1976-02-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The failure of an air search to locate two lost seal hunters off the northeast coast of Newfoundland, the second failure in a month, prompts the vital necessity to consider a redeployment of the air-sea rescue forces. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the task force report on Canada's national search and rescue policy, recently completed, be referred immediately to a combined committee of members of the Transport and Communications, External Affairs and National Defence and Fisheries and Forestry committees, to review the report in order to recommend to cabinet action of the highest priority, the redeployment of air-sea rescue forces and lifeboat bases in the Atlantic region.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD PROPOSAL TO COMPLIMENT GOVERNMENT ON APPOINTMENT OF MR. LASBY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity arises from the importance of dealing with escalating food prices as part of the government's anti-inflation program. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House compliments the government on its wise, impartial and imaginative decision to appoint Mr. W. W. Lasby as director of the food and agricultural division concerned with prices and profits in the Anti-Inflation Board since, as the former vice-president of Canada Packers and past president of the Meat Packers Council of Canada, he is obviously a man who knows what price rigging is all about.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion concerning an urgent and important matter.
Since the income of industrial milk producers is decreasing following the changes in the milk production policy of the federal government and because of the excessive imports of milk products, since the federal government, in its fight against inflation, recognizes that other groups in society need an income increase, and since it should do the same as regards industrial milk producers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the House recommend to the Minister of Agriculture that he revise his milk policy so that the support price of industrial milk be increased in the same proportion as production quotas are being reduced, to guarantee a fair increase in income to those producers, and that the government consider resuming the distribution of milk in schools, on the one hand, and on the other, in underdeveloped countries, through CIDA.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.
2 1 130-5 81/2

February 9, 1976
Distinguished Visitors
[DOT] (M10)



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I wish to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In fairness to hon. members, I should indicate that I have taken the advice of and consulted with my hon. friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House views with concern and anxiety the continuation of armed conflict in Angola and deplores the military involvement of foreign powers in that country. Further, that this House urges the withdrawal from Angola of all foreign combatants and military technicians engaged in the warfare, calls for the cessation of arms shipments to all fighting forces and urges the three major Angola political groups-the MPLA, FNLA and UNITA to desist from armed combat and proceed toward a mutually agreed-upon peace settlement. Finally, that the government be requested to convey these sentiments of this House to the Secretary General of the United Nations.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the terms of Standing Order 43, such a motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) moves:
That this House views with concern and anxiety the continuation of armed conflict in Angola and deplores the military involvement of foreign powers in that country. Further, that this House urges the withdrawal from Angola of all foreign combatants and military technicians engaged in the warfare, calls for the cessation of arms shipments to all fighting forces and urges the three major Angola political groups-the MPLA, FNLA, and UNITA to desist from armed combat and proceed toward a mutually agreed-upon peace settlement. Finally that the government be requested to convey these sentiments of this House to the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with the calling of oral questions today, I know that all hon. members will want to join with me in calling attention to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished delegation that is visiting us and join with me in extending the warmest possible welcome in reciprocation of the welcome they extended to a Canadian delegation in their country approximately one year ago. I refer to a delegation from the Mexican congress headed by the very distinguished leader, Dr. Olivares.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The co-leader of the Mexican delegation is Jimenez Morales.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister who, I am sure, will be fully familiar with the problems involved in view of their importance. Apparently the Minister of Labour met last Thursday with the negotiators involved in the railway dispute and apparently the negotiations have broken down. Can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House what action the government is going to take? In particular, would he tell us whether the government has clarified its position as to what constitutes the maximum permissible offer under the guidelines?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Acting Minister of Labour):: Perhaps I might reply to that question, in the absence of the Minister of Labour. I did have an opportunity to discuss this very point with the minister and he is at the moment considering whether to name an industrial commissioner or a conciliation board. I believe he will come to a firm conclusion in the course of the next few days.


THREATENED STRIKE OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES-POSSIBLE CONSULTATION WITH ANTI-INFLATION BOARD ON PERMISSIBLE WAGE INCREASE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary relating to the second part of my question, which becomes even more pertinent in view of the complaint by the commissioner dealing with an industrial inquiry in British Columbia into the supermarket dispute, having to do with the ambiguity of the guidelines which causes confusion and delay in analyzing the dispute. May I ask the Acting Minister of Labour whether the government proposes to clarify the parameters of the negotiations in order to avoid serious industrial disputes unnecessarily paralyzing the economy of the country.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This is a valid question, Mr. Speaker. I would imagine this is the first thing an industrial commissioner would want to do in his own capacity. I do not believe we should encourage the government to dictate to the Anti-Inflation Board or ask the Anti-Inflation Board to clarify certain things which are more ambiguous to some provincial commissioners than to others. But I do believe that an industrial inquiry commission, or chairman of the board, once it is set
February 9, 1976

up, would want these areas to be clarified before negotiations continued.


THREATENED STRIKE OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES- GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ESSENTIALITY OF RAIL SERVICE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: take it from what the Acting Minister of Labour says that, as the government sees it, the Anti-Inflation Board would respond to such an inquiry from the industrial commissioner and would indicate to him the parameters within which he could work. Has the government indicated to the negotiators in the dispute what the position of the government is with regard to the possibility of a railway dispute leading to a strike? Has the government taken a position with regard to the essentiality of rail service and, if so, has it indicated that position to those involved in this dispute?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: So
far, the position of the government is that the dispute is between the employer, C.N. Railways, and the employees represented by various unions. It is not the government's intention or prerogative at this moment to interfere with the collective bargaining process. As to my reference to the Anti-Inflation Board, I think the hon. gentleman has read too much into it. It is entirely up to the Anti-Inflation Board to pass judgment on a collective agreement, once signed, and this should be the traditional position, I think, unless we want the Anti-Inflation Board unintentionally to assume the role of arbitrator in all disputes before collective bargaining has had an opportunity to function.


POSSIBLE STUDY BY LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL OF ROLE OF ANTI-INFLATION BOARD IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Having regard to the fact that this is exactly what has happened in terms of the Anti-Inflation Board, could the minister inform the House whether or not the Canada Labour Relations Council is studying this matter specifically, and, if so, what studies are being undertaken by that Council?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If that is what is happening-and I do not agree that it is-I do not suppose the hon. gentleman would suggest that we encourage it further by asking the Board to interfere in the railway dispute before a strike occurs or before a settlement is arrived at through the collective bargaining process. As far as the Labour Relations Council is concerned, the hon. member will realize that this is an advisory body concerned with government policy in general rather than any particular dispute.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the Woods report of 1968, which did make certain recommendations, would the minister ask the Canada Labour Relations Council to study and advise the government on the dangers to the public of a work stoppage in the railways in order that the government can take an early and clear position on whether a strike would be tolerated? Reportedly, the council is
Oral Questions
going to meet this week. Would the minister undertake to advise the council to make such a report?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the minister. This is not the issue that was introduced by the question. The subject matter has evolved all the way from the railway dispute to the proposed role of this particular council in industrial relations in the future. Certainly, that is something that I do not want to try to anticipate at this moment.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given the scale of the human disaster which is befalling the people of Guatemala and the decision of the federal government to give the paltry sum of $75,000 to provide some assistance to this disaster, I should like to ask the minister in all seriousness whether this is the limit of the government of Canada's concern for this situation, and does it not intend to provide some medical or other assistance in the form of food to the people of this unfortunate country well beyond the $75,000 level?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I indicated to the House last week that the contribution mentioned by the hon. member was an initial contribution to the Red Cross in Guatemala for disposal on an urgent basis. That is not the limit of our effort or our intentions with respect to Guatemala. We undertook on the weekend a shipment of powdered milk to Guatemala. As this is one of the urgent requirements of the government, 30 tons of powdered milk, purchased from the Canadian Dairy Corporation in Winnipeg, are en route to Guatemala at the moment. We are evaluating the situation with the intention of adding to our commitment for food aid. As I also stated last week, we are proposing to make a substantial contribution in food aid to Guatemala.
This afternoon the Canadian ambassador in Guatemala, in company with other ambassadors accredited to the country, will be meeting with the president, and I have indicated to our ambassador to make additional commitments with respect to food aid to Guatemala. An additional requirement at the moment is for blankets. It is one of the coldest Februarys in that country and many people have to remain outside because of the destruction of dwellings. We are considering at the moment what we can do to assist in the provision of blankets to the freezing population.
In addition to that, we are co-ordinating our efforts with the International Red Cross in order to respond to the medical requirements of the situation in Guatemala. We know that there are volunteers in the United States, Canada and other countries ready to go to assist medically, but at the moment there is a limit to the capacity to absorb these facilities. All efforts are being co-ordinated through the International Red Cross so we are advising individuals

February 9, 1976
Oral Questions
in Canada who are interested in serving to have their efforts co-ordinated through the Canadian Red Cross.
In brief, Mr. Speaker, we are operating urgently on a number of fronts and we will be increasing our commitments as needs are more clearly evaluated and presented to us by the Guatemalan authorities.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister says "in brief", but in all of that the only commitments I heard were for some powdered milk and $75,000 which the government has already committed itself to spending. Since the initial earthquake took place almost a week ago, could the minister be more specific as to what other food commitments the government has in mind and, secondly, in terms of medical assistance is it making plans to send medical personnel of a variety of kinds, plus the supporting equipment to that country? If that is so, how much and, more specifically, within that context, will it be assisting the Montreal medical team which has indicated that it wants to go to help?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the commitments in the future, in addition to the sums mentioned by the hon. member, are quite considerable. I have undertaken with the officials of CIDA to make an increasing commitment in food aid to the situation in Guatemala. Today at the meeting with the President of Guatemala the ambassador will be authorized to commit an additional $300,000 in food aid to that which has already been made available. Depending on the needs, we will be prepared to go beyond that, so there will not be any slackening of effort in respect of the food aid portion of our assistance. On the medical side, I repeat that experience has taught in previous emergencies that the most efficient way by which medical supplies can go into the area is through the coordination of Red Cross societies which can evaluate the personnel and resources becoming available from all countries. We encourage those who wish to go to present their intention to the Red Cross, and we will assist the Red Cross in any way that seems appropriate and desirable at the present time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary for the Minister of National Defence. Since in the white paper entitled "Defence in the 70's" published in 1971 the government stated its commitments to the use of Canadian armed forces for international disaster situations like the one that has unfortunately befallen the people of Guatemala, would the minister advise whether the Canadian armed forces now have at their disposal field hospitals, field kitchens, ground transportation and medical supplies that can be made available in such a disaster? If we do have those supplies, has the Department of National Defence taken any steps to make sure that these will be offered to the people of Guatemala in the existing circumstances?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, on a number of occasions since the white paper was issued the armed forces have been of assistance in international emergencies, but that assistance has been primarily in the form of transport. In the present emergency we do have three Hercules standing by and ready to move supplies to Guatemala. To date we have not received a specific request for particular items to transport. We are not ourselves collecting the kind of medical equipment to which the hon. member has referred. That would be the responsibility of others and we would be primarily responsible for transportation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. First may I preface it by congratulating the minister's staff on their dedication over the weekend in looking after inquiries regarding Canadians missing in Guatemala.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Given that, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would assure the House, and perhaps reassure the Canadian public, that every effort is being made to locate those Canadians who have still not reported into the Canadian embassy, in order to determine the safety and condition of health or otherwise of those Canadians still missing there?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his words of commendation for the members of the External Affairs Department who are working on this problem at this particular time. It is impossible to give precise figures, but we believe there are approximately 500 Canadians in Guatemala. So far the embassy has been in touch with more than 400 of these Canadians to confirm that they are safe. That information is being communicated by telephone on an urgent basis to their relatives in Canada. The embassy staff is continuing its efforts to locate additional uncontacted Canadians and that information will also be conveyed. I should mention that communication is not normal at the present time and over the weekend it has been difficult both by telephone and Telex to be in touch with the embassy because of the frequent breakdown of communications.
February 9, 1976


AGRICULTURE
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but as he is not in the House, I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
Since Quebec industrial milk producers and the management of industrial plants are seriously concerned about the government milk policy, which would result in lower income for producers, may I ask the minister, through his parliamentary secretary, whether he will recommend an adjustment to the milk policy to favour better returns for milk producers?


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the minister, who is absent for the whole week and is to speak to several agricultural organizations in western Canada, has been examining this question for several weeks already and he will put to the House within a month a new dairy policy for 1976-77.


POSSIBILITY OF MEETING BETWEEN MINISTER AND FLUID MILK PRODUCERS TO CONSIDER PROBLEM OF SURPLUS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.
Before the end of that month, do the minister and his parliamentary secretary expect to meet the natural milk producers who discharge their surplus in those that are also part of the industrial milk producers' surplus so that, one day, those surpluses be adjusted in a manner that would be fairer to industrial milk producers?


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the minister considers both types of producers on the same level. It is well known that industrial milk producers are much more affected. Any way, the minister gives consideration to both categories of producers.
* *
*


FINANCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I note that the federal government's statement of financial operations for the first nine months of this fiscal year shows a budgetary deficit of more than $3 billion. Considering that the past pattern of revenue collections and expenditure disbursements indicates that the pace of expenditures will accelerate in the final three months of the year while revenues will grow at a less rapid rate, is the minister in a position to tell the House whether the budgetary deficit projection of $3.2 billion given on June 23 will be exceeded and, if so, by what amount.
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to make an estimate of that kind at the moment.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister identify to the House any expected developments in the behaviour of either revenues or expenditures over the next three months which would prevent the budgetary deficit from passing the $6 billion mark, as some reputable private forecasters have indicated?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that is rather an exaggeration.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Can the minister reply without equivocation that the government has investigated and satisfied itself that there were no improprieties in the purchases between the government and its agencies and Lockheed Aircraft Company in the sales of aircraft by the company to Air Canada and to the Department of National Defence. I ask this question because of the reports current in the press concerning bribes offered by Lockheed in the Netherlands and Japan.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, my officials inform me that, as far as the Treasury Board is concerned, there is no indication in the records that there was nothing dishonest or improper in the procedures between the federal government and this company.
*
* *


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services and his parliamentary secretary I will address my supplementary to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister advise the House if he has overcome the technical problems which have prevented the Minister of Supply and Services signing the contract for the long range patrol aircraft with Lockheed and could he give the House a brief explanation of what was meant by "technical problems", a term used by the Minister of Supply and Services in the House last Monday in reply to a somewhat similar question.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Supply and Services is completing the negotiations with

February 9, 1976
Oral Questions
Lockheed and it is expected he will be able to finalize the contract in a very few days.
Mr. Speaker, in response to the earlier question of the hon. member for Victoria perhaps I might read a paragraph from a letter from the Chairman of Lockheed, which I think answers the question raised:
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation has not paid commissions nor will it pay commissions to anyone in connection with the LRPA competition. We are prepared to certify to this fact as a provision in the contract.
Under the rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, I will table this correspondence, Mr. Speaker.


POST OFFICE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General or the Minister of Labour whomsoever wishes to field it. In view of the fact that during the strike by the postal workers last October and November the Postmaster General and the Minister of Labour resisted any efforts to get back-to-work legislation by the Postmaster General in particular encouraging people to go back to work and asking members of this House to be patient. This did happen and the strike was settled. My question is, what action is the government taking with regard to the suspension and fining now by the postal union of those members who had the courage to go back to work to follow the suggestion of the Postmaster General in order to break the strike and who now may be the victims of it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to thank that particular hon. gentleman for his well known patience on all subject matters. Insofar as the 10 per cent or up to 2,000 workers who went back to work during the strike, they did so because of the courage of their own convictions. I assured them then, and I do so again, that the post office is an open plant and that one does not have to be a member of the union to work in the post office. Their security is protected, their rights are protected and their grievance procedure is protected. In every respect, the rights of all postal workers are sufficiently protected whether they do or do not belong to the union.
However, the internal question of their role in the union is up to the union. I hope the hon. gentleman is not suggesting that we should start interfering with the internal operations of that particular union. Nevertheless I am sure when legislation comes forward as it might one day to revise the PSSRA we may want to take a better look at the rights of individual workers in respect of a secret ballot when there are issues of this magnitude during a strike.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the minister may have suggested, I am not suggesting in any way that the government should interfere in the internal workings of the union, but does the minister not agree that the minister having encouraged people to take an independent line of action he should not now suffer them to be intimidated.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am awfully pleased the hon. gentleman has suddenly become a convert and suggests that we not interfere with the internal operations of the union because that was implied by his second question. The people who went back to work during the strike as a result of my encouragement, and the encouragement of all members of parliament and the public, are people with courage and conviction, since there was a certain degree of unpleasantness. However, I suggest they were quite prepared to recognize that that is part of the democratic process. There is no evidence of intimidation, and I suggest to the hon. gentleman that he bring forward to me one case of intimidation by the union against people on the work site. I think this union has been the subject of a certain amount of adverse publicity, and I think it would be fair now to give them an opportunity to work out their own problems. They are well on the way to doing so.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There has been moral intimidation. You know that, too.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTION BOARD PUBLISH DECISIONS ON PRICES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will he take immediate steps, including the presentation of amendments to the law if necessary, to ensure that the Anti-Inflation Board will deal with prices through formal decisions which it will publish no less than it does when it comes to wages, and generally to ensure that the board will publicize its findings and conclusions on prices as fully as it does on wages in order that public confidence in the even handedness of the board in carrying out its work continues and in fact increases?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to discuss the hon. member's very detailed question with the board.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that under the Crop Insurance Act the federal government is committed to a certain level of contributions based on the number of farmers covered; in view of the fact that the crop insurance section has estimated that the required federal moneys for 1976 will be about $62 million; and in view of the announcement by the minister that the amount of the federal contribution will be cut by about $10 million, reducing the contribution to $52 million, can the minister advise what will happen if the required contributions by
February 9, 1976

the crop insurance board exceed $52 million, and will he advise further when the government plans on obtaining additional funds, or will it renege on its commitments?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this question is rather technical. I do not think I can give an answer at this time, but I think that all sectors of the economy, including this one, must participate in the federal government's restriction program.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the absence of the minister and also in the absence of many other ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It concerns the report issued by the Minister of the Environment on January 29 regarding the environmental effects of off-shore drilling in the Beaufort Sea which indicated that it would be one to three years before blowouts in that area could be controlled with resulting severe environmental effects to the area. Would the parliamentary secretary advise the House and the country as well as those officials who works so hard in the Department of the Environment that a drilling permit will not be granted to Dome Petroleum until the proper technology is developed to control blowouts in the Beaufort Sea and until such time as Dome Petroleum ceases to lobby for that?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman will be delighted to know that the people who are absent from the House today are all in British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: In general, the application is complete and the studies are satisfactory. Some documents on the subject have been made public, most significantly Environment Canada's Preliminary Environmental Assessment, based on the Beaufort Sea environmental studies program and this department's Backgrounder on off-shore drilling in northern Canada. As a result of the availability of both these reports, the advisory committee has just completed one week of consultations with the Beaufort Sea communities which would give about seven days for the advisory committee to deliberate on the matter, possibly three more days for a review in the department, and it is anticipated that a recommendation on this application will be placed before the minister on February 18.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


PROPOSED REFERENCE TO BERGER COMMISSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF DRILLING IN BEAUFORT SEA
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: On this consultation process which the parliamentary secretary indicates will take place over a period of some three days covering six communities, would the parliamentary secretary advise the House whether that is the extent of the consultation with people in the north on that drilling and, secondly, will she advise the House why the Berger Commission does not have its terms of reference extended so that they can carry out a decent study into the environmental effects of drilling up there?


Iona Campagnolo: am sure the hon. gentleman is more familiar than I with some of the activities undertaken by the northern people, particularly in C.O.P.E. C.O.P.E. has been told that the decision on the Beaufort Sea drilling will have to be taken before the Berger inquiry is completed but that the decision may not have to be taken until after the last set of Berger hearings in the delta in mid February.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON LEVEL OF CHEESE IMPORTS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and it relates to the issue of the import of foreign cheese products. In order to find out whether the minister has finally resolved his differences with the Minister of Agriculture, may I ask him to confirm reports that the level of imports for this dairy year will be reduced by some five million pounds below the 50 million pounds permitted last year?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to confirm that report. There have been other reports, of course, on increases and also on keeping the level the same as it was last year. At the moment no decision has been made.


William Herbert Jarvis: May I ask the minister therefore if it is necessary for us to wait one month for the final decision in light of what the parliamentary secretary said today vis-avis the industrial milk producers? I should also like to ask whether there will be a reconsideration of the long-range policy that imports will be permitted to increase to at least double in the next few years. Is that policy being reconsidered?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The answer to the latter part of the question is yes, in the sense that we are looking at the impact of quotas on cheese as it affects the dairy industry into the future. Therefore, it is being reviewed. As to the question of where it will rest for the next 12 months, I repeat that no decision has been made, but I think it is safe to assure the hon. member that there will be no increase in the quota during the next 12 months.

February 9, 1976
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


REQUEST FOR REDEPLOYMENT OF AIR AND SEA RESCUE FORCES IN ATLANTIC REGION
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that air and sea rescue have failed in two attempts in one month to locate lost fishermen, is the minister now prepared, in view of the fact that the reaction time of sea and air rescue is not good enough in locating lost fishermen, to redeploy a force in the province of Newfoundland where these occurrences take place?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that in the last two instances we were not successful in finding the fishermen who were lost, but there have been many successful searches as well, and in this particular instance the armed forces did all they could do. We sent three aircraft and a coastal vessel. They were working there for some four days and really conducted an excellent search and rescue operation, even though it was not successful. There is no reason to make any changes in the location of the search and rescue fleet.


SUGGESTED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF TASK FORCE REPORT ON SEARCH AND RESCUE POLICY
Jack Marshall: The letter from the Minister of Transport on December 5 indicated that the necessary implementation documents on the task force report on the national search and rescue policy were completed. Would the minister agree to have this report referred to the appropriate committee to make recommendations on the redeployment of a force and the necessity for a better reaction time and better surveillance of the Atlantic coastal region?


James Armstrong Richardson: I will agree to consult my colleague, the Minister of Transport.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
In view of the ruling of the court, in Vancouver, which interrupted the activities of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, and its resulting downgrading of the CRTC, what administrative or legislative steps is the government considering, outside of an appeal to a superior court, to reinstate the commission in its role and functions?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly what happened in Vancouver, I would say that only the administrative aspect of

the CRTC hearings in Vancouver was involved. I believe the CRTC could proceed with its hearing in other cities because the specific problem involved in Vancouver does not necessarily exist elsewhere. With regard to the ruling that may be appealed, that is validity of the owner's preferential rights, that is the question the CRTC will want to put to a superior court.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Do I understand that the answer given by the minister means that the decision of the court in Vancouver has no influence on the activities of the commission in the other provinces?


