1976-02-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there are no longer days set aside for discussion on foreign affairs, as was customary in the past in successive governments, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I move the adjournment of this House, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, which was particularly emphasized by Dr. Joseph Luns, Secretary General of NATO in Ottawa a couple of days ago when he said intervention by the Soviets "is a serious blow to east-west detente",-


An hon. Member:: What about the United States?


John George Diefenbaker: -namely, that the government of Canada having failed to make a clearcut public declaration against the brutal invasion of Angola by various forces, including some 9,000 Cuban troops-


An hon. Member:: And South African.


John George Diefenbaker: -this House condemns in strong and unequivocal terms the invasion of Angola by Cuban and other troops in the interests of world peace and the right of nations to self-determination, and asks that Cuban and all other foreign troops should remove themselves from Angola.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Liberal members all said no.


Mr. Trudeau:: I said no.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: You want them to stay there?


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. The report of Environment Canada dated January 14, 1976, states that offshore drilling in the Beaufort Sea could result in a blowout which would go uncontrolled for a period of at least one year and take up to three years to control, resulting in a massive kill of seals, birds, whales, polar bears and other wildlife, further denuding the capacity of natives to live from the land. In view of the fact that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs intends to conduct hearings for six communities in three days in the north making the consultation process a farce, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That approval be withheld from any company for offshore drilling until a full parliamentary inquiry has been held into the environmental effects of such drilling and further that the terms of reference of the Berger commission be expanded to include the subject of offshore drilling.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DISASTERS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a very important motion and I am convinced that no member will dare reject it.
Considering that mankind proceeds from the same Creator and that we are all united one another and living in the same world, our ethnicity, our language and our religion notwithstanding, and considering also that Canadians are ever sensitive to the calamities striking their fellow citizens and other nationalities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House keep a minute of silence as a mark of sympathy for the victims of the Maritimes and the victims in Guatemala heavily devastated by an earthquake, and that this House also urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to extend to the hard hit people our deepest sympathy.

February 6, 1976
Income Tax


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


REQUESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF POSSIBLE DANGER CONNECTED WITH USE OF AMARANTH-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. The banning of the use of Amaranth- red dye-in the United States because of possible link to cancer and long prohibited use in the U.S.S.R. throws into question its use in Canada. In view of conflicting statements on this matter in the minister's press release of February 2, 1976, I moved, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie):
That this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare for study and report.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present an important motion.
Considering the answer given yesterday to a written question of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) that 24,620 accounts of national and multinational corporations were outstanding at the Department of National Revenue, considering that these corporations owe the Crown the sum of $223,042,948 in unpaid taxes, and that only since 1973, considering the fight against inflation and the monetary needs of the government which takes the liberty to freeze family allowances, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the government immediately order an inquiry to examine the said outstanding income tax accounts to of the national and multinational corporations and to ensure the payment of these taxes owed to the Crown, in the same way and with the same severity as is applied to individual taxpayers.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance arises out of his reported statement to provincial ministers of finance to the effect that he would talk to his colleagues in cabinet about the proposed export levy associated with the controls program. Can the minister indicate to the House precisely what aspect of the export levy he agreed to discuss with his colleagues, whether it is the whole question of such an export levy, or any particular aspect of that levy.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the point made by the ministers of the provincial governments was that the proposed export levy system could operate as an impediment to the growth of exports at this time. They therefore requested, essentially, that export profits be exempt from the over-all controls system. As the House knows, the purpose of including them is to provide equity in treatment as between firms selling in Canada and export firms and also between exporting firms and their own employees whose compensation will be controlled. With regard to this proposal, it was the general concept of controlling export profits to which some of the provincial governments objected.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it that the whole question of the export levy and the whole question of controlling profits from exports in this way is being reviewed by the government. If that is the case, when will the minister or the Prime Minister indicate the result of this review to the House? How does the Minister of Finance propose to proceed so far as the provinces are concerned? When does he anticipate he will have word for the House and word for the provinces on this matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we will have to discuss this in cabinet and I anticipate that within the next week, certainly, this matter will come up. Of course, I cannot be final as to when the decision will be made. The decision, ultimately, will be that of the federal government
February 6, 1976

and, obviously, I would communicate with those ministers who spoke most directly about the question. I would not anticipate another meeting for this purpose but I indicated that, in the meantime, we would not proceed with the ways and means motion now before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Leader of the Opposition rising on a final supplementary question?


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-DATE WHEN PROGRAM WILL BE FULLY OPERATIONAL
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is not a final supplementary, in view of the obvious importance of getting this matter settled, both in terms of knowing whether there are to be agreements with all provinces relating to the anti-inflation program, and putting export industries in the position to know what they are doing, or supposed to be doing, at a time when exports are of the gravest importance to this country, may I ask this question? As it is nearly four months since the Prime Minister announced the launching of this program, can the minister indicate when he expects to have the whole program in place? When he replies I hope he will not say that it is not helpful to threaten the provinces. I am not talking about threats to provinces. I am asking him to indicate to the House when, if at all, he expects to have the program in place, as he originally envisaged?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the program is substantially in place now. A number of provinces which for their own reasons have had problems in their own public sectors, had difficulty in coming to a conclusion with regard to the agreements. Whatever the hon. gentleman may say about any suggestion of threatening the provinces, he has to recognize that it is the course of common sense in dealing with them to enable them freely to come to agreements in this regard and try to accommodate their positions. This is exactly the approach I have taken. I do not think that confrontation or setting deadlines is a sensible way to proceed.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-DATE OF AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCES ON EXPORT CONTROL LEVY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the uncertainty of the government's control program as a consequence of a failure to reach an agreement with the provinces on the export levy and bearing in mind the adverse consequence that this is obviously having on capital investment and the need for increased productivity at a time of high unemployment, will the minister advise when we can expect an agreement on this? Also, what is the procedure to be followed now that the ministers of finance have returned to their respective provinces without having reached an agreement?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of agreement on the export levy. It is fair to observe that while the export levy has been in the government's program, the reference to it has been there since October, it is only at this most recent meeting that there were substantial objections to it. In this
Oral Questions
program dealing with all sectors in the community, labour, management and the provinces, we sought to try to structure the program in order to meet their particular concerns. It was in that frame of mind that I agreed to have a review with my colleagues in this regard. I do not think anybody could sensibly say there has been any hesitation in investment in the export sector because of this preparedness to meet with the concerns of the various groups in the community.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF PROBLEMS PREVENTING AGREEMENTS WITH PROVINCES
James Aloysius McGrath: The minister said in his statement that he was negotiating with the seven provinces that failed to sign an agreement on what he described as "special problems of a minor nature". Can the minister expand on that statement? What are these minor problems still to be resolved?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I
mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, to describe them in general terms, some provinces have difficulty arriving at an agreement because of negotiating situations with particular groups in the public sector in their provinces. Others have problems because of the question of pricing in the public sector. No province has indicated it would hesitate because of the review we now have underway of the export levy system.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the decision by a United States court that the Seattle Light and Power Company be granted permission to raise the Ross Dam by 100 feet, which will entail the flooding of over 5,000 acres of the upper Skagit Valley which, according to the report of the International Joint Commission tabled in this House on December 17, 1971, would have far reaching and permanent effects on the environment of the Skagit Valley, what steps does the government intend to take to prevent the flooding of this important and environmentally vulnerable area of British Columbia?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points to be made in reply to the question. The United States Federal Power Commission, operating within the context of United States law, has completed its hearings on Seattle's application for a licence to raise Ross Dam. Just two days ago, the federal commission judge hearing the case handed down his decision approving the application. There is a period of 30 days during which exception could be taken to the ruling and then a period of 30 days within which the commission must act to grant the licence or otherwise. If the Federal Power Commission does grant a

February 6, 1976
Oral Questions
licence the matter can be raised in the United States Courts.
I should point out, also, that an application by the Province of British Columbia to overturn the 1942 order of the International Joint Commission approving the raising of the Ross Dam is being held in abeyance by the IJC pending the outcome of discussions which are taking place between British Columbia and Seattle. To make one more point, when the President and the Prime Minister met in Washington, it was agreed that the best way to deal with this question would be through negotiations between the Province of British Columbia and Seattle. These negotiations are still under way and we shall be having discussions on the federal side with provincial officials on the whole question of the Skagit at a very early date.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Having regard to the statement which was made by the former Secretary of State for External Affairs, the present President of the Privy Council, on February 13, 1971 that before any dam construction which would cause flooding in the Skagit Valley could begin, approval must first be given by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I want to ask the minister whether that legal interpretation put forward by his predecessor expresses the view held by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs and, if so, whether he or the Prime Minister can assure the House that no such approval will be given either by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources or by any other department of the Canadian government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have no reason to question the opinion expressed by my predecessor although, to be honest, I have not considered that particular point. I shall obviously look into the legal situation and form my own conclusion as to what the government ought to do in the event that negotiations prove futile, in the event that in the final analysis the Federal Power Commission grants a licence or in the event that the IJC fails to overturn the 1942 order. There are a number of contingencies which would have to be dealt with before we reach the point which the hon. member put forward as calling for a final decision by the government.


FLOODING OF SKAGIT VALLEY BY SEATTLE LIGHT AND POWER-POSSIBLE RENEGOTIATION OF 1942 AND 1967 AGREEMENTS WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As the minister has said, there are a number of options open to the government and to the government of British Columbia. But as the best approach would seem to be renegotiation not only of the 1942 agreement but of the 1967 agreement between the Seattle Light and Power Company and the government of British Columbia, with provision for compensating the United States company in respect of the $8 million it has spent and returning the $35,000 a year payment to the province of British Columbia, may I ask whether the minister would be prepared to initiate such a renegotiation of the 1967 agreement with the co-operation and consent of the government of British Columbia?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I agree that the best possible approach to this question is by way of negotiation between the government of British Columbia and Seattle, a procedure which was not followed very enthusiastically by the former provincial government of British Columbia. We believe this ought to proceed and that such negotiations are the best way to deal with the matter.


INCOME TAX
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Is he aware that as of March 31, 1975, 24,620 corporate accounts were outstanding, totalling an amount of $223,042,948 owed to the Crown? In view of the budgetary needs and the restrictions imposed by the President of the Treasury Board, could he tell the House what action he intends to take-special action since the standard approach does not seem to be effective-in order that the Crown might secure this income tax reimbursement in the same manner as it is done with respect to individuals?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the department concerned with income tax collection is the Department of National Revenue, and this question should be directed to my colleague.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue what special steps he intends to take to recover this tremendous sum of $223 million owing to the Crown since 1975?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for this question and for moving his motion under Standing Order 43. I agree with him that it is necessary to continually look for new methods to collect outstanding taxes. We have already succeeded in recovering millions of dollars, and we will pursue our efforts along this line in the case referred to by the hon. member.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, one last supplementary.
Considering the various recovery methods mentioned by the minister, could he explain to the House-if they are so effective-why late filings numbered only 2,470 in 1973, as against over 9,269 in 1974 and 12,881 in 1975?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We are always trying to improve, Mr. Speaker. I used up most of my vocabulary answering the last question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 6, 1976


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will the government be reviewing any CIDA loans or grants to Cuba now its troops are engaged in the Angolan conflict; and if Cuba has money to become involved in wars, should not this disallow its receipt of aid as an underprivileged country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I dealt with that question or one very much like it a couple of days ago, and the answer is still the same. Our aid program is not linked to the ideology of a particular country. I think I gave the example of helping Haiti, on the one hand, and Cuba on the other, which are very differently oriented countries.


CUBA-POSSIBILITY OF PROVISION IN AID CONTRACT ALLOWING DISCONTINUANCE OF AID IF ECONOMIC CONDITION IMPROVES
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When these contracts are negotiated with the various countries, are there any clauses in them that provide that, if they come into an exalted position and can find funds for fighting wars and that sort of thing, then grants can be cut off?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There are no clauses that provide for that, Mr. Speaker.


GUATEMALA-AMOUNT AND FORM OF AID IN VIEW OF EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In regard to Guatemala, the minister indicated yesterday that Canada would be making a special donation as the first of a series of steps. May I ask him today whether he is prepared to speak in more urgent tones concerning how much our donation will be to Guatemala, what form it will take, and how quickly it can be dispensed to that country, particularly medical aid that is needed in the form of blood plasma and anti-tetanus vaccine?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister sent a message to the government of Guatemala expressing our very deep feelings of sadness at the tragic events in that country and assuring the government of Guatemala that Canada stood ready to assist in any way possible. We have already indicated to the Guatemalan Red Cross that we are prepared to provide an initial donation. We are now considering a substantial contribution in the form of food aid, and we are also giving immediate consideration to the rearrangement of our aid program in Guatemala so that funds can be released for the reconstruction of that country. Yesterday we sent a representa-
Oral Questions
tive of the Canadian International Development Agency to Guatemala so that in consultation with the government, we can determine what further ways we may be able to assist.


INCOME TAX
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue and I do so in an effort to avoid unnecessary embarrassment and anguish for thousands of women across Canada. Because the guidelines are not specific on this point, will the minister please confirm that effective as of the taxation year 1975 women who have had to undergo mastectomies will be permitted to deduct as a medical expense the cost of an external breast prosthesis?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question and I do appreciate its importance. In fact, I am pleased to confirm that the income tax regulations were amended in January, 1976 to add to the list of items deductible for medical expenses for income tax purposes the cost of an external breast prosthesis required as a result of a mastectomy.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would also take this opportunity to mention that the cost of a teletypewriter or similar device that enables a deaf or mute individual to make and receive telephone calls has also been added to the list of deductible medical expenses for income tax purposes.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for the raising and lowering of flags on public buildings. Will he advise the House what was the purpose behind the raising of the United States flag over the Peace Tower this morning? Was it to show our American neighbours that we really do love them, and is it planned to give the Cuban flag equal time later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been in communication with the raisers of the flag this morning. I am told they are from the academic community with which perhaps the hon. member is more familiar than I.


George Harris Hees: You mean I am a little better educated?


An hon. Member:: It doesn't show, George.
10704

February 6, 1976
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I am so modest I keep it under a bushel.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Their purpose, Mr. Speaker, in raising the flag has not been made too clear to the Sergeant-at-Arms who has succeeded in collaring them all, according to accounts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FLYING OF UNITED STATES FLAG FROM PEACE TOWER-INDICATION OF LAX SECURITY
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to give a degree of seriousness to what happened this morning over the flag, but it does indicate that there is some loose security about the parliament buildings, and I would ask the Minister of Public Works what investigation is being made in this connection? When these pranksters can do what they did by going through three doors and getting up to the tower without being seen there are some security precautions in addition to those now being taken that should be adopted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is with the usual regret and some humility that I intervene in the right hon. gentleman's question, but the fact of the matter is that security in this building is my responsibility and not that of the Minister of Public Works.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I realized the question could not be asked of you, Mr. Speaker. In that connection, when the security of this building is subject to such potential dangers then I think it is a matter for consideration on the part of the Minister of Public Works and the government. You, sir, look after the building itself, but you do not look after the tower and security outside.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In any case, to the extent that I am responsible, I can assure hon. members that the matter will be thoroughly investigated from a security point of view.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question with reference to the administration of justice. It arises from the fact that there have been adjournments or postponements of sentences in respect of capital murder. How is the Prime Minister's government able to reconcile the promise of a free vote on capital punishment with the fact that there appears now to be a delay or a postponement in respect of this bill because a large number of his own

backbench supporters are not going along with the government's bill? How does he reconcile the promise of a free vote with the fact of the postponements?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the one has nothing to do with the other. There will be a free vote whether it is held next week, the week after or a month after that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is this going to be a free vote for the members of the Cabinet, or as free as it is to be for the backbenchers? I ask this because last time members of the Cabinet showed a degree of solidarity which does not exist with regard to the new economic society suggested by the Prime Minister, particularly in view of the recent statement by the Minister of National Defence.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should not worry about the Cabinet. Perhaps he should worry about his own frontbenchers, or talk to the two or three dozen people who are running for the leadership of his party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Prime Minister always wants to be fair. I thought he would feel awfully good in that he ran successfully against eight or nine of the members of his party.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest of the country and of the members of this House in the proposals for a guaranteed income or income supplementation which were discussed earlier this week by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his provincial counterparts, may I ask whether a statement on this matter will be made to the House, or will the proposals be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for study? When the minister is answering that question I wonder if he might assure the House that these proposals are being made on their own and not only if the provinces agree to the non-escalation of family allowances?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my provincial colleagues and I have discussed the possibility of setting up an income support and income supplementation program. Those discussions have now been under way for over two years. This week they went into another stage; early in June another meeting will be held at which time we will look into certains aspects of the proposals made to date. I do not intend to make a formal statement at this time. I believe every hon. member has now received copy of the news release from the conference. In addition, the estimates of my department will be considered by the committee on health, wel-
February 6, 1976

fare and social affairs later on in the session. At that time, I shall be happy to give hon. members all the information they might deem useful and to discuss with my colleagues of the parliamentary committee whatever proposals are made. I feel it is still too early to make a statement on specific and final proposals, for they still have to be debated at the June meeting. Finally, the proposal of the federal government was made without specific mention of the possibility of indexing family allowances, which matter was not brought up.



