1976-02-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr, Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. I am compelled to do this by the extremely grave threat to Canada's heavy oil production caused in part by the export quota system which has lead to a dramatic fall in demand. Already over 500 of the Lloydminster producing wells have been shut down and due to the unique characteristics of the Lloyminster field, these wells may never again attain full production when restarted. I therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That although this House acknowledges the efforts of the National Energy Board to deal with the situation, this House regrets that the measures will not become effective until March or April, 1976, thus forcing the closure of many more oil wells in the Lloydminster area causing severe disruption of the economy and the subsequent loss to Canada of vital oil resources, and directs the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to make new initiatives, possibly entailing either the further reduction of the export tax on heavy oil or the exemption of heavy oil from the quota system.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO EFFECT ON HEALTH OF URANIUM MINING-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of press reports of continuing government inaction with respect to the cleaning up of radioactive contamination in Port Hope, Ontario, and with respect to the prevention of further similar threats to public health.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House instruct the government to appoint immediately a commission under the Inquiries Act to look into and report on all aspects of the mining and processing of uranium in Canada with respect to the direct and indirect effects that such activities have on the health and safety of Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on an important issue of pressing necessity.
Considering that thousands of families have been deprived of electricity and essential services as the result of a violent storm on February 2 and 3, 1976, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) and, under the circumstances, by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House asks the government and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) to tell the Canadian people what assistance is available from the armed forces in stricken areas in such circumstances and the means to be used to obtain such assistance, if necessary and in due time.


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 unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SECRETARY GENERAL OF NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with the oral question period I know all hon. members would want to join with me in calling attention to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor and to make him welcome during his all too brief stay. I refer, of course, to the very

February 4, 1976
Oral Questions
distinguished Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Dr. Joseph Luns.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister about the Latin connection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Arising out of the statement in the House on January 9, 1974 by the then minister of energy, mines and resources that with regard to Venezuela we were making clear Canada's interest in the continued assurance of supply from that country and the possibility of an accord, et cetera, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he discussed this long term accord with respect to the security of supply of oil from Venezuela during his visit.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, only in the sense that I indicated in my answer, I believe to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, yesterday. There was no precise accord exchange of quantities or figures. As I think I indicated yesterday the Venezuelans now are interested in an assurance that we would not lower the general magnitude of our liftings because of the nationalization that they proceeded with, and I could give them that assurance. On our side, we were interested in making sure that they were going to consider Canada as a market to which they would be continuing to export without any political conditions put on their exports. So, in this very general sense, the subject was discussed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That particular Latin connection seems to be a little loose. May I take it, then, that the Government of Canada is no longer pursuing the policy outlined by the then minister of energy, mines and resources? I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he sought, and if so whether he received, any assurance from the president of Venezuela that Venezuela will continue to offer to Canada the present volume, or even an increase in volume, of oil which is now coming to Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I can use an appropriate metaphor, the shoe is on the other foot. Venezuela at this time is interested in making sure that Canada takes all the oil it wants to export, and therefore the kind of preoccupation suggested by the Leader of the Opposition is not at all appropriate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am referring to a preoccupation of the government which existed back in 1974, and in view of the

fact that an increase in percentage of crude petroleum coming into eastern Canada, upon which eastern Canada is dependent, is now coming from parts of the world which can hardly be considered stable, I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the view of the government that the shoe is really on the other foot; that it is up to Venezuela to worry about selling oil to Canada; that Canada, particularly eastern Canada, can feel quite secure about the supply of oil and that the worries the then minister of energy, mines and resources had following the crisis or the near crisis of a year or two ago have been completely forgotten by the present Prime Minister and the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, that has not been forgotten, but I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is in a position to realize that questions of supply sometimes predominate and questions of demand sometimes predominate. At the present time Venezuela is more concerned with demand for their oil than we happen to be about supply. That does not mean that at a different time in world events the situation will not be different and the shoe will not be on the other foot. That is why, in general, it was very important to make sure that our relations at the political and commercial level with Venezuela remain very good. At this time they are, in a sense, perhaps asking us for something of a favour but a couple of years ago we were asking them for a favour. This is the meaning of the Latin connection, Mr. Speaker, that we help each other and this is the kind of relationship we have established with Venezuela.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of even this government looking more than a year or two ahead and if the Prime Minister found that the government of Venezuela was anxious to encourage sales to Canada, would this not have been an excellent time for the government of Canada to have achieved an increase in the security of supply of oil for the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and the eastern part of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, it would, Mr. Speaker; in the very general sense I have admitted it would. The Leader of the Opposition will, of course, realize that the kind of question asked by the Leader of the New Democratic Party is also relevant, here, however. We want to make sure that, given the particular quality of that particular source of oil, we will be paying the right price and there was no need at this time to embark on any specific bargain. Of course, I repeat, that Petro-Canada is going to be sending a delegation there to examine this question and perhaps to embark upon some bargaining. I must remind the Leader of the Opposition, however, that in Venezuelan terms they do not have an eternal supply of conventional oil. They are thinking in terms of ten or perhaps 15 years and they are asking us for support in the exploitation of the Orinoco tar sands; they are talking exchange of technology with us.
In these various senses our relations are good and will continue to intensify, but we should not think that a guarantee against all future eventualities. Venezuela has a secure supply of oil. The time is limited, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is right.
February 4, 1976


VENEZUELA-DISCUSSIONS DURING PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION OF STEEL COMPLEX
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. In view of the recent announcement by the government of Venezuela that they are planning a $3Vi billion outlay for a new steel complex to produce five million metric tons of steel annually and in light of Canada's massive trade deficit with Venezuela, was Canadian participation in the building of the steel complex discussed with President Perez? There is no direct mention of this in the communique.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this and other forms of Canadian investment were discussed. The accent at this time was more on transportation because in this month of February there is a very big possibility outstanding for Canadians. Perhaps in the communique therefore we thought to put emphasis more on certain short-run or immediate projects but several long-term investment possibilities, such as the one the hon. gentleman referred to, were raised in the meetings.