Jeanne Sauvé: No, Mr. Speaker, even if the same circumstances occured in another city, if an applicant opposed the renewal of a television licence and wished the CRTC to hear his own application. What happened in Vancouver could have some repercussions in another city unless the writ is only territorial. What happened in Vancouver is that the person asking for a renewal of his licence saw his application challenged by another who wanted to licence in his place. Nevertheless, it is not the policy of the CRTC to hear new applications for licences against those who already have one. The person who already has a licence has priority. However, they agree to examine the objections of those who complain about the way a television station has performed its functions, but a new claimant is not allowed to ask for the licence.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Considering that a strike by air traffic controllers in Canada is imminent as a result of the breaking off of negotiations between Treasury Board and the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers' Association owing to the rejection of clauses asking the prohibition of bilingualism in air communications, can the President of the Treasury Board advise the House what steps he intends to take to avoid the stoppage of air traffic control throughout Canada for the alleged reasons and conform that the rejected clauses violate the Official Languages Act?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am essentially an optimist and I hope that we can solve the problem through normal negotiations or bargaining during the next weeks.
February 9, 1976


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Bert Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, although in view of the importance of the question I would prefer the Acting Prime Minister to take note of it. In view of the fact that the Meadow Lake Wood Industries which opened on May 20, 1975 and closed on or about February 6, 1976, leaving 50 people unemployed and numerous debts including wages and taxes, had received a $423,000 DREE development incentive, would the minister please advise what the policy of the government is in recovering its investment?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman suggested, I shall take note of the question and refer it to the minister.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the contemplated action of the Minister of Transport to increase airport terminal charges and landing fees by 30 per cent across the board and also to impose a new 66 cents per passenger security charge which will also have to be passed along to the Canadian consumer, does the minister not feel that the government, which is seeking the co-operation of the provinces, organized labour and the Canadian people with the Anti-Inflation Board should now set an example of price restraint rather than leading with arbitrary price increase and the imposition of new charges?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I might say that the nominal figure qf $1 which has been charged at airports is a continuation of the policy that wherever possible the user should pay for the particular service provided.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF STUDY ON INCREASED COST OF SECURITY GUARDS AT AIRPORTS
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, my question was really addressed to the Minister of Finance but if I may I will address a supplementary to the Acting Minister of Transport. In view of the fact Eastern Airlines in the United States shows an average cost of 15 cents per passenger for the cost of armed guards, can the minister advise if he has cost benefit studies supporting the new 66 cent charge? If the has, will he table them?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have them but I think the Minister of Transport should decide on his return whether they are of sufficient importance to be tabled.
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In reply to a question asked by my colleague the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, as recorded at page 9682 of Hansard for December 3, 1975 and later confirmed in a conversation with me, the Minister of the Environment at that time stated that flood control in the Fraser Valley was of top priority with the government, and the request for an additional appropriation to continue the program was then before Treasury Board. Could the minister advise the House whether a request was before the board at that time or has been placed before the board since, and whether a decision has been made on the request?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the decisions of the Treasury Board are always announced by the minister responsible for the program.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Many businesses are given the burdensome task of filing mass reports to the Anti-Inflation Board which are due February 20. The same companies are asked by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to file reports back to 1960 and they would like these by the middle of March. The Department of National Revenue wants its pound of flesh by March 31. Where is business going to get the help to facilitate this horrendous administrative nightmare when the government has employed all the chartered accountants and accountants to watch over these companies and which department over there has priority?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Central Nova.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, these people are serious; they want to know.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Central Nova.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. On December 5, 1972, RCMP Staff Sergeant Donald R. McCleery, No. 18110, was discharged from the force as "unsuitable" under regulation 150(d) by the commissioner under regulation 173. About nine months before discharge, Staff Sergeant McCleery had been awarded a long service medal for 20 years of good conduct service. My question to the minister

February 9, 1976
Order Paper Questions
on these facts is: was a discharge board convened in respect of McCleery's discharge as is mandatory under regulation 155 and may I ask the same question with respect to Staff Sergeant Giles Brunet?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my recollection no board was convened in the case of McCleery or Brunet because they were charged or dismissed under a section of the RCMP Act which does not require such a hearing. There was no disciplinary charge made against them. There are two sections of the RCMP Act under which members can be dismissed, one section for discipline where there is a hearing and one section for unsuitability where there is no hearing.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, without necessarily agreeing with the minister may I ask what action, if any, he is contemplating with regard to these two officers to reassess their position under present circumstances?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have re-examined their file on several occasions with officers of the RCMP; I have met with their lawyers; I have even met with the individuals themselves. I advised them that if they felt they had any complaint about the procedures they should have pursued the legal recourse they had before the federal courts. As the House knows, under the Federal Court Act, as revised a few years ago, it is possible to review the decision of a commission or board or an administrative decision of the federal official. The two officers in question did take an action before the federal court but dropped it without further notice.


An hon. Member:: You know why.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table, in both official languages, documents on the allocation of Local Initiatives Program funds for 1975-76.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,707 and 3,828.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMPETITIONS AND MEMBERS OF CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion aware of the answer to Question No. 2,849 and, if so, does he accept its implications as to the ability of members of the Canadian Armed Forces born in the Atlantic Provinces but not stationed there to enter closed competitions offered by the Public Service but restricted to residents of the Atlantic Provinces?
2.	Does this policy and its working advance the efforts of DREE to promote regional growth and encourage residents of the Atlantic Provinces to contribute to their regional economy and, if so, in what manner?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer to this question for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Yes. As indicated, members of the Canadian Armed Forces have the same rights and restrictions in regard to closed Public Service competitions as members of the Public Service.
2. The effects of the policy, which is based on considerations of equity, would appear to be neutral in so far as regional development is concerned.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	During each of the past five years, in the Province of Quebec, how many air pilot candidates applied for a (a) general (b) restricted radio-telephone operator's certificate (aeronautical)?
2.	How many were issued a licence in (a) French (b) English?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned:
1. Applications:	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975(a) General Class	1	0	1	0	0(b) Restricted Class	323	411	410	579	4792. Certificates issued:	(a) General (French)	0	0	0	0	0General (English)	1	0	1	0	0(b) Restricted (French)	8	24	11	16	149Restricted (English)	315	387	399	563	330


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I indicated earlier that perhaps today or tomorrow I would invite the hon. member for Central Nova to discuss a certain matter now sub judice. I wonder if three o'clock tomorrow would be a convenient time for that discussion. Is that agreed?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable, but is that without prejudice to my right to ask questions tomorrow relating to the general subject of Sky Shops? That was not specific.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated earlier, previous rulings of precedents in respect of matters sub judice have been
February 9, 1976

confined to matters before the criminal courts and really have been confined more to the right or obligation, as it were, of ministers to answer questions, than the right of opposition members or other members to ask question. The civil law suit puts a different dimension on the question; the hon. member being a party to the litigation puts a different dimension to it. Otherwise the hon. member and others would be free, as a matter of precedent, from restriction to ask any questions until such time as the matter is set down for trial or actually being heard.
I would therefore need some indication that the restriction to which I referred generally applies to the hon. member, but there is an unusual circumstance here in that the hon. member is a party to the litigation. I think that in this case I would have to hear the individual question before ruling on whether it would to be in any way confined.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 6, consideration of Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on Friday when speaking on the bill before the House and the amendment and subamendment now being considered I made the point that the government, with the fiat of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen), tried to change a statute this House passed a number of years ago.
Some years ago this House laid down the principle that if advertisers wanted to qualify for income tax deduction, their advertisements had to be placed in publications not substantially the same as foreign publications or, more accurately, that income tax deductions would not be permitted in cases where those advertisements were placed in publications substantially the same as foreign publications. I made the point that "substantially the same" could not, by any stretching of the English language, mean "80 per cent different." Neither can the English language be so tortured that "substantially the same" means "20 per cent the same." For example, to suggest that a publication "25 per cent the same" as another publication is "substantially the same" is a misuse of the English language. Clearly, the government is changing the law which parliament adopted, and not by asking parliament to change the law it is doing it simply with a ministerial interpretation. A few days ago the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) was surprised that I should be surprised at the Minister of National Revenue's interpretation of this law. The hon. member suggested that the minister and the department must as best they can frequently interpret the various laws they
Non-Canadian Publications
are called on to administer, particularly the Income Tax Act.
This bill relates to the Income Tax Act. Let me ask the hon. member for Mississauga this: Is it the practice of the Department of National Revenue, when interpreting the Income Tax Act or other legislation, to hand down interpretations clearly contrary to the meaning of the original law passed by parliament? Some Canadians are so suspicious of the operations of the Department of National Revenue that they think the department is capable of being most arbitrary. I do not want to be associated with such accusations. I do not think it is the practice of the Department of National Revenue to render an interpretation of our laws clearly contrary to the plain meaning of those laws. I hardly think any hon. member opposite will defend the practice of the Minister of National Revenue and officials of his department of operating on the basis of interpretations so clearly contrary to the law adopted by parliament.
Again I say, no reasonable man can say that in the English language "25 per cent different" means the same as "substantially the same," or that when one says a magazine is "25 per cent the same as a foreign publication," it is "substantially the same" as that foreign publication. That is what I mean when I say this process is an abuse of the processes of liberal democracy. It is a subversion of the judicial and parliamentary process.
I am also unhappy with what is happening, as the minister's interpretation does not relate simply to money. It does not determine merely how much money is to be taken from a citizen or corporation; and I admit that such a decision is important to any individual or corporation concerned. We are not, as the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) said, dealing with an ordinary business: he went to some pains to point out that we are not dealing with ordinary business. We are dealing with periodicals, with the press, and we are dealing with what I must call arbitrary decisions arrived at in secrecy.
I am not implying for a moment that if a periodical or publication attacks the government or its decisions, the present Minister of National Revenue would even be tempted to make a ruling which would make it difficult for that periodical to continue operating; but another minister might do it.
In any event, that idea at least must always be somewhere in the mind of the publisher of the periodical.
We are dealing with the freedom of the press. I am not now making the charge of censorship that is frequently made against those who are sponsoring this bill. However, I am saying that any process tolerated by parliament which allows decisions to be made by a minister in private, decisions that can affect the very viability of the publication and could, therefore, impinge upon the freedom of speech in this country, ought not to be tolerated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I recognize that in connection with radio and television, the CRTC is following a policy involving the determination of Canadian content. The CRTC lays

February 9, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
down rules about what proportion of the programming has to be Canadian content; it determines what it will accept as Canadian content. I am not happy about this set-up. I am not happy about the fact that television and radio stations have to renew their licences every two or three years. I would think that in the six-month period before a licence has to be renewed, the owners of those stations are perhaps a little nervous about the CRTC's attitude. They might be inclined to be a little careful about what they put on their stations during that period. I emphasize that I am not suggesting any improper motives as far as the CRTC is concerned; I am just saying that it is an unfortunate to situation. There may be no way of avoiding it.
In any event, at least as far as radio and television are concerned, the affairs are being handled by what I think can properly be referred to as an independent commission. It holds hearings and makes decisions only after the holding of those hearings. It is totally different process from the secretive way in which the Minister of National Revenue works; for example, it is totally different from the way in which the Minister of National Revenue handed down the recent ruling with regard to Reader's Digest.
I have to say to the minister, because I want to be frank with him, that there is a general feeling in the country- and it is not unreasonable-that in making that recent ruling with regard to Time and Reader's Digest the minister was responding to pressure placed upon him to find some way in which to permit a popular publication to continue. He was pressured into finding some way to prevent the legislation presented by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) eliminating Reader's Digest from Canada. Fond as I am of him, there is no way in which this minister, particularly as a result of the secrecy surrounding these proceedings, can persuade the people of Canada that he has not been influenced by pressures of public opinion.
As parliamentarians, we have to ask ourselves whether we are going to permit the Minister of National Revenue to interpret a very simple phrase, consisting of two or three English words, in a manner in which nobody would think it could ever be interpreted. That is the first point. Second, we have to ask ourselves whether we are going to permit the Minister of National Revenue, in private, without any public hearings, to make rulings regarding the viability of periodicals in this country. If there is to continue any such process as this, are we going to at least insist that any such decision be from the hands of an independent tribunal, and made only after public hearings?
I am not arguing in favour of a content rule. However, if we are to have a content rule and if we are to continue with substantially the same concept, the meaning of "substantially the same" cannot be tortured as the minister is torturing it. If, in this House, the majority feels that something must be done to help Canadian periodicals-and I certainly favour that-we cannot allow the process of liberal democracy to be subverted in this way. We cannot continue to allow decisions of basic importance to the press, and therefore to the freedom of speech in this country, to be made secretly by a minister rather than after public and due process of hearings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not say this by way of threat, Mr. Speaker, but I may have something more to say about it before the debate finishes. However, last Friday and this afternoon I wanted to make these two quite simple points which I believe are very basic. I thought the minister was going to say something on Friday. I hope he says something this afternoon. I hope he answers the questions asked as to, for example, how long the publishers of periodicals have to meet the requirements of any law that is eventually passed by this parliament. There is nothing very specific about this. I do not see what defence the minister can make about this way of proceeding, or what he can do to eliminate the suspicion that exists with regard to the ruling in favour of Time and Reader's Digest to show that it was not the result of pressure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). It is always a tough act to follow because his questions are very pertinent. However, I just wish he had his facts a little more clear. Taken altogether, it was a pretty good speech on Friday afternoon and today. When it hurts, we pay a little bit of attention to it.


Walter David Baker: That is why you are on
your feet.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am speaking as a courtesy. Questions were not only asked by the Leader of the Opposition, but last week by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) and the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes). During the past days of debate many points have been raised by hon. members which have been dealt with, I hope, patiently and at length by both the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and myself. Certain areas, however, continue to be of concern. These were outlined on Friday by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. I will attempt to deal with the specific questions he raised then, hoping thus to put to rest much of the concern and criticism that surrounds this bill.
First, on the question of licensing. It is clearly stated in the act that to qualify as a Canadian periodical a magazine must not be "produced or published under a licence granted by a person who produces or publishes issues of a periodical that are printed, edited or published outside Canada". The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie asks me to state for the record that Reader's Digest will be required to change its existing licensing arrangement with the parent company in the United States in order to qualify as a truly Canadian magazine. I can only reply that if Reader's Digest Canada continues to publish in Canada and qualify as a Canadian periodical as they have announced they will do, it is because they have decided to meet all the criteria to qualify, including the necessity to be free from publishing under a licence.
Reader's Digest obtains the sole rights for reproduction of previously published material from periodicals around the world. For Reader's Digest to reproduce any of this material it must work through its American counterpart. The hon.
February 9, 1976

member suggests that the use of the pool is, in a sense, a form of editorial control by Reader's Digest, Inc. If Reader's Digest Canada wishes to publish such an article it must carry out in Canada, under Canadian editorial control, all of the required condensation and editing to permit it to count in the "80 per cent different" provision. There is no outside editorial control exercised here. The Canadian magazine must remain as free to choose or not to choose articles through the Reader's Digest, Inc. pool as it is to choose or not choose articles from any other periodical. Choice, condensation and editing remain in Canada.
The use of this pool does not jeopardize real operational control over the Canadian magazine which, under the law, must be 100 per cent printed, edited and published in Canada. True, this pool is a market advantage for Reader's Digest Canada, as far as contacts go, over any other digest that may wish to set itself up in competion. The point is, we are talking about an advantage for a Canadian magazine-75 per cent Canadian-owned, produced and published in Canada, free from a licence and reproducing only 20 per cent from other periodicals with which it has a continuing arrangement.
The hon. member went on to ask about rates. Reader's Digest Canada will be paying the going rates for material obtained from the pool. The United States company no longer controls the Canadian company. This will be subject to review by two tax authorities, Revenue Canada and IRS, who may exchange information under the Canada-U.S. tax treaty. In addition to the tax authorities, any deliberate use of inappropriate rates could result in the directors of the corporations being vulnerable under security regulations or to their shareholders.
The question arises as to how other periodicals, two in particular, will be affected by this clarification of my interpretation. MD of Canada may follow the same route as that taken by Reader's Digest Canada if it is feasible within its mode of operation. If it finds it can meet the content criteria it must also, of course, be 75 per cent Canadian-owned, be free of a licence and be published, produced and edited in Canada. Whether MD of Canada is prepared to meet these criteria or not, I do not know. My information is that Time Canada does not obtain third party material through Time U.S.A. Rather, I understand, it obtains material editorialized by Time U.S.A. Hence, it would not include this material in the "80 per cent different" provision. Time Canada, like Reader's Digest, may take up 20 per cent of its content from material originated by, condensed by or first published in Time U.S.A. or Reader's Digest, Inc. To use more than 20 per cent of this material would disqualify that periodical as a Canadian magazine. I trust these specific points will reassure the hon. member and other members of the House that the intent of the government remains firm: to qualify for a Canadian tax advantage, a periodical must qualify as a Canadian magazine.
The Leader of the Opposition has talked about the role of the Minister of National Revenue in dealing with interpretations. I ask him: What is the role of a responsible minister of national revenue? Does one simply ignore the individual who asks for clarification of an interpretation; does one ask him to make up his own mind and take it through the court process; or does one meet with these people, as I do on an almost daily basis, sometimes at the
Non-Canadian Publications
request of members on this side of the House, sometimes at the request of members who sit on the other side, and sometimes at the request of the individuals themselves? Surely this is the course which should be taken by a responsible minister of national revenue if he does not wish to get into some form of confrontation or appear arrogant by saying, "The words speak for themselves. You interpret them and make up your own mind."
I would agree with one of the approaches made by the Leader of the Opposition. He indicated that there is enough cynicism in the country to suggest that the Minister of National Revenue responded to pressure. I prefer to think that we looked at the merits of the case, that we took into account public opinion as expressed both in this House and outside that we issued a clarification, an interpretation. I submit this is, surely, a responsible role for the Minister of National Revenue to play. It is not a question of hiding in the bushes or of operating from a hole in the wall or a smoke-filled office, as I believe he suggested. I might say that I am non-smoker and there is no smoke-filled office out of which I operate. I believe the minister of national revenue has an obligation, indeed a responsibility, toward the taxpayer where there is some confusion or some further information required, or clarification of an interpretation. If a minister of national revenue is not prepared to do that, then I say, with respect, he is arrogant.


Mr. Fairweather:: The minister has not yet answered my question.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member asked how long these periodicals would be given to adjust themselves to the new situation. I am advised that if a magazine fulfils all the conditions of eligibility during the 1976 taxation year, it will have qualified as a Canadian magazine within the meaning of the act.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I might say I felt the speech of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) was important because of the questions he did not answer rather than the ones he did. I should like to put my speech in proper perspective in reference to motion No. 4. moved by the Liberal member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). This is the amendment to which we are addressing ourselves today and I would read one paragraph of it as follows:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this act or regulations, a periodical shall be deemed to be a Canadian issue of a Canadian periodical if 75 per cent of its directors and ownership is Canadian and its editing and publication functions are controlled and conducted in Canada and not more than 40 per cent of its content, excluding advertisements, were first published in a single periodical outside of Canada.
It is content to which I want to direct my remarks. I want to congratulate the other Liberal member for making the amendment because as I understood it, just before she moved her amendment-and I listened very carefully to her remarks-she said she was really unhappy about whether the deal was 80 per cent, 75 per cent, 50 per cent, 40 per cent or only 1 per cent. She does not want that kind of censorship or that kind of control, particularly when control is to be exercised by the minister or the officials of the Department of National Revenue, who are always subject to change. Ministers are subject to many changes and,

February 9, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
of course, people in the public service are subject to change. So the rules will change from time to time, and I can understand the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway moving her amendment as follows:
That motion numbered 4 be amended by striking out all the words in subclause (2) after the words "conducted in Canada."
Over the Christmas recess I picked up several periodicals wherein I was attacked by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner)-I am sorry he is not here this afternoon-for the speech that I made on second reading when I put the position pretty bluntly and meant to do so. Perhaps it is time to review what I said. I have listened to all the arguments, and they really boil down to a very simple formula. What the government is trying to do under the guise of a tax measure is to determine what I shall read, what members of the House shall read and what the Canadian people shall read. I feel very deeply about this.
Going back over history, some of us have lived during periods when dictatorships were set up which committed heinous crimes. If those countries had had freedom of the press, then those dictatorships would have been undermined instead of flourishing as they did and eventually bringing about the horrible Second World War. I said this in my second reading speech, and the Secretary of State took great exception to it:
I came here this afternoon because I am pretty concerned that by means of a tax measure we have brought censorship into this country.
My point is that over time the minister and his officials will be able to control content, which is a form of censorship. No one has satisfied me that that will not be so. I went on to say this:
One of the most fundamental freedoms of all is surely freedom of speech. From freedom of speech flows democracy; and freedom of the press, of course, follows from that. It might be a good idea for my hon. friend who says, "Oh, no" to look at chapter 44 of the Revised Statutes of Canada and read section 2 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which crystallizes the common law not only of the Commonwealth but particularly the law that we have inherited in statute form through our constitution from the British system.
I maintained that if this bill was passed it would mean some form of censorship. I now want to refer to a case that is well known in my province. It was referred to, by the way, Mr. Speaker, in an article in the Globe and Mail on February 7 last. I know the rules of the House do not allow me to read an editorial, so let me paraphrase it. The editorial seems to be repeating what I said previously, putting a little more meat on the bones. According to the Globe and Mail, when you leave to the discretion of officials in a department or a minister what amounts to Canadian content, and then above all make exceptions of the kind alluded to so ably by my leader today, such as Reader's Digest and Time, then surely that is some kind of censorship. That is what the Globe and Mail says, and if the Globe and Mail supports my argument in this regard then I must be on sound ground.
Let me refer the House to the Alberta statutes case which came before the Supreme Court of Canada in 1938. Judgment was given by Chief Justice Duff and there was also an able judgment given by Justice Cannon. Basically, Mr. Speaker, what the Alberta government had tried to do under Aberhart was this. Aberhart was taken on by the

daily and weekly newspapers which cartooned him to death. They painted him as a lumbering bear, and because they always thought he had a very good appetite they used to portray him eating five or six steaks at a time. He was criticized for practically everything he did. Aberhart was a leader who came out of the radical groups in western Canada at that time and who had threatened to take over the banks and mortgage companies. No paper supported him and the editorial writers in particular took after him. I cannot recall any other man in public life who was taken after by the media as badly as he was.
He therefore set to work with his advisers and drafted a bill that would protect all members of the legislature and those in other institutions who apparently supported his viewpoint. Under this bill, any attack made by a newspaper editorial or by the media would be referred to a board. It was a very prejudicial board, Mr. Speaker, because it was the Social Credit board who decided who could run and who could operate the government. The bill provided that if this board should find that there had been a scurrilous and unfair attack made on the government, that the facts had not been properly weighed and or had been misrepresented, then the board could suspend publication of the newspaper in question for two or three weeks and could subject it to other penalties. The matter came before the Supreme Court of Canada. My hon. friend for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas) probably knows the name of it, but there were two questions in the case: the first was whether the matter fell within provincial jurisdiction; the second was whether the act could be passed at all as a means of censorship.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: It has absolutely nothing to do with this bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps the hon. member would listen to me for a moment, as I know he always likes to ask questions. I listened very intently not only to those on his side who support the government, but also to the very learned member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the hon. member for Ontario, and I know there are others in the back benches of the Liberal party who are no more happy about this legislation than I am. Whenever you get a division in the Liberal party, Mr. Speaker, the disease that strikes them must be pretty serious because they generally agree. Having dealt with the facts of the case, and after dealing with the essentials-traditional freedom of speech, freedom of the press and whether it was within the ambit of a provincial jurisdiction to pass an act that would be common to all Canadians, which would really put it under federal jurisdiction-the then chief justice said this:
The legislation now under consideration manifestly places in the hands of the chairman of the Social Credit Commission autocratic powers which, it may well be thought, could, if arbitrarily wielded, be employed to frustrate in Alberta these rights of the Crown and the people of Canada as a whole. We do not, however, find it necessary to express an opinion upon the concrete question whether or not this particular measure is invalid as exceeding the limits indicated above.
However, they found that the authority had been placed with the board. So far as Canadian content is concerned, it has been emphasized by many speakers, and cannot be overemphasized, that it is a very dangerous precedent to place this kind of power in the hands of public servants. We have seen the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. February 9, 1976