METHOD OF EFFECTING NON-ESCALATION OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the new proposals may not come into effect for two or three years and family allowances are in effect now, I would ask the minister whether the question of their non-escalation will be brought before parliament this year or is this non-escalation being effected by order in council?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member knows that the indexing of family allowances is covered by the law on family allowance passed by Parliament and that the suspension of indexing for this year will be the subject of an amendment which will be discussed in the House in the weeks to come. Any decisions concerning non-indexing in any subsequent year would be subject, I think, to a new amendment if such a proposition were entertained by the government but for now such a project was not discussed at the conference. I do not know where the hon. member got hold of such information. There was no discussion on that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State who evidently has just walked out of the chamber. I think he is behind the curtain.


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



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Following the scuttling of the original Skywest proposals for the operation of a regional carrier the minister laid before the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan some counter-proposals
Oral Questions
which apparently are being studied. Would the minister indicate what his proposals were and what stage of development we have reached at this point. Does he expect a response shortly from these governments?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Skywest operation as such, of course, is dead because of the withdrawal by Manitoba of Skywest. The proposals are essentially toward providing the same kind of services that would have been provided by that carrier and ways of finding another carrier or carriers to provide the services. At the present time I am awaiting a response from the two governments which I hope will indicate their willingness to support such a proposal financially about to the extent of their previous willingness.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether his proposal was such that it would involve the governments in the actual operation or was the operating aspect of any proposal to be turned over to a private carrier.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would likely have involved a private carrier although the general proposition at the time is to ascertain the degree of support which would be involved from these various governments. I do not exclude the possibility of a carrier other than a private carrier being involved if they could come up with a proposition which was as good on a competitive basis. However, I would want the CTC to play a full role in the licensing and, if possible, the assessment of the various proposals put forward by carriers.



PERFORMING ARTS


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Secretary of State for returning to the chamber. The Council of Canadian Filmmakers in a statement on August 23 viewed with alarm the situation in their industry and said in part that the situation had been aggravated by several events. I quote the industry as follows:
-the Secretary of State's announcement of a patently absurd scheme to extend the failed 'voluntary agreement' with Famous Players and Odeon-an arrangement which serves the purposes of the foreign-owned theatre chains but has the full potential to defeat the purposes of the Canadian Film industry-
In view of that statement, I wonder whether the Secretary of State is contemplating a change in policy?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: No,
Mr. Speaker. I have gone into this matter at some length with the council and also before the parliamentary committee. I would be pleased to let the hon. member have the results of the voluntary quota when I am before the committee dealing with my estimates. I think it will be quite clear at that point that the voluntary quota in fact is leading to a much greater number of Canadian films being shown across Canada.
211 30-5 6%

February 6, 1976
Oral Questions


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Secretary of State could inform the House whether he is planning any action with Mr. Harold Greenberg or the officials of his department, since the CCFM has said that the officials of the Department of the Secretary of State have repeatedly lied to the CCFM when it has expressed fears that plans were afoot for the kind of voluntary agreement which the minister did announce on August 5. Does he plan any action either with the officials of his department or Mr. Greenberg?


James Hugh Faulkner: No, Mr. Speaker, but I think the hon. member's question is somewhat out of date. The Canadian Council of Filmmakers is perfectly aware of the fact that this chamber is not in a position to legislate quotas over theatres in this country. They come under the jurisdiction of the provinces. They were trying to lobby the provinces to institute quotas in the ten provinces. That effort was not successful. I felt very strongly that some form of quota was necessary. What I was able to do in the interim was make an arrangement through the Canadian Film Development Corporation for a quota which will be observed, obviously not under the aegis of law but which will be observed, and which will be monitored and the results made public through Famous Players and Odeon. That seems to me to be an improvement over where we were. It may not be exactly as much as the Canadian Council of Filmmakers would want.



HOUSING


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that homeowners eligible for AHOP can only qualify to receive their government subsidization once their dwelling has been registered, and since registration, in some instances, cannot be processed until months after the initial purchase, can the minister assure the public that, upon entering into the AHOP program, they will receive rebates on the subsidization they did not receive before their dwelling was registered.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member did a great deal of research in respect of that question. I would like to grasp the full sense of it and report back to him when I have been able to make a decision. Certainly, I want to do all that is possible in the situation to keep the outstanding record of housing starts in this country continuing.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of the utmost importance. I would point out to the minister that I received a telephone call today indicating that in this immediate area there are 130 families involved. Considering that most of those qualifying for AHOP end up purchasing condominiums, which are usually only registered by the builders once an entire condominium complex has been occupied, does the minister realize that condominium

owners purchasing AHOP sponsored dwellings are forced to pay occupancy fees or rent that does not go toward amortizing their mortgages, that these individuals do not receive subsidization until the entire complex is occupied and that, in short, these individuals end up paying more for their home and more interest than they originally realized. What will the minister do to clear up this obvious shortcoming in the AHOP program?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I will look into it immediately.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the honourable and learned Secretary of State for External Affairs. Recalling that it is now some time since the director of the Kuwait fund for Arab development was in Canada seeking co-operation between Kuwaiti money and Canadian expertise in the extension of aid programs in developing countries, can the minister advise if and to what extent Canada is co-operating in this very positive outreach from one of the major OPEC countries.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker; I cannot advise at the moment but I will obtain the information immediately.



OIL-NEED FOR EARLY ACTION TO PREVENT CLOSING OF WELLS PRODUCING HEAVY CRUDE-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Inasmuch as the actions taken by the National Energy Board, which were referred to in the minister's answer earlier this week, in connection with relief to the heavy oil industry will not provide any immediate relief for the month of February to this ailing industry, is the minister considering any other immediate action, such as amendments to the export tax or the quota system, to prevent the continuing mass closure of the heavy oil-producing wells, particularly in the Lloydmin-ster area. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the failure to initiate any immediate action results in many of these wells being closed the effect of which is that they will entail very heavy starting up costs and in many cases the wells may never again be producing wells.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question earlier this week. I indicated we have been talking to the industry and to the provinces and have been trying to work out arrangements which will secure the industry. We believe the changes in the regulations with regard to oil exports for the months of March and April, nominations of which are now being called for, will help alleviate the situation.
February 6, 1976


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the wells are continuing to close-Husky Oil will be closing another 500 in the month of February-notwithstanding the action taken by the minister, is he not prepared to do anything else but allow the industry to collapse as a result of the ambivalent government policies which have been imposed upon it.


Alastair William Gillespie: I believe that the industry itself has a responsibility for its own survival, and there are a number of measures it could take as well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



PROPOSED STUDY BY COMMITTEE OF MERCURY POISONING IN NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC

Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Considering that mercury pollution has disastrous effects in northwestern Quebec and that each week we learn that new victims of mercury poisoning are being discovered in this area, could the minister tell the House if he is prepared to recommend that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs go to that location in northwestern Quebec to investigate mercury poisoning?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, a federal-provincial team is already working actively in this field; it is composed of leading specialists. I think that the best work is that now being accomplished by experts in the field. As to whether or not the health committee should be sent there, this decision is not my responsibility.



MEDICARE-INQUIRY WHETHER VOTE ON BILL C-68 AWAITING CONSENSUS OF PROVINCES

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Referring to the statement made by the former Minister of Finance on medical care last June and recognizing the commendable efforts the minister made at the provincial level to have them accept the amendments concerning health care, and recognizing now with Bill C-68 that the provinces still seem to be seriously concerned, would the minister be prepared to seek a consensus with the provinces and wait for this consensus before inviting the House to vote for Bill C-68 on third reading?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, for several years now the federal government has been trying to follow the procedure of consensus in the area of health and in many other areas, even well before my appointment as Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Oral Questions


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I acknowledge the minister's good answer but my question is as follows: Is the minister prepared to wait for a provincial consensus before requesting the House to adopt this bill on third reading?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated in my speech on second reading, we have held major consultations with the provinces during the last few months before some amendments and modifications to Bill C-68 were put forward. As the government House leader has indicated, the government now intends to proceed with the study of this bill. When the bill is referred to committee, I shall be pleased to propose the amendments that I have already mentioned. I think this is the best procedure under the circumstances and one which, hopefully, will be adopted by the House shortly.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in answer to a question by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings the Prime Minister indicated that he had established a Privy Council Committee to look into the question of productivity. Could he tell the House whether this Privy Council Committee study included a consideration of the consequences to Canada's future technological competence, and therefore future productivity, of the effects of the government's decision to reduce spending on research and development?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings was a much more sensible way of getting that type of answer. He suggested a statement at one point, and I indicated one would be made either in the form of a speech or in the form of a statement on motions.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In reply to a suggestion made by my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, that the minister should introduce a motion in the House to approve of the agreements in regard to the sale of nuclear reactors to South Korea and the Argentine the minister promised to consider this suggestion. Will the minister now state his intention to introduce the proposed motion so that parliament itself may consider these agreements, which purport to provide for safeguards, which Mr. David Lilienthal, first chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Com-

February 6, 1976
Oral Questions
mission, and Canada's General Burns have both said are useless in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, thereby inviting impending disaster?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I said, following the making of the statement and the comments, that I would consider whether a further resolution would be required. I believe when I did make my statement there was a very full discussion. Statements were made and questions were asked and answered and at the moment I do not personally see the necessity of bringing in a special resolution for agreements which are already in effect, in accordance with a practice which has been followed in this country for a long time. However, it will be possible in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to question me further on the elements of these agreements when my estimates are before the committee.
I should remind the hon. member that I did table considerable background material on Canada's nuclear safeguards policy. I believe that upon examination the hon. member will agree with me that we have entered into very stringent safeguards, and that in either country involved will Canada be in any way increasing or adding to any capability for proliferation. In fact, the opposite is the case.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I think the minister has missed the point, which is that we suggested parliamentary approval. I ask him whether he has taken into account the statement made by the Right Hon. Mackenzie King that parliamentary approval should be sought for international agreements where the matters involved are of large expenditure or political considerations of a far-reaching character. In view of this pronouncement by Mr. Mackenzie King, who was for many years our prime minister, I ask whether the minister will give further consideration to carrying out the suggestion made by Mr. Mackenzie King as to the need for parliamentary approval.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: While I do respect any pronouncement made by Mr. Mackenzie King, in this case I do not find that his pronouncement should determine the course of action to be taken by the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He will come back to haunt you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He is here.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will be in the province of British Columbia for the whole of next week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Here comes the P.R. Department.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I extend to the Prime Minister a warm welcome to la plus belle province. During the proposed meetings with the premier of British Columbia will the

questions of the implementation of the guidelines and the AIB be discussed, and if so, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will not be brutally frank with the premier in his discussions because of the brutal headache the premier has regarding the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of what I think must be a very wild report contained in a respected United States weekly, and I quote:
Cuba is to get an atomic power plant from Russia to be completed in 1978 with financing by France, Britain and Canada, among others.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister tell the House whether Canada is either involved in or considering financing such a plant either directly or indirectly? Surely, we are not that wild.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, we are not that wild. We are not involved in any such arrangement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the Latin connection which has developed, could the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate whether the U.S.S.R. has agreed to supply a nuclear reactor to Cuba, and if so, what are the safeguards imposed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the U.S.S.R. is planning to provide a power reactor to Cuba, but I would say that they have been a party to the ongoing consensus at the suppliers' meeting. As I understand it, they would apply the internationally accepted safeguards to the transmission of any plant to any other country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order of which I gave notice at the conclusion of the exchange I had with the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's admission that the Family Allowances Act, which is an act of this parliament, requires the escalation of family allowances, by what authority is that escalation being withheld?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should more properly be addressed to the Minister of Justice, in the present circumstances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, can this government break the law with impunity?
February 6, 1976


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Marc Lalonde: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the formula is put in the act itself and I would refer him to it. The law provides for an escalation to be tabulated from one certain period to another period; and it is then by order in council that this particular escalation takes place. The hon. member has been in this House much longer than I have been. If he looks at the statute, he will find that there is no problem. However, we can discuss this matter later.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe the minister had better have a look at it, too.


Mr. Paproski:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that the Minister of Transport has a very important announcement to make today, namely, the appointment of a new president of Air Canada. I hope, if he is going to make the announcement, he will make it in the House and will assure the House that he will do so.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there have been, and there are, a number of Canadians in Guatemala today, and in view of the fact that no statement has been made in this House with respect to their welfare, and also in view of the fact that I was not recognized and could not ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs about the condition of Canadians in Guatemala and what the government is doing to help them out, may we expect a statement? There are a lot of Canadians who want to know where their sons, daughters and relatives are.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, the final report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada on dispositions and sentences in the criminal process. May I say this is an extremely important report that I recommend to hon. members.


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: 3,128, 3,766, 3,831 and 3,964.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In what electoral district is the Municipality of St. Laurent, Quebec, situated and who represents it in Parliament?
2.	(a) On what date was Mr. Yvon Gariepy appointed to the position of Assistant Commissioner of the Canadian Penitentiary Service (b) what was his complete previous employment record in the Public Service (c) did he serve as a Director General of the Municipality of St. Laurent, Quebec, immediately before his appointment as Deputy Commissioner of the Canadian Penitentiary Service (d) what were his qualifications considered by the government in making this appointment?
3.	What was the name of the Solicitor General of Canada at the time that Mr. Gariepy was appointed Assistant Commissioner of the Canadian Penitentiary Service?
4.	On what date was Mr. Yvon Gariepy appointed Master of the Royal Canadian Mint and what were his qualifications considered by the government in making the appointment?
5.	What was the name of the Minister of Supply and Services at the time Mr. Gariepy was appointed to the position of Master of the Royal Canadian Mint?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: am informed by the Department of Supply and Services, the Public Service Commission and the Department of the Solicitor General as follows: 1. See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171(ff).
2.	(a) Mr. Gariepy was appointed Deputy Commissioner, Operational Services, Canadian Penitentiary Service, on October 1, 1972. (b) Mr. Gariepy was employed as a summer student by the Department of Public Works in Montreal during the summer of 1951. (c) Prior to his appointment as Deputy Commissioner of the Canadian Penitentiary Service, Mr. Gariepy was General Manager of the City of St. Laurent, P.Q. (d) In assessing Mr. Gariepy's qualifications, he was judged against the requirements of the position and was found to possess the professional and managerial capabilities required to discharge the responsibilities of Deputy Commissioner, Operations, Canadian Penitentiary Service.
3.	See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171 (ff).
4.	June 16, 1975 by Order in Council PC 1975-1302. Mr. Gariepy is a graduate in Applied Science (Engineering) and has served as Deputy Commissioner Penitentiaries (Operational Services). His appointment was recommended by the Board of Directors of the Royal Canadian Mint following the recommendation of a firm of consultants who were conducting an in depth study of the organization of the Mint and who recommended Mr. Gariepy as a most suitable candidate for the position of Master of the Mint.
5.	See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171 (ff).


Mr. Cossitt: What are the (a) names (b) job designations (e) salaries or remuneration of any kind of all persons employed by, attached to, on loan to, under contract with, or in any way connected with the Prime Minister's Office?

February 6, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See reply to Question 2,984 tabled this day.


Mr. Benjamin: 1.	Does the Department of Regional Economic Expansion rent space in the Bessborough Hotel in Saskatoon and, if so (a) how long is the lease (b) on what date was the lease signed (c) what is the amount of the lease rental agreement?
2.	What other offices, departments or agencies are leasing space and under what arrangements?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Public Works as follows: 1. No. The Department of Public Works rents the space that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion occupies in the Bessborough Hotel, (a) Five years, (b) February 10, 1975. (c) $144,000 per year.
2. The Department of Public Works rents no other space for other Departments or Crown agencies in this building.


Mr. Murta: What was the total cost of the Estey Air Canada Inquiry?