William James Kempling: A supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister tell the House if arrangements were made for future talks on this subject and if the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will lead a delegation or make arrangements for talks with Canadian producers and the government of Venezuela on this matter? It is a large complex of $3V4 billion and we should have a part of the action.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member completely and I agree with him in his acceptance of my view of the new society, where the government is very important in aiding the private sector.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: That is super baloney!


ALLEGED ARSENIC AND RADIUM CONTAMINATION OF LAKE ONTARIO AT PORT HOPE BY ELDORADO-GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, when speaking of the future new society, the Prime Minister mentioned that one of his areas of concern was the control of pollution. With specific reference to that subject, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? Since an Atomic Energy Control Board study of last July reported that, when taken together, arsenic and radium contamination dumped from an Eldorado nuclear disposal area into Lake Ontario in the Port Hope region is above acceptable levels, and since this contamination is still being dumped into the lake in that region, why has the government, given its expressed concern about pollution, particularly dangerous pollution, not yet acted to stop this?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman has
Oral Questions
fallen into the trap some hon. members fall into when they read sensational news stories. He has made certain assumptions which do not hold up under examination. There is no dumping of arsenic and radium waste into Lake Ontario. There is a run-off, which is what we are talking about only, a casual, very small run-off.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baldwin:: Explain.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister is running off, too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has the floor.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, may I conclude by saying that this is a run-off in very minute concentrations. I have been assured that there is no hazard to public health as a result of this.


Mr. Hees:: The minister is running off from the mouth.


DATE OF REPORT ON SITES OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMPS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I suspect the minister might be running off. May I ask a supplementary question? Given the serious concern of the minister of health of the province of Ontario, I ask the minister who has said that investigative proceedings are under way into the dumping processes at Port Hope and other sites, when can we expect a report, in the House or outside, on the work being done by those investigating this situation?


Gerald William Baldwin: In 1996.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, here again we see an example of a certain kind of thing, about which I am concerned. The hon. member is confusing a lot of separate issues so far as the town of Port Hope is concerned. A moment ago he asked me a question about dumping. Actually, that was a run-off from an old residue disposal area. The next moment the hon. member talks about radioactivity. That is as I understood his question of a moment ago. It is completely unrelated to his earlier statement. Let me make it clear that I am going to present to the House a list of the various areas in the province of Ontario which were affected. I will include in that, of course, the town of Port Hope. After consultation with the minister of health of Ontario I hope to be able to make public as well a list of the various locations within the town of Port Hope. I think the hon. member will agree that it is important for those affected to receive the information first and not to read it in the newspaper.


PROPOSED COMMISSION TO STUDY HEALTH AND SAFETY ASPECTS OF USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question? As both situations to which the minister alludes involve radioactive substances which are the prime cause of both situations- hence the expressed concern I am voicing in my question, a concern expressed by people outside this House-may I ask

February 4, 1976
Oral Questions
the minister this question: in view of the government of Canada's decision to expand in the years ahead the number of nuclear power sites in Canada and the related concern, for example, of three scientists in the United States who resigned from a General Electric project because they felt it was a dangerous development in this field, would the minister commit his department to establish an independent commission which would look into all the health and safety aspects of our continued expansion in the nuclear field?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not rule out an inquiry at some time if it can be demonstrated to me that one might serve a useful purpose. I think it is quite clear at the present time that there has not been sufficient evidence of abuse to show that such an inquiry would serve any useful purpose at the present time. I have indicated to the hon. member and the House that we will do everything we can to deal with this situation which occurred some 20 years ago, and which had to do with the knocking down of an old building and not with the refining process at all.


John Edward Broadbent: That's absurd.


Alastair William Gillespie: It was rubble from an old building. The purpose of this particular operation right now at Port Hope is to identify where that radioactivity might be and clean it up just as quickly as we can.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Since I have been caught, like thousands of other drivers and families, in a terrifying storm on Highway 20 in the area of Saint-Hyacinthe, Granby, etc. and thousands of families have been deprived of essential services such as electricity and related facilities needed on a daily basis, can the Minister of National Defence indicate whether, in such circumstances, his department can help the civilian population with snowmobiles, ploughs or blowers, and if so to whom should they address such a request for aid?
Mr. Speaker, I hope you are the one presiding over our assembly, my colleagues at my left should allow me to ask my question. Here in this House, there is no snow storm, there is no snow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I listened very carefully to the question. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to answer it.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is not finished.
It is not with jokes of this nature that the people can hope to be protected in tragic times such as those we have experienced on Monday and Tuesday.