Cullen) change his attitude toward Reader's Digest, using a different kind of discretion, one not spelled out by the law. The only protection that we have, whether in regard to freedom of speech, freedom of the press or any of the freedoms outlined in the Canadian Bill of Rights, is that afforded us by the law. It is only the law that protects us from autocratic government and authoritarianism. I say that as soon as discretion is handed to a public servant or to a minister, we are in trouble. As soon as we give discretion to officials to decide what constitutes Canadian content, we are letting them determine what we in Canada shall read.
Let me refer to what Mr. Justice Cannon said about the Alberta situation. I think it has a lot to do with this bill, if my hon. friend from Bruce-Grey will just give me a little time. Mr. Justice Cannon said:
The bill does not regulate the relations of the newspapers' owners with private individual members of the public, but deals exclusively with expressions of opinion by the newspapers concerning government policies and activities.
I want to emphasize that the kind of Canadian content decided on by the minister may be decided on the basis of political philosophy, or it may be the content emphasized by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during a Christmas recess and therefore not subjected to the views of the other side. I do not want to see that happen, as a Canadian or as a member of parliament. The quotation continues:
The pith and substance of the bill is to regulate the press of Alberta from the viewpoint of public policy by preventing the public from being misled or deceived as to any policy or activity of the Social Credit government and by reducing any opposition to silence or bring upon it ridicule and public contempt.
I have not made this charge but it is one that concerns me. There are others who have suggested that this legislation may have been motivated by some people because of the influence of Maclean's magazine or the editors. I do not know whether that is true; but surely, as Canadians, we have and want the right to read these magazines, including Time and Reader's Digest. We do not want other people deciding what should be the content of these magazines. This is a very dangerous precedent. Wherever we have seen freedoms taken from people, the first rights that have been taken are the rights of the people to speak freely, that is, to speak their piece, to sing their piece or to print their piece. I continue reading the quotation:
I agree with the submission of the Attorney-General for Canada that this bill deals with the regulation of the press of Alberta, not from the viewpoint of private wrongs or civil injuries resulting from any alleged infringement or privation of civil rights which belongs to individuals, considered as individuals, but from the viewpoint of public wrongs or crimes, i.e., involving a violation of the public rights and duties to the whole community, considered as a community, in its social aggregate capacity.
It goes on to deal with exactly what I am thinking of this afternoon. Mr. Justice Cannon then stated:
It appears that in England, at first, criticism of any government policy was regarded as a crime involving severe penalties and punishable as such; but since the passing of Fox's Libel Act in 1792, the considerations now found in the above article of our Criminal Code that it is not criminal to point out errors in the government of the country and to urge their removal by lawful means have been admitted as a valid defence in a trial for libel.
Non-Canadian Publications
So even until 1792 it was considered somewhat of a crime to criticize the government. We only have to look to the TJ.S.S.R. to see how many writers have been forced to leave that country and take up residence in countries in the western world because they wanted to challenge the government. We only have to consider the dictatorships of Hitler and Mussolini, or any other dictatorship for that matter, to see that the first thing they do is adopt a policy of censorship of the press. We all know what happens to anybody who criticizes the government of the U.S.S.R. today. We must be wary whenever this seed is planted, germinated and begins to flourish, because we know it will grow into a big tree, taking away our freedom of speech, our freedom to think as we like and our ability to read whatever we wish. That is why I am against this kind of censorship, particularly under the guise of a taxation law.
We believe that Canadians should benefit from taxation in respect of magazines which are printed here or elsewhere but contain advertising paid for by those periodicals-and I have never argued with that idea. However, if we are to have rules, under the guise of taxation, regulating what I shall read and what Canadian people generally shall read, then I think this smacks of some form of censorship and leads to a totalitarianism of the kind I shall oppose at all times. It might be of interest just to read what has been said about these freedoms by other people. William Allan White once said:
You say that freedom of utterance is not for time of stress, and I reply with the sad truth that only in time of stress is freedom of utterance in danger ... Only when free utterance is suppressed is it needed, and when it is needed it is most vital to justice.
Let me read another line by Adlai Stevenson, who said: The first principle of a free society is an untrammeled flow of words in an open forum.
William Allan White also wrote the following:
Put fear out of your heart. This nation will survive, this state will prosper, the orderly business of life will go forward if only men can speak in whatever way given them to utter what their hearts hold-by voice, by postcard, by letter, or by press. Reason never has failed men. Only force and oppression have made the wrecks in the world.
That is what you have to guard against. Let me now deal with something that concerns me greatly. I believe this bill was brought in under the guise of a tax bill. I believe the main principle is to control, what people read, and that seems to be a violation of the Bill of Rights. If you read these cases in respect of freedom of speech, you will find that they spell out very clearly what is a freedom. The bill in 1938 was declared by the judge to be ultra vires. These freedoms are spelled out pretty clearly and thoroughly in our Bill of Rights. I wonder if the minister cleared this particular bill with his legal officers; and if he has, can we accept the opinion of those officials of his department? Many times they have given the government advice and the courts have thrown out that advice and the case of the Crown. Our Canadian Bill of Rights states in part:
It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Then it spells out some of those rights, which include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association and freedom of the press. The last one is a very important freedom. Surely it is a fundamental freedom for the press

February 9, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
and the media to always keep the people informed of what is going on. Surely that is a check on the democratic process. In this way we keep the public informed of what their elected representatives are doing here, what the government is doing and what the public servants are doing. Only through a free media can we accomplish this.
I think it was the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway who said she is always greatly concerned when people begin to tell us what we shall read, what we shall not read and whether it shall be 1 per cent, 20 per cent, 40 per cent, 50 per cent or 70 per cent Canadian content. After all, who makes the decision? The decision should be left to the freedom of the people. We should leave it to the freedom of the press, because we have enough protection in the rules of libel and slander.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to be brief. I maintain you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly. This press control is being attempted under the guise of narrow nationalism. Nationalism is of great benefit if it is used in the right way, but we have seen what uncontrolled nationalism has done in dictatorships. This control of the press is being done under the guise of fair taxation law. We have this control of content, and that is where the government and I part. Why should a few bureaucrats decide what we should read and what we should know? The law must be clear and free of ambiguity, and known to be free by all of us. That great parliamentarian, Mackenzie King, said that the law should be known to all Canadians as they sit, as they walk and even as they go to bed to sleep.
This law leaves a discretion with the minister. This discretion relates to the amount of Canadian content, and we all know the difference of treatment in respect of Time and Reader's Digest. In this way, I suggest that the discrimination is in fact ambiguous in the law. This is rule by the people, and not rule by the law. Any time you have rule by the people, and not rule by the law, you must look out because our freedoms are in sorry shape. If you give this government the power over the press and the power to be more authoritarian than even this government has asked for, then God help us in Canada.
To my mind the Bill of Rights has been breached. This is no tax measure. It is a measure to control content and what the public will read. We should fight this measure to the end. I am not frightened of the word "filibuster". Many people fear that word because filibuster is something which has been used in this country and in every parliamentary system. There comes a time when freedom is at stake, and at such a time, any tool that parliament can use to kill a bill should be used; and this is a bill which should be killed.
While you and I, Mr. Speaker, and while members of parliament and the people of Canada have lips and voices

with which to sing and speak, are able to refer to modern technology, and have hands with which to write, why should any power block our right to sing, to say what we think and to record and to print? In respect of this measure, I say God help us if this is the role the government has chosen to control what people will read, record, say and sing in Canada.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, first may I say it is an unusual pleasure for me to be supporting an amendment set down by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). At the same time, I should like to say how pleased I am to see so many Liberal members from our native province in the House today. During the question period I noticed there was a very good turn-out. I am puzzled whether they are here to support the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway or because they wish to avoid the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the province of British Columbia.
I am pleased to support this amendment. On November 17 last I had a few words to say concerning the position taken then by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I am sorry if I questioned her sincerity at that time, because it is now obvious, even to those of us with a most partisan outlook-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian and Northern Development (Mrs. Campagnolo).


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I feel I should rise on a question of privilege, because I am here for neither reason the hon. member states but to do my duty to my constituents. I take issue with him for saying we are here under duress.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished at such sensitivity. I never dreamed I would witness it on the part of the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo). Apparently she thought I had used the word "duress". I do not know what word I used which would lead her to make that assumption. I do not think she would ever come here under duress. Her attendance here is regular. I repeat that I am pleased to see so many members here from British Columbia. There is probably an equal number of Liberals here and in British Columbia at the present time.
I particularly enjoyed the speech made on Thursday night by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik). It is very refreshing to hear such independent speeches from members on the opposite side. I also appreciated his reference to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, because she brought to the subject her knowledge and background as a journalist. This was very refreshing in this debate which seems to be one largely conducted by lawyers and politicians, not too many of whom have an intimate knowledge of the workings of journalism in Canada today.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) has come out of this not looking too well. Quite recently he joined the cabinet with the best wishes of the opposition. We appreciated him very much as parliamentary secretary to the former minister of finance. I particularly recall the stalwart defence he put up for the minister's policies during the last budget debate and during the proceedings on the bills which flowed from that budget. He went to the
February 9, 1976

job with the very best wishes of the opposition, but unfortunately he has found himself caught in some kind of an impasse with the cabinet, I presume, in which he has been required to back track on issue after issue. I am sorry he got off to such a bad start.
Of course, if one wishes to join what was recently described in Europe as the Government of Canada being a ship of fools commanded by Captain Kangarroo, then one must expect to look like a fool himself. When this bill was first brought in by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulker) it was suggested that 50 per cent would be what they were looking for in the way of Canadian content. Then it was 60 per cent, and later 80 per cent. At one time it appeared it would go to whatever extent necessary to ensure that Time magazine did not publish in Canada. These are not the reasons which should be behind an attempt to eliminate Time magazine from Canada. The reasons should be economic or national pride, and not merely to ensure that Canadians do not read Time magazine.
I hate to think what we would read if we did not read Time magazine. I refer to the general public of Canada. Up until recently, Time magazine has provided us with the type of writing which Canadians read. Many people may prefer to obtain their world news from other magazines, but the average Canadian prefers the conciseness of Time magazine. I like the Economist, but usually it arrives quite a while after world events have happened. While it might be authoritative and better researched, it arrives late. Not everybody reads such a magazine, in any event.
I should like to speak for a few moments about the unknown regulation which will be at the whim of the Minister of National Revenue concerning what will be Canadian content and how much of it there must be. I shall refer to this a little later and show a similarity to another well known organization. This will show the effect what has gone on here has had on parliament. When we were drawing up laws to govern the publication of two American magazines in Canada, suddenly we walked into this House and were informed by a press release from Reader's Digest that we could pack it up and go away, or do something else, because they had talked to the officials in the Department of National Revenue and the problem no longer existed. This certainly downgrades Parliament to an extent which I consider reprehensible.
I should like to read an excerpt from Hansard which described the position I took at that time. I refer to Hansard of November 17, 1975. What I was saying at that time was in conjunction with a letter sent out by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the sponsor of the amendment. I am referring to page 9130 of Hansard. This letter stated:
There has been an attempt by certain people-in some cases misinformed and in others deliberate distortion-to convince the public that Reader's Digest is subsidized by the government. This is not so. It is simply a case of allowing free choice of advertisers in Canada by which to sell a product.
The hon. member went on in the letter to say:
I also prefer Time over Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, etc., for the same reason; Time provides a good, concise, objective record of international news along with well written, depth-packed reports of Canadian interest. Personally, as a writer, I fear the action to eliminate a market for writers and allied industries, especially beginners in this field. If Reader's Digest closes out in Canada, this could eliminate jobs
Non-Canadian Publications
in Vancouver and Montreal, lose $5.2 million in salaries for 450 Canadian employees (including $700,000 in fringe benefits and $600,000 in profit sharing); $22 million in trade with Canadian suppliers; $1.6 million in taxes; $3 million in first class postage (not counting the magazine distribution itself). The company has $8 million invested in office, printing presses and other capital equipment in Canada.
If we do not accept this amendment, we will be at the mercy and the whim of the Minister of National Revenue, not this month or next month but every month in the future. I think it is a most unsatisfactory situation to try to conduct business under such regulations. Let us look at the alternative which has been sponsored indirectly by the government, that is, Maclean's magazine. First, I should like to say that I have read Maclean's all my life. I have never lived in a home without Maclean's. I was raised on the western prairies where we had certain basic precepts. We cheered for the Toronto Maple Leafs, we voted for the west in the Grey cup, we voted Conservative, and we read Maclean's magazine-not necessarily in that order. Sometimes, particularly of late, it has become more and more difficult to read Maclean's magazine. I should like to say that this bill is sometimes known around Canada as the Maclean-Hunter monopoly bill. It seems to me to have a political bias.
I looked over the last issue of Maclean's rather carefully. On the cover we have a picture of the Prime Minister with the words underneath reading "Our man in Havana". Certainly they have every right to refer to him as "Our man" if they get this bill through without any amendments. On page 1 the Progressive Conservatives are mentioned under the title "Bloody Sunday", where reference is made to our leadership election in two weeks. If we look for world news in this magazine, we will not get much if we do not continue to get Time magazine. On page 14 we read "All the muck that is fit to rake: the truth hurts more when it comes too late"-all about the love life of John F. Kennedy. On page 17 in the preview we have pictures of two Americans and one Canadian. On page 19 there is a cartoon of the Prime Minister. On page 20 there is a picture of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). On page 22 they even it up by bringing in the Progressive Conservatives in a derogatory article on Alberta.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: On page 23 they have two pictures of the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: "Our man" in Maclean's.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: On page 30 there is an article on Rich Little which may be considered as Canadian content. I do not know, because he has been away for a quite a while and is doing well in the United States. On page 34 we have the article I mentioned, entitled "Bloody Sunday", about the Conservative leadership convention. Then we come to page 41 where we find world news. And this is to replace Time magazine! There are only three pages in this periodical dealing with world news. The first one is entitled "The World-Mr. MacEachen goes to Paris . .. and Cairo . .. and Tel Aviv", and there is a very large picture of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) seated on a

February 9, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
camel. I do not know which one looks more uncomfortable and embarrassed.
The world news on the next page refers to quintuplets being born in Holland, again, I suppose, to educate Canadians. Then we have a derogatory article on the CIA in Washington which has been printed in one form or another dozens of times. On the next page we read about Italy in a very interesting article which says that the communists are projecting a moderate and thoughtful approach to Italy's many problems. It states:
... the communists have seen their portion of the popular vote increase steadily in every election since 1948, the year after they were thrown out of power.
This is rather peculiar, because the elected people in Italy in the period between 1946 and 1948 were not elected in the way we know it but were elected to a constituent assembly. When the constituent assembly drew up the regulations for the next vote, the communists were into a minority and the majority was given to the Christian Democrats. Then we come to page 46 where, I must confess, I have found an author that I certainly enjoy, namely, John Robertson who seems to me to be a superb writer on sports. I am glad to see that he is included in Maclean's if we have to read it in lieu of some other magazine which we may prefer to read. There is a page on business which contains an article headed "How big oil provides for its friends in high places", and I see pictures of Senators Godfrey and Connolly under which is written "It's great to be a Liberal in the internal combustion age".
From what I have said about Maclean's magazine it is not difficult to see why there is concern about that magazine replacing Times magazine and giving Canadians an opportunity to find out what is going on in the world. This is borne out by the Victoria Times, a newspaper on the west coast which had the dubious honour of being declared one of the only two English speaking newspapers which supported the Liberals in the last election. An article in the newspaper states:
If the federal government hadn't already made a martyr out of Time magazine with its clumsy Canadian content rules and bull-headed indifference to all arguments on the crucial issue at stake .. .surely it has convinced any doubters with its curious decision now to exempt the Reader's Digest.
It goes on to deplore the government getting into the sticky grey area of defining what is and what is not Canadian content. In conclusion, I should like to recommend to anyone who likes reading George Orwell-which I do-his book "1984" in which he points out that in 1984 the government will have only four departments, one of which will be the ministry of truth, which exactly fits the description of the Department of the Secretary of State. I should like to quote a few lines from this book on the ministry of truth. They read:
-the ministry of truth, whose primary job was not to reconstruct the past but to supply the citizens of Oceana with newspapers, films, text books, telescreen programmes, plays, novels-with every conceivable kind of information, instruction, or entertainment, from a statute to a slogan, from a lyric poem to a biological treatise, and from a child's spelling-book to a Newspeak dictionary.
This sounds exactly like the Department of the Secretary of State. It goes on:
And the ministry had not only to supply the multifarious needs of the party, but also to repeat the whole operation at a lower level for the

benefit of the proletariat. There was a whole chain of separate departments dealing with proletarian literature-
That is the CBC
-music, drama, and entertainment generally. Here were produced rubbishy newspapers containing almost nothing except sport, crime, and astrology, sensational five-cent novelettes, films oozing with sex, and sentimental songs which were composed entirely by mechanical means on a special kind of kaleidoscope known as a verificator.
I do not know where the Secretary of State thinks he is going-he was referred to as an school teacher by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway-but we will be getting closer to "1984" if this bill is allowed to pass. I recommend highly to the House that it seriously consider the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and either support it or, better yet, throw out the whole bill.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to participate once more in this debate and to commend the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) on her amendment, which I support. It is now becoming quite clear that Bill C-58 is nothing but a device for getting rid of the Canadian edition of Time magazine. While I am pleased, as are most people in Canada, that Reader's Digest will continue to publish its Canadian edition, I think the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that he and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) are charged with shutting down Time magazine.
I am not sure how successful they will be and whether any deals are involved. I endeavoured to get information from officials at Reader's Digest, but they were very reticent. When the press release was issued by Reader's Digest stating that they were willing to live with the new rules and would continue to publish, it came as a bombshell to most of us with the exception of the Minister of National Revenue. I have no idea what kind of statements or deals were made. I give the Minister of National Revenue credit for listening, reading, or at least being informed of the speeches during this debate in defence of Reader's Digest and Time magazine. There has been a great deal of comment in the media, particularly the press, and as a result of all this the minister has made some changes. The leader of my party made some rather strong comments this afternoon but, Mr. Speaker, I say more power to the minister for going as far as he has.
When it comes to playing with figures such as this 80-20 deal, I think many of us are worried about the power which lies with the mandarins: that is why the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway deserves consideration. There is no doubt that Reader's Digest was coaxed a little, but in the end they made the decision. What the government has done to Reader's Digest can, and will, happen again in Canada. I do not believe, and I do not think anyone else believes, that the government would go to all this trouble to scuttle Time magazine, to shove Reader's Digest into line, and then let the matter lie. There is a lot of discretionary power in the hands of the Secretary of State and the Minister of National Revenue. After their performances in this House in regard to this bill, I wonder how much either of them can be trusted to exercise discretion in the use of this awesome power.
February 9, 1976

No one in this House, and very few people in the country, will believe that Bill C-58 was designed to protect Canadian magazines from foreign competition. It has been established that competition from Time and Reader's Digest has had no effect at all on the other magazines. We know that those advertisers who will lose out on their Time magazine audience will certainly not go to Saturday Night or Maclean's magazine.
Although I cannot go along with Bill C-58 because it seeks to introduce government censorship of the media and government intervention in the area of editorial content, I have to go along with the amendment that seeks to lower the requirement for material to "not substantially the same". I know that this bill will pass even though there is a great deal of resentment in the government benches against it, so I have to be willing to take half a loaf. Even if we lowered the requirement to 50-50 it would still amount to substantial government interference and government censorship of the press, and I do not think many of us are interested in seeing that happen.
We know from experience with censorship in other countries that censorship does not promote a higher level of professionalism. Indeed, it has the opposite effect; it promotes mediocrity. Writers and editors who cannot find their niche in a free media market will favour censorship because that would be the level at which the media would be pitched. Every great writer who has emerged from the controlled press behind the iron curtain is not considered great on the basis of literary merit. Those who have become best sellers on this continent have become so because they have written so tellingly against the system in which they have had to work. The latest is Zakharof. I wonder if the Secretary of State is trying to establish an environment for writers along the lines of those in the Soviet Union and other iron curtain countries.
I have been checking press reports, as I know other hon. members have. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) said on CFCF radio on February 4:
I don't think it achieves the objective of assisting our publications and I am going to vote against the bill in any event. But, I am very concerned that at least we have accommodated one of my concerns in connection with republication operations.
The Secretary of State was interviewed by CBC radio the same day, and he said:
Well, because Reader's Digest took a decision yesterday, a very important decision to conform to the law. I have always said that that was an option of both Time and Reader's Digest and any other magazine affected that they could either conform to the law, in other words, operate under the '65 law as all Canadian magazines are obliged to do or send in their foreign edition. Now Time has not decided to do that and I understand Time's difficulties but Reader's Digest has. Now, we are not making any special consideration giving a special break to Reader's Digest. They decided to conform to the law.
The commentator questioned the minister further on the 75 per cent ownership question. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that we all agree 75 per cent ownership is in order and we are in favour of it. The minister made the following statement with regard to Time:
That is something that really is in the hands of Mr. Cullen. But, as I understand it, it would probably be interpreted like most tax laws are.
I was delighted to hear the minister state today that as long as a magazine conforms to the law any time up to December 31, 1976, it will be considered to have become
Non-Canadian Publications
Canadian. He cited the example that if you get married on December 29, you are considered to have been married for that entire calendar year for tax purposes. I should like to refer, also, to the comments of Gordon Sinclair who is, I believe, the son of that very eminent writer and news commentator on CFRB whom a great many people in Ontario listen to at every opportunity. On CFCF radio on February 4, Gordon Sinclair stated:
For months I have been saying and believing that the legislation being passed in Ottawa requiring that publications be 80 per cent Canadian content in order to be considered Canadian was discriminatory and immoral and was being rammed through parliament for one reason only, to get rid of the Canadian edition of Time magazine. By the way, if the rule was scrupulously enforced, they might get rid of most Canadian newspapers as well.