Mitchell William Sharp: See answer to question No. 3,770, Hansard 231, page 10,296 of January 26, 1976.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 2,984 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): For the fiscal years 1974-1975 and 1975-1976, what are the (a) duties (b) salaries (c) names of the members of the staff of the (i) Prime Minister's Office (ii) Privy Council Office and what is the job description for each such position?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 5, 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. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Madam Speaker, my reason for speaking is that I support wholeheartedly the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), a motion which has the effect of removing the censorship aspect of this legislation. I am sure that by doing this we are now getting down to the philosophical aspect of this bill. This is what is of such great concern to people on this side of the House and several members on the government side.
Another reason for speaking in this debate is that I have received, as have many other hon. members, literally hundreds of letters from constituents. I feel I would be less than responsible if I did not rise to express their views on this very important piece of legislation. Every letter has asked that I, as a member of parliament, do all in my power to block legislation that will have the effect of forcing Time and Reader's Digest, as we know them in their present form, out of Canada. It is true the American editions would continue to be published and would be sold in Canada. That point has been made by the supporters of this bill. But that is not the real point. Madam Speaker. The thing that Canadians are upset about is the fact that the Canadian editions, as we know them, will be removed from the bookstores and the mail of Canada. Canadians want the Canadian edition because of its content.
The issue which should trouble us most is the totalitarian nature of the government's legislation. Over half a million copies of Time are circulated in Canada. This is a very large circulation, by any standard, for a country like ours. These are copies which are printed in this country, though the largest part, by far, of the editorial copy originates in Time news bureaux in the United States and around the world. Canadians like myself have deliberately chosen this publication because it provides a window on the world which no Canadian publication can ever hope to emulate-least of all Maclean's with its effete, simpering kind of Canadianism. We need the Time kind of journalism at least as much, if not more, than the sort of thing Maclean's keeps offering us.
I have read Maclean's for at least half a dozen years and I think I understand its approach to journalism. If some hon. members have read Time magazine's 1975 account of the United States government's fiasco in Viet Nam, in terms of sober and, ultimately, health-giving reporting, I think they will understand what it is about a publication such as this which has made so many of us reach for it rather than for Maclean's.
February 6, 1976

I understand the government's position is that to qualify as a Canadian publication a magazine in this country would need to be 80 per cent different from the parent, United States publication, and 75 per cent Canadian-owned. Applied to Time, this rule would obviously mean that the magazine would cease to be. By introducing such rules the government would so affect-totally remake, so to speak-the magazine that Time could no longer continue in the form in which we have chosen to receive it. This is a form of muzzling of the press which we should view seriously. Already we are exposed to many extremist voices in this country. This legislation would make us more susceptible to them and would not give us easy access to publications with a large world view. This bill is opening the door for the narrowest kind of Canadianism and to the strongly ideological kind of journalism which is becoming increasingly prevalent in this country.
Most frequently overlooked is the fact that Time and Reader's Digest have not been given special advantages. These magazines competed in the Canadian marketplace in the same way as other publications. This issue has been presented to the Canadian public in such a way that many feel genuinely that advertisers in Time and Reader's Digest have had tax advantages which advertisers in Canadian publications did not have. Canadians should know that this is not the case. Time and Reader's Digest are being placed in a position of tremendous competitive disadvantage in the hope, as the government likes to believe, that advertisers will take their advertising from these two publications and place it in fully Canadian-owned publications. Taken by itself, that is a most doubtful assumption. We ought to view such attempted manipulation of the press with the utmost seriousness. The free press ought to be one of our most cherished possessions, jealously defended. In a very real sense, Canadians are being deprived of their freedom of choice.
The government's action reminds one more of a totalitarian regime than a truly open democracy. Such action by a Canadian government gives me a great sense of foreboding. The outcome will very likely be that Time and Reader's Digest-certainly the former-will, for all practical purposes, be legislated out of the country by means of economic levers. Canadians will have been deprived of one part of their freedom of choice. One more step will have been taken along the road to repressive action, and all this will have been done without guaranteeing the very thing the government is ostensibly concerned about, namely, a Canadian magazine industry with strong economic viability.
Why are Canadians so concerned about what is happening? Originally, I suggest, the minister intended to force both publications out of this country. Reader's Digest is the best family magazine that enters Canadian homes. It is a welcome visitor, an old friend. For the time being the magazine has been reprieved. Personally, I condemn the method by which this was done. It is not spelled out in legislation. It is open to any future minister of national revenue to reverse such a decision. How would he decide, after a bad night, say, or a bad day, when this matter could come up for decision again?
Non-Canadian Publications


Mr. Baldwin:: And the minister has so much on his mind that his nights must be bad.


William David Knowles: Perhaps another minister's view of what constitutes 80 per cent Canadian content will be different. I have never been ashamed to admit that Reader's Digest enters my home. I think it is a fine family magazine, fit for children to read. I welcome it;
I welcome its wholesomeness. The magazine does not resort to four-letter words, pornography or near pornography, in order to attract reader attention. In recent years, 30 per cent of its material has been of Canadian content and its articles are attractive to Canadians. It prints factual accounts of Canadian geography, human interest stories about Canadians, and interesting, readable vignettes about our history.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) spoke about taking the advice of advisers in his department before proposing Bill C-58 as now printed. He ought to have consulted experts in literary matters. Perhaps he did. Perhaps he overlooked the expertise of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) who in her interesting and logical speech last night showed that she possesses knowledge and expertise of literary matters.


An hon. Member:: She sure took a long time doing it.


William David Knowles: The ministers concerned ought to consider the views of departmental experts, but they ought also to consider the views of the Canadian people. I suggest that they have paid too much attention to the views of the periodicals' association which has an axe to grind and wants to promote its own interests. I suggest that the desires of the Canadian people should prevail. The government should pay more heed than it has to the wishes of Canadians. I should like to put on record the views of certain people who wrote to me communicating their concern about the matter we are discussing. First, may I read the letter of the Reverend Peter Brouwer, who wrote:
With respect to the government's intention to rescind section 19(2) of the Income Tax Act, I wish to express my strong objection. We appreciate and enjoy Reader's Digest and Time magazine a great deal and I hate to see it go or hurt in any way.
As far as we are concerned, there is nothing comparable that can replace them, especially Reader's Digest. It has a good percentage of Canadian content and we would be deprived of that if RD would have to go.
Reader's Digest, I feel, does our country a very worth-while service. It gives work for many Canadian workers and writers.
If the government really wants to strengthen the Canadian magazine industry, let them come up with something comparable even if it means a little extra help. I have nothing against that-
He says that penalizing good, bona fide foreign magazines which try hard to give good Canadian content, is wrong. He ends the letter by saying:
-And why should we be subjected to such arbitrary government interference?
Please, let both Reader's Digest and Time magazine keep their present status.
Next, let me read a letter from an educator, Sister The-rese Messner of St. Patrick's separate school in Caledonia. She writes:

February 6, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
As an educator, I am an avid reader of the Reader's Digest and use it frequently in my English classes, so therefore I would hate to see this publication discontinued in Canada.
She asks, would I please, when section 19(2) of the Income Tax Act disallowing, as a business expense, advertising placed by Canadian companies in the Digest is debated, keep this in mind. This magazine helps our children, she says. The third letter concerning Time and Reader's Digest is from a lawyer. He writes:
Dear Bill:
I spoke to you last Friday to voice my views about the attitude that the government is taking toward Time and Reader's Digest. I am not a constant reader of the latter although I have been a subscriber to Time since I was at law school in the late 1930s.
I pointed out to you that one of the commendable things that Time did during the war was to establish what they called-if my memory serves me correctly-a pony edition. This was an edition printed on fine paper, and carrying no advertising, which they airmailed to their subscribers in the armed forces who were overseas, including the Canadian forces, so that we used to have our edition of Time usually within a week of it hitting the streets in North America.
If the proposed legislation does anything to prohibit Time from carrying on in Canada as they have in the past, I will be most unhappy.
There are many other letters, but I feel these three are a fair example. They are all from responsible citizens. Other Canadians accomplished in journalism, authors, writers, and so on, have expressed the view along the line I have attempted to present today. Editorials in the daily press all across Canada have condemned the principle behind Bill C-58. They say that the 80 per cent difference in content requirement is a form of censorship; it is most dangerous. I would call it a censorship by mathematics. Mathematics is a precise science dealing in figures. Here we are talking about ideas and literary content. How could a magazine be censored by mathematics? In my opinion, the officials of Revenue Canada are the least qualified to do this of any government department.
As I said a few moments ago, one of the most qualified people in this House to do this would be the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. She has many years of experience, and a good reputation as a journalist. We should listen to what she is saying. Why does the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) not consult her before putting a mathematical value on content? The hon. member to whom I referred was not even permitted to be a member of the committee and to make a contribution to it. The government whip is usually a congenial person even though he has a rather loud voice. I hope she was not intimidated by his voice. Surely the whip should have seen the reason and should have permitted her views to be expressed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William David Knowles: Advertising costs should be deductible. The competitors of Time and Reader's Digest claim that those magazines have an unfair advantage in attracting advertisers. That is not so. The reason for advertising in those magazines does not have anything to do with the cost. The fact is that the cost of such ads are deductible, in the same way that advertisers can deduct for advertising in Canadian magazines. The advantage of deductibility is the same for all. The compelling reason lies 
in the fact that these two magazines have the greatest circulation and readership; therefore, there is the greatest possible exposure for advertisers.
I wish to refer to the comments of the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) whom Your Honour censured the other day, if I may be so bold as to say that. He did not have the opportunity to make his point. He stated that article after article in Saturday Night expressed the Canadian scene in a way that simply turned off readers. Having read one or two issues of that magazine, I found it a most destructive and demoralizing view of the Canadian scene. Maclean's is often in the same category. Nobody wants to be continually fed this sort of thing. The writers in Canadian magazines are what I call iconoclasts: they want to tear down anything that detracts; they do not give Canadians a sense of well-being or a sense of being proud to be Canadian. It is for this reason that Time and Reader's Digest attract the readership they do. This is why advertisers use them to reach the Canadian people.
Magazines such as Maclean's need only to improve their format. I would be less than honest if I did not admit that they made some effort in this regard, although they still turn me off. They must improve their format in order to appeal to a larger cross-section of the Canadian people. If they do that, they will certainly increase their circulation and readership. They will then attract advertisers and get their share of the advertising dollar.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He can complete his remarks only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William David Knowles: Madam Speaker, I thank hon. members for giving me permission to continue. The word "conclusion" appears at the top of the page in my hand. I have shown that Bill C-58 flies in the face of what grassroots Canadians really want. It is important to have another look at the "content" interpretation based on the 80 per cent content rule, or to simply remove it altogether as this subamendment suggests. That is why I support it. There needs to be much greater precision in defining what the government is talking about. It cannot be left to the whim of any minister. Surely it is not beyond the competence of the departmental officials to devise a precise way of indicating what they want accomplished. It would be far better to remove this provision altogether.
I admit that the present minister has good intentions. Previous speakers have complimented him. I know him as an honourable minister who wants to do what is right. I feel he had a gun held to his head, perhaps by the Secretary of State or the cabinet, and this compelled him to take this avenue of accomplishing the removal of Time and Reader's Digest from the Canadian scene.
There is the threat of closure. To what end? Reader's Digest will live, thanks to the minister and the special arrangement he has made. Let me say, however, that we want to know about it in more precise terms. The Canadian edition of Time will perhaps disappear. Canadians will have lost a publication which gives us a view of the world. As I said before, it is a window on the world. The advertis-

ing revenue accruing to other Canadian magazines such as Maclean's will remain essentially the same, for the reasons I have given. I will support all amendments and subamendments which have the effect of permitting Time and Reader's Digest to continue to provide intelligent, interesting reading to thinking Canadians.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Madam Speaker, in rising to speak in support of motion No. 4, placed before the House by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) and seconded by myself, I think it becomes quite obvious that I have serious misgivings about certain aspects of the bill that is before us. This is a somewhat difficult and delicate role for a backbencher to play. For this reason, and at the outset of my remarks, I want to express my support and encouragement of the two ministers involved who have been faced with the unenviable task of attempting to grapple with yet another aspect of our developing Canadian nationhood-that relating to the status of the publishing industry in this country and the promotion and sustenance of greater Canadian talent in that area.
There is one other general comment I would like to make at this point, and I feel this very sincerely. I feel it is an indication of the real strength of the government, and of the party which forms the government-of which I am proud to be a part-that, as a backbencher of rather lowly rank, I can rise in this chamber and speak freely and express my concern about specific aspects of this legislation, even when such concern extends to the point where the member may find it beyond the bounds of his considered judgment to be able to support the legislation in the final stages of debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Gray Martin: I want to talk on several aspects of the bill, but first I would like to speak about the intent of the legislation as I understand it. My understanding is that it is intended to assist Canadian newspapers and the periodical industry, to promote Canadian talent and to take a further step in our development as an independent and interdependent nation. So what did we do? Ten years ago we introduced a 75 per cent ownership clause. This was the key. This was the clause which exempted, at the time, two prominent international magazines then on the market in Time and Reader's Digest. It was a move in the right direction. It was a move which had the general support of Canadians.
What are we doing now? We are taking this one step further: we are introducing Bill C-58 and we are saying that the exemption given ten years ago to those particular periodicals is not valid today and that it should be withdrawn. Basically, that is all that the legislation says. The legislation as it is proposed at the present time really changes no other aspect. So Bill C-58 is really intended to complete the job which was started ten years ago.
The problem arises with the introduction of a new definition which really came before us some ten months after the bill was introduced. It is not a factor in the bill itself, but it is clear-and I think the minister deserves credit for having made this clear-that it is going to be part of the regulations that will be followed as the bill is adminis-
Non-Canadian Publications
tered. The key phrase in this connection is "not substantially the same". For the last ten years there has never been a test, as I understand it, of that particular phraseology in the Income Tax Act. It was never queried. This was probably one reason why the legislation worked so well. It was never queried until this spring, and at the time it was queried my understanding is that departmental officials in the Department of National Revenue, in their usual able way, looked at it and said, "Well, we would interpret this as being 50 per cent different."
That was a reasonable conclusion, arrived at by reasonable people. The senior officials in the Department of National Revenue are, indeed, very reasonable people. My understanding is that, based on that ruling, one of those international magazines, namely, Time, proceeded to arrange its affairs so that it could live with Bill C-58. In other words, it was prepared to become a Canadian magazine 75 per cent owned and controlled in Canada and it was prepared to change its format dramatically so as to have a 50 per cent Canadian content. In the case of Reader's Digest, I understand they never did give that indication; they never did indicate, until very recently, that they had any intention of Canadianizing their operation as Time had done. Then, late in October, the government came up with this 80 per cent factor, and this, I suggest, drastically changed the rules of the game.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Gray Martin: I am not a lawyer, but it is not at all clear to me how something that is "not substantially the same" has to be "80 per cent different." It seems to me that if the legislators in 1965-and I was not among them-had wanted "not substantially the same" to mean something other than a normal person would deem it to mean, they would have inserted such definition into the legislation at the time. Surely, if they had thought in terms of 80 per cent different or 75 per cent different, or whatever, they would have indicated as much and put it into the bill at that time. However, they did not, and I think that is an important point.
My objection is that we should be forced to accept as an understanding, as we review and pass Bill C-58, that even though there is no change in the bill itself, based on the 1965 "not substantially the same" terminology, that part of what we are doing must be deemed to change that situation. In other words, we understand there is to be an accompanying regulation which will say that from now on "not substantially the same", regardless of what it meant in the past, will from now on mean "80 per cent different."
The nub of the issue, in my view, is that this is really not what parliament wants at all, and I do not think it is really what the Canadian people want. That is why I am supporting the "60 per cent different" terminology in motion No. 4. I believe it refers to 40 per cent the other way, but effectively 60 per cent is the content factor included in motion No. 4. If the government proposes to get into the content game, that seems to be a much more rational and acceptable approach and one which contains a reasonable degree of fairness and equity. I believe we need to put this into legislation if we are going to do it at all.
Madam Speaker, there are a number of points I wish to cover. My time is limited, so I propose to discuss now some

February 6, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
aspects of the content provisions of the legislation which are of particular concern to me. Following that, I shall probably come back to another matter relating to the "international pool" development which is now applicable to Reader's Digest. But I will skip that for the moment. Let me speak of the content rule. I want to talk for a few moments about the matter of freedom of the press. I know that the last thing in the minister's mind is that any enactment of parliament under his direction would in any way attempt to limit the freedom of the press as we understand it in Canada. Yet I submit that, wilfully or not, imposing this 80 per cent content factor really does have an effect in that direction. It must be accepted that in future, assuming the passage of Bill C-58 in its present form, Canadians engaged in publishing periodicals or newspapers in this country will not be free to publish what they wish and to stay in business, simply because advertising revenues will not be available to them unless they conform to a specific government requirement imposed by parliament.
Normally, my concern about this issue would not be so great as it is had I not had a recent international experience during which I talked first-hand to the people who knew whereof they spoke. I refer to complete withdrawal of the freedom of the press under a parliamentary system not very different from our own. This experience remains with me and will never, likely, be erased. I was also amazed to read recently of the freedom threats that were implied by a reputable Canadian editor to have been directed to the press around the free world in 1974. He referred to such countries as Portugal, Greece, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, Thailand, Cambodia, South Viet Nam and Africa, among others. Madam Speaker, without further elaboration of this point, which I know will be disagreeable to many members of this House, I just want to say I agree with the concept that magazine readership must be earned and that it cannot be legislated by government.
The next point I would like to touch on is one relating to advertising dollars. Until quite recently I was under the impression that these two international magazines which have been of such concern to us were drawing a very large proportion of advertising dollars in the consumer magazine advertising business in Canada. I now understand, from what I consider to be a reliable source, that the total obtained by these two magazines in 1975 was 20 per cent, compared with the combination of the Toronto Star and the Maclean's group which drew 47 per cent.


An hon. Member:: Of what?


Alan Gray Martin: Advertising revenue. Time, the magazine that now seems to be the only one under the gun, drew 12 per cent on its own. The point is that Canadian magazines are indeed growing quite well and it may really be doubtful whether the content protection is basically needed for them. From a circulation point of view, however, it is clear that Canadian magazines would be happy to see the disappearance of those that have an international base, something that in my view will not actually occur because I do not think that the readership of Time-Reader's Digest being no longer affected-will drop by a single subscription.