My question is serious, Mr. Speaker, and I want to ask the Minister of National Defence what procedures to follow when the civilian population finds itself in a tragic situation of this kind. How can people obtain any help from the army to insure protection in situations such as the one I just described?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if the assistance required is relatively minor they could seek help by contacting the base commander. If it is of a wider nature or of more concern then they should seek assistance from the municipal authorities or, finally, from the provincial government which would in turn make a request to National Defence for assistance.


REASON FOR CONSTRUCTING NEW FACILITIES FOR LANGUAGE TRAINING AT ST. JOHNS, QUEBEC
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is vitally necessary for the government to set an example in respect of restraint if the anti-inflation program is to succeed, will the Minister of National Defence advise the House why the government is not planning to make far greater use of present language training facilities at St. Johns, Quebec by adding, if necessary, a second shift to the educational program, thereby making it unnecessary at this time to build a brand new language training facility at the same place, to supplement the present adequate facilities, at a cost of $88 million?


James Armstrong Richardson: The Department of National Defence is already making full use of the language training facilities at St. Johns. In fact, they are over-extended, not only for language training but for recruit training and that is the reason for the decision to build new facilities there. They are for recruit training, the introduction of Francophone personnel into the armed forces, and also for the language training which is required.


George Harris Hees: As the minister obviously did not answer my question about the introduction of a second shift, and since a second shift would relieve the pressure sufficiently to make it unnecessary to build the new facilities, is it not clear that the attitude of the government toward the restraint program is: do as we say, don't do as we do?


INCOME TAX
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of National Revenue. Has the hon. gentleman checked to determine under what circumstances the retained earnings or other assets of Sky Shops Limited from its Bahamian subsidiary or subsidiaries were brought into Canada and whether all of the
February 4, 1976

requirements of Canadian tax law were satisfied in this respect?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am, of course, always reluctant to interfere with the right of hon. members to pose questions. There is, however, one rule we have followed, particularly in the putting of questions to ministers, namely, that ministers ought not to be asked to comment on a matter which is before the courts.


An hon. Member:: This is not before the courts!


Mr. Speaker:: Ordinarily that is not something which would interfere with the rights of an opposition member to ask questions. However, yesterday the hon. member for Central Nova was at pains to indicate that he had been served with a writ which he described to the House which involves an action before the courts and which affects the member personally as well as the company to which he has just alluded. I really think the hon. member ought to refrain from questions relative to that matter now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: With respect to yourself, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is only a very specific area involving this matter that is before the courts.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: May I put a
supplementary question to the Solicitor General? Can the Solicitor General indicate, with respect to the RCMP investigation into the so-called Sky Shops affair and the related matter of Liberal Party fund-raising practices, when we may expect to hear some results of this investigation?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that there is an investigation into Sky Shops but not into the Liberal Party fund-raising process.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


William Warren Allmand: The most recent information I have is that this investigation is continuing and will take some time because of the large amount of documentation involved.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Three o'clock.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Did the hon. gentleman authorize or knowingly acquiesce in the release of information to the media containing detailed contents of the bill with regard to capital punishment which resulted in a CBC television program last night, and also information concerning the changes in the Parole Act and the parole regulations which was publicized this morning?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not. I did not see the program but I heard about it. I do not know how that information got to them.


Gerald William Baldwin: In the light of the fact that capital punishment has never been a partisan issue in this House and that making such information available on a program of that kind might prejudice the debate in the House, will the minister make an investigation to ascertain how this information was so improperly released before the bill had been introduced, and take appropriate action?


William Warren Allmand: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether all the information in that broadcast is correct. As I mentioned, I did not see the program. I am getting a transcript, however, and I will try to find out how it was leaked. I agree with the hon. member that such premature release could hurt the debate.


SALE OF BLOOD BY CONNAUGHT LABORATORIES-REASON FOR FAILURE TO IMPOSE EXPORT CONTROLS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Minister of National Health and Welfare but in his unavoidable absence I feel his parliamentary secretary should be able to answer it, because he has been given notice. In view of the critical shortage of serum albumin in 1974 and the fact that people were being entreated by the Canadian Red Cross to give blood to meet the shortage, while at the same time we were buying serum albumin from sources outside Canada, would the parliamentary secretary tell the House how the blood brokers were able to obtain blood from Connaught Laboratories to sell it abroad, and can he explain why export controls were not placed on these blood products which were being freely donated by the Canadian people? Further, has any legislation been introduced to stop this ghoulish and nefarious practice.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. member is asking, in part, for an explanation of the conduct of Connaught Laboratories. I want the House to be aware that Connaught Laboratories is not a Crown corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


An hon. Member:: It is owned by one.

February 4, 1976
Oral Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It is on its way to private ownership by Canadian investors and the top management of Connaught Laboratories should be given an opportunity to defend their conduct. They were in touch with me this morning and they claim they have an excellent defence. I do not think the government should put their defence forward. As to the export of blood from Canada, I very much regret that the CBC in its story yesterday failed to point out that the government has introduced export controls on these blood products and that when these products are required for Canadian use their export will not be permitted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: The parliamentary secretary said the government has no control over the export of these products and now he says they have passed legislation to stop it. They cannot have it both ways and I intend to follow up this matter further.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose-Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister; it is, really, supplementary to the question asked earlier by the Leader of the Opposition. In view of the importance to Canada of the Latin connection, may I ask whether the Prime Minister had time in his discussions with officials in Venezuela to thank them for the'amount of goods they bought from the Peoples' Republic of China which helped the Chinese people pay for Canadian wheat?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would certainly have had time to do that but I am sorry the hon. member did not put the idea in my head before I left.



Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether, in the course of the talks he has had with the political authorities of Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela, the matter of Canada eventually joining the Organization of American States has been raised, and if so, could he say whether, in his opinion, Canada would have advantage in joining the OAS and could make a useful contribution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to discuss this matter with the three heads of government I have met, in the hope, precisely, as the hon. member is suggesting, that the Canadian government policy might take their points of
[Mr. Kaplan.)
view into account. I must say that the results have been rather surprising. President Perez of Venezuela has strongly urged us to become a full member. We are now an observer. As for Prime Minister Castro, he was of course extremely negative in respect of the organization. Finally, President Echeverria seemed to be divided between the two. Then, Mr. Speaker, the question remains entire in our mind, and I have committed myself vis-a-vis President Perez to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to undertake a new study of the matter.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that wage negotiations between the railway workers of Canada and the railway companies broke down last Friday because the companies are hiding behind the AntiInflation Board's wage guidelines to avoid bargaining in good faith, can the minister inform the House what steps he is taking at this point to get the railway companies to come out from behind the skirts of the Anti-Inflation Board and carry on proper collective bargaining?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I announced in the House the other day-I do not know whether or not the hon. member was here-I was prepared to follow, as the unions so notified me, the stipulated courses under the labour code with respect to intervention along the lines of a single commissioner or board. I am giving the matter consideration at the moment and I hope to make an announcement very shortly.


John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister said that he is prepared to intervene in one of two ways, is he prepared to tell the House when we may expect to hear exactly when the commissioner will be appointed so that we can get on with the business of collective bargaining?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am under a stipulated time limit of, I believe, 15 days and I would hope to do it before the expiration of that 15 days. Naturally, there are some discussions I should like to have with appropriate officials prior to my making the announcement.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question first of the Minister of National Defence and second of the President of the Treasury Board

February 4, 1976

concerning the question asked by my colleague from Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees).
Can the Minister of National Defence explain what was the priority scale he and the government have used to agree to the estimated expense of $88 million for a language training centre at St. John's, given the lack of funds for the purchase of tanks and aircraft and for the recruitment of the staff necessary for the maintenance of existing bases, and that despite the fact that there is extra space and teaching personnel at the language school in Ottawa. Could the minister tell the House what is the scale of priorities and whether that $88 million expense was affected by the famous $1.5 billion cut?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the question is directed in part to me and in part to the Minister of National Defence. The decision concerning the reconstruction of the St. John's base was taken in 1973. In fact, it was decided to rebuild not only the language school but the whole base which will be used for all French-speaking recruits while serving, at the same time, as language school for the armed forces. The project was submitted to the cabinet in 1973, and the work will start this year.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the President of the Treasury Board. Can he explain the principles which allowed the Treasury Board to authorize the department to build and expand their own language school while the government already has a very efficient civil service school with excess space and teaching staff? Could it be that each department is creating its own bureaucratic empire?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the principle involved is that which promotes the frenchifying of the Canadian armed forces, in compliance with the instructions of the House of Commons as indicated in the Official Languages Act. The base is being rebuilt. St. Jean already has a Canadian Forces language school which will be given more adequate facilities; but the language school is only part of the overall project.


FISHERIES
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of fisheries. In view of the confusion that has arisen since the minister's announcement regarding the lobster fishery and the new regulations that he has imposed, and in view of the serious unemployment situation existing in the maritime provinces, particularly on Cape Breton Island, would the minister consider rescinding the new regulations for a period of at least one year, thus allowing those severely economically depressed to be able to continue to fish for lobster to help them make a living?
Oral Questions


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that many people, including those who write editorials, have not read the communique and the letter that was sent to the licence holders involved. There is also another fact. I made it very clear that I was trying to remove from the fishery those who are employed full time elsewhere. Those who are unemployed or laid off from temporary employment, or those who are part time farmers or part time lumbermen, will not be affected. If they are, they should appeal and I would expect that the committee which hears their appeal will rule in their favour. This is a policy we are using to preserve the limited stock of lobster for the bona fide, honest to goodness fisherman. I am not attacking the hon. member personally, but if members, provincial and federal, do not want me to implement this policy they should make up their minds.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his reply and I appreciate his views on conservation, but would he be good enough to advise the senior fisheries officers in the regions concerned so they can explain to those concerned? Many members have contacted the minister's officials within the areas and they are not sure of what is going to take place. Even in press releases they have said that.


Roméo LeBlanc: Well, Mr. Speaker, I certainly believe it would be of help-this suggestion has been made and I am willing to accept it-if we met with members of parliament from the Atlantic region and discussed the matter with them. I have asked that this procedure be put into effect. I repeat that it was not an easy decision. Nevertheless, I am trying to preserve the stocks not only in terms of conservation but in terms of the income of those fishermen who depend on fishing for a living.