An hon. Member:: Not a bad idea.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I think many hon. members would agree that outside of the advertising, our daily papers do not carry Canadian news so much as news that is worldwide, particularly that concerned with our neighbour to the south, and this is probably as it should be. Gordon Sinclair continued:
The ruling stinks. It is trickery and the government should not play tricks.
Mike Donegan of CFCF-TV, said on February 4:
-suddenly Reader's Digest is off the hook. After months of teeth-gnash-ing, breast-pounding and nationalistic flagwaving, the Trudeau government has decided that Canadian citizenship after all can be conferred on to Reader's Digest because it is not a magazine at all, it's a digest. It is likely not wise for us now to go into all the tortured reasoning that has led to the latest of this pretzelled situation, but the upshot is that the Canadian edition of Reader's Digest is now in and the Canadian edition of Time magazine is now out, or is it? Although federal government officials are stressing the the Reader's Digest compromise cannot be extended to Time Canada, the Time Canada publisher Steven Leroux apparently feels that the rope around this neck is somewhat loosened. He is telling newsmen that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, although officially Ottawa is insisting that it is not. Ottawa should do us all a big favour by scrapping this nonsense entirely and let Reader's Digest and Time Canada go about their business.
Ian McKenty, of station C JAD; also said on February 4:
As you know, the Trudeau government has been trying to boot the Canadian editions of Time and Reader's Digest out of Canada, and now the government has backed down on Reader's Digest. That's good news for the hundreds of Reader's Digest employees in Montreal and is also good news for anybody who values the free press in this country. The government should now back down on the Canadian edition of Time. The government should withdraw Bill C-58 and its own interpretation of Canadian content. The real problem here is the Canadian content rule. It's called the 80 per cent rule-
The new rule, for the minister has assumed full responsibility, is known as the Cullen rule. Mr. McKenty went on
to say:
-More than 80 per cent of the contents of the Canadian periodical must be material which has not appeared in ... prior issues of foreign publications; and I should add here that "foreign publication" refers to one with which the Canadian periodical has a continuing arrangement. Now this so-called Cullen rule gets right down to the arrangement and size of photographs on a page. Suppose a photograph appears in the Japan publication, a similar view of the same photograph then appears in the Canadian magazine. It will not be considered Canadian content. But here is the rub-who decides what is Canadian content and what is not? I expect it's the boys in the Revenue Department in Ottawa. They are the same gang who decides for all of us what is a dirty-

February 9, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
Or pornographic -book and what isn't a dirty book.
Mr. Robert Stanfield said this legislation is not acceptable to anyone who still believes in the fundamental principles of a free democracy. Mr. Stanfield is right. The government should withdraw Bill C-58 and review its 80 per cent content rule.
I support the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. If Canadians want Maclean's, they will have to buy it. We do not need the Liberal government ramming it down our throats. The Montreal Star said much the same in an editorial on January 29:
The federal government's Bill C-58 has one thing in common with Bill 22 of the Quebec government.
Each of these laws is controversial. I continue:
Each is framed in ambiguity and therefore open to whimsical or dangerous interpretation by bureaucrats-
The editorial further says that one official interpretation so far is that "substantially the same as" means that 80 per cent of the contents must be reported, edited, viewed and otherwise originated by Canadians. As I said earlier, this means that most Canadian newspapers or periodicals at one time or other will not, under this definition, be considered as Canadian. The Montreal Star says:
What kind of future interpretation will be delivered by bureaucrats who tor purposes of their own or the government that hires them decide that specific Canadian newspapers aren't friendly and therefore must cease publication because they do not qualify? Bill C-58 has reached its present stage without benefit of full cabinet debate. It is ill-conceived in the form in which it now appears. It is a threat to civil liberties. It is, moreover, politically dangerous for a Trudeau administration which has already become enmeshed in a distasteful controversy over a possible increase in government intervention in business affairs and habits of Canadians. There can be no excuse for adding to the conflict by inviting the kind of bureaucratic meddling that might violate fundamental democratic values. Bill C-58 has no reason for passage.
As another contributor to a certain Toronto magazine says, if the Liberal government passes Bill C-58 in its present form, "it will be the last editorial viewpoint in this magazine that will be written and published free of government editorial control." That is terrible.


Mr. Symes:: The hon. member has not considered certain aspects.


Stan Darling: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) is commenting. He thinks that anything to do with free enterprise is distasteful, as do many members on my left. Those hon. members want more government ownership, more government intervention, more government control: that is their goal.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And jobs for the boys.


Stan Darling: I suggest that the majority of the members of this House and the vast majority of Canadians are not ready for that kind of control.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to many hon. members speaking in this House, my admiration has been strengthened for government supporters who had the courage of their convictions and spoke as representatives of those who voted them into parliament. They clearly outlined their reasons for opposing this bill even though most of their backbench colleagues support

the government, disregard the effect of Bill C-58 on the majority of Canadians and forget that there was little, if any, consultation between the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and their counterparts south of the border.
Canadians ought to remember that we have a good neighbour south of the border. If we continue treating our neighbours in this manner, there is no guarantee they will remain good neighbours. Anti-Americanism is popular in Canada these days; but let me impress on the House that one need not be anti-American in order to be pro-Canadian. There is room for both countries on this continent. As one country grows, so will the other: we must remember this. If we are to become strong as a country, our neighbour south of the border must also be strong.
Have the Minister of National Revenue and the Secretary of State considered what our Canadian publications would lose if our good neighbour to the south retaliated in like manner? How much would our publishing industry lose if it no longer carried glossy advertisements of products made south of the border? Our advertising arrangements should be reciprocal. We all understand that the United States is bigger than this country: it has ten times our population and is ten times as strong. Let us remember that almost every publication sold in Canada carries advertisements of United States products and services to do with liquor, cigarettes, real estate, vacation spots, cosmetics and countless everyday consumer products.
Even the Canadian Periodical Publishers' Association must be aware of that fact, but perhaps it, too, can afford to ignore the individual's welfare and point of view, as the Secretary of State did with regard to other representations made to the House committee. That association seems to be the sole interest, vigorously defended by the Secretary of State. That is strange, yet interesting, because this government is well schooled in overlooking suggestions, submissions, personal petitions and pleas by Canadians from every area of our land, regardless of the number. I guess that can only be construed as another interpretation: this government and its ministers find an interpretation to suit their objective, turning a deaf ear, flaunting authority and discounting all intelligent reasoning emanating from outside their own sanctum. Unfortunately, power begets power. I do not think it would be at all far-fetched to say that nothing destroys democrary as rapidly as power and the greed for more power.
This legislation, if left unamended and if no consideration is given to this amendment, will discriminate in favour of publications which concentrate on events within this country as against those which report extensively on international affairs. Most Canadians read daily or weekly newspapers in which all important Canadian news is printed, without restriction, interpretation or discrimination. Magazines or periodicals which contain information and educational or other specific informative material may no longer be permitted to serve Canadians as a result of the decision of the Secretary of State. While giving lip service, has the government given enough thought to publications such as MD of Canada which provides an important and necessary service to our physicians? The entire content of this medical journal is valuable information. It
February 9, 1976

does not offer competition to any other journal or magazine in this country; it is published, printed and edited in Canada-yet Bill C-58 would eliminate it.
Did the Secretary of State also decide to disregard the
1,000	Canadian writers because he was so bent on hearing only the periodicals' association? What has happened to the right of the individual? I am sure many of those writers are just as professional as members of the association in question-perhaps more so than the sponsors of this arbitrary piece of legislation-and perhaps could do much more to put Canada on the world map in a more meaningful and brotherly manner. Maybe it would be wise for the respective ministers and government supporters to read the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) once again. I am as pro-Canadian as anyone, but before you have a good neighbour, you first have to learn how to be one, and the policy of this government certainly lacks the premise of being a good neighbour as far as relationships exists with the United States.
Did members of the NDP realize what they were doing when they spoke in support of the government on this bill? Does the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), for instance, want to become part of this about-face of the Minister of National Revenue and the narrow and biased outlook of the Secretary of State? Did not the constituents of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) express their feelings about this biased legislation? Are they not "men of the cloth" to whom Canadians look for justice at every level? I believe that if they reconsider their stand, especially when government MPs have, they will have the courage to stand up for what is right, rather than to be led around by the nose. How can NDP members, or any member in this House, respect ministers in their individual interpretations and single-minded decisions?
We have heard about the Cullen rule. If this minister does not change his stand, perhaps we will hear about the Cullen funeral. There is no reason why he has to be tagged with this legislation. It was handed to him by his predecessor. If he wishes properly to represent those who elected him and all other Canadians, he will have to take another look at this question. We must ask ourselves whether we want government by interpretation rather than by statute. Government supporters who are supporting the two ministers in this legislation should recognize that these ministers may not hold their positions for very long. Perhaps there will be a new government. I hope so. If that happens, there will be two new ministers. Unless changed, this legislation will be in place and open to interpretation. Therefore, if this legislation passes it will be a great disservice to the Canadian people and the freedom that has been given to us by those who went before. We should be careful about giving away that freedom to the interpretation of ministers.
This bill has gone beyond a simple income tax measure. Reader's Digest can perhaps continue to publish within Canada, and the future of Time is not yet known-so how many Canadian publications will actually reap benefits from this measure as far as income is concerned? We know the facts. The figures have been given to this House. It is within 2 per cent or 3 per cent of the amount used for
Non-Canadian Publications
advertising that is put into magazine advertisements. This legislation will surely not change the amount that much. The inherent danger in Bill C-58, and I would think that every democratic individual would realize this, is the fact that the government is interfering in what is to be published, namely, the printed word. Perhaps the next step will be infringement of our freedom to worship. Economic freedom in this country has already been implicated because of government restrictions.
How can any conscientious MP of any party profess to be concerned about our veterans, our former prisoners of war, senior citizens' well-being, our prisons and their inmates, and child care-to name a few-and yet defend a measure which takes away one of our basic freedoms by interpretation? The printed word, after all, is a form of freedom of speech. Not many countries in this world have the opportunity of exercising that freedom. We should certainly do it at every opportunity. We must make sure that freedom of speech is protected in order to maintain a degree of stability.
I feel sure that every MP who has the courage and integrity to think for himself will realize he cannot support this bill. Members opposite have been very active in their support of the O'Leary commission recommendations concerning Canadian periodicals, but it was very noticeable that their support did not mention one very significant fact. At no time did the O'Leary report suggest that government should become involved in the interpretation of what Canadians should or should not read. It should be left up to Canadians. They are intelligent people. If they do not like what they see, they do not buy it. However, they cannot read what is not printed. When the Minister of National Revenue or the Secretary of State interferes with what is to be printed, there is created an element of political bias. It is an infringement on the rights of the individual.
There is no reason why we should allow this bill to pass. I hope there are enough members on all sides who will stand up and be heard on this very crucial issue, because once in place it will be very difficult to change. Let me emphasize that that which is put in place should be put in place by statute, not by interpretation. Because of the disagreement in the course of second reading, committee stage and report stage, there is a great variance in opinion. The government has no right to decide what should be available for reading or what can or cannot be printed in this country.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it has become apparent from what one reads and hears in the media of this country that journalists in Canada, newpa-pers in Canada and most thinking Canadians, have come to realize as this debate has gone on the danger of this bill with its so-called Cullen rule and its principle of government by interpretation rather than government by statute. What the government has proposed, and what it persists in doing by refusing to reconsider its position, by setting on its own embarrassment a greater value than the principle upon which a free society and free democracy is established, is in point of fact violating everything we have ever been taught about responsible government, in the parliamentary sense, acting through our parliamentary institutions.

February 9, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
What the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) has done and, by his speech, will do in the future is to amend a statute of parliament by a decree outside the statute, a decree made to suit the convenience of the government. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on Friday, and speakers in this debate today, have made it clear that we are not prepared to let this pass. We are prepared to use every available parliamentary means to ensure, to the extent we possibly can, that we will not allow this to happen. That is why the members who spoke on Friday, and those who spoke on Thursday on amendments to this bill from the government side and who put their partisanship aside and spoke in terms of their conviction-all of them admirable speeches and all well-researched-brought out the points which were separating them from their party, that were separating their positions of principle from a position lacking in principle on the part of their party. I sat in wonder and in admiration and heard them out. I think that these members who have thus far spoken with respect to this bill- and all of them spoke under great strain-are the unsung heroes of this debate. I join with colleagues on all sides of the House in congratulating them for their courage.
That is what has been happening. The Leader of the Opposition on Friday, and again today put the proposition very carefully. I quote from his speech on page 10728 of Hansard for February 6, 1976:
Earlier in the week I asked the Secretary of State if he could honestly say that "substantially the same" means the same as "80 per cent the same." I do not know how anyone can argue that such expressions come within the normal use of the English language. How can anyone argue that the interpretation given those words approaches their normal meaning? The interpretation is a complete distortion of the three words "substantially the same". How can one say something must be 20 per cent the same, or 80 per cent different? In other words, the government is changing the statute.
That is the issue. That is, aside from the main objective, not a really bad objective when you look back on the debate and the purpose of Bill C-58 which has now become lost in the shuffling which has gone on. The real issue is the failure to act directly or honestly by coming to parliament with an amendment to the statute. Instead, the government has relied on a procedure which is merely justice depending upon the length of the chancellor's foot, depending upon the whim of the minister, depending upon the clout of the minister within the cabinet and his position from time to time, whoever he might be.
Mr. Speaker, I would not trust my own party with those powers and I'll be damned if I will trust this government with them! It is important that we not succumb, in this House or anywhere else, to the easy compromise which would be to say, "All our prayers have been answered; all our mail has been answered: we can now send out the press release to all the people who wrote to us about Reader's Digest and say Reader's Digest has been saved." Of course, there is no guarantee of that, if we understood what the minister said this afternoon. But that would be the easy way. It would also be the unprincipled way, because it is precisely why that decision was taken.
Public criticism over Reader's Digest could be dampened and turned away, it could be set aside, and every loyal little Grit could send out a statement that Reader's Digest

had been saved. Well, I do not think it is sure that Reader's Digest has been saved. I would be delighted to see it happen, but not at the expense of what is the right and duty of the government in a parliamentary system which is to come before parliament with the changes to its legislation, not with the back-room tinkering which has gone on. I'll wager that some of that back-room is the caucus room of the Liberal party.
Part of it is the difficulty which beset the Minister of National Revenue. Part of it is the problem which overtook the cabinet the moment they departed from principle. Part of the problem is-as Geoffrey Stevens pointed out in his column last week-moving from blunder to blunder in terms of this legislation. I do not believe every backbencher on the government side is a tool of the government. I do not believe they are ciphers. I believe there are more members like the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) and the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) who spoke in this debate. They spoke with courage. But the principle is a clear one.
No member of this parliament representing, as we do,
125,000	people should lie down and tolerate this backroom tinkering, this compromising in an unprincipled way with legislation which may have been founded in the right direction. No member of parliament who respects his position should let it go by. I am very happy to stand with the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and with others who have spoken in this debate and say that what we are witnessing here is a dark day for parliamentary democracy. If the good word "compromise" is to be derogated in this kind of unprincipled way, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will do all that they can to prevent it.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) said that the government is changing the law outside the statute. He said we are being governed now by interpretation of a statute by a government whose attitude may change. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) spoke of the danger that this action could pose to other forms of the media such as newspapers. We are dealing with a very serious matter. I hope all members of the House will avail themselves of the opportunity of putting in their two-cents' worth on this legislation, even those members of the House who are prepared to take a nationalistic view of Bill C-58 and those who are prepared to say that Time and Reader's Digest ought to have no privileges whatever in Canada. Even those members ought not to sit back silent while this right of a free people to debate legislative change is being trampled by a government that is doing by regulation what it does not have the guts to do by statute.
That is the issue here, Mr. Speaker. All members of the House who feel strongly about the matter should ask themselves this question: Do we honestly approve, as members of a free parliament, of the government doing an end-run around parliament and taking unto itself the unprincipled use of regulations? Having put itself into a discriminatory position first of all in regard to both Time and Reader's Digest, considering those two entities together, by virtue of this interpretation, it is now taking a
February 9, 1976

position against Time magazine only. Whether we are talking about Time at about Reader's Digest, if we are to believe the government, Mr. Speaker, we are still talking about revenue of which Canadian publications will be deprived. Althouth I have difficulty believing the government, I have no difficulty in seeing that not only is this unprincipled in terms of administrative law and parliamentary practice, but it is equally a kind of vendetta against Time magazine. I would commend to members of the House an editorial that appeared in today's Montreal Gazette written by Christopher Young, former editor of the Ottawa Citizen. He had this to say:
The great Canadian magazine policy is now hardly more than a vendetta against Time. Or perhaps, to give it a positive framework, the magazine bill is reduced to that ancient national policy, protection of infant industry.
The "infant" in this case is Maclean's now ironically calling itself by the Time-coined name "newsmagazine".
If that is the object of this legislation-and it will be the result of this unprincipled move by the government, and I hope by fewer than a majority of the members of the House-then all of us will be party to an act which will be discriminatory against one magazine that we have accepted in favour of another, on the narrow ground that it happens to be Canadian. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I commend this article to all members of the House as one that examines the real purpose of this legislation. It is written by a well known journalist, a man of the highest repute who is as much concerned about the fate of the publishing industry in this country as any member of the House.
This is a bad discriminatory practice that the government asks the House to approve. I, for one, am not prepared to stand by and allow this to happen and I know there are others in the House who are not. I am satisfied that before this debate is over the government will rue the day it ever decided to tinker in the backroom with principles that affect and which ought to govern a parliamentary democracy.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker)-Agriculture-Reduction in federal share of cost of crop insurance-Government action to offset; the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Manpower-Possible elimination of some youth assistance programs-Alternative measures to increase employment opportunities; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Air Transport-Introduction of bilingual air traffic control in provinces other than Quebec.
Non-Canadian Publications



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-58 to amend the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we have had the great privilege of listening to a first-rate speech by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: -which was emotional but reasonable, which was on a high level yet based on the law. It was the kind of speech that I hope will have great appeal to hon. members opposite, fresh from their weekend caucus at which they dealt with the very serious problems they are now facing. I was not privileged to be at that caucus, Mr. Speaker, but I can imagine Your Honour was there. There is no doubt at all in my mind that among the issues they discussed was this very bill.


Mr. Lalonde:: Wrong again.


Gerald William Baldwin: If I am wrong, let one of the members opposite stand up when I am finished and make a speech about what exactly is the approach of his party's caucus.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You fellows should come clean.


Gerald William Baldwin: As they feel their world trembling about them, getting close to the last days of Pompeii, I would have thought they would have seized the first opportunity to make a speech either in defence of the bill and the strange and tortured actions of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), or they would stand up, if they had the courage to do so-as my hon. friend from Grenville-Carleton said- and challenge the bill and the principles behind it.
I have not spoken on this bill before, though I did ask the Minister of National Revenue some questions about it. I did not get the answers I sought; they did not deal strictly with the issue I raised. Today the minister spoke, but failed to deal with what I consider to be a very important although possibly a collateral issue of the bill and the principle involved.
I asked the Minister of National Revenue why, if the government did not want to legislate the terms under which certain periodicals would either be or would not be allowed to be published in Canada and receive the tax benefits which heretofore have been received by Time and Reader's Digest, it did not at least use the opportunity provided under section 221 of the Income Tax Act and put this in the form of regulation. If the government did not want to put this in the form of legislation, as it did in the
2 1 130-59
February 9, 1976

Non-Canadian Publications
1965 act, then why did it not put it in the form of regulation? A regulation, to those of us who labour in the vineyards of public life, is not as effective as legislation because we can debate legislation in the House, propose amendments to the matter when it goes to the committee, and perhaps amend it when it comes back at the report stage. Of course, legislation is the ideal way, or the best approach. However, if the government does not want to legislate, or does not dare to do so, then why, in the name of heaven, does it not use the opportunity provided under section 221 of the Income Tax Act to do this by regulation?
A regulation becomes a statutory instrument and is then subject to some review by the scrutiny committee established under the Statutory Instruments Act. We then have an opportunity to examine and consider the regulations and then, if necessary, report to the House. In this day and age, when governments-and this government in particular-are abrogating to themselves more and more power to deal with the affairs of the people of this country secretly and by decree, it becomes necessary that some of these things at least come out in the open.
As I recall the minister's statement the other day, he said he had received the legal opinion that he was not able to do this by regulation. This is an extraordinary thing. When we have tried to find out in the statutory instruments committee why certain decrees and regulations are not allowed to be brought before that committee for scrutiny, we have been told a legal opinion has been given that these were not regulations and therefore were not to be brought before the committee. I am glad to see the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) in attendance here. He was chairman of that very good committee.


An hon. Member:: A very good chairman, too.


Gerald William Baldwin: He was a very good chairman of that very good committee with many very good members who sent back a very good report, something that we do not get too often these days. That report recommended certain things, and as a result there was a subsequent Statutory Instruments Act.


An hon. Member:: What has this to do with the bill?


Gerald William Baldwin: I know the hon. member has a mind that likes very simple things, but I like to deal with these issues in terms of building a case. Perhaps if I use more simple words the hon. member might be able to understand. I will speak slowly and try to take him along one stage at a time so that he perhaps will be able to understand the points I am trying to make.


An hon. Member:: Make sure you don't tell us about your convention.