I should like to make a few remarks about what I consider to be the counterproductive nature of this legislation, and I am particularly referring to the 80 per cent factor. Presumably, the intent of the 80 per cent is to keep any new international periodicals out of the country, or at least to prevent them establishing a Canadian-owned and operated organization. It was also the intent that Reader's Digest would probably have to fold its Canadian operation, though this matter has now been resolved.
My view, as I mentioned earlier, is that the readership of Time magazine will not decrease by one subscription. So really what we have done is to eliminate not only the possibility but, indeed, the firm and stated intent of a major international newsmagazine to Canadianize its operations and vastly change the format of its publication so as inevitably to enhance development of the Canadian periodical industry, with all its offshoots in the area of Canadian talent and business to Canadian enterprises that that would bring. Surely we are not looking at this time for a means to lessen economic activity in this country. By throwing out the existing Canadian edition we are even going so far as to take away whatever economic benefit may have existed in the country. At the same time we are effectively saying no to the potential of a much more Canadianized operation in all respects. I simply do not understand the thinking that has led to this kind of development, Madam Speaker. To me, it makes no economic sense whatsoever, particularly at this point in time.
I would now like to speak about the creation of a precedent that I see arising from the 80 per cent question. As a chartered accountant engaged in a number of industry settings prior to my election to this House in July, 1974, I had a good deal of interaction with the Income Tax Act and with the officers at all levels of Revenue Canada who have had the responsibility over the years of administering this very complex statute, which has become even more complex since 1972. I have developed a great respect and esteem for the senior officers of Revenue Canada. In fact, it is, I think, the real strength of our taxation system that we have been able to entice and hold people of such calibre to manage and administer the legislation that brings in the revenues of this country.
I believe it was the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) who drew the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) and his officers are frequently making interpretations under the Income Tax Act. They do this under the regulations that accompany the act. This is part and parcel of the difficult role which they are frequently called upon to play. However, Madam Speaker, in my view-and this has been my experience over the years-the government has normally attempted to restrict these regulations to accompanying sections of the Income Tax Act where in fact it was not possible to cover in the actual law the varying sorts of problems that might arise in practice. Yet that, surely, is not the case here.
It follows that the argument relating to the frequency of use of ministerial discretion under the normal operations of the Income Tax Act does not apply in this case. Here, is simply a question as to whether the figure of 80 per cent, 60 per cent, 50 per cent, 40 per cent or whatever should be inserted into the legislation. To not insert a definite figure,
February 6, 1976

in my view, is attempting to do by ministerial discretion what we are not prepared to do in the normal parliamentary process. This grates me, Madam Speaker, and I believe it is a most undesirable precedent for this House to adopt.
I should like to say a few words about the timing of this legislation. I do not find it difficult to support that portion of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Ontario which simply would give a reasonable amount of time to both Time and Reader's Digest to enable them to arrange their ownership affairs in order to meet the requirements of a proposed piece of legislation that will conceivably be passed into law within the next few months.
To suggest, as I believe has been suggested, that an effective date of January 1, 1976, would be fair under the circumstances, in view of the fact that these periodicals have been aware for some time of the intentions of the government in regard to this bill, is in my view stretching the credibility of such an argument far beyond any bounds that can be construed as in any way being fair and reasonable. It is my sincere hope that businesses operating in Canada will always be in a position where they can depend on the laws of the country, as they may exist from time to time, in carrying out their operations and making business decisions that may indeed be fundamental to the continuation of such operations in the country, as is indeed the case with Bill C-58.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a few points quite clear in regard to my position on this bill. First, I consider it not only a privilege but a responsibility to speak out in this important forum when confronted by an item of legislation that, in my best judgment, is not in the interests of the public at large. Second, I want again to express my confidence and my satisfaction as a member on the government side in the completely open and almost supportive stand that this government is prepared to take in regard to members who from time to time disagree with specific items of legislation.
My last point is that I want to make it aboundantly clear that I have absolutely no axe to grind with, or on behalf of, any existing periodicals operating in this country which will be seriously affected by this legislation, or indeed with any other publications of international repute which will now be precluded from establishing a Canadian-owned and operated enterprise in the future. My only interest is to see that any legislation in which I participate as a member of parliament during my time on the Hill is truly in the public interest. I do not believe that the existing format of Bill C-58 is so, with specific reference to some of the trappings associated with the bill. I urge members of the House to support motion No. 4 which has been put forward by the hon. member for Ontario.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, probably no piece of legislation has generated a more strenuous and informative debate than the debate which has evolved around this particular piece of legislation, its amendments and the motions associated with it. Perhaps at no time in parliamentary history, both through the expressions of members of the House and expressions supported by communications, be they verbal or written, has there ever been such a preponderance of evidence that the government is taking a course that is not approved by the people and which is not necessarily in their best interests.
Non-Canadian Publications
I think it would be rare indeed if one were to look through the records of this House and find that speech after speech from the side of the proponents of a piece of legislation have criticized and complained about the effects it would have upon them, their constituents and Canada at large.
This bill has been criticized authentically and in documentary fashion in respect of its difficulties of administration, the broadness of possible interpretation and the precarious position in which those that survive may find themselves after this legislation has been brought to bear. It does not necessarily apply only to foreign-owned structures, but it could conceivably apply to Canadian structures within the printing industry. It could, for instance, in many daily newspapers find people from the Department of National Revenue carefully looking over the paper to see how much has been generated by local reporters, how much has been generated on the editorial page by editorials copied from abroad, how much has come from UPI and other foreign sources, and how much has been picked up and merely rewritten to create an interest for the reader of that particular publication.
It is very broad in the impact that it might have while it is officially levelled at two publications in this country. It leads me to wonder whether it is in the interest of Canada, in the interest of the Liberal party or in the interest of some academics, regardless of the interest of the rest of Canada, that this particular bill is now before us. Has it got something to do with the philosophy of the publisher, or has it got something to do with the philosophy of the writers?
I think the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) made some very pertinent remarks in respect of the interesting aspects of articles which were published in Saturday Night. I think he defined quite adequately why that magazine has not had economic success. He explained why a multitude of Canadians would not read it in large enough numbers to attract advertising, regardless of the competition that existed.
So is it philosophy? Is it because a Sunday school teacher may on occasion take an article from the Reader's Digest to his class? Is it because a minister could quote that magazine effectively as he speaks from the pulpit? Is it because in the main Reader's Digest has been a supporter of the free enterprise system? Is it because on occasion it has attacked a political philosophy that we do not share in this country? Is that the reason? There is no other obvious reason, because you cannot legislate an effective press, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) only moments ago: you just cannot legislate an effective press or an effective magazine industry.
Let us take again the case of Time. Time magazine also has been a free enterprise structure. It has abhorred the interference of government in the lives of the people. It has, I must say, been a very vicious attacker of a former leader of our party and, in effect, in its attack has supported the present government and aided and abetted its election. It is now getting its throat cut.
Is that because it is philosophically not in line with the government of today? We cannot help but wonder about

February 6, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
these things. Is this another way of removing an obstacle from the minds of Canadians, an obstacle which might be in the way of the re-election of this government, because philosophically the mood of this government certainly is not reflected by articles which one reads in either of the magazines concerned? Certainly neither of these magazines would support this in a free editorial structure, and they are not free at this moment in time. They would scarcely dare open their mouths except in a plea for their support. Certainly they are not free at this moment in time to editorialize without being further considered guilty by a government of this structure and this nature.
There are in Canada a multitude of magazines which serve Canadians on a regional or relatively local basis. Among these magazines one would have to consider the Atlantic Advocate. It has been an authentic magazine with an attractive readership. It is a magazine which is,taken to school, to the historical society and to other organizations as an example of authentic literature in respect of the area which it serves. It has given historic and current articles to the readership of that area which are of great significance. It has, without fear or favour requested, presented articles which attack the government of the day and which support the government of the day. It has represented the broad view of the editorial staff of this structure which has made it an attractive magazine read by maritimers whether at home or abroad.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the national structure of the magazine industry in Canada were to follow the same pattern, Canadians would be seeking these magazines out and they would not be seeking those of foreign ownership or those of foreign publication. It is from this point of view, I think, that this House must consider what is good or what is bad for Canadians, because we cannot legislate change in the philosophies of those who write the present magazines.
I should like to take an example, as did the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay, of an article in Maclean's magazine by Mr. Harry Bruce, who I agree has done some good writing in Canada. He wrote an article about the rural community in which I live. That article discussed the principal economic support of that community and of tens of thousands of people around us, including an important part of the constituency of Victoria-Madawaska. The hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) described this article extremely well when be wondered whether these were iconoclasts or whether they were looking for the things they could criticize and not looking for the good side.
This article pertained to the McCain food industry. Let me say at this moment that I have no conflict of interest because of any pecuniary interest in that corporation- none whatsoever. I happen to be one of the distant cousins to which they have never extended the use of their chequebook and are not likely to. I am certainly not taking their part; I am taking the part of the economic stability of the community in which I live. The national image which was created by the article written by Harry Bruce was detrimental not only to the company concerned but to the whole area because he criticized, while looking for nothing 
good, and he discovered virtually all the bad one could find. May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, at the noon-hour I was mentioning an article which referred to one aspect of my constituency in which the subject matter was extremely critical. I submit it was not an in-depth consideration of the subject matter nor a fair consideration of it. The picture presented could reduce the business of the company concerned if the article were to be believed by all its readers. This is an article detrimental to the area in which I live. It is an article to which the owners, publishers, editors and whoever may be responsible did not give proper analysis prior to distribution. This is the kind of article which will not have the magazine read, no matter where published or by whom, and no matter how Canadian it may be. Altogether, too many of these articles appear.
I abhor the basic philosophy of so many people who seek out the bad in an individual, regardless of how good his record may be. I abhor the approach, that seems to be totally negative, where we cannot assess the positive and present that as well. I suppose the classic example in today's American publications would be the assault on the Kennedy's. The Kennedy's may be criticized for their accomplishments in the field for which they are noted, but it is also high time that they were assessed in their daily work rather than in the way they live. If this is a matter of interest to some, and I agree it is, it certainly is not an item of interest to an adequate readership in the Canadian magazine structure which we are talking about, or any other comparable structure anywhere in this world. Those who go for filth will read it, but those who go for information in their reading and expect information from national publications, of course, will not read it and will not be patronized, therefore, by the advertisers who must have readership if they are to obtain value for the money spent.
It has been stated in this House that there is a parallel. I will be repetitive in this regard, inasmuch as I made comparable remarks during an earlier phase of this debate. It has been stated that the materials which flow into the two magazines in this area do so at lower than the total cost. I submit that every magazine in Canada has a purpose to use syndicated columnists, and that every writer in Canada has a purpose to join a syndicated organization whereby his work can be distributed. I submit that if there is theft of our literature from Canada, we should not legislate other literature out but should negotiate a fair deal for Canadian writers and foreign writers, particularly from the United States. This has been mentioned in this debate.
This amendment does not at all correct the structure about which we are objecting. The amendment and the bill refer to an indefinable and only interpretable difference. I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that probably most members of this House could take a pen and, without research,
February 6, 1976

reproduce an article for Reader's Digest or Time magazine that would really accomplish little in result and would convey the full intent of the original author. That would contribute very little to society and would, in return, produce a lower fee for the writer while it would accomplish, in a poorer way, the same purpose. The writer would have condensed it, recondensed it and altered it-and who does not? It is just a matter of basic homework, and the cost of that homework, having been done abroad while some magazine hires a flunkey to do it over again, probably in poorer form. What are we really accomplishing?
I should like to issue a little warning to the minister. While he may be totally and completely dedicated to this cause, a group of his predecessors in cabinet have been equally dedicated to causes only to find, when their government was criticized for that cause, that they no longer held office. Just to cite a few, a gentleman by the name of Benson went across Canada with a white paper with the full backing of the Prime Minister. He was dedicated. He said, "This shall be our law, and this is our white paper." Mr. Benson did not even run for parliament after that. There was a minister of consumer and corporate affairs named Gray, and another fellow by the name of Haidasz. More recently, there was a fellow by the name of Turner. And what about another fellow by the name of Stanbury? I assure the minister that if, perchance, this government happens to experience political repercussions because of the dedication of the minister to a cause opposed by many Canadians, the name which is written at the end of that list may very well be his.
I regret very much that a good friend of mine by the name of Alden Nowland, who is nationally noted as an author, came under some criticism in the course of this debate, but if one is going to write, or if one is going to be in the field of politics, one has to be able to take criticisms and I am sure he will not mind. He has, by long personal sacrifice and dedication to his profession, achieved prominence in Canada, which is a great credit to him. While I reserve the right not to agree with him-and he has, in print, already reserved the right not to agree with me- that in no way interferes with our long-standing personal friendship, and I hope that will remain a mutual situation. However, the criticism merely indicates that the Canadian public has the right to criticize what it reads, and to read it or leave it. Let us read it or leave it, and not legislate any control over it to ram down the throats of Canadians.
This bill has a multitude of weaknesses, including its total unpopularity with many Canadian people-but it is an administrative carte blanche. I do not believe that in any instance we should give to any minister or pair of ministers the right to judge and to put themselves into the position of being both judge and executioner. This is not right. Putting all other criticisms of this legislation aside, the delegation of authority to the minister and the cabinet is, to me, an obnoxious factor in this bill because it is purely and simply a matter of judgment. It is not defined for either the Minister of Finance or the Secretary of State just what might be done with this legislation at any given time in the future. Those who might at some future time come under the influence of this legislation should bear in mind that they are at the whim, pleasure and total person-
Non-Canadian Publications
al disposal of those who make personal judgments in the execution of their jobs as part of the government structure. It may be the minister or an understrapper of some kind, but this is not legislation which defines the position of any publication in Canada, Time and Reader's Digest included, despite any smoke-filled, backroom deal which may have been made.
It seems to me that there should be international representation on a worldwide basis employed by Canadian publications. If we are to pass this legislation, Canada is entitled to first-hand technical knowledge of Canadians located outside Canada. There is no indication whatsoever that any publication in Canada has the capacity to do this, and if there is the capacity to give us worldwide information perhaps it will have to be in co-operation with other publications from other lands to exchange items of interest in a way which people can find credible. I submit that until such time as a syndicated structure can be established for regional publications, and until such time as our national publications can find the opportunity, the way to co-operate with other national groups either inside or outside Canada to maintain a group of authors who will give Canada credible articles on the world at large, this legislation is totally premature.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a page in my hand which says "conclusion," as did the previous speaker, but I want to say, in closing, that those who are Canadian nationalists to the exclusion of all other aspects of our life have to recognize that Canada's writers and its publishing industry are not experts in every field. There is no such structure imposed in other countries, that is, those with the democratic structures we admire. There might be such a structure imposed in some of those countries we admire much less, but no such structure exists which insists on such rigid regulations regarding the printed word as there will be in Canada when this legislation is passed.
There is no country in the commonwealth of nations as we have known it which has imposed such rigid restrictions on the publishing privilege. Canada has two Canadians who have owned printing establishments on a worldwide basis, and they are examples of the freedom of the press and ownership which we will not extend to the rest of the world. We expect to put up a standard of our own, and probably will complain if comparable standards are imposed upon our Canadian owners of publications abroad. This certainly is a one-way street down which certain nationalists are leading us without consideration for the welfare of Canadians as readers, Canadians as publishers or Canadians as writers. We have failed to recognize what was needed and have exported good writers because we failed to give these writers a chance to make a living in Canada. We are now trying to kick out those who are

February 6, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
running the service, and the Canadian authors who are critical have not prepared themselves to fill the gap.


Mr. John Roberts (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate on the motion moved by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) and the amendment by my friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Ontario-at least the first paragraph or so-in which he compliments the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), describing them as men of honour and conviction who are genuinely trying to do something for the publishing industry. Like him, I have a very great and high regard for them both. They have been subjected to a long and trying debate and to a considerable degree of abuse which must be difficult to accept-allusions to national socialism, fiihrers and dictators. These two gentlemen, with their background and reputation of concern for civil rights, must find that kind of comment very difficult to take.


Gerald William Baldwin: Dig in your heart; you know it is right.


John (Moody) Roberts: Digging in my heart, I say to them that I respect their obstinacy, their determination, their decision to proceed and persevere with this legislation. There are those on the other side, and even some on this side, who do not support them, but the vast majority of members on this side of the House do.
I wish to direct my remarks to the amendment presented by the hon. member for Ontario which would have the effect of allowing 40 per cent of non-original material to be presented in periodicals in this country. I think the hon. member shares, as does the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), the general fundamental purpose of the legislation which is quite simply trying to ensure that advertising revenues in the Canadian market be used for the support of a Canadian periodicals industry. I think most hon. members agree with that objective.


Mr. Fairweather:: Right.


John (Moody) Roberts: The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) has a distinguished record of supporting the objectives of ensuring that kind of protection for the Canadian periodicals system. Where the hon. member for Ontario might disagree is with the effectiveness of the legislation to reach those objectives. The first question the hon. member raises is why such legislation or regulations are necessary to achieve the objectives. It springs from the context of economic activity on this continent which supports the periodicals industry.
The House recognized this in 1965 when it brought in legislation to correct what otherwise would have been a difficult or impossible situation. If you are producing magazine material for a market of 200 million or 220 million people in North America, as is the case for most publications within the United States, then the cost per article is relatively low because you can write off the cost more widely than what it would be for purchasing the same kind of material of the same standard for a market in Canada of 22 million people. It is a very simple argument.