NATIONAL DISASTER
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister of which I have given his office notice. Would the government consider totalling damages for the purposes of financial help for those who have suffered grave losses on three occasions during this fiscal year in southern New Brunswick? Such a formula would ensure a larger national financial contribution to a serious disaster that, of course, affects the whole country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, following the hon. member's notice of his question my office initiated a study into this matter. We are looking into the possibility, because of the special circumstances, of providing an exception in this particular case, for which obviously we have great sympathy. I cannot give the hon. member a firm answer, but I want to tell him that we are studying the suggestion in a sympathetic way, particularly in view of the fact that this type of expenditure would not be a normally recurring one, and perhaps also because the

February 4, 1976
Oral Questions
hon. member is not in the habit of asking for handouts; and this is a particularly meritorious case.
*	He *


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. He is not at his desk but I could put it in any case to the Prime Minister.
I would like to ask the Solicitor General, considering that two U.S. subcommittees are investigating the obscure background of Interpol and that Interpol cooperation proved inefficient at the Munich Olympic Games in 1972, to tell us whether he did anyway ask for the services of Interpol to avert any terrorist activities and maintain order during the coming Olympic Games in Montreal?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I have said several times in the House, Interpol is not an operation police agency but merely a centre of exchange for police forces in the world. It is the instrument of the national police forces and forces of different countries but has no operational capability.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question which is supplementary to a question of mine, one of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings and one by the hon. member for Edmonton West to the Minister of National Defence. In the same article which disclosed that $88 million is to be spent on a training centre for language in Montreal the minister says there will be bases phased out. I should like to ask the minister now if that study is completed in respect of the Calgary, Edmonton and other bases which apparently are to be closed out because of the $88 million to be spent in Montreal.


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker. The study is not completed and there is no relationship between the rationalization study and the development of the recruiting and language school which as the President of the Treasury Board has said, had been in the planning and development stage for the past three or four years and which will take the next four or five years to complete.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence who is making this study and why was the study called for if it is not the idea of the Department of National Defence and the minister to close out those bases?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the study is being undertaken by the Department of National Defence. It arose out of the statement made in the House in November at the same time I announced the other major decisions concerning National Defence. I said at that time it was necessary to reduce the National Defence overhead and to increase the amount of our operations in relation to our support services. That is where it all originated. It was announced last November and when it is completed the decisions will be announced.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which is prompted by the descendants of the ancient Phoenicians who live in Canada. What kind of action is Canada taking with regard to the troubled affairs in Lebanon?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have been giving considerable attention to what role Canada should play itself or through the United Nations in the situation in Lebanon. At the present time as the hon. member knows the situation has eased in Lebanon in the direction of a political settlement and it is our expectation that this trend would continue.
He *	*


INCOME TAX
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that annually the Department of National Revenue faces a crisis in terms of volume of tax returns received during the last two weeks of April, has the department taken any overt action to encourage taxpayers to file returns earlier than usual. In other words, has anything been done to minimize that peak volume in the last two weeks of April?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Well, Mr. Speaker, advertisements and admonitions are constantly being sent out by the department indicating to individuals who file early that if they do so they are more apt to get the refund quickly. I might say that, in respect of the returns that come in, 75 per cent of these people receive refunds.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer and appreciate his concern. I wonder if he can explain why certain and probably all district taxation offices as of yesterday do not have available for taxpayers certain essential forms necessary for the preparation of many returns among which unavailable forms are those for
February 4, 1976

claiming a corporation's investment tax credit, the disbursement certificate for the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan and the self-employed contribution forms for the Canada Pension Plan.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can bet that as a result of his question a lot of people will scurry around tomorrow.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I should like to come back to these frank and brutal discussions we heard so much about. I am wondering whether they were sufficiently frank and brutal to secure from the Cuban leader some indication of why he felt it necessary to drag Cuba and the Cubans into a civil war so far from Cuba's frontiers and so far removed from Cuba's basic economic concerns.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker; Premier Castro spent a great deal of time explaining the reasons for his participation. It might be fair to say he was also frank and brutal with me. I do not think the House would expect me to recite here the many, many reasons Premier Castro advanced. The opposition say "Why not". If they want to know what Mr. Castro thinks why do they not go and ask him.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I do not think that was very much of an answer. I therefore have a supplementary. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether during these frank and brutal discussions he was able to get some explanation from the Cuban leader, in face of the fact that all of Angola's immediate neighbours, Zaire, Zambia, Botswang and South Africa are opposed to that particular intervention, why the Cuban leader should have felt it necessary to drag Cuba in on the side of the MPLA?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I could name several other countries of Africa which are favourable to the MPLA. As the hon. member should know the Organization for African Unity divided 50-50 on this-


Gerald William Baldwin: Did you treat him as brutally as you did inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had some hesitancy about the question of the hon. member in that it seeks a lengthy explanation of the opinion of another country. However, I am prepared to have the Prime Minister answer it if the House is interested.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I were to recite faithfully the arguments put forward by Premier Castro in defending his own position I am sure it would emerge as though I were being an apologist for his argument.
Oral Questions