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member is worried about the convention. I am sure that is what they have been talking about in caucus. They are so worried that something is going to come out of our convention. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will get back to the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I was making a point about the method adopted by this government when dealing with the prob-

lems we are now debating. This method falls in line with the past conduct of this government. I use this illustration because it indicates precisely what has happened and what will happen to this government when it exercises the dictatorial power it has received from parliament to deal with matters of this kind.
When we have asked in the scrutiny committee for legal opinions, we have been told that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) is the constitutional adviser to the government and has no right at all to give any legal opinions. When we have gone to a particular department, Crown corporation or agency, which has received legal advice that compelled it to refuse to produce a statutory instrument or a decree for consideration, we have been told we are not allowed to see the legal opinion given by the Minister of Justice. That is the situation today.
The Minister of National Revenue has said that at his whim, or the whim of his advisers, he has decided that Reader's Digest has now engaged in an arrangement which he accepts as being satisfactory under the terms of section 19(5) of the Income Tax Act. This is governed by the whim of the minister or by the whim of civil servants. If the minister has one whim today, he can have another whim tomorrow, another the day after and another the day after that. This is the sort of thing about which we complain.
I will come to the content of the bill a little later, but it is the procedure adopted by the government that is most repugnant to anyone who believes in the principle of parliamentary government, as does this party, and as I hope at least some members over there as well. When I raised this matter the other day, the Minister of National Revenue said his legal advisers had told him he was unable to do this by regulation. Let us look at section 221(5) of the Income Tax Act to see what in fact it says. Let me paraphrase the section which says that the governor in council may make regulations-and I come to (j)-generally to carry out the purpose and provisions of the act.
This has been subject to legal interpretation and we understand clearly what it means. There is no question at all that if the government had the courage to say precisely what the rules are, it could do so by regulation. If the government had the courage to say precisely what rules it intends to adopt when it comes to establishing the basis on which a periodical shall be deemed to be a Canadian periodical, it could do so by a statutory instrument such as a regulation.
If the government followed this procedure, such an instrument would then go before the scrutiny committee, under the Statutory Instruments Act, where members of this House could at least exercise some measure of scrutiny and supervision. The government has refused to do this. Rather than do it this way, the government has decided to make its decisions in the darkest recesses of some departmental office. There the government huddles with its legal advisers and, perhaps, officials of Reader's Digest. Perhaps later on these officials will huddle together with representatives of Time magazine, and perhaps later still with representatives of some other periodical, making deals with them based on the government's whim of the moment. That is the basis of the government's case at this time and, as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has said, that simply is not good enough. If that is not the basis of the
February 9, 1976

governments decision, let someone over there stand up and establish in words we can all understand the basis on which the government is operating. Let some hon. members over there do that, if they have the courage-which I doubt.
I say to you at this branch of my argument, Mr. Speaker, that the government could have acted by legislation as it did in 1965. If it did not want to do that, it could at least have indicated there would be regulations under the regulatory clause. In that event, the regulations would have been published and we would then know what are the facts.


An hon. Member:: I thought you wanted legislation?


Gerald William Baldwin: As the hon. member suggests, I would much prefer legislation, but if we cannot have legislation let us at least have regulation. Let us know what the rules are so that we may decide to abide by those rules, or not, as the case may be. This is much like the old story I have told before, of the Roman emperor who, when compelled by law to engrave his laws on tablets of stone, did so and then hung them up so high that no one could see or read them. That is what this government is doing. No one knows the real basis of the deal made with Reader's Digest apart from the Minister of National Revenue and/or his officials. That is the situation we face.
All over the United States, ever since-and even before-the Watergate situation a number of states have started what is known as the sunshine law. This began in the State of Florida and spread to Oregon and California. I think that now almost all the states in the United States of America have passed sunshine laws. This means sunshine in government, open government by which not only the legislature but all the boards, the tribunals and their agencies are compelled to hold proceedings in public subject to secrecy acceptable to the people whose lives are affected by their decisions. That is sound, common sense. I think we are coming into this era in our political history when we need something similar in Canada.
Instead, we find this government proceeding further and further away into the medieval days in respect of a simple issue of whether or not a periodical is a Canadian periodical. The decision is made in the dimmest recesses of some government office. The minister said this is the same kind of decision he often makes. He said that members from all sides often ask to make interpretations. That is an entirely different thing. Decisions made in respect of income tax returns, mathematical calculations and interpretations under the regulations are one thing. That is on a completely different footing to what appears as the law under section 19(5) of the Income Tax Act.
Let me again place on the record what section 19(5) (a) "Canadian issue" means. Then certain items are given. It states that a Canadian issue does not include an issue of a periodical the contents of which, excluding advertisements, are substantially the same as the contents of an issue of a periodical, or the contents of one or more issues of one or more periodicals, that was or were printed, edited or published outside Canada. That is very different, far more important and more grave than the kind of example
Non-Canadian Publications
the minister gave when he said that from time to time, at the request of people in this country or of members of the House of Commons, he might examine the return of a taxpayer in respect of a specific issue and make an interpretation. This is a more grave, more serious and more important issue which cannot be left to the uncontrolled discretion of departmental officials.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, let me make one more general comment. I hold no brief for or against Time magazine or Maclean's magazine. I must say, however, that in my opinion literature, like beauty, art, science and mathematics should have no national boundaries. I do not think we add to the value or calibre of Canadian literature, Canadian science, Canadian mathematics, Canadian art, Canadian sculpture or Canadian drama by closing our boundaries. I do not think there should be national boundaries. If I want to read Time magazine or any other periodical, and if that may involve the fact that Time magazine receives certain benefits in terms of advertising revenue which are not shared by other magazines, then if that is the price to pay perhaps we should be prepared to pay that price.
There is no question that the recent contortions of the government have indicated who is their target. It is Time magazine. The determination from the beginning may have been how to keep Time magazine out of Canada. That is obnoxious to me. Maclean's magazine may take its place, but I doubt that. My experience, as a westerner, is that so far as the west is concerned Maclean's magazine sends its hatchet people out to the west from time to time to write distorted and completely improper articles on the people of western and northern Canada. I have seen some of these articles from time to time. This is an indication of the slovenly intellectual capacity of the people on Jarvis Street and University Avenue in Toronto. The CBC does the same thing from time to time. There is no question about that. I see no reason, under these conditions, why the government should be allowed to go through, unscathed, in its contortions and twistings in its attempt to bring about the proposals in the bill.
For that reason, I support the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) who has had the courage of her convictions in dealing with this matter honestly and straightforwardly. This is the way she sees it. This is a legislative proposal which the people can vote for or against. This is the way we should proceed. We should proceed by way of a legislative proposal which will be dealt with in this House.


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, as a relatively new member of parliament, sometimes I sit back and scratch my head wondering what we are arguing here. As I listen to the debate and the frustrations of members express, I wonder even more so, because the deeper and deeper we get into the issues involved in this bill, the bigger and bigger a mess we seem to have. What started out at second reading as a statement of high principle and philosophy has now turned into absolute confusion. The principle and philosophy have long since been lost and we are attempting to salvage something. Unfortunately, the more I look at the bill and the more I hear about it, the more vested interest there seems to be and the less principle there seems to be.
21 l30-59'/2

February 9, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
As I looked at the original intent of the bill, it seemed to be to eliminate special status. Who can argue with that principle and that philosophy? That philosophy of special status and privilege goes to the very root and foundation of the Liberal Party as I have studied it. The movement for equality is a small "1" liberal move away from class and this type of "ism". So I would expect, when a Liberal brings forth this policy of equality, he would attempt to justify it and produce legislation on that basis.
I hear some Liberals on the other side say they want that equality. Some of them have even been taken in and have called this a form of equality and a form of liberalism. They have been talked into accepting the minister's statement that this eliminates special status. But even they who are lulled into this false sense of complacency are now beginning to doubt. They are doubting the judgment of their minister and of their government, because it does not take an intellectual giant to eliminate the special status. This bill is supposed to accomplish that. All we hear is double-talk coming from the government benches, doubletalk which tells us that they will eliminate the special status, and yet Reader's Digest will continue to publish as before. So where is there the elimination of the special status? I do not pose this question to the minister now; I address it to the backbenchers. I urge you all to go back to your basic philosophy and to the principles which brought you here to the House, to the things in which you believe. Every time that your minister says that, I ask you to challenge him and ask him how the special status is eliminated.
Let the hon. member who has just spoken stand up and make his speech, because I want to hear him. I want him to tell me about the special status of Time magazine, how it has been eliminated by this bill. In fact, this bill does not eliminate the special status of Reader's Digest. That argument will not wash in light of the announcement of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen).
So if this is not the principal purpose, what purposes are left? I think the purposes that are left are, first, vested interest. I suggest that everyone had better consider this. In the name of whose vested interests is this bill being passed? I suggest we look for the vested interest of the opposition members in the effects of this bill. Obviously, the opposition does not have a vested interest in destroying this bill because the opposition members, like myself, who speak on this bill, and like hon. members in the party opposite who dare speak against this bill, have no vested interest because we will be hurt by the Canadian news media who gain from this bill; we will be their victims of attack or we will be ignored, both of which possibilities have very severe consequences to a politician.
So the opposition does not have a vested interest in this. Obviously, the Liberal backbenchers do not have a vested interest in attacking this bill. Some of them have staked their political future on this bill. They are walking into the jaws of this machine and they will be chewed up. This is unfortunate because they are idealistic members, members who stand on principle. So I say there is certainly no vested interest among the Liberal backbenchers who are attacking this bill. They can only be interested in principle, and nothing else, when they attack the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: If you doubt your own backbenchers, then listen to the arguments of the press.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Certainly, I also say, "Order." If we want order, the only order is from the other side.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Address the chair. You are saying "you" all the time. Address Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Hon. members on the other side dare to speak. I encourage them. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) has allowed her name to stand behind this amendment. I urge other members who have spoken up loudly in caucus to stand up. Let us hear their opinion as well. Let us hear them support the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. They have much to lose from fighting members of their own party. I say to the minister, "Listen to the press which speaks and reports." In the last few days they have caught the nature of the argument and they are concerned about the content rule and about the clause "substantially different". The fact that the motion before us today would eliminate this clause is to the credit of the hon. member who proposed it.
It seems to me that the other object is the importance to our national and cultural life, and this should be considered as well. Unfortunately, we do not seem to want to allow freedom of choice to the majority of Canadians. I recognize that the communality of choice, even if it leads to mediocrity, the choice which people have and which may be mediocre is worth protecting more than any other principle we may be discussing here today. When the government tells us that their judgment on what is Canadian and what is not Canadian is better, I am in doubt. I know that this bill does not state clearly what Canadian content is. I know that this has been avoided so that we can be more comfortable and say that we are not legislating content. But, in effect, content is being legislated and the content which the minister intends to protect under this legislation is Canadian content. If we had his choice, that is what would be printed and distributed.
I suggest that Canadian content is being distributed and produced very widely through Time magazine and, as a matter of fact, through Reader's Digest. As I have said, even if that choice is mediocre, that is the choice of the people. There is a small group of elite writers who are certainly Canadians but who promote a minority point of view. They should have a way of being heard and of receiving subsidies from the Canadian government, perhaps through the CBC or through subsidies to books and other publications. This is being done to a large extent. At the same time, let us recognize the choice of Canadians in their reading, which is in itself an expression of what they feel is their own culture. I suggest, for example, that Reader's Digest or Time magazine express in 80 per cent of their content what Canada is and what Canadian culture is.
Perhaps I am saying that we Canadians are 80 per cent the same as people in the United States. I think it is also true that they are 80 per cent the same as people throughout the world. Our cultural differences are small and they
February 9, 1976

should remain small. We should promote those things that tie us together. That can be done through international magazines such as Time and Reader's Digest. On that basis, I say they express the Canadian viewpoint, and because they express the majority Canadian viewpoint they have the right to exist, the right to be read and the right to be heard in Canada.
The government has been in power for many years. A government that has been in power for many years often develops the "Big Brother" complex. A small clique or elite within the government gains control and with that control a series of pieces of legislation are put out by the government against the will of the majority of the people. We have seen this happen in governments time and time again. This does not occur on very large issues; it occurs on small issues. It happens when a government becomes deaf, not just deaf to the majority of Canadians but deaf to the backbenchers within its own party, because it is the backbenchers who are out in the larger community. They are talking to people and getting the gut political feeling that people like to read these magazines and want them to continue. I suggest that those backbench members on the government side opposing this bill will survive longer than members of the government who are promoting the legislation.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to reconsider the content section of the legislation. The principles of the Liberal party can be upheld on every aspect other than content, and the same is true for the Conservative party, in my opinion. I am sure the New Democratic Party does not like content legislation either.
I ask the government to listen to the representations of the Canadian public as expressed by members who have, are, and will continue to speak until the message gets through to the minister. This content rule must be modified, if not totally eliminated, which would be our preference. I think the message is starting to get through. I urge the backbench members on the government side to speak out now. Every time they allow an infringement of this type on our democratic principles it threatens all we stand for.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to stir the embers of memory in this House tonight and go back to the days when members were campaigning for the privilege of participating in debates such as this. I suspect members were very vocal on the hustings, saying they wanted to sit in the House of Commons to represent the people of their ridings and the democratic principles for which our country is known and admired all over the world.
I remember listening to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) participate in the talk shows for which Vancouver is well known. She said that she was not going to be simply a mouthpiece for all the policies of the government, that if she were elected and disagreed with the government, the government would know about it. I must confess that many times I wondered whether she would be true to her word, and I am happy to say that she has been. I regret there are not more members on the
Non-Canadian Publications
government benches who follow her example and remember the statements they made on the hustings.
This first session of the House has been a period of orientation for me as well as other members. I recall the pre-election idealism and how I, and I am sure other members, saw the function of debate as perfecting legislation, and the very word parliament as meaning "talking things out." I find the government benches strangely silent, however. This seems to be a one way dialogue-a monologue in fact.
When I arrived here I learned that the function of committees was to take legislation that was a little too cumbersome for debate in the House and create the best kind of legislation from it. Committees were composed of members representing some kind of background, training or interest pertinent to the legislation, and they would hone the legislation to the sharpest edge, perfecting it in a way that could not be done through cumbersome dialogue in the House.
I watched with interest this piece of legislation pass on a predetermined course set by a minister who refuses to listen to debate and the advice of members of the committee-a minister who has set as his goal that this legislation will go through the House undisturbed and unchanged. For this he is unrepentent. I feel sure, however, that by the time the legislation passes he will feel a measure of chagrin if not repentence.
I have watched the operation of the committee and the function of the government whip. At one time the whip's function was to make sure that members would attend and participate, and that a quorum would be present. That is not the way it works, however. The whip's function is really to make sure that all members are there who favour government legislation and that members who do not favour it will not be there. They get the double shuffle.
I watched with interest the protection of vested interests close to the minister, and the contradictions within cabinet. For example, the minister said there was no problem with this legislation, that Time and Reader's Digest could function easily in spite of it. For example, the minister said as reported at page 10638 of Hansard:
Let me reiterate that the government is not seeking in any way to control the freedom of magazine publishers and editors. Nor do we want to impose our will upon the people of Canada and regulate their reading habits. Bill C-58 in no way impinges upon freedom of expression.
Not at all. Then in committee he said that the success of Reader's Digest depends largely upon not only its large circulation but its ancillary projects such as the record industry, Book of the Month Club, and the Digest books. These are the ways Reader's Digest makes its money. Because Reader's Digest is a wealthy corporation it has a healthy margin of profit, and therefore Selection in Quebec is not going to suffer at all.
He went on to say:
Examine it in those terms. I think if there is a problem it simply focuses on that particular area, and I would suggest there is enough public evidence around that Selection does not have to stop publication.
Then we have the words of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) in the House as reported at page 10584 of Hansard:

February 9, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
As a result of questions which were raised in the committee as to whether this legislation in fact had that effect-
That is, a sop to digests in Canada.
__I again discussed the matter with my officials and subsequently
talked to counsel for Reader's Digest.
It seemed to me at the time that the legislation would have that impact, that is, that it would preclude digests, so that if two, three or ten Canadians got together and decided they were going to have a Canadian digest 100 per cent owned by Canadians, with the editing and publishing being done in Canada, it would be theoretically possible for them to operate in Canada under the 80 per cent rule, but it would be for all practical purposes impossible because of the unique nature of digests.
That is the point that we continuously tried to bring forward to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) in committee.
I wonder is the cabinet unanimous in its opinion. On the one hand the Secretary of State adamantly denied the suggestion that this legislation will in any way affect the operation of Reader's Digest in Canada. On the other hand we had the Minister of National Revenue saying, obviously as a result of what went on in Committee, that Time and Reader's Digest, especially Reader's Digest, could no longer function in this country. One thing encourages me. Despite such contradictory statements it is evident that the Minister of National Revenue pays attention and listens. Yet I guess the old saying still holds true that a new broom sweeps clean. At least that minister is approachable, is not following a pre-set course, and is willing to change his mind. Whom are we to believe, the Minister of National Revenue or the Secretary of State? Right now I am willing to put more stock with the Minister of National Revenue. I think he wants to do the right thing.
We must resolve some basic issues when considering this bill. I know that others have mentioned them; that does not lessen their pertinency. The Secretary of State has said repeatedly that the intention of this bill is the preservation of Canadian culture. That is a laudable goal. I ask, first, which Canadian culture does he mean? There is some basis for thinking that the Canadian culture the minister has in mind is the culture centred on Toronto, the suave, urban-oriented culture of the self-professed purveyors of culture in Canada. In the assessment of some, that is Canadian culture. Do you want to preserve Canadian culture of that kind? If you do, it strikes me as ridiculous to talk about preserving Canadian culture when we are not necessarily talking about Canadian writers but talking only about the Canadian publishing industry.
I recall questioning a witness in committee who said he was speaking on behalf of the newly formed writers association. I asked, "Incidentally, how many writers in your organization are Canadian?" He replied that most of them are either citizens or landed immigrants. Ha! What a joke! Tell me, how does a landed immigrant from England, France, the United States or South America, writing in a Canadian periodical, preserve Canadian culture?
How does the landed immigrant saturated with the culture of his native country in any way preserve Canadian content and Canadian culture when writing in depth about his experiences of his native culture? If he crosses the Canadian border and writes in a Canadian periodical, how

does he preserve Canadian culture? Is that how you guarantee the preservation of Canadian culture? It is fatuous to believe that you can preserve Canadian culture merely by publishing items in wholly Canadian owned magazines, as defined by the Minister of National Revenue; such expectations are especially foolish as contributing writers need not necessarily be of Canadian origin or of Canadian background.
My next question is this: are such writers Canadian by conviction? The sole purpose of some writers in Canada is the overthrow of the Government of Canada. Can we say that they preserve Canadian culture? How far does the Secretary of State want to go in preserving our culture? Where does he draw the line and to what extent interfere with our publishing industry?
Again I ask, when the minister says he wants to preserve Canadian culture, which culture does he mean? Who will define Canadian culture? Is any member of this House smart enough to define it? Can any cabinet minister define Canadian culture in a way satisfactory to all Canadians? Is anyone smart enough? I doubt it.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Benno Friesen: I am, and I am speaking for the hon. member too, and all other Canadians.
If the government intends to preserve Canadian culture I say its goal is laudable, but the procedure is self-defeating. How can you preserve Canadian culture with legislation, when the Canadian people themselves must preserve it? The intent of this bill quite simply is to cloister, purify, and identify that which is truly Canadian. But who will define these things? I suppose the process must begin with the Department of National Revenue, the Department of the Secretary of State, and the Department of Justice defining Canadian culture. We will have to put ourselves in the hands of those departments.
Something else disturbs me, Mr. Speaker. Although the Secretary of State says he wants to preserve the Canadian publishing industry and Canadian culture, he does not do it when given the chance. I am thinking of a publication which went out of business not more than three months ago in my neighbouring riding, largely because people under the Secretaty of State did not keep their promises. I am talking of Sono Nis Press, which I am sure the Secretary of State remembers. Sono Nis Press was a fine arts publishing company specializing in the production of artistic works. It published writings by Canadian authors in Canada and its avowed purpose was to preserve the fine arts in Canada. It was a Canadian publishing venture, endorsed and partly underwritten by a Canada Council grant. It so happens that this publication was the brain child of a visiting professor of the University of British Columbia. He has been called Canada's youngest and most prolific writer, a man of no small stature in the fine arts, a great poet and a good writer. Let me tell you his story, Mr. Speaker.
The Canada Council went to him and said, "If you relinquish your full professorship at the university, where you enjoy an assured salary, and become a member of the Canadian fine arts team which is to preserve Canadian culture, we will give you $15,000 a year." The man was willing to make the sacrifice and relinquished his full
February 9, 1976

professorship at UBC. He began writing for the Canada Council and for Canada, and set up the organization known, as I said, as Sono Nis Press. What happened? He agreed to do this work for $15,000, but it was not long before the Canada Council said to him, "Look, we can't quite afford $15,000; can you do it for $11,000?" By that time he had relinquished his university appointment; but he agreed to do it for $11,000.
There are lots of people in Canada who do not fully appreciate the fine arts, but who think $11,000 is a lot of money. At any rate, the ex-professor said, "O.K. these being times of austerity, I will settle for $11,000." So he settled for $11,000, and tried to live on that sum. He wrote and published the kind of work that inspires Canadian poets, short story writers, and novelists. He has been an inspiration to scores of writers across Canada.
The first year goes by. He waits for the next grant. He is supposed to be a permanent writer under the Canada Council. The second year comes along. They say that $11,000 is quite a bit, they do not know if they can do that, and would he settle for $9,000? By this time, there is no way that he can go back to university. The austerity program has set in. Full professorships are not hired back because the salaries are too high. Therefore he must stick with Canada Council. They have him where they want him. When he comes back the next year, they say that $9,000 is too much, and will he settle for $7,000?
What happens to him as a poet also happens to him as a publisher. Canada Council says that what we need in this country is a fine arts publishing company that publishes books, poetry, short stories and so on. When he is asked to start that company, he agrees. The first year everything is kosher. The next year it is not quite so good. The next year one of his writers is publishing short articles in many of the learned fine arts journals across Canada and the United States, all of which have been recognized. In fact he has Canada Council grants to work on them.
This person then decides to compile all those articles and bind them in one volume. Canada Council says no, he cannot get the grant because the articles separately do not constitute quality. The young man decides to publish them anyway. After the book is published, the government by way of Canada Council says that this is representative literature and it would like to have it in our embassies around the world. They would like 200 copies, but would like 20 per cent off the full market price. Therefore you have a publishing company that is fully Canadian, staffed by Canadians, publishing in Canada, publishing Canadian work that is being cut off.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I must interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He can continue only with unanimous consent. Is there consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) is going to make a speech. If he is, we would like him to get across the floor first.
Non-Canadian Publications