The cost of material of the same quality on a pro rata basis in the United States is much lower than it could possibly be for publications which operate in Canada.
In that sense, it is very easy to place in Canada foreign material at very low cost to the magazine that wants to use it in Canada, because the cost of producing that material has already been met in a much larger market. In effect, the material could be easily dumped, if there were no regulations or legislation to oppose it, from the United States market into the Canadian market. Revenue to the originator for that material would be gravy, not necessary to cover the cost of the material in the first place.
It is for that reason in 1965 we had a situation of unfair competition. Magazines coming into Canada at a lower cost base could compete effectively against Canadian magazines. The life of the Canadian magazine industry was threatened with this kind of competition. It was going to be impossible for them to survive. One of the witnesses who appeared before the committee in reference to this subject put it very well. He said if you were manufacturing automobiles and had to do that lock, stock and barrel, and there was a competitor down the street who was importing engines which he did not have to pay for, obviously he would be in a superior competitive position. You would not stay in business very long if you had to cover the whole cost of production while the competitor covered only half or a portion of it. The example is quite a good parallel with the magazine industry.
It was for these reasons that changes were made in 1965 to try to ensure that Canadian periodicals had a chance of surviving. That change said to Canadian advertisers, "If you wish to deduct the cost of advertising, it must take place in magazines whose material originates in Canada". There were two major exceptions, Time and Reader's Digest, who were able to have the advantage both of low costs-because they were producing for the North American market-and an advantage in competing against American competitors such as Newsweek because they promised their advertisers a tax deduction which Newsweek and other foreign magazines could not offer.
What we are doing in this legislation is removing that anomaly. It is not a question of censorship, but simply saying "Compete on the same terms as other Canadian magazines or the same terms as non-Canadian magazines. Don't expect the advantages of both. Choose the same footing either of one or the other." It removes the special and advantageous position which those magazines have had.
The hon. member for Ontario says that in practice what we are doing is insisting that 80 per cent of the material originate in Canada, so why not make it 60 per cent? In other words, it is not a question of principle. He is arguing it is all right to be 60 per cent pregnant, but 80 per cent pregnant is not all right. He says he believes 60 per cent would be sufficient to encourage the Canadian periodicals industry. The hon. member for Scarborough West made the same argument. He looked at the percentage of total advertising revenues paid to Time and Reader's Digest and said it was small. It would have been more accurate if he had brought to the House the figures for the periodicals industry. He would have seen that the amount Time and Reader's Digest siphoned off was very significant.
February 6, 1976

If we accepted the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Ontario, I suggest we would create not only a situation in which Time and Reader's Digest would be able to bring in 40 per cent of material originating outside the country, but that virtually every Canadian periodical would ultimately be required to depend more and more heavily on material generated outside this country. That is the major difficulty with the proposal. This difficulty has not been dealt with by hon. members opposite, as far as I can recall, nor has it been greatly stressed by members on this side.
What the amendment would do is set a context which would assure that in order to be able to compete effectively in cost terms, almost every Canadian periodical would have to face a split-run type of situation. If your competitors are able to bring in 40 per cent of their material at high quality and low cost, no Canadian periodical is going to be encouraged to do any better than that, because in doing better than that he will put himself in a difficult cost position in comparison to his competitor.
The suggestion which the hon. member for Ontario is making would not only not assist the production of more Canadian material in the Canadian periodicals industry but it would in fact have the reverse effect. It would lead to less and less Canadian material being produced because it would be cheaper to import it from sources outside the country.
Some members may suggest there is nothing to worry about in that; that we should open the market and let whoever can compete, compete with whatever advantages he has. Some members say that we should let all compete on whatever basis they like in the periodicals industry, communications and in allied areas. I point out that we have decided in other fields that such a course of action would be strongly inimical to the interests of this country.
No doubt it would be cheaper to do away with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian television system and let ABC, NBC and CBS instal stations in every Canadian city. That would cost less. The stations would still carry local news after the national news, no doubt-the American national news. But we have said that we do not feel this approach would be appropriate. The reason is that we wish to assure, in Canada, access to Canadian material for those who wish to see it. For that reason, we support our broadcasting system and impose content requirements on that broadcasting system in order to ensure that those who wish to see or hear Canadian news, who wish to see the world with the Canadian viewpoint, will be able to do so.
Those listening to this debate might be pardoned for concluding that if this legislation is allowed to pass, Canadians will be unable to receive material describing what is happening outside the country. I suggest that access to U.S. publications is not threatened in our country, what is threatened is the Canadian ability to receive Canadian material and a view of the world through Canadian eyes. That is the danger-not that there will be any shortage of material explaining to us what is happening in other countries, particularly in the United States.
Non-Canadian Publications
The problem with the amendment of the hon. member for Ontario is this: it will lay down a rule which will have to be followed not only by the publications he is concerned about but by every other publication in Canada. It will ensure that more high quality, but cheaper material comes from outside the country. It will set a standard which all magazines will have to meet within the competitive context of that industry. I suggest that on those grounds the amendment ought to be rejected.
I respect the hon. member for Ontario and the hon. member for Scarborough West. Their concerns expressed in this House have been with the practical consequences of this legislation.


An hon. Member:: What about the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt)?


John (Moody) Roberts: They wonder if it achieves the objectives to which most of us subscribe. I feel that if they and other hon. members will take the time to read the extensive committee hearings, they will see, without doubt, that this legislation will have a significant, favourable impact on the revenues of the Canadian periodical industry and television industry. I commend a reading of the long discussion in committee to those two hon. members.
I turn now to the question of censorship which, as I have said before, is not a red herring but a red whale dragged across centre stage of this debate. Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway quoted at length from a brief presented under a letterhead with the signatures of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), the former premier of British Columbia and Mrs. Brown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was not with their signatures.


John (Moody) Roberts: It was under their signatures as patrons of the organization. I was going to suggest to my hon. friend that there are other reasons for rejecting the letter's arguments than its official patterns. However, that is by the way. The letter raised two basic arguments, in reply to an earlier statement made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), asking what was the objection to depriving Time and Reader's Digest of tax deductibility for their advertisers. I quote what the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway read, as printed on page 10692 of Hansard:
The short answer is that the tax deductibility of an expense incurred for the purpose of earning income (e g. advertising costs) is the normal rule.
This, clearly, has not been the normal rule since 1965 in this country as applied to magazines which are not Canadian. Magazines like Newsweek, U.S. News, World Report, The Economist, Playboy, Cosmopolitan-take what you will- aside from Time and Reader's Digest are magazines which have not been able to claim that tax deductibility. The normal rule is not what he has described in this letter as quoted by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. The second argument she made, an argument echoed on many sides of the House, is that we are giving the Minister of National Revenue power of extraordinary censorship, power to impose arbitrary decisions. The document the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway quoted says, as reported on the same page of Hansard:

Non-Canadian Publications
We do not know what aspect of content a future government, still disclaiming (as you do) any intention to censor, might see fit to consider in imposing taxation. A still more nationalistic administration might decide to define only writings about Canada as "domestic" for taxation purposes. A paternalistic government might decide that creation of jobs for Canadian writers was so high a priority that only Canadian Citizens' work would rank as domestic-
In a sense, it is true that future governments might decide to do this. Parliament is supreme, and if the government has a majority it can get its legislation through and make it effective. But it cannot be done under this legislation nor under these regulations. The "substantially not the same" clause is in the legislation. It is capable of being interpreted by the courts. The courts can apply their interpretation. Such interpretation, it seems to me, could not be applied to the kinds of things described in this paragraph. If any future government wanted to do those things, it would have to come back to this House and obtain authority for so doing. It could not be done under the regulatory powers held by the Minister of National Revenue.
It has been argued that the "substantially not the same" provision is a censorship provision. I suggest that there is a strong difference between a provision which requires a certain amount of material of a certain kind and one which excludes or forbids certain material. The difference is very considerable. If, for instance, there were a private club in Ottawa which said that no woman is eligible for membership, we would look on that as discrimination. If, on the other hand, the club's regulations required 25 per cent of its members to be women, I doubt if one would say that this discriminates against men. The same can be said about political parties. The Liberal party-and, for all I know, the Conservative party-is governed by clauses which ensure that a certain proportion of delegates to a convention are women. I have never heard any Liberal, or anyone else, describe that as censorship or discrimination against men entering the party.


Ursula Appolloni: It is only discrimination against women.


John (Moody) Roberts: When I attended university, the Anglicans constructed a chapel. However, the university insisted that not only Anglicans should use it but that a certain proportion of time should be set aside for those of the Jewish faith, for those of the Protestant faith-


An hon. Member:: And for Catholics.


John (Moody) Roberts: -and for those of the Catholic faith. That was a content regulation, if you like. Not one of these groups complained about being censored, persecuted or discriminated against because they were kept out for a certain proportion of the time when members of another faith occupied the chapel. Nor have I ever heard it said that a law to protect an endangered species-and I think Canadian magazines expressing Canadian views are an endangered species-is discriminatory or constitutes a persecution of species which are not in danger.
This legislation, and the regulations under it, will not prevent any article being written or any point of view being expressed so long as the editor of the magazine wishes to have that view expressed. It does not forbid the expression of points of view, but does require that 80 per cent of the material should originate in Canada or be for a Canadian publication. That is all it says. We have the same

kind of regulations governing television content in this country. I have not heard, during the past ten years, members of the opposition claim that those are censorship provisions. I have not heard people in the broadcasting industry argue that they are being censored.
We are proposing to apply the same regulations to Time and Reader's Digest which apply now to magazines like Chatelaine, Maclean's, Saturday Night, and so on. I have not heard anyone seriously suggest that we are now censoring Chatelaine, Saturday Night, and so on. The same regulations are applied now to U.S. News, Foreign Report, Newsweek, and so on. It would be ridiculous to say that these magazines consider that they are being censored. Nor does this legislation prevent or preclude the entry of any foreign magazine into Canada.
The question of censorship has been raised not only in relation to what I believe is a completely false equation of censorship to the establishment of content requirements for Canadian magazines to qualify for tax benefits. It has also risen in a personal context with suggestions coming from various sides of the House that somehow a personal censorship has been exercised against the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I gather that she, herself, supports the argument that somehow she has been unfairly treated in being removed from the parliamentary committee which considered the matter.
The fact is that she was never a member of the original committee. She was never taken off the committee, because she was never on it. She asked to be on it. She felt that her distinguished characteristics of 30 years in journalism-characteristics which led to a character that we all, certainly on this side, respect and admire-should entitle her to a place on the committee. It is understandable that she should feel that way.
There were many members on this side who, for a variety of reasons, had for many years occupied themselves with this kind of question. They equally felt they had a place on that committee. It is not surprising that the members of the committee should be those that the government and Liberal members felt were most likely to express the case held by the vast majority of members on this side of the House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Holt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The issue of my participation on that committee has been discussed and published over and over for several months. Now it has been raised in the House. The hon. member knows exactly what happened because he shared in that committee very carefully.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: When I applied to go on that committee, the whip himself agreed to my going on there. I flew all the way from Vancouver on the midnight flight to be there on
February 6, 1976

time. I attended every committee meeting. The facts being raised now are not true.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I should say that this is hardly a point of order. The remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) indicate that this is pursuant to a debate on the matter. Hon. members may have different points of view. However, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway had the opportunity to raise this question the other day. Every time a member refers to the membership of a committee, I do not think it allows the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway to raise points of order that are not really points of order. She might have opinions but they are not points of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) said she was rising on a point of order. I submit that what she was attempting to do was to raise a question of privilege. This is a matter of the privileges of this House. I make this suggestion in all humility and in a spirit of non-partisanship.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I am quite serious. The right of every member of this House has been challenged. I suggest that we work out the terms of an order of reference by which the House might refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. There is a well known practice in this House that when a member stands in his place he is standing on his reputation and the House has to accept the word of that hon. member. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) stood in her place in the House and said she was present at the committee. She said, quite unequivocally, that she tried to get on that committee and did not succeed. I suggest that the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Roberts) has to accept the hon. member at her word.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order.


James Hugh Faulkner: Tell us about Jack Horner and the Hutterites.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What's a Hutterite?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) is rising on a point of order.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, the chancellor's foot is rather short today. The matter of Hutterites and the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) surely has no relevancy.


James Hugh Faulkner: It is just a little embarrassing.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I don't know what they are talking about.
Non-Canadian Publications


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I have all afternoon. Obviously, the government is not very anxious about this bill any more. I will wait until I get the courtesy of silence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I was on the committee and tried to be responsible for my party's view of Bill C-58. The point that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) and the one for which I want to defend her privilege is that, despite her request, there were constant changes in the membership of that committee during the hearings. At no time did the whip, or whoever organizes this for the government, give this hon. lady the privilege that she was invited. I do not particularly share most of the views she has about this legislation, but I do find that the way in which the government treated this hon. member is most reprehensible. I merely wonder why the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Roberts), a person of high intelligence, should spend his time trying to defend such conduct.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I admit that I sympathize with the views of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway as much as I sympathize with the different views of other hon. members. However, everything that has been said only convinces me more that this is not the right place or the right time to raise this matter. It should be raised at another time, through other means. I invite hon. members to allow the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Roberts) to complete his remarks on extended time.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for giving me a little rest to revive my spirits. I was simply pointing out that which the hon. member has confirmed. Her complaint was that she was not placed on the committee, not that she was removed from it. I suggest that she has been heard ad infinitum in caucus and in committee. She came to the committee. She was given the rights that hon. members have when they come to a committee but are not members of it. She was allowed to speak out and present her views. She spoke in the House. She spoke to the press. Her problem is not that she has been gagged. Her problem is that she has not been able to convince her colleagues. That is the essence of the matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope that the hon. member will come back to the subject matter. What he is now saying is not relevant to this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member should come back to the motion before the House at this time.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was referred to by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). He admitted that he did not know how members were appointed to a particular committee. I would like to place on record that at no time was the hon. lady muzzled. She can speak as much as any member of that committee. I never removed her from the committee.

February 6, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The government whip, inadvertently I am sure, has misled the House. The fact is the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway was not only kept off that committee but she was denied her right as a member of parliament to contribute to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The only opportunity that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway had to speak during the proceedings of that committee was when I, as a member, moved that she be heard. The government members abstained on that vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it would be better to proceed with the argument. Of course the committee worked under restraints. It worked under a time restraint to which all parties agreed. The discussions necessarily took place within that framework. The hon. member loves to feel persecuted. I would simply say there is no reason to impute motives of persecution when all that has happened is that there has been a disagreement of view. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway may march to a different drummer; she should not expect her colleagues to fall all over themselves to dance to her particular tune. I want to pass on briefly to the argument that somehow in the past few days there has been an extraordinary collapse and change of view on the government's part in relation to Reader's Digest. It was quite clear, I believe, to most of us who sat on the committee that if Reader's Digest were prepared to meet the ownership requirements, it could very easily meet the 80 per cent content requirement rule. In fact, it was established before the committee that so long as an article appeared first in the Canadian Reader's Digest, even if it subsequently or almost immediately were to appear in the international edition, it would be classified as material meeting the 80 per cent requirement. This is because the purpose of the requirement was to encourage the generation of material within Canada, and that, in effect, is what is happening under the clarification-not, I would argue, a great change, but a clarification-which was described by the Minister of National Revenue.
There has been no collapse, no great change in government policy. What happened was that Reader's Digest agreed to meet the requirements, which came as no surprise to many of those who sat on the committee. The interpretation provided by the Minister of National Revenue is this: if there is an article in the possession of the Reader's Digest pool, then provided that the rewriting and condensation of it is done by Canadians in Canada, that will be considered as part of the 80 per cent content. This, I would think, was generally clear from the beginning; material which was rewritten, condensed or originated for the Canadian edition would be classified under the 80 per cent substantially different rule.
The criticism that the clarification of the ruling in relation to Reader's Digest indicates the arbitrariness of the legislation and the regulations seems to me to be completely fallacious. If the minister had come to the House and said only that he was presenting legislation which required 
that a periodical be substantially not the same if it was to qualify for that tax advantage, members opposite would have said, "What is 'substantially not the same"1? Why do you not tell us exactly what you mean? What is this pig in the poke you are asking us to buy?" In response to that kind of questioning from the magazines affected and from members of the opposition, the government has indicated what, in its view, the phrase "substantially not the same" means. That is all that has been done. So as not to fudge the issue, so as to be frank with members of the House, the government has said what, in its view, those words mean.
Of course, the opportunity to deal with the courts still exists. Hon. members ask; "What if the court disagrees with your interpretation? Does that mean you abandon the policy? Do you abandon the techniques? Do you abandon the objective?" The government has simply said, "No. Under those circumstances we shall come back with proposed legislation for what we believe is required and what we say now to the House is required." There is no arbitrariness in that position. There is no possibility of changing "substantially not the same" without coming back to the House and seeking approval. The government has been asked to say clearly what the requirements are and what they mean in practical terms. It would have been denying its responsibility if it had simply said, "Those are the words we intend to use. We do not know how they will be interpreted. We have no view as to what their effect will be."


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the hon. member permit a question? He has raised an interesting point. I have been concerned about it, too, and I raised it earlier. If I ask a question it might save my making a speech later. Under section 19(5) of the original act, as the hon. member knows, it is provided that a Canadian issue does not include an issue of a periodical the contents of which are substantially the same as the contents of an issue of a periodical. The regulatory granting section, section 221, says that the governor in council may, among other things, make regulations prescribing the evidence required to establish facts relevant to assessments under the act, and, finally, may make regulations generally to carry out the purposes and provisions of the act.
What I want to know, and the hon. member may be able to tell me, is this: as the matter now stands, assuming the bill passes in its present form without any of the amendments being accepted, will that decision be made by a civil servant in the office of the Minister of National Revenue, or will the government pass regulations under the regulatory granting powers in section 221 to prescribe specifically what is the meaning of the words "substantially the same as the contents of an issue of the periodical"? That is the point I should like the hon. member to clarify.