Mr. Diefenbaker:: He has not got a better apologist anywhere.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Premier Castro's position on Angola has been stated I believe at some length in an interview he gave the Canadian Press in Havana. I follow a rule in discussions with leaders of other countries which I expect them to follow when they are reporting on the meetings. I say what I told him. I do not expect him to give publicly all my arguments. If we are having private meetings between heads of governments, or indeed between heads of provinces and the federal government, the basic rule in these private meetings is that you quote your own position but you do not quote the other person's.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Prime Minister in connection with this brutal and frank encounter who wrestled whom to the ground?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was a draw, Mr. Speaker.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point of order. I beg your leave, and that of the House, to give the Solicitor General an opportunity to correct what I believe was a misleading answer. I should like to have the minister explain why, if Liberal party fund raising practices do not form part of the Sky Shops and related investigations, a warrant issued on the part of Inspector Rodney T. Stamler, whom I know to be one of the finest investigators in Canada, contains a paragraph in which it is stated:
All letters, notes, memoranda and other writing relating to the collection of money for the Liberal party of Canada by Louis Giguere between January 1, 1968, and July 31, 1975.
If, in fact, this warrant does not read correctly, or if the minister is ignorant of its contents, in either case I think he owes the House an explanation. May I also say, on a related point of order, that I feel, with great deference, that the statement of claim with respect to the civil action which we both mentioned yesterday is confined to a fairly narrow aspect of this matter, namely, pricing practices, and has no direct relation to, for example, the type of question I asked the Minister of National Revenue. To impose restrictions on a member of parliament on questions asked on such a wide subject as this, based on a fairly narrow civil case, I think is an unfair restriction on the rights and privileges of all members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, let me say that he, as a lawyer, should know better than anyone else that people are often subpoenaed to appear in a case or produce documents, not because they are being investigated but because their evidence is relevant to the case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: That has cleared up the situation!

February 4, 1976
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: He needs a lawyer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Central Nova raises two questions, one which is, frankly, a rejection of the response given to him by the Solicitor General, which is neither a point of order nor a question of privilege which, as he indicated, he might raise at three o'clock. The other question, however, is a matter of serious concern. It regards any restriction which might be placed on the right of an hon. member to put questions when a matter is before the courts.
I am most reluctant to intervene on that ground. However, there have been rather clearly established precedents that matters which are before the courts should not be the subject of discussion in the House. I would prefer to give the hon. member the opportunity perhaps to prepare a further argument on that point and deliver it tomorrow at this hour in order to invite, perhaps, the intervention in that discussion by any interested members of the House in order that the Chair might be guided specifically in this case.
Past cases have dealt with most of the precedents regarding criminal charges and have really confined themselves to answers given by ministers of the Crown which might have some bearing on the outcome of the criminal charges. The fact of the matter is that we have here a rather unique situation in that the hon. member who put the question is, in fact, a party to the litigation. I think that puts it in a rather difficult category, one which gives me great trouble, and I would therefore welcome tomorrow at three o'clock the intervention of any hon. member who can make a contribution on this point.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, during the question period I was allowed to put a serious question to the Minister of National Defence. That question dealt with an urgent situation that occurred at the beginning of the week, namely on February 2, in Quebec, and more particularly in the areas of Montreal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Drummond and Quebec City.
Indeed, during that violent storm thousands of families had to do without essential services like electricity, heating, water supply and so on. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, hundreds of car drivers were also trapped on Highway 20 and regional roads. This put the lives of thousands of people in danger.
I personally witnessed that hundreds of other people stuck for hours were able to hear on station CKVL calls of distress from mothers of families who were asking for help to have either heating or water to give to their children. At that time, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian army was also being called upon because, finally, all Canadians pay to maintain thousands of people who must safeguard the rights of Canadians and come to their help in difficult times.
Well, I asked myself how it was that the Canadian army could not come in to rescue those people whose lives were in danger. That is, Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege.
Earlier I wanted through Your Honour to ask the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) what were his

powers when such situations occur and which allow the Canadian army to come to the rescue of people or families caught in excessively difficult situations.
Some of my colleagues on the government side seemed to find the intervention by the hon. member for Bellechasse funny.
Mr. Speaker, this is no joke but a tragic situation, and God save those people from needing help from people, or even the Canadian army. It is necessary to live excessively difficult times and even see one's life endangered to understand all the grandeur of the life God gave us. And when it is put in danger because of events or exceptional circumstances one must seek by all means to rescue one's neighbours to protect and safeguard them.
Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) who is now in the House, a very serious question. I asked him whether he had received a request from the Quebec government and the City of Montreal that members of Canadian forces be posted in Montreal during the Olympic Games. The minister earnestly replied that he had. In a supplementary question, I asked him what would be the cost of the Canadian army's participation in the games; he answered, as reported on page 10430 of Hansard that this participation would cost about $24 million.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for this information. If it is deemed desirable that Canadian forces be present at the Olympic Games, I wonder, on behalf of my fellow Canadians, whether when difficult situations arise, as was the case early this week in the areas I have mentioned earlier, we should not be entitled to expect that Canadian forces which are well equipped with trucks, ploughs, blowers and snowmobiles, provide Hydro-Quebec staff with assistance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member started with the question of privilege, but in concluding he is discussing with the minister the action or lack of action by the Canadian armed forces, which is a completely different question. Would the hon. member end his comments?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I think I was misunderstood. I did not want to criticize, but I wanted to ask, on behalf of my fellow citizens, what requirements Canadians caught in difficult situations, must comply with to get assistance from the Canadian army. This is my question of privilege and, in conclusion, I would say that I hope the Minister of National Defence will take all necessary means to inform the Canadian people so that, when in a difficult position, they know where to get protection from the army, which we pay for out of our own pockets. This is the substance of my question of privilege which I ask on behalf of my fellow Canadians. Particularly those from the Quebec City area.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, in brief reply to the question of privilege I would like to say, first of all, that we do not consider the subject raised by the hon. member as humorous; it is a serious matter. I would like to think that the armed forces played every reasonable part they could