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I was asking if there was unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Benno Friesen: I thank hon. members for allowing me to conclude my remarks. By the time I finish my speech they will be glad they gave consent.
Here is an example of a golden opportunity for the Secretary of State to demonstrate that he really is in favour not only of preserving the publishing industry, but the jobs and locations of hundreds of writers in Canada who are dependent upon the publishing industry for their livelihood. And he blew it. The Canada Council blew it. It makes me believe that the protestations that the Secretary of State made about wanting to preserve Canadian culture are totally spurious.
I come back to the point where I began. How do you go about preserving culture? Can you preserve a culture regardless of how identifiable it is, how Canadian it is, or how pure it is? Can you preserve that culture by building a wall around it, making sure that no one on the outside can contaminate it? Are we content to build a wall around Canada in the hope of having a purer Canadian culture?
I wish to quote from a speech made in the British House of Commons some time ago by a man who knew what it was to be threatened by censorship. He knew what it was to be threatened by this kind of control. He refused to bow the knee to this kind of intimidation. He said this:
I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat. Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world, bring impurity much rather; that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary. That virtue therefore which is but a youngling in the contemplation of evil, and knows not the utmost that vice promises to her followers, and rejects it, is but a blank virtue, not a pure; her whiteness is but an excremental whiteness;
We have a government that mouths a conviction of believing in free enterprise and, maybe to a lesser degree, interaction in the market place. It wants to believe in free enterprise and competition everywhere except in the field of arts, journalism, and publication. There competition is not good. Everywhere else members of the government believe in competition. They say that it is competition that makes our economy run well. However, when it comes to freedom of information, access to information, and style, they no longer believe in competition.
In no other field like in the field of writing and the arts is it so necessary to have a cross-fertilization of cultures in order to preserve, enhance, and make our own culture grow. We cannot allow this kind of legislation to restrict the thinking and artistic expression of the people of Canada through the field of journalism. I call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
10766	COMMONS
Non-Canadian Publications AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, before we recessed for the dinner hour I was saying it seems that in every part of our economy we believe in competition but that in the world of writing the bill before us and the actions of the government would seem to suggest that competition is not good.
Perhaps, though, on reflection, there may be an element of consistency in the government's approach. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has suggested the time is coming when there will be increasing governmental interference in the lives of ordinary Canadians. From this point of view it might be said that the legislation we are being asked to approve is consistent with government policy.
I for one maintain that competition in the world of ideas, in the world of the arts, in the world of writing, is a healthy state of affairs, just as it is in the market place. For support I would simply turn to someone whose words will, I am sure, be accepted more readily than my own, although my own, I feel, ought to be accepted readily enough. I refer to the noted essayist, Matthew Arnold. In an essay entitled "The Function of Criticism at the Present Time" he wrote:
It is of the last importance that English criticism should clearly discern what rule for its course in order to avail itself of the field now opening to it and to produce fruit for the future it ought to take. The rule may be summed up in one word-disinterestedness. And how is criticism to show disinterestedness? By keeping aloof from what is called "the practical view of things"; by resolutely following the law of its own nature, which is to be a free play of the mind on all subjects which it touches. By steadily refusing to lend itself to any of those ulterior, political, practical considerations about ideas, which plenty of people will be sure to attach to them, which perhaps ought often to be attached to them, which in this country at any rate are certain to be attached to them quite sufficiently, but which criticism really has nothing to do with.
The hallmark of fertility of thought and fertility of writing is summed up in the word Matthew Arnold uses, namely, the word disinterestedness.
It occurs to me that in order to understand the effect this legislation might have in future years we might project ourselves into the world of Gulliver's Travels. Gulliver was a model of the rigid Englishman who thinks that the world is his oyster and that everything centres upon his world. This was his belief until he began to travel.
The first unsettling experience he encountered was in the world of Lilliput where he met a race of people who thought in very much the same way as himself. They believed they enjoyed the best of all cultures, the best of all lifestyles, that everything they had devised was little short of perfect. When Gulliver came along they were obliged to revise these impressions. Until then there was no basis of comparison which they could use; they had no way of knowing whether their culture was really a superior culture or not. When Gulliver arrived they recognized instantly that they were, in fact, a very inferior race, a very diminutive race, not in the matter of size only, and that they had by their insularity frustrated the growth of their culture.
Later on Gulliver resumed his travels and went to the world of the Brobdingnagians. These were giants and they, too, thought their world was perfect-that there was no

DEBATES	February 9, 1976
culture better than theirs. Again, though, they had no true basis for this judgment because they had not come into contact with members of any society other than their own until Gulliver arrived. But as soon as Gulliver landed on their shores, a basis for comparison existed. As I said a few moments ago, Gulliver himself had felt there were no achievements superior to those of his own culture, but when he saw the giants he was obliged to recognize that his world was, in fact, narrow and circumscribed.
My point is this: if we insist on drawing artificial boundaries we are eliminating contrast, we are eliminating conflict, and in this way we are eliminating growth and the possibility of perfection.
An hon. Member; What about comparing the Yahoos with the Houyhnhnms?


Benno Friesen: The hon. member asks if we are going to compare the Yahoos with the Houyhnhnms, and we might because it would be a very apt comparison. I suppose we do have some around, but we should probably leave them for another discussion. But if we draw these narrow boundaries of nationalism the day will come when we, in our pygmian fantasy, will look at our culture like many of the Lilliputians and, without thought of comparison, say, "We are the very best there is; there is none better". While that happens the world passes us by. While this happens to our culture, our writers and journalists, who are the exponents of our culture, the expression of what we think and believe, have no way, if we are in splendid isolation, to sharpen their faculties and skills because they are isolated unto themselves.
I would ask the members of this House whether they think that the Manchester Guardian, an English newspaper, became a good newspaper because it studiously practised an insular editorial policy? Did the New York Times become what it is today because it had a paranoic fear of foreign correspondents? These kinds of barriers are never a sign of virility and strength; they are always a sign of decay and fear, a kind of cultural egotism based on fear of comparison.
How are the Canadian people to sharpen their critical faculties if all Canadian publications are the products of an inbred journalistic society? Critical faculties are developed by comparison. Let the people read, let the people compare. Let them decide what is Canadian and what is good.
Let me turn now, Madam Speaker, to some of these practical realities of which we have spoken. The Secretary of State addressed his caucus and I should like to make reference to that address. He said:
While any potential economic dislocation caused by the change in the Income Tax Act would be short-term, it should not be forgotten that some individuals may, certainly, suffer financial loss. One cannot dispute Reader's Digest on this point-
I ask the House to take note of this next statement:
-and a conscious trade off has to be made between these effects and the policy objectives of the government.
Do hon. members realize just what the Secretary of State is saying? The jobs of writers, typesetters, lumbermen, pulp workers, printers and delivery people are to be a
February 9, 1976

conscious trade off between "these effects and the policy objectives of the government". I suggest that it is both callous and Machiavellian when workers become helpless pawns in a trade off by an unthinking and unfeeling Secretary of State.
Just to make my point a little more clearly, Madam Speaker, I am sure other hon. members have received some of the information that I received. I have before me a half page and placed in all the leading newspapers of this country submitted by about 49 companies in the printing trade. The headline is: "A message to the Government of Canada from the Graphic Arts and Printing Trades Suppliers of the Canadian Reader's Digest". These 49 companies represent about 1,500 workers, among them Evergreen Press Limited of Vancouver representing 50 jobs, Century Arts Studio, Montreal Lithographing Limited and so on. The Secretary of State says that these 1,500 jobs are a conscious trade off that has to be made between "these effects and the policy objectives of the government".
Let me say something about the inconsistencies in this legislation. The Secretary of State has made it abundantly clear that there will be a real distinction between the effect of this legislation on periodicals and its effect on newspapers. As a matter of fact, the government has always made it clear that newspapers are not to be affected by this legislation at all. I ask you, Madam Speaker, what in the name of fairness can that mean? It means that newspapers in Canada can use the services of the writers, UPI, and all the news agencies around the world at a fraction of the cost of sending their own correspondents out to get news stories and to write them up.
I would ask the House how this situation is any different for Time and Reader's Digest. Both those companies are, in effect, using news agencies to gather in their material and prepare it for publication. One of the dilemmas that the minister faces is the freedom of news agencies to distribute their news stories to Canadian newspapers and magazines. This is done on a shared cost basis with other customers around the world. So a Canadian newspaper that buys a story from UPI, Reuters or API buys it at a fraction of the total cost of production. The rest of the cost is paid for by other customers in England, Australia, the United States and other English-speaking countries. No one questions the validity of this practice; it is the only way that Canadian newspapers can afford to provide world-wide news for their readers.
Reader's Digest and, I might add, Time magazine have a continuing relationship with the parent companies in the United States. Reader's Digest has raised two features which are objectionable to the minister and apparently to the government. First, its profit picture makes possible, indeed inevitable, that dividend payments will flow to the United States company. Second, it makes possible the purchase of previously published articles at a fraction of the cost of production, since they are already "used".
This practice has been termed by the government and some witnesses, I believe erroneously, "dumping". Nevertheless, the relationship makes savings possible, only because Reader's Digest, I might add, is a unique magazine both in format and in content as well as audience. However, it is the contention of the government and of some publishers that this relationship constitutes unfair compe-
Non-Canadian Publications
tition, and therefore inhibits the growth of existing periodicals and perhaps prevents the birth of new ones.
For reasons of consistency I wish the government would clear up what it plans to do with the news agencies scattered around the world as they "dump" their news stories in Canada. I would then ask the Secretary of State, who loves to quote Walter Gordon, why he does not quote other passages of Walter Gordon, for example, the statement he made in 1965 that:
The government's proposal asserts no control whatever over newspapers or any other publications. It does not alter in any way the complete freedom of businesses to advertise in any way they choose in existing publications or in any future publication owned by Canadians. It provides no precedent for any kind of government interference in the complete freedom of the press.
Then in a sentence I would like to underscore, Walter Gordon goes on to say:
There is not and could not be any question of interfering with the press in so far as the dissemination of news and opinion is concerned.
Then note this, Madam Speaker:
I know that no Liberal government would ever think of doing so.
Would you believe it: I know of no Liberal government that would ever interfere with that?
There is one final difficulty with this legislation, and that is that this is not in the form of a statute. Members have pointed this out before, as I did when speaking on a previous amendment. It is impossible for writers to operate in an atmosphere of freedom and security when they have hanging over them the Damoclean sword of government regulations and the whims and vicissitudes of ministers making up their minds. The government knows, and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) knows, as tacitly admitted by a statement in Hansard, the mistake of drawing up legislation in this present form. The Minister of National Revenue is faced with an impossible dilemma. First he realizes that the bill should include these regulations, and secondly he cannot do this-


Mr. Blais:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member presently speaking was granted the consent of the House to pursue his remarks past the limits imposed during these proceedings. He has now taken over 20 minutes of extra time. I should like the hon. member to indicate whether he has nearly completed his remarks and, if not, perhaps I might raise a further point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. If there is not unanimous consent the hon. member cannot continue his speech. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) has stated, just before the adjournment at six o'clock the hon. member had come to the end of his allotted time and the House was asked for its unanimous consent in order that he might continue. That consent was given. I am satisfied that is the case. I know the hon. member will not abuse that privilege in any way, but consent for an extension of time was
10768

February 9, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
given. I want to say that we are extremely grateful for that kindness on the part of hon. members on that occasion.


An hon. Member:: You have had it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member has already gone on now for 15 minutes. Perhaps he could bring his remarks to a conclusion.


Benno Friesen: Much to the disbelief perhaps of government members, Madam Speaker, I have only about five minutes left and then I will be finished.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member had unanimous consent before six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


An hon. Member:: He had unanimous consent, but not for the rest of the day.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member could bring his remarks to a conclusion.


An hon. Member:: No, no.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member has agreed to complete his remarks in a minute or so.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: There is not unanimous consent. Is the House ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I am as anxious as anyone for this debate to get on, and I think the hon. member has abused the consent given to him by going on this long, but I do not see how the House can withdraw that consent once it has given it.


An hon. Member:: For the rest of the day, or for the rest of the session?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has confirmed what I had said earlier in respect of what the House did just prior to six o'clock. I do not believe the hon. member who now has the floor intends to abuse that consent in any way, particularly in terms of the importance of the matter before the House.


An hon. Member:: He already has.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You just don't want to listen.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The record shows that the hon. member has already spoken an additional 18 minutes.


An hon. Member:: So what?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member has spoken for 18 minutes over his limit which is almost two allotted periods, so I think the hon. member has had enough time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill C-58. My remarks will be brief and, I hope, to the point, realizing that as a result of the many points already raised and debated the government should by now have received the message, and possibly should have withdrawn this bill.
The behind the scenes agreement between Reader's Digest and the government to make it possible for Reader's Digest to remain in Canada can, in my opinion, be classified as one of the most unworthy acts ever perpetrated in the annals of the history of Canadian governments, and is one more example of the government hacking away at the democratic process on which our country built its foundation, a foundation in which there already appear the cracks of disintegration as the result of almost eight years of misrule by this government.
My Greek ancestors, the founders of democracy, would turn over in their graves if they could perceive the dilution of these principles of democracy, principles which on numerous occasions, they defended, and indeed died for over the last 2,400 years.
Setting policies by regulations drawn up and enforced by civil servants, without prior knowledge or input by elected representatives of the people, is bad enough, but to legislate solely by the whim of a minister, as this regulation regarding Reader's Digest will do, leaves periodicals at the mercy of that minister.
Our present minister may have a benign, non-jaundiced and non-interference outlook, which would perhaps be the same outlook as his successor, but there is no guarantee of that. Even if there were a guarantee, all I can say is, what a hell of a way to run the government of a country. Back door policies and back door agreements have no place here.
I am in full agreement, as expressed by some previous speakers, that Bill C-58 is the brain child of an individual or individuals, possibly in the vast hierarchy of the civil service, who from time to time have to justify their jobs or positions. I think the country would have been better off if they had been transferred to somewhere in some never-never land where their words of wisdom might have found their appropriate place.
As my leader earlier admonished, Bill C-58 is a violation of everything that responsible parliamentary government is all about, and changing the law by decree and not by an act of parliament grossly violates the Canadian constitution.
To me Bill C-58 is nothing but veiled censorship to serve the interests not of the majority but only of one publication, Maclean's, whose behind the scene power is so necessary and important to the government. In addition, it is a blatant example of the government not only making the decisions regarding the contents of a publication, but also taking on the role of judge and jury. As the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) has said:
February 9, 1976

If we are going to talk about a situation in which foreign publications or foreign material comes into this country to be printed and is subjected to a bureaucratic value judgment we must recognize, that as a subjective position ... if bureaucrats do not like something they can censor it 100 per cent... It means there is no debate. A group of people in the bureaucracy make a subjective judgment about a piece of writing, but unless they can produce some unwaivering criteria to support their judgment then there is no formula .. . The reference to previously published material in fact means that writers from any other country can publish first in Canada and then in a foreign country.
Any material written in another country becomes acceptable if it is first published in Canada, but if it is published in another country and then comes to Canada it is not acceptable. What a lot of hogwash, Madam Speaker! All magazines such as Reader's Digest or MD have to do is change the order of publication, that is, publish first in Canada and then in the foreign country. Substantially not the same as previously published material simply means the order of publication can be changed and it is within the regulations. This will not protect the Canadian publishing industry. Actually it will simply create a loophole to circumvent the law.
Quite frankly I do not see any better evidence of the position of the government in respect of the so-called new society and the greater degree of government intervention than in this legislation. Clearly the government intends to restrict the entry of written material which it does not like, and allow material that is advantageous to it.
It is the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) who is responsible for this mess. He in turn has dumped it into the lap of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen). I think the Minister of National Revenue would be well advised to dump it right back into the lap of the Secretary of State.
The real issue here is really the right of Canadians to read what they want to read, and they resent the government's increasing involvement in their day-to-day lives. It would seem to me that this is a collision course that the government would hope to avoid. I believe common sense in this situation should always prevail.
The government made a farce of the committee which studied this legislation. When it became apparent that some government members of the committee voiced disapproval, the government responded by moving these dissenters and replacing them with "yes" men. By emasculating this committee the government has exposed the real inability of most committees to do a job in a way that not only would be meaningful and fulfilling to a member but that would also help members in their attempt to contribute to the legislative process of the country.
The minister talked about Canadianism and Canadian culture. He talked about our losing our identity as Canadians. When he mentioned this there was no question in my mind that he was referring to our neighbour to the south. When he spoke of the 80 per cent difference perhaps he should have stressed not the difference but rather the similarity of our two cultures here and in the United States. He should have emphasized the similarity more than the difference.
I said my remarks would be short. I should like to say in conclusion that this bill is not in the interest of the
Non-Canadian Publications
Canadian public. The Canadian cultural industry has already turned its back on the Secretary of State. The federal government is the servant of the people; it is not the people who are the servants of the government. When any government fails to recognize this then it invites political disaster. My suggestion to the minister is that he clean up this mess very simply by tabling Bill C-58 and relegating it to the wastepaper basket where it rightly belongs.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I am glad to see hon. members over there are awake tonight. It was interesting to listen to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) when he was discussing competition. I thought that in a very short time, within two weeks, the same people who are discussing Bill C-58 tonight will be discussing competition and Canadian-ization of our country at a convention to be held not too far from these premises. I wonder if the same people, like the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, will be saying the same things at that convention they are saying in this House. I doubt it.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock made quite a large issue, while speaking for some time, of competition. I do not think any member of this House will be deluded into believing that the hon. member really was talking about competition between Canadian firms but basically was talking about competition in the sense that there is unfair competition. He did not say it, but there was the implication that there is unfair competition in the periodical industry in Canada.
I suggest that in bringing up the subject of competition between Canadian firms and Reader's Digest and Time magazine the hon. member is creating a smokescreen, because surely the way the law was set up in Canada in 1965 gave a very clear advantage to Time and Reader's Digest, and therefore there is no competition between these two magazines and the publications we have in Canada. It amazes me how, day by day, things are twisted around. I thought members on the opposite side, being fair, would recognize the fact that there is no fair competition in the way our laws are set up today.
In our law since 1968 we have allowed content, editorial and otherwise, to cross the border from one country to another with little or no input to Canada and at no cost to the firm bringing it in. Then it is said that we want competition between Canadian and American magazines. That is nonsense. How can there be competition when these magazines come in at a distinct advantage?
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock was a member of the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. He heard the periodical people say, time after time after time, that they could not compete with these two American companies because they were too large and had the advantage of shipping their material across the border at nearly just cost.
When the hon. member talks about competition I hope he merely is misled and is not really serious about this aspect of Bill C-58, because I believe any thinking person in this
10770

February 9, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
House, and certainly any thinking person in Canada, could not believe that we have fair competition in the market today. In all sincerity I hope that at some point the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock will withdraw that after he has re-thought his position about whether there really is competition between Canadian and American periodicals under the law as previously set up.
I think every member of the House should clearly understand that Bill C-58 is an attempt to eliminate an unequal situation which has existed for many years. As the hon. member knows, a royal commission started by his party stated that what we had was bad legislation and that there should be no situation in which exemptions are given to American magazines. I think members should really reassess the position they are taking when, after years of debate, hon. members are still arguing that this is some form of censorship and that fair competition is being knocked down.
Let me say that there are people outside this Chamber who are taking note of what is being said by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock. People will not be taken in by an argument that is facetious to start with, and which has no substance in respect of competition.
I must bring up another point the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock discussed at some length. He compared Canadians to Lilliputians and suggested we are living in isolation. I am sure the hon. member will re-assess that also. Of all the arguments I have heard in the House regarding Bill C-58 the most facetious is the one that we are somehow living in an isolated world here in Canada with nothing coming in. In fact it is exactly the opposite. We have, coming in from the United States as well as from other countries, books, periodicals, you name it, Madam Speaker. We have periodicals flowing into this country from other nations. If anything our problem is trying to establish an identity with all the material that is coming in from other countries.
I was very surprised when the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock said that we were isolationalists, and that we were trying to stop books and periodicals from coming into this country. The distribution system of our magazines on our newsstands is in the hands of the Americans. The majority of the material available on our newsstands is from the United States. Anyone who has ever looked at our media must be impressed with the great amount of foreign material and foreign publications presented to the Canadian people. We wonder sometimes why Canadians do not have an identity. I submit it is for that very reason. That is why I disagree with the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.
Regarding the right of our writers to security-again the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock discussed this at some length-surely what we are trying to do is to provide a market for Canadian writers and artists so that they can have a chance to be seen and heard over our media because, due to the size of our country and the number of our people, we do not have the money to devote to these periodicals or money to compete with the very large and the very rich countries which have much more money to put into this area. No wonder we do not have more Canadi-

an television programs, for example, to sell to the Americans. We put our programs on the English market occasionally. I submit that we can change this so that the Canadian people will have the opportunity to see and to hear programs produced in Canada, not imported from another country.
The hon. member who spoke before said that Bill C-58 is a veiled attempt at censorship. Because Newsweek is not given the same advantage as Time or Reader's Digest I wonder if the hon. member would say that the Canadian government is applying veiled censorship to Newsweek magazine. The fact that such magazines are not given a tax break does not mean we are trying to stifle them or keep them out of the country. There is no one in the House who would suggest that these articles or periodicals are not available in Canada.
I hope that the position taken by Reader's Digest means that they, in their wisdom, find they can live within the proposed legislation, and I hope that we in this House can settle down and get on to different things. I am sure that in a year or two from now this legislation will be considered to be good legislation, and perhaps a milestone on our statute books. For all these reasons, Madam Speaker, I hope that this debate can be concluded speedily.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, I welcomed the intervention of the last hon. member because I believe that the essence of his comments was that we should attempt to reduce the American influence in this country. Whatever else may be said about fairness in competition and so on, this is essentially so.
Most of us Canadians would probably agree that we feel Canadian periodicals should be a thriving industry in this country. However, I have grave doubts about this legislation making that a reality. I think in fact that this bill will divide the country further. Many people who are willing to support the Canadian periodical industry are now becoming quite concerned about the way in which this is going to be done, about this open and blatant attempt by the government through the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) to rule on what is a Canadian periodical. It is the Department of National Revenue, of all departments, that is ruling on that. Surely the Department of External Affairs or some other department would be better qualified to rule on Canadian content.
In effect this legislation is an attempt to impose thought control in a selective area of our periodical industry. The Department of National Revenue has given us no information on who should make up this board. After all, it is their role to interpret our tax laws, but in practice they tend to come down heavily against the individual. This is becoming more and more obvious. I think they will do the same in deciding what is Canadian content.
If it is important that there be a decision on the Canadian content in periodicals, then the same role should apply to newspapers. We would not have many newspapers left in this country if the rules proposed in this bill were applied to them. The back door agreement to keep Reader's Digest is obviously a sop to the part of the country where it is located. I am surprised this event did not take place sooner. It is also a recognition of the fact that Reader's Digest cannot be duplicated in Canada. It contains human
February 9, 1976