John (Moody) Roberts: I welcome the question asked by the learned gentleman who is, as we know, a distinguished lawyer. Fortunately, I am not. Some consideration was given to this question in the committee. I hope I shall not mislead the hon. member when I say that the decision, in the first instance, is one taken by tax officials though ultimately determination will be made by members of the government. Perhaps that is what will happen in this case. Considerable material was presented to the committee in an effort to clarify the legal situation. There was a dispute
February 6, 1976

about it. But there was certainly a great deal of material indicating that 75 per cent or 80 per cent would probably be, or could be, on the basis of various cases, particularly in the United States, the criterion for deciding that kind of question. No doubt it was a disputed issue, but there was legal precedent for that kind of criterion.
My point is this. While it would be possible, under the "substantially not the same" clause, for varying interpretations to be made, there is a provision for appeal to the courts respecting that interpretation. Cases will ultimately be decided by the courts; the courts will ultimately determine what that means. What seems to arouse hon. gentlemen opposite is that we have gone further and said that if the courts decide that the 80 per cent is not what "substantially the same" means, then the government would go back to the Commons and ask for the approval of the House of criteria which they believe are necessary to deal with the situation. I do not call that arbitrary or irresponsible. We are saying that the courts and parliament will ultimately decide what is to be done in connection with this matter. As I say, there is nothing arbitrary about it. Ministers reach their decisions within the context of this phrase, whose meaning, ultimately, it is up to the courts to determine. Then Parliament will be asked to change the law. That is hardly shocking. It is for this reason, I suggest, that arguments about arbitrariness and arguments about censorship are not germane to the issue before us. The issue before us is the practicality of the legislation for achieving an objective which most of us in this House share-the encouragement, through advertising revenues, of the Canadian periodical industry.
There are those who disagree that the legislation will have that effect. I would refer them most earnestly to the long and diligent committee consideration which took place on the matter. I believe that if they do this fairly they will find convincing evidence that there will be a significant impact on advertising revenues as a result of this bill, and that changes will be brought about favourable to the industry in Canada. I beg hon. members not to be distracted by false accusations of arbitrariness and censorship which are not germane to the issue. I urge hon. members to give as speedy a passage to the legislation as possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) is rising on a point of order.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, in response to the question raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). The section he quoted in the regulations, section 221, provides that:
The Governor in Council may make regulations (a) prescribing anything that, by this Act, is to be prescribed or is to be determined or regulated by regulation;
Section 19 does not give that authority.


Gerald William Baldwin: This is one of the problems-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. Perhaps we can do this by unanimous consent, which might simplify the matter.
Non-Canadian Publications


Gerald William Baldwin: I would ask for unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the minister to clarify a point of interest?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, question and answer was the old system that we used in committee of the whole and it had very considerable values. The minister has raised a point that is directly at issue and concerns those who serve on the statutory instruments committee. Because of some arbitrary and capricious decisions that were arrived at by the Privy Council Office and other ministers, an artificial definition has been placed on the regulations which places many of them outside our scope. The minister has put his finger right on it.
I would suggest that section 221 does provide that there may be the opportunity, by regulation, to carry out the purposes of the act. I think that has been interpreted in the past in a wide enough way to permit the government, if it sees fit, in accordance with section 221 (j), to deal with this issue and lay down regulations as to what in its opinion constitutes a publication or the issue of a periodical which is not "substantially the same as" that published elsewhere. Then everybody will know what is involved.
What we are going to find is that an official will make a decision today, and next year a different official or deputy minister charged with that responsibility might make a completely different decision. As my hon. friend for St. Paul's has suggested, it is the lack of knowledge of certainty that I think is so important here. It is not good enough to say that the official makes the decision and if it is not liked appeal can be made to the courts. I do not think that makes sense at all. I think the minister sees what I am driving at, that it is possible to regulate under section 221 if they wish to do so.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess it has often been said that if you have two lawyers you will get four opinions. We seem to agree and disagree on this question. I know the point the hon. member is making, but as a minister endeavouring to interpret the law I have to accept the advice that is given me by the law officers of the Crown. This is the interpretation that has been given, and I did try to clarify it for the hon. member.
I know the interest of the statutory instruments committee. The hon. member feels it should be more specific and that there should be more control. That is another debate. With respect, I must accept the interpretation given me by the law officers of the Crown.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to commend the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Roberts) for his intervention and for bringing some very cogent arguments to the debate. After sitting through last night's session and hearing the interventions of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), I thought for a moment that I was in the United States Congress listening to the arguments of the lobbyists for Time and Reader's Digest. It was a most incredible evening.

February 6, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
I have been asked many times why we in the New Democratic Party support this bill. As has been stated, it is an attempt to give some kind of consideration to the Canadian periodical industry and to remove an anomaly whereby in 1965 Time and Reader's Digest, although by all degrees of understanding foreign magazines, were classified under the Imcome Tax Act as Canadian magazines, so that their advertisers could receive the same deductibility provisions as Canadian advertisers in Canadian magazines. The amendment of the hon. member for Ontario which is before us, as amended by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, subverts the whole intent of this legislation.
When we try to decide what is a Canadian magazine, thereby entitling it to the benefit of the provisions of the Income Tax Act so far as advertisers are concerned, four criteria were outlined by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) in testimony before the committee. Two key criteria which I do not think have had enough elaboration in this debate are the licensing and the "substantially different" requirements.
The amendment of the hon. member for Ontario seeks to reduce the amount of material in any given magazine that must be "substantially different" from 80 per cent to 60 per cent. As we have heard in the committee, this would mean continuing an advantage to American magazines whereby they could import the remaining 40 per cent material from the parent magazine, expensive material such as full colour lay-out material, and expensive research material, at a subsidized price. Therefore no Canadian magazine would be able to compete against that kind of advantage.
This has been the problem with the Canadian periodical industry to date. Time and Reader's Digest have been given tax privileges which were reserved for Canadian magazines, and at the same time they had the advantage that no Canadian magazine had of being able to obtain their content from their parent magazine at a subsidized rate. In effect we had editorial dumping in this country.
I am constantly amazed how members of the Conservative party and a few dissident Liberals can make the argument that a Canadian magazine should not have this kind of advantage, and at the same time argue that foreign magazines like Time and Reader's Digest should have that advantage, whereas they do not make the same argument for foreign industry in the manufacturing field. That seems to me to be totally inconsistent.
I think it important that the Minister of National Revenue rise in his place and clarify for the House what is going to happen to the licensing arrangement. There has been an assumption by hon. members and the media that since the Minister of National Revenue's announcement that he had reached an accommodation with Reader's Digest on a continuing arrangement, Reader's Digest would automatically continue to publish in Canada, and that everything had been solved.
I would point out that there are still a number of requirements to which Reader's Digest must conform. I should like the minister 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. For there exists now a licensing arrangement between Reader's

Digest of Canada and Reader's Digest of the United States whereby Reader's Digest of Canada must, to quote the agreement, not distribute material which the parent disapproves of, or use material from any sources other than those approved by the U.S. parent company
If that licensing provision is allowed to stand, in no way can we conclude that Reader's Digest of Canada is a truly independent Canadian magazine and therefore able to fall within the provisions of section 19 of the Income Tax Act. The minister has assured me in private conversation that Reader's Digest is quite aware that it must change that licensing agreement in order to qualify as a Canadian magazine for income tax purposes. I should like him to state on the record that that is what must happen.
We also learned from the minister that he would allow a continuing arrangement to exist between Reader's Digest Canada and Reader's Digest United States that would not mean that the Reader's Digest edition in Canada would be considered the same as the parent company. The argument put forward by Reader's Digest was that it is the kind of operation that, in order to have access to articles from around the world which should be condensed, it had to have access to the pool of articles collected by Reader's Digest United States.
Therefore the minister made the interpretation saying that as long as Reader's Digest Canada edited, digested, and re-wrote its pool of Reader's Digest articles collected in the United States, that would not be looked at as a continuing arrangement that would violate the 80 per cent different interpretation.
My point is that it seems to me in a roundabout way there still is a degree of editorial control by the parent company which submerges the concept or at least the definition of a truly independent magazine. Let me explain. By virtue of the fact that Reader's Digest United States has pretty well sewn up the market for digest articles, that is to say it has made exclusive arrangements with most of the magazines in North America, if Reader's Digest Canada is to draw on that pool of articles it would seem to me already there has been an editorial decision made by virtue of the fact that the American editors have decided which articles will go into that pool from which the editors of Reader's Digest Canada can draw. So we have, in a sense then, the choice of material to be digested in Canada already being decided upon by American editors, and I think in a roundabout way that puts some constraint on Reader's Digest Canada to be truly independent in choosing the articles it wishes. This is something that must be considered.
Moreover, I fail to see how under that arrangement any new Canadian digest would be able to start up if there is that kind of licensing agreement with the parent company in the United States. I am not speaking of the Canadian Reader's Digest. If we wanted to have a new independent digest, would it be allowed access to this pool of material over which the Reader's Digest in the United States has control? I doubt that that would happen.
There is another point the minister should clarify. One of the requests that the Canadian periodical industry has made, and it is quite valid, relates to the fact that Time and
February 6, 1976

Reader's Digest have had an unfair competitive advantage because they have been able to get their material from their parent companies at a subsidized rate. For example, Reader's Digest can get its material at about 5 per cent of the actual cost of production from its parent company. If Reader's Digest is going to be allowed a continuing arrangement under this new interpretation by the minister we want to have the assurance that Reader's Digest Canada will pay the going rate for these articles which are taken from the pool in the United States, and that the subsidization will not be allowed to continue.
The minister should explain and clarify how the department will go about investigating whether Reader's Digest Canada, under the new interpretation, is paying the going rate that any other magazine would be paying for the right to digest an article from another magazine. If there is any doubt that the Department of Revenue will be able to scrutinize Reader's Digest closely when it purchases articles from this pool of the United States Reader's Digest, then I would have serious reservations about our ability to accept this interpretation.
I am also anxious that the minister clarify the position of Time magazine as it relates to this interpretation of the continuing arrangement, for the minister said in the House, as reported at page 10607 of Hansard:
We are saying that "middle party access" used to obtain third party material will not be regarded as a continuing arrangement.
I asked the minister privately what is to prevent Time magazine from setting up a middle party in the form of a news collection agency, drawing material from correspondents throughout the world, with the material going into a news collection agency just as there is a pool from which Reader's Digest will pull material. From this news collection agency Time United States would draw material and Time Canada would also draw material. If Time is allowed to make that kind of arrangement, similar to Reader's Digest, then again we find a major loophole in the legislation that allows Time to make some kind of a continuing arrangement through setting up a third party or a news collection agency.
The question arises once again, would this material be at a subsidized rate and would Time have sole access to it? I do not think that would be the case because the correspondents may be in the employ of Time and, therefore, under the definition of licensing this would not be permitted. I think we need some clarification of that matter.
Also we need some clarification as to what position it puts MD of Canada in, because it is a similar kind of magazine to Reader's Digest. I would like to know if MD of Canada could set up some parallel licensing or continuing arrangement that would allow it to qualify under the regulations as Reader's Digest apparently has.
Those are the points that should be on the record for clarification, and I hope the Minister of Revenue rises at a later time to clarify them.
We have some difficulty with the fact that so much of this legislation is being done by regulation and at the whim of the Department of National Revenue. It would help matters immensely if this were all spelled out, or if the regulations were in the form of legislation so we do not have continuing variations in interpretations as ministers
Non-Canadian Publications
change, or as time goes on and magazine groups are able to lobby for some kind of change.
In retrospect it is very important that in trying to make accommodations for a magazine to become Canadian we do not subvert the intention of the legislation in the first place. I have no quarrel with Reader's Digest or Time magazine if they conform to the definition of what a Canadian periodical is, as all other Canadian periodicals do. I have no objection to them continuing in this country as long as they continue on the same footing as Canadian magazines.
What I do object to is the kind of legislation we have had for the past decade that has allowed Time and Reader's Digest to be treated as Canadian, although they are not, and therefore has allowed their advertisers income tax advantages reserved only for Canadians. The result has been that Time and Reader's Digest have gained the lion's share of advertising in this country to the detriment of the growth and expansion of the Canadian magazine industry. We heard much testimony to that effect before the committee, and we heard about fluttery flowers last night.
I would remind hon. members that when we look at the figures for the period 1950 to 1974 and when we look at the percentage increase in advertising revenue, we find that for the whole of the Canadian industry in those 24 years their advertising revenue increased by 185 per cent but that the revenue for Reader's Digest, an American subsidiary, increased by 413 per cent while that of Time magazine increased by 819 per cent. Those two magazines have had ten years of operation under tax advantages reserved only for Canadians and have captured over 50 per cent of the advertising revenue in this country. They are immensely rich. They have profited immensely by this legislation.
In the intervening period, however, we have seen Canadian magazines existing on a hand-out basis. We have seen some of them go under, and some almost go under such as Saturday Night. I am not speaking particularly of Maclean's magazine. I would like to see more competition by Canadian magazines against Maclean's. We have heard from many independent journalists that they are on a desperate course and that any advertising revenue which may be diverted their way by virtue of the requirement that Time and Reader's Digest either conform or lose their independence would be governed by their continued growth or collapse.
I think we must keep these points in perspective. This bill has nothing to do with censorship or who will be allowed to publish, but rather who will be assisted in publishing in this country. Therefore I argue very strenuously against the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Ontario and the sub-amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. They subvert the intent of the legislation and should not be supported. In the meantime I would ask the Minister of National Revenue to stand in his place and clarify the implications of the new arrangement with Reader's Digest so that we may debate this issue with some clarity in respect of the new status of that magazine.

February 6, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think we must all acknowledge that it is difficult to simplify the legislative process. The amending process, generally speaking, is even more complicated and even more difficult to sort out. The present amendments are no exception. That being so I see no reason to complicate further the matter as is now being done. This is one of the problems that confronts us in the present debate. I shall return to that in due course. The other, the further complication I mentioned, is the government's interpretation of its mandate. I shall now address myself to that.
This bill, and its rocky passage through the House illustrate as clearly as any procedure I can imagine the unusual attitude of the government toward the legislative process, toward the mandate secured at election time, toward the people of Canada, a certain proportion of whom elected members opposite to office, and finally towards the views, wishes, and desires expressed by that population.
Starting at the end of that list, I ask how does the government regard or take into account popular views and concerns? From my particular angle I feel obliged to say that the government feels free to ignore popular concerns, to ride roughshod over them, and to replace them with views which conform more closely to what the government considers the general public should want. That is the way this government governs.
What is its attitude toward the people of Canada? We have seen that already too often and in too many different forms. It regards the people of Canada as a necessary nuisance, necessary to put them in power but thence forward a nuisance, a nuisance with no real mind of its own, no critical faculties and no ability to determine what it wants. Why do I say this? I say this because these are very serious strictures. I believe them to be true. Why? Because of the evidence accumulated before me even on this one bill. It has been built up since the time I have been in this House. However, on this one bill alone there is ample evidence to substantiate my case.
Is there anyone on the government benches who can assure me that he has received one single letter from a reader of Reader's Digest saying, "Kick them out. They're no good. They're anti-Canadian". I would wager that no such letters exist in the files of any parliamentarian. But how many letters are there in my files and in the files of all members of this House, urging that Reader's Digest be left alone to provide the service it performs so well?
What does the government do? The government says in so many words: Now listen, you people out there, you elected us to do a job for you. Go back to your jobs and we will get on with ours which is to provide you with what we know is good for you, not necessarily what you want, but what we, the government, determine that you want. What the government is doing in adopting that attitude is recasting in group terms the definition enunciated by Edmund Burke on the role of elected representatives. Elected representatives by this transposed definition are put in place not to represent the constituents who elected them but rather to do their thinking for them. There are some, I suppose, who may believe this might be possible on a member by member basis, but who other than the government will allow that definition to be transferred to an association of members? This may be the view of members 
of the government but there are not many beyond their number who share it.
My criticism of the government in its approach to legislation in general and this legislation in particular will be developed elsewhere. I leave these comments as they are and turn to another aspect of the measure before us which causes me concern. This is the ability of ministers to interpret laws passed by this parliament. I might say there was an exchange between the minister and the house leader of my party which helped clarify the matter for me. During the lunch period I endeavoured to find where that authority was put forward. I am happy to note that the opposition House leader, with his much wider experience than mine, was able to find it whereas I did not. As he so rightly pointed out, it lies in section 221 (j) of Part XV of the Income Tax Act, which of course is not being touched by the amendments that are being proposed.
We must ask ourselves why we are focusing our attention on Reader's Digest when we learn, through the press and elsewhere, that due to re-definition of a definition the full weight of this legislation will not fall on that publication? Why then should we worry? We have cause to worry, and I suggest Reader's Digest has cause to worry. My particular reason for concern in this area is that if the minister can sharpen a definition, as he has done by pronouncing the 80 per cent substantially different notion under the authority granted to him under 221(j), and then withdraw it, he can just as easily introduce a figure at a later date and suggest an even higher figure. That gap must be closed. I suggest to hon. members that the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) do just that. They close that gap, and define and narrow the discretion of the minister, as it should be.
The important openings to those two amendments before us, motions Nos. 4 and 5-and I commend both hon. members for having proposed them-read as follows: "notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or Regulations." This is true in both cases. Therefore these amendments override any amendments, regulations, redefinitions, or redefinitions of definitions which might come about by order in council or through the exercise of ministerial discretion.
What do these amendments do? The first one is the more all-embracing. It defines Canadian periodicals in terms of ownership and content. The second one defines ownership and the control and conduct of editorial and publication functions. These are very important definitions. They narrow the scope of interpretation-which unfortunately has been broadened or let loose in so much legislation- and bring within the ambit of parliament the control of the law and the formation and structure of that law. In this House we have complained about the freedom with which governments can play with the law. We see a solution here.
With the statute of 1970-71, the amendments to the Income Tax Act, so much was involved that something slipped through. We found a gap here, and the hon. member for Ontario and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway have closed it and allowed us to give expression-and I come back to the first part of what I had to
February 6, 1976