February 4, 1976

in being of assistance. In my earlier reply I described the means by which the armed forces are brought into action, that is, through municipal or provincial authorities. I may be subject to correction, but I understand that during the recent storm there were requests from Quebec City, and we were of some assistance. I do not believe there was any specific request from the Montreal area. I want to look into that matter, make inquiries and find out exactly what requests did come forward and what we were able to do.
Mr. Speaker, I will mention one other point which was raised by the hon. member. He referred to the Olympic games and the work of the armed forces there. There has been some misunderstanding with regard to my reply on that subject last week. I want to make it clear that the armed forces are paying for, not only their pay and allowance and for operations, but we will also pay-and I have cleared this with Treasury Board who are responsible for negotiating with COJO-we will also pay for the out of pocket $24 million, plus whatever additional there may be above that from National Defence. We will not charge these out of pocket expenses to COJO. If that was not clear in my earlier answer, I hope it is clear now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition containing 1,173 signatures of students and friends of Nepean High School of the city of Ottawa to pray parliament to enact legislation outlawing the use, in all areas under its jurisdiction, of the steel leg-hold or gin trap and requiring the use of humane traps.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Depart-			Address of
ment	Number of Public	Floor Area	AccommodationMinistry	Servants Working	Rented Owned	Agencies Housed	1971 1972 1973 1974 1975	National	268 343 384 421 452	11,594	Damphouse-PalaceHealth and Welfare	Street82,425	Tower A-333 River Road53,983	Tower A-333 River Road
Order Paper Questions
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,965, 3,241, 3,254, 3,322, 3,327, 3,608, 3,696 (revised), 3,722 and 3,942.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	What expenditures were incurred by the Department of Public Works towards the construction of certain recreational facilities at 24 Sussex Drive?
2.	What specific services were rendered in connection with these expenditures for (a) planning (b) architectural (c) designing (d) engineering (e) general and sub-contracting?
3.	(a) When were these expenditures contracted (b) who authorized them (c) to what firm and/or individual were payments made (d) in what amount?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: According to Beauchesne, questions must not repeat in substance or with slight variations questions already answered, a situation which applies to this enquiry.


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): 1.	Are any departments, ministries or agencies presently housed in the Municipality of Vanier and, if so, which ones?
2.	For each year from 1971 to date, how many public servants worked in these departments?
3.	What is the (a) rented (b) government owned floor space occupied by these departments, ministries or agencies?
4.	What (a) is the address (b) is the floor space (c) is the purchase or construction value (d) is the date of purchase (e) is the market value (f) are the taxes or grants in lieu of taxes paid for each property owned by the government?
5.	What (a) is the floor space (b) is the duration of the lease (c) is the rent (d) are the taxes or grants in lieu of taxes paid for each property rented by the government?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes. The departments, ministries or agencies housed in the Municipality of Vanier are: National Health and Welfare, National Defence, Economic Council of Canada, Environment, Public Works, Manpower and Immigration, Unemployment Insurance Commission, Supply and Services, Urban Affairs, C.M.H.C., Post Office, National Museums, Statistics Canada.
2.	This information is to be found in column 2 of following statement.
3.	See column 3 of following statement.
4.	See columns 4, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of following statement.
5.	See columns 3, 7, 5 and 9 of following statement.
(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)Value:	Date of	Market	Are TaxesPurchase (P)	Purchase or	Duration of	Value	GrantsConstruct.(C) Rent (R)	Construction	Lease	1975	For Prop. Owned (O) Rented (R) Yes/No26,086 (R)	Leased	1-12-73 to 30-11-76	No383,859 (R)	Leased	1-6-72 to 30-9-84 *	No244,428 (R)	Leased	1-5-72 to 31-10-86 *	No
Order Paper Questions
(1)			(2)			(3)	(4)
Depart-							Address of
ment	Number of Public	Floor Area	AccommodationMinistry	Servants Working	Rented Owned	Agencies Housed	1971	. 1972	1973	1974	1975	National Defence	49	55	64	73	78	12,756	333 River Road(Including Armed Forces	Personnel)	Economic Council of Canada	118	125	137	145	146	4,847	333 River Road5,879	333 River Road32,400	333 River Road670	333 River Road260	333 River RoadEnviron-	9	9	10	10	10	4,453	Betcherman-10ment	BeechwoodPublic	4	4	5	5	13	3,058	360 Montreal RoadWorks Manpower & Immigra-	6	6	6	6	179	58,032	25 McArthur Roadtion	3,905	333 River RoadUnem- ployment Insurance Commis-	397	409	415	418	612	1,560	320 McArthur Roadsion	80,864	333 River Road2,000	333 River Road2,049	333 River RoadSupply &	0	10	10	10	10	1,742	333 River RoadServices Urban	109	201	201	190	190	13,956	333 River RoadAffairs Central Mortgage &	0	0	0	0	80	14,508	25 McArthur RoadHousing Corpora- tion Post Office	55	63	67	77	83	7,169	250 Durocher StreetNational Museums	17	36	45	53	48	19,735	39 McArthur RoadStatistics	352	352	352	87	87	17,362	333 River Road
Canada
38,834 140 Jeanne Mance
*Expiry dates include options.	Street