interest stories. We could change the names a little and locate the stories in the province of Saskatchewan, in Quebec, in the state of Georgia, in England, or anywhere in the world. All that needs to be changed in these stories to make them Canadian is a line or two and immediately they would become home grown in Canada, but in fact they have come from another part of the world. More than the articles in Time, the articles in Reader's Digest represent varying viewpoints from around the world.
So far as Canadianization is concerned, certainly Reader's Digest is more international than Time and the other two periodicals mentioned, MD Canada and Modern Medicine. Essentially we are getting rid of a news magazine, namely, Time. Personally I was not much interested in Time, particularly the Canadian edition. Obviously Time magazine feels in Canada as a guest who has to behave himself and has to write nice things about Canada. However, Time was a window on the world. U.S. magazines have much greater access to people scattered throughout the world and the events that are happening. No Canadian magazine could equal them. There are some very obvious reasons for that.
Some people thought that if we suddenly put Time out of business, a lot of money and many Canadian writers would become available. In fact, in any population there is only a small number of people who can write, the news people and the media people. Canada has approximately 15 million English speaking people, whereas the United States have 200 million. Most people in western Canada are much more interested in events across the border than in what Maclean's writes about. Maclean's writes about Toronto, about Bloor and Jarvis Streets and about the lake front. This is as uninteresting to most western Canadians as it is uninteresting to Quebecers. This does not mean that they are against anything being written about Toronto, but they are more interested in reading what happens south of the border.
To say that Maclean's, as the obvious beneficiary of this legislation, will become a newsmagazine, seems to be stretching the realm of the possible. Many of its articles seem quite risque. Sometimes I think the magazine should be sold under the counter as other pornographic and risque magazines are-though in fact some are being shown over the counter now.
We can get rid of Time, as the government obviously wants to, but will it have the desired result? Canadian Geographic magazine is a quarter the size of the National Geographic but it is more expensive. Canadian magazines are seriously disadvantaged and you have to be really patriotic to support many of them. There are some good articles in them but it is doubtful whether they will be able to probe the larger issues as do the American magazines. Canadians like to read American magazines, and this is partly because Canadian magazines spend so much of their time telling us that we should be good Canadians, just as the CBC spends a lot of time telling us that we are polluting the atmosphere. Sometimes you feel guilty to be alive. Much Canadian writing is directed along similar lines.
Non-Canadian Publications
The advertising in Maclean's magazine is pretty well divided into four groups-liquor, tobacco, travel and cars. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) tells us that alcohol and tobacco are major health problems, but the advertising revenue comes largely from the four areas I have mentioned.
I think it can be fairly said that alcohol is a serious problem. I do not often agree with the premier of my province who is a member of the NDP, but when he says there is too much emphasis on liquor advertising I am inclined to think he is on a good wicket, as the English would say. And what about automobiles? We are told that their use will diminish in the future so that factor will reduce advertising in the magazines and periodicals. Travel will also be reduced if the dire forecasts of energy shortages prove to be correct.
It does not logically follow that the advertising dollars which presently go to Time will automatically go to Canadian periodicals when it leaves the country, nor is it certain they would be able to use them. Will they be able to produce writing of the same standard? I notice that CP Air advertises in Newsweek magazine. Presumably this is not deductible. CP Air is a Canadian company obviously attempting to attract American travellers.
I should like to say that I support the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) and agree with her wholeheartedly.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the excellent amendment put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). I do so as one who participated in the examination of this bill when it was before the committee, and I also participated in this debate when the bill was before the House.
It is interesting that we should reflect tonight on the fact that the vote at second reading stage of this bill was only reached when the government imposed closure. Even after the imposition of closure two prominent supporters of the government voted against the bill. I refer to the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel), who unfortunately is not in his seat, and the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Flynn).
When the bill went to committee, notwithstanding the tremendous interest there was in the legislation, we as a committee found ourselves again operating under the constraint of closure. The very first move the government made was to impose closure on the time of the committee. We were in fact given approximately one month to examine the bill and the many witnesses who had signified their intention of appearing and giving evidence.
I should like to speak on one aspect of the experience of this bill that was dealt with by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway in her speech last Thursday, and again in her intervention on Friday last. In my experience in this House, and in participating in committees of this House, I have never seen the government impose such rigid discipline on its members, actually denying members the right to participate in the examination of this bill as it did with its own members when the bill was before committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 9, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way, who has an amendment before the House which I support and commend to members, was denied the right time after time after time by the government members on that committee to be heard in that committee-and not only the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
I should like to point out for the benefit of the House some other very interesting aspects of the examination of this bill by members of the committee. The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) had been the very distinguished chairman of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts all during the last parliament and the one before, and has been a member of this committee ever since. Yet the hon. member for Cochrane was denied the right to sit on this committee because of his known opposition to the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Motion No. 4 deals with the definition of a Canadian magazine. Perhaps the hon. member would limit his remarks to the motion.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, we are dealing with report stage of the bill and I am bringing my remarks to the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway now before the House and the reasons why it was necessary for her to move the amendment. I was talking about the hon. member for Cochrane who had been the distinguished chairman of the committee and who was denied the right not only to sit on the committee but to participate in it because of his opposition to this bill.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), another outstanding and dedicated member of that same committee, was also denied the right to participate in its debates because of his opposition to the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: And what about the opposition to this bill of the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy)? Was he given an opportunity to participate in committee?


Walter David Baker: Never.


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


James Aloysius McGrath: And what about the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) who made such an outstanding contribution-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Timmins is rising on a point of order.


Jean Robert Roy: Madam Speaker, I do not like to disappoint the hon. member, but I never requested the opportunity to participate in that committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I understand why the hon. member did not request the opportunity to sit on the

committee. He knew what happened to his colleague from Cochrane, to his colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway, and to his colleague from Vaudreuil. They were all denied the right to participate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that motion No. 4 has to do with the definition of a Canadian magazine.' The motion is restricted in scope and the hon. member ought to address his remarks only to the motion. The remarks the hon. member is presently making could be made on third reading.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I intend to participate in the debate on third reading. I submit to you, with great deference, that we sat here last Friday and last Thursday and listened to hon. members make the same kind of intervention that I am making this evening.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member has been brought to order several times. He must speak to motion No. 4 or the subamendment.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I was merely trying to speak in the vein in which other hon. members have spoken, including the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and including the chief government whip, the government's disciplinarian. I am trying to set the record straight, because the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, and really this is what my remarks are all about, stood in her place and said she was denied the right to participate in the committee; she was denied the right to contribute to the deliberations of that committee. I submit that what the hon. member said was accurate and is a matter of record.
It is obvious that the government's bill is a shambles. I can only echo the words of the hon. member for Scarborough West, a government supporter, who said in the House last week that it would be in the public interest to withdraw this bill. He said that this bill was not, in fact, in the public interest.


Mr. Martin:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate very much being referred to in the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) but I wish that he would keep to the context of what I actually said. I do not think I indicated at any time that Bill C-58 as such should be withdrawn. I supported the amendment- and this is the reason for my concern-because the 80 per cent content rule was not contained in the legislation.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, that was not a point of order. It was a point of debate, and the hon. member ought to know better.
The government is in trouble with this legislation, and knows it. The government ought to harken to the advice of some of its own supporters and withdraw this bill. I say that, even in view of the back room accord which has been reached in the case of Reader's Digest. That decision could be withdrawn at any time at the whim or the pleasure of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) or his successor. That minister, or a successor in that portfolio, could withdraw tomorrow the interpretation leading to the accord and redefine what is meant by "substantially the same," or "80 per cent different". That will show you the
February 9, 1976

kind of future Reader's Digest can expect in this country. I submit that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) was correct when he said that this is just not good enough. This is not the way to treat a company that has been a good corporate citizen of this country and has provided Canadians with good reading material for the past 30 years.
In my view this bill is not aimed at Reader's Digest, and I do not say this merely because of the accord entered into with that magazine. It is aimed solely at Time magazine. And what will it achieve? If passed, the bill will be instrumental in displacing from their jobs 45 Canadians who are with Time. It will do away with the Canadian section of Time magazine, with all its faults; if that is not counterproductive I do not know what is. More particularly, and I think this explains the government's persistence with this bill, it will satisfy Senator Keith Davey and the publishers of Maclean's magazine, and nobody else.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander).


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I had not intended participating in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: My hon. friends opposite can jeer, hoot, yell, and scream all they want. I tell them that since coming to the House of Commons I have never received so many letters on any subject, if one excludes the tax reform legislation, as I have on this subject.


An hon. Member:: You've got to be kidding.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear an hon. member say, "You've got to be kidding." I tell the hon. member I have received many letters indicating that the vast majority of Canadians dislike the government's approach to the subject, do not like what the government is doing, and resent what the government is trying to force down the throats of the people.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: It's a cruel and unusual punishment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I admire the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt).


James Aloysius McGrath: She's a good member.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: She's an excellent member because she stands up to be counted. She is not like the rest of her colleagues who run and hide their heads in shame behind the curtain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Stand up to be counted.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Her subamendment makes sense. She will have nothing to do with content, an unworkable concept which can destroy most Canadian periodicals, magazines and newspapers overnight.


James Aloysius McGrath: Especially magazines like MD of Canada.
Non-Canadian Publications


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As my hon. friend from St. John's East says, especially magazines like MD of Canada. Adopting the content approach would bring disastrous results to such magazines which serve the medical profession and others. The government's approach could destroy these magazines.


An hon. Member:: When did you last read MD of Canada?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Motion No. 4, as amended by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway would read:
That Bill C-58, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, be amended in Clause 1 by adding immediately after line 14, at page 1, the following.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of this act or regulations, a periodical shall be deemed to be a Canadian issue of a Canadian periodical if 75 per cent of its directors and ownership are Canadian and its editing and publication functions are controlled and conducted in Canada.
No member in his right senses will fault that. Any who fault it sit on your right, Madam Speaker, with one or two exceptions.
Why have hon. members opposite not supported the significant contribution the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway made in moving her subamendment? It seems to me that the government is trying to save certain periodicals operating in this country. This bill will not save Canadian periodicals. I will explain why.
The other day the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), who has been involved with this bill from the beginning, put on record significant statistics relating to Canadian advertising dollars. If I am not mistaken he said that only 2 per cent of advertising dollars in Canada is directed to periodicals, whereas 6.5 per cent of the advertising dollars spent in the United States is directed to periodicals. He said that 20 per cent of the advertising dollars spent in this country is directed to radio, television and newspapers. In effect he said that if Bill C-58 passes, there will not be much future in Canada for Canadian periodicals. That point we cannot escape or ignore.
Something else that bothers me involves the lack of interest in consumer concern. No matter how you put it, this is cultural censorship, a denial of free access to information which includes that given by Reader's Digest and Time for over 30 years. It has unquestionably been of significant benefit to Canadians. They like it and they want it. The letters that I received registered that concern without any equivocation whatsoever.
We talk about equity. The backdoor deal and the hanky-panky of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen), which saved Reader's Digest but gave the axe to Time, are discriminatory, unprincipled, heavy-handed and callous. This is surely an inequity. If the government moved in such a way to save Reader's Digest there should be some effort on the part of the government to recognize the plight of Time. However, the government believes in discrimination in this regard.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) is unbending. The Minister of National Revenue is unbending. He has now set up the Cullen tribunal whereby interpretation of "substantially the same as" is now within his hands and those of the bureaucrats. It is not within the purview of the courts of this land. That is another important issue. A principle

February 9, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
has now been set which can be said to be dangerous in both its intent and conclusion.
As I listen to the debate I wonder why the government is so hell-bent in moving the way that it is, keeping in mind the legitimate concern that has been registered not only on this side of the House but by members of all parties. They have indicated to the government that it should slow down. It is moving in the wrong direction. The government is moving in a direction that the future will unquestionably show was wrong and which cannot by itself, in terms of this bill, save Canadian periodicals.
In conclusion I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I ask government members in particular to listen to what the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the hon. member for Ontario have indicated because I believe they are on the right track. Being on the right track I respectfully submit that this bill should be sent back, withdrawn, and redrafted in order to bring about principles and attitudes that are consistent with the needs of the Canadian consumer, something the government has completely ignored.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam
Speaker, it was not my intention of speak in this debate, but I was moved to do so by virtue of some of the rather unfortunate comments made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) in attempting to answer the very legitimate and pungent complaints and observations raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen).
Members on the government side have made a real attempt to misconstrue the points raised by members on this side. The great majority of those in this House are certainly interested in trying to promote and encourage the Canadian publication industry. We want to encourage the vital publishing industry of which this country is capable.
As pointed out by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), this particular piece of legislation was brought forward by the government through the process of closure. In my estimation and observation, there has been a manipulation on the committee side. It is an indication that the government is rather uncertain of its position. It would very much like to curtail the debate that is taking place, not only in this House but in the media and among the people of the country.
There are two facets of this debate that bother me. One is the crux of the complaint raised by members of the opposition. Through the government's negotiation with Reader's Digest and its decision with regard to Canadian content, the fact is that the matter is simply up for grabs in negotiation with the government of the day.
Even though I have only been here a short time I find it obvious that the amendment presented by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) is absolutely essential if we are to have any semblance of reasonable application of the law respecting the publishing industry in Canada today.
I do not care how many ways government members argue that this is not censorship and that they are not interfering with the publishing or involved in determining 
which publications will be published in Canada. It is obvious from what happened with regard to Reader's Digest that there is a great degree of flexibility, that the government can, and in fact will introduce into its application just who can get tax credit for advertising in Canada. Therefore this is a very unfortunate situation that we face today.
As a member of the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments I spend a lot of time considering regulations. I thought I was put on that committee as a form of punishment for a new backbencher because every week I am faced with mounds of regulations. The committee looks at regulations in an attempt to see whether they are in fact authorized under the governing statute, whether they in fact carry out the principles of natural justice, or whether they are arbitrary and ultra vires of any particular act. My experience on that committee leads me to believe that wherever possible we should be as specific and explicit in our laws as we can in the statute, as opposed to leaving the matter to legislation through order in council and regulation. This is what we are experiencing at present.
There is no definition of what constitutes Canadian content or of what constitutes a Canadian publication. What prevents the government putting forward a straightforward definition of Canadian content in percentage terms? Why not do so and leave the interpretation of such a definition to the courts, as opposed to a tribunal or to the discretion of the minister at any particular time?
The publishing industry is a large one and we realize that a fair amount of money is being made by successful magazines. I suggest that if we allow the government's proposal to go forward we may find that the stakes are sufficiently high as, possibly, to produce a backroom situation involving members of any particular administration with respect to obtaining a favourable interpretation of what constitutes a Canadian publication so that a magazine can obtain tax benefits by conforming to the definition. The proposition being put forward by the opposition is a reasonable and sane one. I commend it to members on the government side. It is not what one could call a big deal. We are simply asking the administration to put its definition into a statute and to take it out of the realm of arbitrary decision by a cabinet minister.
I am surprised that more members on the government side are not coming out in support of this view, that they are not coming forward to "give Ottawa a jolt", or perhaps to "give Ottawa a Holt!" I commend the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway for her actions in connection with this bill, a responsible move on her part to bring some sanity to the legislation before us. I should like to see more hon. members supporting her stand.
I am not normally convinced that editorial comment should dictate the policy we adopt in this House but I am impressed that editorial pages are increasingly questioning the wisdom of the government in persisting in its present course of action. I am sure that when the announcement was made confirming that an arrangement had been reached between Reader's Digest and the government making it possible for Reader's Digest to come within the
February 9, 1976

terms of the bill, the government believed it had taken the heat out of this issue and solved a substantial part of its problem. Madam Speaker, questions of principle are not so easily set aside by arrangements of convenience, and the principle involved in this legislation is far more important than whether the government has been able to reach an accommodation with Reader's Digest.
Suppose that next year Reader's Digest were to contemplate making some change in its policy. Would it be making any new arrangements with the government in consequence and, if so, would the government be so receptive once the legislation had been passed into law and the issue was no longer before the public eye? Would the attitude of the government change when the subject was no longer a matter for discussion in the House of Commons? Possibly we should keep this debate going so that the people of Canada might have an opportunity to communicate with the government-


An hon. Member:: Filibuster!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am trying to make a concise and reasonable contribution to the debate. When one tries to be logical, members on the other side begin to get nervous.


An hon. Member:: You were nice and short on television and more effective.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is no provision for television editing in the House of Commons, so I shall have to ask hon. members to bear with me a little longer.
The hon. member for St. John's East made a valid point when he indicated that the reason we are dealing with these amendments on the report stage is because the participation of members on the government side who had taken part in the proceedings in committee had been thwarted. This is one of the criticisms levelled at the committee system as it operates in practice. Had the government taken a more flexible approach, had it allowed its members on the committee to take part in the proceedings without restriction and to put forward amendments at that stage, the progress of the bill might have fared far better.
There is no surer way of giving rise to a long debate on legislation than by first of all imposing closure, and then, second, by trying to manipulate the membership of a committee. I hope the government learns something from this debate and that in future it will allow its members to continue to sit on a committee even though they may hold certain views which are contrary to those held by the government with respect to legislation under consideration.
I want to assure members on the government side that, as far as I know, we are as interested as they are in the Canadian publishing industry. I believe though that we place more emphasis on a positive approach to encouraging the industry in Canada as opposed to the questionable, negative approach the government is taking and the generally vague legislation it appears determined to enforce.
I ask hon. members to encourage the government to withdraw this legislation, because basically it is bad. If that is not possible, I ask the government to allow the
Non-Canadian Publications
legislation to remain unpromulgated for at least one year so as to allow the publications affected by this legislation to make appropriate adjustments. It seems to me if the government demonstrates it is genuinely interested in dealing in a fair and even-handed way with this problem, instead of adopting a heavy-handed attitude, it will have far better success in getting this legislation through the House.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I rise somewhat reluctantly because I do not like to stand in my place at any time to support something that the government does, since it does so many bad and ridiculous things. However, I doubt very much whether this legislation is one of them.
A great deal as been said in this debate by members on both sides about censorship. I have had the opportunity of listening to and reading some of this debate, so tonight I decided to take a look at the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I know I am a little late but it would seem to me useful if all hon. members read the legislation, which occupies only one and a half pages and is simple to read.


Donald W. Munro: You have to look at the main act as well.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I can assure the hon. member that I have read that too. This bill says, in effect, two things. First, it says that those Canadians advertising in a non-Canadian newspaper which is directed primarily to a market in Canada will no longer receive a tax deduction. Secondly, it says that those advertising in the broadcasting media will no longer receive a tax deduction for an advertisement directed primarily to a market in Canada and broadcast by a foreign broadcasting undertaking. In other words, the tax advantage given to two particular publications has been removed. We have spent a good deal of time in this House talking about a red herring, in my opinion. I am just wondering how long it will be before Canadians start to grow up and try to be Canadian for a change.
I am sorry the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) is not here, but he was so worried about CP Air advertising in Newsweek to encourage United States traffic to use CP Air services. This situation is clearly covered by the bill. The bill refers to advertising that is directed primarily to the Canadian market. The market referred to by the hon. member is the U.S. market, so CP Air would clearly be allowed the deduction my hon. friend was so worried about.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Read the bill again; you obviously do not understand it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Now, Mr. Speaker, what are we about here? What is the bill trying to accomplish? It is not a question of who will be allowed to publish. We have been determining what is substantially Canadian and what is substantially foreign for some time now. Where were all these defenders of freedom over the last 20 years when we were making determinations in connection with Newsweek and similar magazines? In terms of intent, this legislation does nothing more nor less than determine who in the publish-

February 9, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
ing industry in Canada will be assisted. The bill has nothing to do with who will be permitted to publish. There is no tariff being imposed at the border. I suggest the arguments so far has been a red herring. I welcome publications from all over the world, and so does every other Canadian. It is wrong to scare the Canadian people with the idea that somehow we are spending our time trying to determine what they can and cannot read.


An hon. Member:: I am glad somebody over there has read the bill.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: What the minister has done in regard to Reader's Digest gives some of us considerable cause for thought. I welcome the attempt of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) to amend this legislation; the amendment should be right in the bill where it belongs. I very much regret the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) making this kind of, I would have to say sweetheart deal with Reader's Digest, because no such deal has been made with Time. It was completely unnecessary to make that special arrangement. It was not out in the open.
I can understand why this debate is being dragged out. I presume that tomorrow there is going to be another announcement that somehow the rules have been changed as well for Time, though I hope not.


An hon. Member:: What was changed?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The content rule and the licensing provisions. The hon. member knows very well what was changed. I see the minister is shaking his head. Surely the pool of articles available to Reader's Digest in Canada is under licence in terms of the U.S. parent company. In other words, the editorial content of that Canadian magazine is being determined by the pool of articles that is available to the Canadian publication. This being the case, one of the provisions of the legislation has been defeated by the minister's sweetheart deal with Reader's Digest, and that is why I regret it.
I think Reader's Digest should carry articles gathered from all kinds of places. We do not need a special arrangement between Reader's Digest of Canada and Reader's Digest of the United States since the pool of articles has already been determined and copyright exists. If the minister says I am wrong, then fine, but it seems to me that we are defeating one of the purposes of the legislation by allowing re-editing in Canada of this narrow pool of articles which are not generally available to Reader's Digest in Canada. In other words, it is not a Canadian digest at all. Once more we have an American magazine masquerading as a Canadian magazine, and therefore giving it a tax advantage that the government so rightly took away under this bill.
My intervention, Mr. Speaker, is brief. I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway though I am pleased to see her put it on the order paper. I am glad she has tried to make it part of the legislation, where it belongs, so we can engage in some meaningful debate about it. That is all I wish to say at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr, Speaker, it is not my desire to launch myself into any kind of attack on another member and I do not propose to do so this evening, but I am very concerned about some of the comments made on this bill by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). I am concerned about his over-simplification of the intent of this bill, about his interpretation of it. There is nothing at all simple about this bill. I challenge the hon. member to give the House an indication of what is simple about the bill other than perhaps the people who drafted it.
Let me liken the amendment that has been proposed and the bill before us to the policies of the previous provincial government in Victoria. That government also wanted to get into the ball game of deciding what the people should read, or at least what they would see and hear through the television media. I refer to the infamous Channel 10 situation. That channel was supposed to be an educational channel, but was really a propaganda machine of the administration of the time. I know the hon. member for New Westminster will reject that proposal out of hand, but nevertheless this was of very real concern. Taking into account the kind of minister who was proposing this and what subsequently happened to him, I am not ready to be convinced that this was not really a propaganda ploy of that government at that time.
I really must say that you cannot have it both ways. Either it is censorship or a form thereof; either it is propaganda or a form thereof, or it is not. It is just that simple, and that is the only simple thing about it. The only simple thing is the basic thrust and the intent of the bill.
Having regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), I must say I am astounded at the lack of favourable response on the part of those on the other side. I think it is a sensible and a reasonable proposal. I am also astounded at the lack of acceptance by the government in respect of all the amendments that have been put forward to this bill. Surely the government has received some kind of message by this time. Surely it realizes what our position is in respect of this bill. Surely the government must realize the kind of concerns we have. Are we concerned because of some kind of political motivation or some deep ingrained Tory philosophy? Of course that is not the case. We are concerned because of a sense of knowing what is right and what is wrong.
Let us get back to this old red herring we have heard so much about. In fact it is no longer a red herring, it has become a mighty great whale that we are supposed to be dragging across in respect of this item of censorship.


An hon. Member:: A red whale.