say-to the views which are passed on to us by way of correspondence and in discussions with our constituents.
I said earlier that surely there is not one hon. member in this House who has not been overwhelmingly deluged with letters, communications, telephone calls, and personal intercessions seeking for the maintenance of the status of at least Reader's Digest. There was less emphasis with regard to Time. Here we have a means of doing so because the formula provided in these two amendments is one with which Reader's Digest at least can comply.
The hon. member for Sault Ste Marie (Mr. Symes), who preceded me, mentioned the matter of two other important publications. Time may come under this category, and if it does that is all well and good. I do not think it can in its present form. However, MD of Canada is certainly a publication which deserves our attention, and I hope it can come within the prescribed limits of ownership, control, and conduct of the editing and publication functions as defined by the second amendment.
Therefore, along with a number of my colleagues I am delighted that these amendments have been proposed, and I can give them my unquestioned support because I feel that this House should do the legislating. Legislation should not be left to order in council, the whim of a minister or ministerial discretion. I have great regard and respect for the minister, but I think it is unfair to impose upon him, along with the many tasks he has confronting him from day to day, the duty of amplifying legislation parliament has passed indifferently or defectively. For that reason I welcome the amendments, and I will give them my support.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this debate to discuss two points. I say to the government or anyone else that the question of 80 per cent content is a myth. It is undefinable and does not exist in the context the government claims in the legislation before us. When we think in terms of percentage, we must realize that we are using a mathematical concept. We are dealing with units or numbers.
It is possible to talk about percentage if we are talking about volume, length, weight, or anything for which we can use a unit of measurement. If we talk about miles, centimetres, kilograms, pounds or anything which is a unit of measurement, we can use the term 80 per cent, but I challenge hon. members opposite, and the minister specifically, to tell us the unit of measurement used with regard to censoring a foreign magazine.
In the committee when this question came up the deputy minister said that the unit of measurement would be one of length. We challenged him by asking if we took a piece of material which was 100 column inches long and reduced it to 20 inches, but it really had the same content material in it, would that be acceptable under the regulation of the government, and he responded, yes. However, the minister interjected and said no, it must be substantially different in content.
The hon. member for Sault Ste Marie (Mr. Symes) said that the government is not into a censorship program. I suggest that it is because if it is saying that the content must be substantially different and it cannot define the unit of measurement, it is a case of the government making
Non-Canadian Publications
the decision and being the judge. The fact of the matter is that this government does not know what the unit of measurement is. It is applying a mathematical concept to a value judgment, which is impossible.
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, that does not have a unit of measurement. It cannot be measured in percentages-that can only be applied when we speak of weight, length, or volume. We cannot apply percentages to value judgments. Applying mathematical concepts to value judgments implies censorship because it means the government is the judge of what Canadian people will read.
I challenge the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) to give this House some unit of measurement; otherwise the whole concept falls apart. Unless that is forthcoming the government can rule out 100 per cent, or 50 per cent, or whatever it wants. If bureaucracy likes the flavour of some foreign information it can allow it into the country. On the other hand, if bureaucrats do not like something they can censor it 100 per cent. Recognizing there is no unit of measurement is simply a subjective judgment and that means the government is all powerful. 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 unwavering criteria to support their judgment then there is no formula.
The other matter I wanted to refer to is the phrase "substantially not the same as previously published material". That there is a fallacy in the legislation has already been admitted in committee. 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 the other country and then comes to Canada it is not acceptable.
All that magazines such as Reader's Digest or MD of Canada have to do is change the order of publication by one month-publish first in Canada and then in the foreign country. "Substantially not the same as previously published material" simply means that you change the order of publishing to escape the regulation. That will not protect the Canadian publishing industry but simply creates a loophole to circumvent the law.
The percentage content is a myth, Madam Speaker. There is no unit of measurement. I hope the Secretary of State will define for us how the 80 per cent figure is arrived at. Unless there is a mathematical basis it becomes a subjective judgment of the government and that essentially means censorship.
Quite frankly I do not see any better evidence of the government's position on the "new society" and a greater degree of government intervention than this legislation which, with the words "80 per cent", grants the government power to restrict the entry of written matter that it does not like or allow material that is advantageous to it. I hope the minister will respond and clear up this matter
10728

February 6, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
and the conflict that occurred between himself and his deputy minister in committee. How do we put a unit measurement on a value jugment? I hope the minister will accept the challenge.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Speaker, I would gladly have yielded the floor to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) whom I thought would perhaps want to give the House some factual information. I have no desire to stand in his way, but he is not in the House at the moment and there are some things I should like to say arising out of the subamendment and the amendment which have been proposed.
It has been emphasized by those supporting the bill that it has a very simple purpose, that is, to eliminate the special status enjoyed substantially by two magazines with large circulations and perhaps by some other specialist types of periodicals.
I want to say quite frankly that I do not favour the maintenance of special status for any periodical-or anybody else as far as that is concerned. That is not my problem with the bill. I have to say in all frankness that it is now apparent that the Minister of National Revenue and the government as a whole are not in fact eliminating special status; they are continuing to maintain a sort of special status for one of the periodicals.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) is shaking his head but I do not think he can convince any fair-minded Canadian that things have not been arranged so that the special circumstances of Reader's Digest will enable it to continue to maintain tax deductible benefits for Canadian advertisers in that publication.
I think it is desirable to eliminate special status. I recognize the problem the Canadian periodicals face. The problem in Canada is not peculiar to publications or periodicals. If I were in a court of law-and were paid to do it-I could make a pretty good argument to the effect that manufacturers and others trying to do business here face the competition of factories which enjoy longer production runs because they serve bigger markets, and so on.
I presume that the minister would argue that publications, television, and so on, are in a special category, in view of their importance to our national and cultural life and that, consequently, their position is different from that of concerns engaged in ordinary lines of business. He would argue, no doubt, that the preservation of their economic health and the encouragement of their development are important for the cultural life of the country. I accept that. But the question I keep asking myself is: does this bill achieve that purpose at all, and achieve it in a satisfactory way? It will not achieve it by making available to other publications advertising which has been monopolized, shall we say, or dominated by Time and Reader's Digest.
I think Reader's Digest is the biggest factor in the field and, under the new interpretation handed down from on high, Reader's Digest will be able to continue publishing in this country. I am not suggesting that Reader's Digest should be pushed out of Canada; I do not mean that. I merely say that the bill will not achieve its purpose, as it now is interpreted. In other words, it will not release all

that advertising for other Canadian publications. That is not my principal objection to what the government is doing.
I am not objecting because the government's bill will be only partially successful under the present interpretation, will only succeed in pushing Time out and releasing only part of the advertising which Time and Reader's Digest have been getting. My real objection, in other words, is not that the government's aim will be only partially achieved; my objection is to the whole way in which the government is proceeding.
I hope the Secretary of State will not take offence if I say to him, as I said earlier in the week, that the government's general procedure is fundamentally dishonest, fundamentally at odds with what I consider as liberal democratic procedure.
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.
Parliament previously adopted a statute which said that something must be "substantially the same." The government is changing that statute, by executive decree. It is not asking parliament to change the law. The government itself is changing the law. The Secretary of State can argue that that is not the point, that the only thing before the House is the elimination of special status. But what can one say about the meaning the government has given to the phrase "substantially the same?" It has changed the statute by executive decree, a decree which has become part of the res gestae. That action has become an integral, basic, and essential part of the question we are considering. I cannot accept as a member of parliament, and could not accept if I were not in parliament, the idea that members of the government can, under our constitution, arbitrarily change the meaning of a statute passed by parliament.


An hon. Member:: That is what it is all about.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is one thing this is all about. To me, that is abhorrent. To me, that is a violation of everything I understand about responsible parliamentary government. The government's attempt to change the law by decree, and not by act of parliament, violates the Canadian constitution as I understand it. With all due respect to the Secretary of State, I assert, as would anyone of a reasonably independent point of view such as mine, that no one can honestly say that "substantially the same" means that something is substantially the same if it is 20 per cent different. Or, how can anybody say that something 20 per cent the same is substantially the same as something 80 per cent different? How can anybody say, for example, that something that is 74 per cent different is "substantially the same?" How can anybody do that without doing violence
February 6, 1976

to the ordinary meaning of English words? It cannot be done and I do not think it is fair.
With the permission of the House may I call it four o'clock and seek permission to enlighten members of the government further on another occasion?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: We are enlightened. Enlighten yourself.


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


Mr. Blais:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After the usual consultations it has been determined that motion No. 6, standing in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) and printed on page 54 of the Order Paper for Monday, February 2, 1976, is to be disposed of today.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Do hon. members agree that all motions prior to motion No. 6 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 4, 1974, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fortin:
That, in the opinion of this House, a special committee of inquiry on Crown corporations exercising financial, commercial or industrial activities be established to study the various Acts establishing such Crown corporations, the Crown Corporations Act, sections 76 to 88 of the Financial Administration Act, and all other laws concerning Crown corporations and to recommend to the House the adoption of a law regarding federal public enterprises: the committee should also study the following subjects without restriction (a) the legal rules pertaining to the employees of such corporations (b) their financial structure (c) the way in which they are financed (d) government control over said corporations (e) fiscal regulations (municipal, school, provincial and federal taxes) (/) the status of the administrators (g) the privileges of such corporations resulting from their being "commissioned by Her Majesty" (h) the status of the subsidiaries of these enterprises (i) their purchasing policy (j) the problem of auditing by the auditor General of Canada or by private auditors (k) the appropriateness of State intervention in the economic field in the form of enterprises; and all other matters concerned.
Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House on the matter raised by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). The hon. member several times previously has brought forward the subject matter of this motion and has spoken at length and considerable good sense on the subject, the last time being November 4, 1974. That day the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette), on behalf of hon. members on my side,
Crown Corporations
presented a scholarly rendering of the law affecting Crown corporations. He gave a considerable elucidation of the responsibilities they had under the Financial Administration Act. The essence of the motion, as hon. members are aware, is seeking a far greater responsibility for members of parliament to gain information as to the practice, spending procedures and so on, of Crown corporations.
The whole rea of Crown corporations is both interesting and of some concern. Over many years we have found that they have served governments well. They are legal entities set up either to carry out responsibilities for which no other group or aggregate of capital is interested in doing, or there has been a situation of enterprises floundering and requiring government intervention.
The last case of this aspect is with respect to Canadair and de Havilland. The Government of Canada acquired control of those two corporations with the objective of trying to maintain the aircraft industry in Canada, ultimately for the benefit of the country. Hopefully it will be restored to the private sector.
One can look at the history of this country and see cases where Crown corporations have been formed and have grown into great empires, now reaching a value of some $20 billion. Under the regime of Prime Minister R. B. Bennett, Canadian National Railways was put together as well as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Bank of Canada. All of these institutions were formed under a Tory government, those champions of the private sector. It is sometimes forgotten by Canadians that these bold initiatives were taken for good and sufficient reasons. Since that time, both Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have grown into major, massive corporations which compare in size to their opposite numbers throughout the world as being among the giants, particularly in the case of the railroad.
I suspect that for a good many members, the notion that parliament should have considerable control over the activities of Crown corporations is very appealing. I found it distressing in a committee hearing that when a Crown corporation came up for consideration there was very little time to deal with it, and frequently little information was provided.
The annual reports, like all corporate annual reports, tend to highlight the accomplishments of the year and downgrade that which did not go favourably. There is always a generous tribute to the management, however competent or incompetent it might have been, but that is about all. Members of parliament in rare instances have an opportunity to question the officers of the corporations. They are extremely limited in the opportunity they have to get real information about the affairs of the corporations.
I found it particularly distressing on two occasions that we had officers before us. One instance was that of Canadian Arsenals. The other was the Export Development Bank. In both cases the presidents said it was contrary to law and that they were unable to reveal their annual salary. I personally found that totally unacceptable.
As one who goes home to my constituency regularly and consults my mail every day, I find that my own modest stipend is the subject of constant public interest. When we
21 1 30-57 Vi

February 6, 1976
Crown Corporations
are told by a president of a Crown corporation, a wholly owned entity of government, that unlike his minister, deputy minister and all the other officers, his salary remains sacrosanct and unavailable for public scrutiny, that is unacceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I can understand that some of them might be embarrassed to have their large emolument compared with that of a member of parliament. I do not know if that is the primary motivation or not.
Crown corporations cover an extraordinary wide range. We have some 40 of them which represent departmental corporations. They are very much directly responsible to the department and the minister. We have agency corporations which are somewhat less so. We have proprietary corporations such as Canadian National Railways which have great superstructures, the ability to borrow and the ability to finance their own requirements.
Because the hon. member for York East gave such a scholarly rendering of the Financial Administration Act and how it affected these corporations, I suppose hon. members would welcome it if I were to dwell for a few minutes on several of these Crown Corporations, discuss what they do and how they are constituted. What comes to mind is the Seaway International Bridge Corporation Limited. That would be a fascinating subject for discussion.
Also the National Museums of Canada would open a wide range of discussion-for example, the locations of the museums. One's mind runs back to the great full page ads placed by the Victoria Museum when it completed its expensive renovations, advising Canadians as far away as Victoria, B.C. of these changes. They were full page ads to encourage Canadians to visit that museum. I spoke to the minister who confirmed that perhaps this was carrying a good thing a little far. It does perhaps illustrate that these corporations have a way of acting on their own without respect for parliament or even the minister.
When one talks of the problem of Crown corporations not being sufficiently responsible to parliament or to their officers in appearing before us, I think much of this could be said of the whole apparatus of government and the sense of relative futility that we, as members of parliament, feel in trying to analyse and know something about the vast expenditures and what lies behind them. The opportunities for discussing departmental estimates are relatively slight compared to their enormity. I am sure that even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) must find it difficult to be able, in the hours that he spends in this House, in committees, and in his office, to grasp the whole complexity of government and find himself aware of all these expenditures.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: It is, of course, a great pleasure to see him here. Last week at this time we had a debate on the question of a quorum in this House and his dissatisfaction with a quorum of 20 rather than 50. As several of our hon. friends said, if we had to depend on filling even the modest quorum we now have with members from his party, we

would rarely if ever have a quorum. It is, of course, wonderful to see him here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: All of us regular members of the club are here.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: It would be very surprising if we did not see him here. Indeed our children, or grandchildren yet unborn, may find themselves seated in this chamber watching the hon. member participating in these proceedings on a Friday afternoon. I hope that will be the case.
When we talk about Crown corporations being made more accessible to parliament-and I strongly recommend that legislation be enacted in this area-I think it is worth considering what is happening in the private sector. As we all know, there has been considerable debate lately on the subject of free enterprise, public enterprise, a free market system, state socialism and so on. I know all of us are concerned about this vital area of discussion.
It is worth pointing out, I think, that the information which is available to Canadians concerning the affairs of Crown corporations is in a great many respects more comprehensive than that provided to private shareholders by many of the great private corporations. Anyone familiar with the workings of major corporations realizes how little opportunity exists for interrogation of the officers of those corporations or for ascertaining information beyond that which can be read in an annual report. Shareholdings in these corporations are often closely held by blocks capable of exercising control. Before annual meetings take place proxies are sent out, and provision is usually made for half an hour or so to be set aside for questions. The questioning, in these circumstances, is merely a formality. At most, it has only a nuisance value, and as soon as possible everyone repairs to a nice lunch, if it is a good company, and that is "it" for the year.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Would my hon. friend permit a question? I do not want to take up his valuable time, but with reference to the establishment of a committee would he envisage a committee which would be formed of members from both this House and from the other place so that we could benefit from the massive corporate experience of members of the other place?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which side is that question on?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I gather the parliamentary secretary was anxious lest I launch into a tirade against big business. That was not my intention, I assure him. Since he has, with his usual skill, returned me to the subject of the committee, let me say that in my view it would naturally be desirable for the committee to be made up not simply of members of this House though clearly members of this House should dominate any such body, but also include members from the other place provided their activities on boards of directors permitted them to attend the hearings.
It is always an interesting and salutary experience to read minutes of the hearings of the banking committee of
February 6, 1976

the other place, recognizing that its members bring so much expertise to that subject, which is natural since most of them sit on a variety of bank boards.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: You are just jealous.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: When they are considering the eligibility of applicants to form a bank I am sure they free their minds and address themselves directly to the matter. I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) wakes up every morning wishing he were a member of the board of some big bank. For too long his talents have not been recognized by those institutions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: But he keeps himself free from the temptation to sit on such boards so that he can bring his judgment to bear on the fitness of bank applicants when they come forward. I think that is a real distinction between this place and the other place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not the only one. Will the hon. member permit a question? In view of the large part which is played in our economy not only by government corporations but by private corporations like the CPR and the banks, Canada Packers and so on, would the hon. member not agree that the kind of committee we are talking about should also be able to call those corporations before it?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I do not think so. No. There are a number of regulatory bodies such as Securities and Exchange Commissions which keep a careful watch on corporations of that type. I have mentioned one such control group, but there are others.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member did not mention the CTC.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: If I were a shareholder in those companies I would start writing letters asking why shareholders could not be given more extensive rights to look behind the information presented in the annual report and find out what management had done. I would think the hon. member for Lotbiniere is on firm ground when he suggests that members of parliament represent Canadians who are, in essence, shareholders of these corporations and that we do not have an adequate opportunity to call the management of such corporations before us when problems arise. If hon. members feel that the affairs of one of these Crown corporations deserve a searching examination, we should be able to make use of the services of a committee empowered to carry out this task, to spend two or three weeks, for instance, finding out what is happening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Would the hon. member permit a question to be asked by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert)?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Crown Corporations


