expressing my opinion.
I wrote the Secretary of State and included many excerpts from these letters because I could not begin to combine them all, but certainly some of them bear repeating and I think will be well worth reading in Hansard. Here are few of them. One person wrote:
Maybe one day when there is a Canadian publication that can favourably compete with this magazine, there will no longer be a need
for Reader's Digest.
Another wrote:
We think it is the best and most reading'in it of any magazine that comes to our house.
Another wrote:
I first became an ardent reader of this fine magazine when I was a soldier overseas in World War II and have received it monthly ever since and never would like to see the day when Reader's Digest is no longer available in our home.
Another constituent wrote:
It is a way of life-one of the few decent, sound publications left in existence.
Then:
It has been in our home for over 30 years; without it I would feel I had lost a friend.
Another reader wrote:
None of the "slush and dirt" you read in so many of the magazines today.
Another wrote:
I don't see much chance of another being produced to its equal, so I'll just quit buying magazines.
Then I received this letter:
Invaluable to the busy Canadian. Also clean.
Another wrote:
Why the government would be taking any kind of action to take this material out of our homes is beyond my understanding.
Madam Speaker, I do not know how many of the letters that I have received keep repeating that it is good, clean reading. One reader wrote:
Hopefully, you could rid us of other trash instead.
Another reader wrote:
We Canadians in Canada would be poorer in consequence.
And another:
An influence for good in Canada.
An old age pensioner wrote:
I am a pensioner and Reader's Digest and their books are the only ones I can afford.
Madam Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 5, 1975