Robert Hylton Brisco: There is no question in my mind as to the intent and the thrust of this bill. I am sure there is no question in that regard in the minds of any of those who have taken part in this debate or brought forward amendments. I have no brief for Maclean's magazine or for Canadian publishers. Surely if they were going to, they have had the opportunity to make it on their own. That opportunity has long since presented itself. I am not opposed to the basic idea of taxing Reader's Digest, Time, or

requiring Canadian participation. That is an excellent idea to which I am not at all opposed.
What I am opposed to is this vague thing introduced by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen). The minister knows, and this has been discussed in the House, that he has been placed in an impossible dilemma. He realizes the bill should include regulations. Where are those regulations? In order to have these regulations put into effect the minister has recourse to one simple expedient. He should withdraw the bill from the House and send it back to the committee. That committee should have on its membership the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and one or two others from the other side of this House who could then assist in redrafting the bill so that it might be brought back into this House where it would then make sense and be safe for Canadians. The minister knows he is stuck with a bill that is unfair and destructive, and is stuck with a procedure that is undemocratic.
How can the Crown interpret the law for the purpose of achieving a direction which is against the literal meaning of the law itself? Of course it cannot, but that is in fact what the Minister of National Revenue seeks to do, and by doing that he abrogates to the government powers it does not now have. This is a very dangerous precedent. It is dangerous to the security of the public and it is dangerous to the sanctity of the law. Our lives are governed far too much now by regulation and, my God, we see examples of that every day in this House and every day in our offices.
The minister is faced with a fait accompli unless he withdraws this bill and allows those government members to support the motion by Simma. I am sorry, I really should not refer to her by name as that is not done in this place. I had made reference to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. We have such affection for that hon. member that it is very easy to address her by her first name.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Come over to this side where we love you.


Mrs. Holt:: I like it here.


Robert Hylton Brisco: As a relative newcomer to this House and to the system of things here I wonder quite frankly how much different and how much improved legislation would be if hon. members on the other side would listen to the reasoned arguments of their confreres. But no, as has been written into the context of the records here, like trained seals they pound their desks in approval or denial.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Did the hon. member wish to ask a question?


An hon. Member:: You have to say something before we can.


An hon. Member:: And that is the longest speech you have made during this session.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: May I continue now that these unreasoned interjections of the hon. members have ceased?
Non-Canadian Publications


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please.


Robert Hylton Brisco: This evening I had the opportunity of reading through the review of another publication, MD of
Canada.


An hon. Member:: Oh no.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there is some way that hon. member referred to as "radar" over there could zip his lip? It would be different if what he had to contribute made sense. In any event, I had the opportunity of reading a review of MD of Canada, and I am sure the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) is familiar with that journal. I recognize there is an amendment to look after these supposedly professional, agricultural, and trade magazines, but without accepting this amendment there will have to be other exceptions made. I suggest that we should deal with them all right now.


An hon. Member:: Remember that phrase "from time to time".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Either we deal with the whole thing now by taking this bill out of the House and sending it back to the committee where it belongs, or we will have to deal piecemeal with all these anomalies and odd situations which will occur as we progress. We will have to look after all these oddballs, these so-called loopholes with reference to these trade journals and professional magazines.


An hon. Member:: To whom are you referring?


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, was someone addressing a question to me?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) rising to ask a question?


Mr. Abbott:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since the hon. member referred to oddballs I wonder if he would identify to whom he was referring.


An hon. Member:: There are too many of them.


An hon. Member:: Don't take it personally.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member took my reference to oddballs as a personal affront. That is his problem, not mine. I shall continue with the debate. This afternoon I had the opportunity to review MD of Canada. I was very impressed by its international flavour and content, just as I would be equally interested in reading the cattlemen's magazine with its international flavour and content and its articles submitted by foreign authors not referring to things in Canada but things which affect Canadians, be it in medicine, agriculture, the beef industry, or whatever.
My concern is that somewhere down the line this type of journal will be affected if it cannot be favourably covered by the legislation. Finally, my concern is that I have more than five minutes to go. Surely there is another member over there with another question.

February 9, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are very anxious to deal with this bill as fully and as fairly as we can having regard to the important principle involved. I would respectfully suggest that government members who persist in interrupting members of the opposition when they are speaking are doing nothing to advance this. If government members are truly anxious to have this matter proceeded with they should sit quietly and allow opposition members to make their speeches, and extend to us the same courtesy we would extend them if they chose to speak on this bill.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I must rise on this point of order. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) at about five minutes to ten tends to be very farcical. This bill has been subject to a filibuster since last Thursday. From the quality of the debate from the other side and the remarks made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton it is evident that an attempt is being made by the opposition to delay passage of this bill and to prevent effect being given to the will of this House.


An hon. Member:: What will?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There was quite a bit of noise in the House and I think the hon. member who had the floor should be entitled to continue.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, just as I thank the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). After a full day in this House and a full day in my office-and the same applies to other members-it may well be that the quality of the presentation and debate perhaps dwindles somewhat as the hour approaches ten o'clock.
That should be no reflection on the sincere efforts of members on this side of this House and some from the other side of the House to be heard in their attempt to see that this bill is removed from the House, or at least amended as proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, one of the very interesting things in respect of this bill is the fact that in the beginning there was a wave of nationalism on the part of the Canadian public that was really quite interesting. However, that wave of so-called nationalism has waned as the public has perceived the true purpose and intent of this Liberal bill. There is no question about the manner in which my constituents and those of other members have addressed themselves to this bill. Their concern is now being reflected and is the antithesis of the proposal originally put forward in this bill by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner).
It is interesting to note the backlash from the backwoods, to the grassroots if you like. These are the people who are most concerned and who will be affected and who will be affected. The little old lady who reads Reader's Digest is the type of person writing to me. These people are really concerned. Let me return to the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I would support this amendment right down the line.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Either there is support for this amendment, which is intelligent and well thought out, or the bill will be denied by this House and by this party. It is either that, or the bill must go back to the committee. I would urge that this House and the minister reconsider the decision. This debate is being prolonged and protracted, as the minister knows, simply because this side will not give an inch on Bill C-58 until it has been intelligently amended. At this point I would inquire of you, Mr. Speaker, if it would be safe to call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, on December 20 last I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), whether the $10 million reduction in the federal share of crop insurance will mean that the farmers, and the provinces will be expected to cover this reduction. The Prime Minister replied: "In our cuts we are expecting everybody to bear some share of the sacrifice ..." Surely the Minister of Agriculture should have said he would make cuts in other areas rather than important programs such as crop insurance, farm credit, and so on.
Out of a total budget of $664 million it would have been better to reduce expenditures first in the area of professional and special services, utilities, materials and supplies, which total $9.4 million and $12.8 million respectively in the 1975-76 estimates, since the former too often causes morale problems, and the latter too often proves to be unnecessary.
Federal contributions to crop insurance have grown from $16 million in 1973, to $30 million in 1974, to $49 million in 1975, to a projected $62 million in 1976; and some .1 million is to be subtracted from the $62 million. However, the federal government is already committed to give a certain level of contributions to the provinces.
What happens if the projected figure of $62 million is reached for the level of federal contributions? Where does the crop insurance section get this extra $10 million? No one seems to know.
In 1976 the federal government is committed to make a certain level of contributions; 1977 is different. The crop insurance people talk of restricting the amount of insurance available to an individual.
For example, if strawberries can be insured up to a 70 cents per pound level, this would be cut back to a maximum of 60 cents per pound. Does this not go against the
February 9, 1976

very concept of insurance? The aim of insurance is to protect from unforeseen losses. Reducing the maximum level of insurance only seems to harm the farmer's interests more.
In farm credit it originally had $400 million to give out in loans. This was cut by $20 million in June of 1975, and by another $20 million in December. These cuts have severely constrained the farm credit program. Already the farm credit corporation has committed part of next year's funds. This means fewer people will receive loans. In 1974 the average size loan was $50,000. In 1975 it was $65,000. Inflation and higher input costs have caused this rise so that now, when costs are at their highest, loans are at their lowest.
On farm credit loans a farmer pays 9 per cent interest and has 29 years to pay it back. Such aid is invaluable to the young farmer just starting out. However, with these cutbacks the Farm Credit Corporation seems to be becoming more conservative and refuses to lend money to those farmers it considers to be risks. This latter group usually includes the young farmers.
Rather than attacking these programs, why did the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) not look elsewhere for cut backs? In the Department of Agriculture itself cuts could have been made in professional and special services, and in materials and supplies. The former group is largely made up of consultants and these outside people have often caused morale problems among regular workers. Their budget has soared 35.7 per cent from the 1974-75 estimates of $6.9 million to the 1975-76 estimates of $9.4 million.
One cannot help wondering why the Department of Agriculture needs $12.8 million for material and supplies? Is its turnover rate for furniture etc., that high?
Although cuts in government spending are necessary it would seem that the government is wrong in making cuts in crop insurance and farm credit. These cuts will only exacerbate the problems of many farmers. Should these problems not be met now, when costs are reasonably low, rather than in the future when it might be too late?


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, since 1959 the federal government has assisted the provinces in making all-risk crop insurance available to Canadian farmers under the authority of the Crop Insurance Act. The program is designed to stabilize incomes of individual producers by a guarantee against losses by natural hazards. For those farmers who have purchased crop insurance there has been a satisfaction of security and protection against crop loss disaster and many farmers who have experienced crop losses have been paid indemnities.
Crop insurance is a joint federal-provincial program in which the federal government, the provincial government, and producers participate. The program is most beneficial to producers as the producer pays for only 50 per cent of premium costs and none of the administrative costs.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has written to all his provincial counterparts explaining to them the reasons for restraining the increases in expenditures for the 1976-77 fiscal year. Officials of the provincial governments have generally expressed agreement with the restraint
Adjournment Debate
policy undertaken by the federal government. Provincial crop insurance officials have indicated to the department their willingness to meet with our officials to negotiate a mutually satisfactory means of implementing the announced intentions. Therefore the precise manner by which the reduction of federal contributions to this program will be accomplished has not yet been determined. It is not anticipated that the current costs sharing formula will be altered in the next crop year. Therefore there should be no additional cost to either the provinces or the producer.
The commitment of the federal government to this program is clearly indicated by the growth of the program in recent years. In the 1974-75 fiscal year expenditures under this program amounted to only $31 million. Contributions in the current year are expected to reach some $49 million, an increase of $3 million, or approximately 5 per cent, over the 1975-76 program has been provided for-even after the reduction of $10.1 million. Therefore it should be quite evident to all that the federal government is not reducing its participation in the crop insurance program, but rather, is applying some restraint to the rate of growth.
It remains the intention of the government to support the crop insurance program as a primary means of assistance to producers who suffer serious crop losses as a result of natural hazards.


MANPOWER-POSSIBLE ELIMINATION OF SOME YOUTH ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS-ALTERNATIVE MEASURES TO INCREASE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, I am returning this evening to a question which has concerned me for some time, one with respect to the chronic and consistent high unemployment rate among young Canadian people under the age of 24 years.
May I say at the outset that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) is in the House to respond to this question and I think this is an indication of the seriousness of his concern with this issue. I believe that the minister has tried very strenuously to provide some workable solution to what I consider one of the most serious social situations that exist in this country. It is not something new; it is something that has existed for some years and has been particularly exacerbated during the time the Trudeau government has been in office.
I suspect when the history of the eight or nine years that this government has been in office-


Irénée Pelletier: Twenty years.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I would hope if it should befall this country that the government is in office that long that it will not have as sorry a record as it has with respect to unemployment among young people-we would have millions of young people who would have undergone the most disheartening situation of being unemployed for a long time.
On December 11, prior to the introduction of the antiinflation measures taken by the government in the middle of December, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether rumours suggesting that programs like Oppor-

February 9, 1976
Adjournment Debate
tunities for Youth and the Company of Young Canadians would be curtailed. The Prime Minister simply indicated that the government was aware of the importance of those programs and also was aware of its own responsibilities with respect to anti-inflation measures. In spite of the fact that on December 11, when I raised the question, some
317,000	young people were unemployed-a figure which has now risen a month later to 327,000 unemployed and I suspect when we receive the figures tomorrow it will again show an increase-the only kind of firm indication that the government was concerned about this problem was the announcement that the Department of Manpower and Immigration was assigning $24 million to obtaining student employment next summer.
That would create an estimated 12,000 jobs, a drop in the bucket, and far fewer jobs that the government had said it would create by way of various programs established in the preceding three or four years. That shows how much the government's anti-inflation fight is being fought on the backs of the disadvantaged and of those unable to protest against the government's action. Young people, for the most part, are not organized into pressure groups. Many of them are in secondary educational or post-secondary educational institutions, or have just left such institutions, and their job opportunities are limited.
Surprisingly, from time to time Prime Minister has made protestations to suggest that he takes the problem seriously. Although I congratulate the Minister of Manpower and Immigration for being concerned about this problem, I suggest that he ought to be more forthright than he was with my colleague from Hamilton West who, on December 9, raised specific questions about youth unemployment. The minister indicated then that a number of programs are designed to alleviate the problem of youth unemployment. He referred to such things as manpower mobility, youth training, counselling, and so on, general programs relating to the specific problem affecting young people. The minister was good enough to suggest that, after he had looked at the statistical trends on which the hon. member based his question, he might be able to answer the question in more detail, and presumably provide the country with leadership in alleviating this serious and continuing problem.
I will not read questions asked in the House in the past half dozen years about youth unemployment. Instead I shall quote from the report of the committee on youth, commissioned by the government in 1969, and received in 1970. On page 166 of the report there occurs the following passage:
Not only is the rate of youth unemployment rising, it is consistently at a higher ratio among this age group than all others. It is evident, first of all, that no substantive solution can occur until one of Canadian economic policy's major goals becomes full employment within sectors, whether by age, sex or region.
After referring to the high level of youth unemployment that existed four or five years ago, the report said this:
The present tragedy is more than personal; it is societal in scope. Canadian society cannot seem to generate a broad range of options for its young in the employment field.
The government has not been short of advice. It received the advice of the Hunter task force of 1971, and the advice of my party in the last general election. We said:

For the immediate short term, a Progressive Conservative government would establish a jobs agency for young Canadians in the Department of Manpower to:
a.	co-ordinate and focus federal economic and social policies affecting youth employment;
b.	seek to co-ordinate provincial and private-sector policies affecting youth employment;
c.	provide a year-round national counselling facility designed to serve young Canadians; and
d.	provide young Canadians with one agency that would go out and locate potential jobs, encourage young people to come for aid in finding work, and encourage potential employers to consider hiring young workers.
Those are some of our suggestions. Since the government has not been reluctant to use some of our suggestions to do with other matters brought forward in 1974, I hope it will review some of the other things we said somewhat less than two years ago about this basic social problem. Perhaps this evening the minister, in responding to the question and to the concerns raised by the Prime Minister on December 11, will provide some leadership and encouragement.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, regrettably the three minutes for reply permitted on the late show does not allow one to cover the whole ground. Without question I share deeply the concern the hon. member has expressed with regard to this continuing phenomenon which has been exacerbated in Canada by the rapid growth of the labour force, a statistic with which we are all familiar. We share this misfortune with other countries which are beginning to realize the serious and perhaps all pervasive, long-lasting damage which can be done if we do not mutually find ways to correct the situation. Incidentally, I shall be attending an OECD conference in two or three weeks which will deal with this subject matter. I say that to give the hon. member some information. I hope it will help. I might also indicate that many other countries are facing the same problems without, unfortunately, yet finding pat solutions.
We have cut out Opportunities for Youth. I am glad to get the indication that that program was accepted by the hon. member. However, it was not accepted by all members of his party. It was, I felt, an unhappy necessity because of budget constraints on one hand and looking very carefully at where we get the biggest bang for a buck, if I can put it that way.
The hon. member understated the position when he mentioned that the $24 million will provide only 12,000 jobs. That is a fact with regard to the direct employment. There will be another 110,000 indirect jobs provided in unpaid program activities and the like.
I really think that to concentrate on where the solutions must be found in the intermediate and longer term, it will have to be in the private sector. I do not think in any size of job creation that we attempt to soak all of this that the government, as an employer of last resort, would be successful, and in fact could introduce other evils or difficulties that we better watch very carefully before we go that route.
About 85 per cent of the jobs provided to students in summer, in spite of the job creation of the federal and provincial governments working in co-operation, has been
February 9, 1976

in the private sector. That is where the gains are to be made if we are going to make them.
Last summer we operated 300 special Manpower centres for students. We received co-operation from such organizations as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and so on. That has an ongoing lower budget, but far more effective in results than even Opportunities for Youth and the more visibly direct higher profile job creation efforts.
We also addressed ourselves to the employment needs of youth who were no longer in school and had entered the labour market on a permanent basis. It is unfortunate that they encounter a very high unemployment rate. However, I believe the causes are extremely complex. They will not be solved simply by job creation or by the federal government alone.
As unpopular as it may be in certain circles, I am increasingly convinced that part of our problem lies in the school systems. I am not knocking the provincial governments, but I hope they will begin to take a deep look at some of the schooling ideas of the last few years. In too many cases they are not preparing our young people to find gainful employment when they get out of school.
We are consulting businesses and the provinces about the employment problems of youth, as was suggested by the hon. member. We introduced 18 pilot youth employment service projects across the country. They are designed to provide specialized intensive employment placement and counselling service to youth. We do not yet have an evaluation about which I am satisfied. It is not that it is not good; I am simply saying that it is not complete. However, it is the right route.
I indicated that we have worked in co-operation with the chambers of commerce across the country and certain local school boards. This was a special program of job exploration and so on. There are many things we are doing. I hope to have a more appropriate and lengthy opportunity to place on record our ideas in this field.


AIR TRANSPORT-INTRODUCTION OF BILINGUAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IN PROVINCES OTHER THAN QUEBEC
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on December 18 last I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) the following question:
Since the introduction of bilingualism for air traffic controllers is based on constitutional grounds, can the minister inform the House as to his schedule for introducing bilingual services into airports in other provinces of Canada?
The minister replied:
The studies which have been carried out relate essentially to the Province of Quebec, although there was an examination of the question in relation to the National Capital Region. The question of any possible extension is a very difficult one indeed because of the nature of the bilingual quality of the controllers who would be required and there is therefore no plan in this regard. Our first and obvious step is to examine the use of both languages in air traffic control in the Province of Quebec, as the statement I made the other day indicates.
I am deeply disturbed about this issue. I believe the bilingual program was well intended and that it has certainly met the needs of thousands of people who previously had been deprived of government services because they
Adjournment Debate
were unilingual French-speaking or unilingual Englishspeaking. But I am deeply concerned because the program is now being applied to an area which, I am convinced, is not so much a matter of the constitution as one of safety. A spin-off has been the public reaction across Canada.
The promoters of this plan have alienated many people who travel by air in this country. For example, I had a call from a lady in my riding who evidently travels east a good deal saying she would no longer take a plane into Montreal. That is too bad. Then again, because of the haste with which this program has been introduced, a reaction has developed across the country which is unfortunate. It is the impression among many people that the pressure of the bilingual program is so inexorable that people who are not unilingual French or who are not bilingual will be obliged to become bilingual whether they wish to do so or not.
The official position is based on constitutional argument but all of us know that questions involving emotion cannot be solved by the law. There are other ways of solving such questions.
It is my understanding that to be a fully qualified pilot, qualified to fly by instruments, it is necessary to know only approximately 120 English words. That is not asking too much of anyone who really wants to fly. I should like to think it is not too great a burden to impose. The issue here is one of safety.
I had the pleasure a few months ago of visiting Mexico City and on my return from that city I was privileged to sit in the cockpit of the plane while awaiting clearance from the tower for the take-off. I was wearing a headset and listening to the instructions coming from the tower. Most of them were in Spanish but in the jumble of words coming from the headset there was one instruction in English. I did not catch it, but the pilot, with his more acute perception, had no difficulty in doing so.
It may be one's constitutional right to be able to use one's native language, but in my view the lives of hundreds of people are more important than my right to use a particular language. When I hear there have been approximately 27 near-misses since this program began, and when I learn that the Ministry of Transport is refusing to publish details of these near-misses so that the public might be in a position to know about them, I have still greater cause to be concerned. It is now a fact that the tower in Moncton refuses to answer a call that comes in another language.
I have before me the Canadian General Aviation News, the January 1976 issue-I believe a very responsible journal. In an article it has this to say:
The Ministry of Transport appears to be reacting to political pressures in its announced intention to introduce bilingualism into these vital areas. The aviation community is frustrated by the fact that the knowledge and experience it can offer have been ignored. In particular the two groups with the greatest knowledge of the situation, the operational air traffic controllers represented by CATCA and the airline pilots represented by the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, have continually opposed such action.
This Association cannot stand by while misplaced linguistic passion emotionalism, and political pressure degrade what has been up until now the safest air traffic control service in the world, and jeopardize the safety of the hundreds of thousands of airline passengers who each month go through the airports of the province of Quebec, or the skies overhead.

February 9, 1976
Adjournment Debate


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I must pinch hit for a colleague, and give the answer that comes from the department. But following that answer I will have a word to say to the hon. member who asked the question.

There is no schedule in existence at this time for introducing bilingual services into airports in other provinces of Canada, other than the possibility of such services being provided in the national capital region. Of course one compelling reason for this is that at the present time there are not sufficient bilingual controllers in the air traffic control service to provide such services outside the province of Quebec.
It is also essential that this entry into the provision of bilingual service in the air traffic control service in the province of Quebec, which it must be remembered is a new experience for both the pilots flying in this area and for the controllers providing the service in this area, must be certified to ensure that there is no decrease in safety. With regard to the question as to whether the bilingual or unilingual French pilots will in due course request bilingual service in other provinces, as the minister indicated earlier in reply to a question, this is a hypothetical question and I can only reiterate that at the present time we do not have any intention to provide bilingual services in other provinces.

Mr. Speaker-and that does not form part of the answer I have to give the hon. member-I travelled pretty well all over the world, and in most African countries, the French language is used, it is used in France, in Switzerland, in at least 32 countries, and I do not understand at all that the hon. member who lives 3,000 miles away from the place where that is going to apply should come and say that it is a nonsensical reason.
To say that it is a matter of safety rather than a constitutional matter is not really the answer. I travelled across this country. There are pilots who use French, and it is not because one uses that language that one is a less competent pilot than someone who uses the English language.
When you go to Russia you land in the Russian language; when you go to Spain, Italy or some other country of the world you land in the language of that country. I find it absolutely inconceivable that one would come up with questions regarding safety to try to justify a position that one would like to see respected.
The government of Canada already agreed to make it possible, not in the other provinces of this country but in Quebec, for pilots leaving an area of Quebec for another to be able to converse in their language. One would have to be unrealistic to try to take away that entirely legitimate right from people who live in a province and always speak the language of that province.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:33 p.m.

Tuesday, February 10, 1976