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Bellechasse.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before the time allowed to the hon. member is expired, I should like to ask him a question. I was led to believe during his statement that he entirely approved the motion of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). If such is the case, may I ask him before he concludes his speech whether he would be prepared to ask his colleagues on the government side to support the motion so that it may be passed before five o'clock?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Well, Madam Speaker, I support the spirit of it, the intent of it, but if it were to be made into law I would strongly recommend that members on this side have an opportunity to provide the sort of legislation which would really be effective.
To conclude, I would simply repeat that there are many occasions when a Crown corporation assumes a higher profile than is usual and when its affairs call for special examination, and I do think that a committee ought to be formed which could call before it the officers of such a corporation and obtain any facts which it required, within reason. To this extent I would certainly support the motion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, the fact that this motion was introduced 15 or 16 months ago, that is on November 4, 1974, indicates that we have undertaken a long trip. This session could very well be extended to June and perhaps even later, if we take note of progress made in recent days concerning the legislation before us and if we consider other highly controversial bills now being discussed even by the government members.
It is not the first time the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) tackles this matter and brings in an issue that vexes several members. I have before me a letter from a colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski), who make a suggestion to me as a member of the Committee on Procedure and Organization now working on the terms of reference of a sub-committee for the study of our organization of the House of Commons.
He indicated to me that he has a great desire that we should have among all our committees of the House of Commons precisely a committee to study the activities and reports of Crown corporations, and in fact quoted the same arguments put forward by the hon. member for Lotbiniere on November 4. He said that this should be compulsory in order that every Crown corporation be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Now, he indicated that the last report of Air Canada which has been studied has been the 1970 report, that the answers are always the same, and that when a member asks for information this can be detrimental to the corporation involved.
Now, are all those arguments valid? Also given as examples is the Parliament of the United Kingdom and, among

February 6, 1976
Crown Corporations
others, the parliaments of other countries which have a better system than ours. Now, let us give a closer look to this thesis and this statement.
First of all, from all committees complaints are heard from every corner that members are overworked. There are some who are not ready to ask the questions they should ask, who cannot attend all the numerous sittings. Then they do not have time to read the reports of the proceedings and everything else. So to a great extent many members who sit on the committees of the House unfortunately are wasting their effort. There is a waste of time because of duplication.
As regards the study on Crown corporations, there are about forty.


An hon. Member:: About fifty.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am told there are about fifty. Well, they will count them, perhaps there are now sixty. They have just established what I call "Petro-Can". We are asked questions the answers to which hon. members would like to know: What are the salaries of the executives? I do not know what will be the use of knowing that.
Are there any reliable reports published every year by chartered accountants, regardless of whether they come from the Auditor General or the private sector, just as long as they are competent auditors? Those people are every bit as honest and responsible as the Auditor General. To my mind, of the two I would say that the Auditor General is better qualified to say whether the operations of a Crown company are viable or not, and whether they are dishonest.
I do believe my hon. colleague from Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) as well as the hon. member for Lotbiniere wonder if all Crown companies are profitable and justifiable. Why were they created? Some are 40 years old. How were they set up? What were their objectives at the time? Have circumstances changed? At this time, are their activities profitable or do they follow the same old routine without anyone ever questioning their raison d'etre or ever wondering why this Crown corporation should not be disbanded.
I would simply like to point out that this has already been done. I have here a manuscript on a study made by Dr. Allan Blair, associate professor of the Commerce Department at Carleton University, sponsored by the research department of my party. Dr. Blair gives the names of a number of Crown corporations and concludes that they should be ended, that some of their activities could be transferred to other existing corporations or even taken over by the Department of National Defence.
A case in point, Defence Construction Limited. This corporation was established in 1942 or 1943 by then Minister of Munitions C. D. Howe. Why? Because during the war it was necessary to maintain the construction of several army bases in Canada, barracks and what have you. At that time he was not impressed with the efficiency of the Department of Public Works as several scandals later came out in that field. War construction works were to be done as quickly as possible instead of going through the normal procedure, namely the Treasury Board and the Department

of Public Works. Government machinery was much too slow, later on it improved and is now quite efficient.
What is DCL today? It is a Crown corporation which finds itself caught in a little corner of the Department of National Defence. Its directors are civil servants.
There are others, such as the Canadian Arsenals, the Canadian Commercial Corporation and another whose existence hon. members probably do not know: the Canadian National West-Indies Steamship Limited. Why is that? They have two ships.


Donald W. Munro: They had two ships.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This corporation exists only to protect certain interests that we must recover on our debts. Others, like St. Clair River Broadcasting Limited and Canadians Arsenals Limited, have special roles to play. I shall read my quotations in English because they are in English and the translation would not be accurate. [English]
With regard to the historical public policy mandate, CAL was the phase-down agent for munitions production at the end of World War II. The mandate "fit" was appropriate at that time. Today it is the custodian and operator of two Crown owned facilities and keeps a skill pool in place. The other day it almost did not; the skill pool nearly left its earthly confines. As for its ongoing public policy rationale, there is none really apparent; phase-out seems appropriate, with skills lodged departmentally. I did say "DCL"; that is, Defence Construction (1951) Limited.
Then we have Eldorado Nuclear Limited and Eldorado Mining and Research. They were expropriated under war emergency powers to control uranium sources exploitation. They were closed down in 1940 when I was working for a subsidiary up on the Mackenzie River and I can assure you that this caused some consternation among the employees. However, they were resurrected in 1942. What should happen to these two companies? A thorough review and study are recommended. This was first recommended in 1961 and I think should be carried out. I could go down all the way through this list.

I shall come back to the purpose of the committee because I believe that if the motion of the hon. member were adopted, we would launch a perpetual and comprehensive investigation which would never come to any conclusions. We may wonder why, especially if the terms of reference cover only one session of Parliament. I would agree entirely with the hon. member that this committee, whether it be a joint committee or a committee of the House only, should be a small committee, including a maximum of six or eight members well versed on the subject who could examine the philosophy and the purpose of Crown corporations. This commission should be asked to make recommendations like those made by Dr. Blair.
I cannot say that I would not accept this, because I did not study the report carefully, but several corporations should be eliminated, others should be modified and others should be clarified because many of them were established 30 or 40 years ago.
February 6, 1976

He believes, and I do not doubt this, that Crown corporations have their place and their uses in today's modern society.
The Crown corporation has a very viable and very valid role but simply because the child was born many years ago I would not say it necessarily follows that it must continue to operate. If that is the case, I can speak of another objective, in addition to those that were put forward by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), and others who spoke on this subject. But one must go over Hansard in past years to see what was said. It is difficult to remember, and I would be quite prepared to recommend strongly to the government that if this motion cannot even be passed this could be taken into consideration and amended to examine the principles of Crown corporations.
In our day-to-day activities if we want to consider something and pass a judgment we must make sure we know what we are talking about. Otherwise, there is no point in entering the ring. You do not send a carpenter to examine the inside of a stomach, you ask the doctor, an expert. And to say here that a group of members could examine accurately and rightly the administration, say of Air Canada, what do they know about it? Quite simply, there would have to be a whole body of examiners and our committee would have to form a jury rather than simply saying we are going to conduct the examination and we as members are going to ask the questions. Somehow we would come out of it. We would push a little button or ask a question to an official or an executive of, say Air Canada or the CNR, and a fountain would immediately spout all the information required.
I prefer that we start by limiting our objective, then the little commission of inquiry of this House would hire competent staff and take a company or two and examine them. Then the commission could pass a judgment, make recommendations to the government and continue to amend or stiffle that corporation.
Those are my views on this point and I thank hon. members as well as you, Madam Speaker, for the attention you gave me.


An hon. Member:: Continue!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, no, I am finished, I made my point.
[English]	*


Hugh Alan Anderson: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to comment on this motion moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) recommending the establishment of a special committee of inquiry on Crown corporations engaged in financial, commercial, or industrial activities.
With all due respect to the hon. member, one of the things that struck me a year and a half ago when I became aware of these august halls for the first time was the great complexity, not only of Crown corporations, but of the government as a whole. At that time the question came to my mind how one person who is responsible for representing an area could possess the ability to understand all of these complex things and at the same time deal efficiently with the many matters that arise in his riding. How does an hon. member grasp, within a reasonable period of time,
Crown Corporations
the many complexities with which we are faced on a day-to-day basis here?
I suppose many of us here are a bit lost in respect of this vast area of enterprise in which the government is involved. I suppose it comes down to the question of what is the role of an hon. member in this House, and to what activities should he direct his energies. It is for that reason I am pleased to speak on this motion.
We sometimes forget that we were not sent here as accountants to go through the books of various corporations. I was under the impression we were sent here to act as legislators. We have accountants, lawyers, and many other people employed in government service. We must assume first of all that they are basically honest and fairly intelligent, and that the information they provide members is accurate.
We must operate with the information that is available to us and make decisions for the betterment of the country. I for one would still be lost having gone through the financial statements of some of our many Crown corporations. They are part of the vast galaxy of shoot-offs from our government. For example, there is the centennial commission. I have no idea what that is. Since we have had our 100 years celebration perhaps this no longer is in effect. It may be that someone has not noticed that it is still in existence. This is an example of the vastness of this area.
In deference to my compatriot across the floor, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has been in this House for many years, he might tell me whether in his many years' experience he has discovered how Crown corporations operate and whether he has a greater knowledge about them now than he had previously. If I am not mistaken there are approximately 250 people whose job is to act as auditors for the government. They are employed by the Department of the Auditor General. I would not wish that job on anyone. It must be a tremendous undertaking.
I believe the previous Auditor General required additions to his staff. I hope there is now sufficient staff in the Department of the Auditor General because, from a look at the number of corporations as well as the departments, it would seem that this must be an enormous task.
I wonder whether any member of this House or any committee of this House should try to take away the power or the right of review by the Auditor General's department. I wonder even if we did decide that was in the interest of Canada and the House, whether we or members of the committee, with our backgrounds which are unrelated to accountancy, actually would make any contribution to this House or the government. It might be that we should examine our priorities. As much as I may be in sympathy with the motion of the hon. member I wonder what, in practical terms, it would accomplish. I wonder how deeply we would be able to go into the situation and how much time would be required. Also I wonder whether we could afford such an in-depth study.
If such a study were to be meaningful it could not be conducted over night or once, say, every five or ten years. It would have to be an on-going process. The expertise

February 6, 1976
Crown Corporations
required might be outside our sphere. This is a debatable subject.
In the past perhaps a band-aid approach has been taken to this. Situations have arisen which caused the government and the House to take a certain course of action. Special committees of the House have been established for the purpose of examining the situation in respect of a Crown corporation or something else. Although this may be open to debate, it would seem to me that this is a reasonable way to do it.
If a situation should develop among one of the corporations which we feel is wrong, or in respect of which we feel there is some question concerning the competence of the people involved, perhaps a special committee to study that situation is the answer. I suppose a good example is the special committee that was set up to study the question of egg marketing. That was a very complex issue. The committee spent several months studying that situation. At the end I felt that there was much more we could have done had we had more time, but I think the House and the committees realize that time is one of our most precious commodities and one of the things of which we do not have very much.
I do not know whether the hon. member who brought in this motion has considered this aspect of having a special committee study certain corporations, or whether he feels that this would not be an ongoing process. However, as one member of parliament I sincerely believe that we must give offices such as that of the Auditor General, once it has been given the job of acting as a watchdog, an opportunity to carry out that function without appointing another watchdog to watch the watchdog.
The reports of the Auditor General are available to us. I have had an opportunity to look at them. It is a difficult task to study these reports. For a lay person who has perhaps no special skill or training in reading columns of figures it is neither the most productive nor easy reading. I believe the hon. member brought up a very important point. As legislators I do not think individually or even as a committee we have the time to go through the reams and reams of statistics in respect of every Crown corporation.
I agree with the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) that we have the right to know what these people who are running Crown corporations are costing the taxpayers of Canada. It is public money that is being spent and therefore, in my opinion, it should be accounted for.
In the province of British Columbia the salaries of doctors who are paid through the medicare program have been made public because they are paid from money out of the public purse. There was much debate in respect of whether or not the salaries of the doctors should be made available. However, it was decided that since this was public money it should be accounted for.
I have always felt that since we ourselves are under scrutiny, and since we are accountable to the people for the management of the public purse, the money paid to people employed through the Government of Canada should be accounted for and the figures made available. I do not suggest this in a critical way but rather so that it may be ascertained whether the salaries are fair. I am saying this not only from the negative point of view but from the

point of view of making sure that these people are dealt with fairly and equitably and so that we will know whether these expenditures are too high or too low. I think we have the right to know this since we provide the money.
I also strongly believe that the House of Commons should have a status that is higher than that of a court of inquiry. There may be occasions when we might like to delve into that problem. However, I do not see this matter as being a preoccupation of the standing committees. We have many other facilities for studying the problems in various areas of our government service. We should tackle one area alone.
Perhaps as a final comment I might say that this whole question of being able to have the time to go into an area in which we perhaps have specialized would be made much easier if some of the staff we have in our research centres were under our own control rather than being part of a central research staff where we have basically no control over the work done, or the type of person employed. I think at some point the House should consider having an individual member given the right to have his own staff so that he would have someone to work in his office whom he could trust, and whose abilities he would know, so that the member would know the quality of the work being done and so that there would be a much more positive and closer relationship than exists at the present time.
This is slightly off the point made by the hon. member attacking the question of information being made available, but I think all of us have certain interests which could be better researched if we had that sort of staff rather than using the staff under the present system. I realize that this does not include ministers. I am talking about ordinary backbenchers in this House who could make a more positive contribution if they were provided with better research facilities. The information is there if someone has the time to research it, but hon. members know that our time is very limited. Our time is devoted to committee work, the House and so forth, and surely we can use people who have expertise in certain areas to do some of that work for us.
Going back to my original point, that the Auditor General has a branch which is already set up, I do not think we have to go further and set up a watchdog committee. Someone might be interested in Air Canada or, in the case of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), a steamship company-I did not realize we had one in the West Indies, but apparently we have two flag carriers in that area-but all hon. members might not be interested in that. That is why I feel a committee is not the answer. However, if one or two hon. members were interested in a particular subject, they could do the research themselves and that would not take up the time of a committee. We have enough problems.
In the External Affairs Committee we set up a subcommittee to deal with international development. We have problems maintaining interest, although it started off with a great burst of confidence. After CIDA, and where the money was going, had been discussed for several weeks we found that the interest of the committee waned to some extent.
February 6, 1976

I feel we would have the same situation in the committee the hon. member suggests because although one interesting thing might come up, this would not occupy the attention of 16, 20 or 30 people on a month by month basis if it were a permanent committee. For that reason I ask the House to consider this proposal very seriously, to consider whether we already have instruments set up to look into these subjects and whether we would be duplicating efforts. Although I would like to see some way of developing a better research centre for our own members, I cannot agree with the proposal of a permanent committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I am rising to ask if the hon. member will accept a question.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I would be honoured to accept a question from the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) agrees that salaries of Crown corporation officers, such as the president of Canadian National Railways, should be made public, would he not also agree that the salary of the president of CPR should be made public?


Hugh Alan Anderson: I certainly do not want to go into a long debate on this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes or no?


Hugh Alan Anderson: The answer is no because, as I mentioned, the reason I feel Crown salaries should be made public is not because of curiosity but because it is public money. A person who works for a company or is president of a company should not have to make that disclosure. I feel these are two separate situations. One is supported by the public, and the other is not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where does CPR get its money?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I am deeply moved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I only hope that-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Business of the House


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Thank you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: On a question of privilege, Madam Speaker, if this sudden groundswell of support and enthusiasm could be restrained, I should like to make a few brief comments on this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Failing that, I will do my best to make these comments later in my office, and I am sure all hon. members who are interested would like to hear them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Get to the bill.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I really had a few comments I had hoped to make.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Very convincing.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Only if it applies to my speech.


Jean-Jacques Blais: It does. My question is this: when is the hon. member going to start his speech?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, is there someone on the other side who can tell us what the order of business will be on Monday?


Jean-Jacques Blais: It is my pleasure to inform the hon. member who has shown interest in Monday's business that the business will be Bill C-58.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
10737

Monday, February 9, 1976