Mr. Rondeau: 1.	Does Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation hire notaries and, if so, how many in each province and constituency?
2.	(a) How many notaries in the Constituencies of Shefford and Brome-Missisquoi handle loans for CMHC (b) what are their names?
3.	In the past five years (a) how many cases have been consigned to each (b) how much money has been spent by the Corporation through each notary?
4.	What was the average delay between the time the notary was instructed and the time the loan was awarded?

(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)Value:	Date of	Market	Are TaxesPurchase (P)	Purchase or	Duration of	Value	GrantsConstruct. (C) Rent(R)	Construction	Lease	1975	For Prop. Owned (O) Rented (R) Yes/No59,443 (R)	Leased	1-5-75 to 31-10-86 *	No25,447 (R)	Leased	1-6-73 to 30-6-78 *	No27,396 (R)	Leased	1-5-72 to 30-10-86 *	No145,476 (R)	Leased	19-9-69 to 30-9-81 *	No2,988 (R)	Leased	1-3-72 to 28-2-81 *	No585 (R)	Leased	24-6-71 to 31-3-87 *	No26,718 (R)	Leased	1-7-69 to 30-6-76	No7,798 (R)	Leased	1-5-75 to 30-9-79 *	No417,830 (R)	Leased	1-4-75 to 31-3-83 *	No22,063 (R)	Leased	1-5-72 to 31-10-86 *	No8,190 (R)	Leased	1-4-72 to 31-3-82 *	No376,831 (R)	Leased	1-5-72 to 31-10-86 *	No6,500 (R)	Leased	1-8-72 to 30-4-77	No4,610 (R)	Leased	1-4-72 to 31-3-87 *	No7,118 (R)	Leased	1-6-72 to 30-09-84 *	No62,315 (R)	Leased	1-6-72 to 30-09-84 *	No104,457 (R)	Leased	1-4-75 to 1-4-83 *	No325,450 (C)	1969	412,000	Yes-grants75,210 (R)	Leased	1-8-70 to 31-7-84 *	No77,434 (R)	Leased	1-11-71 to 31-10-86 *	No430,000 (P)	1969 (P)	761,600	
5. For each year 1970 to date, what fees were paid by CMHC to each notary in the Constituency of Shefford?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: 1. Notaries are retained to process mortgage documentation for loans approved by CMHC under the NHA in the Province of Quebec. The number of such notaries is determined by the volume of lending activity.
2. (a) and (b), and 3. (a) and (b) See Table 1 following.
February 4, 1976


[Stage Direction]
Notary	Number of	Amount
	Loans	$000
Beaudry and Dion, Cowansville	3	58.2Raymond Boily, Cowansville	11	214.1Gilles Dupuis, Waterloo	1	600P.-A. Giguere, Valcourt	4	76.1Jean Jutras, Granby	2	32.7Armand Marier, Windsor	2	34.4J.-P. Matton, Granby	43	796.0Noiseux and Trudel, Granby	15	256.7
Note: The basic geographical units for compilation of CMHC data are the municipality and municipal county, and not Federal electoral constituencies.
4.	The formal advice to the borrower of the approval of the loan includes the notary's name and address and, at the same time, the notary is advised of this action.
5.	The fees arising from these transactions are paid by the borrower and, therefore, CMHC does not have any record of them.
Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,233 that the swimming pool and related facilities at the official residence of the Prime Minister at 24 Sussex Drive, were designed by an architect of the Department of Public Works (a) what is the name of the architect and his employment record in government service (b) how many hours of work did he spend on the project (c) what is his annual salary (d) what was the cost to the Department of all work, in any way connected with the construction of the swimming pool (e) what are the names of all other employees of the Department, other than the architect, involved with the construction of the swimming pool including their job designations and annual salaries?


Mitchell William Sharp: According to Beauchesne, questions must not repeat in substance or with slight variations questions already answered, a situation which applies to this enquiry. Moreover, it is not in the tradition of a non-political public service to disclose names of officials who perform tasks in the course of their public duty.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,233 that Herbert Brune Construction of Ottawa was engaged by the trustee for the donors to install a swimming pool at the Prime Minister's official residence at 24 Sussex Drive (a) is the government aware of the amount of the contract and, if so, what is the amount (b) what are the names of all those in the Department of Public Works or any other department that supervised or inspected on-site construction including their (i) job designation (ii) hours spent on the job (iii) annual salaries (c) what was the total cost to the taxpayer of such supervision, inspection, etc.?


Mitchell William Sharp: According to Beauchesne, questions must not repeat in
Order Paper Questions
substance or with slight variations questions already answered, a situation which applies to this enquiry.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Ziggy and Joanna Psarski enter Canada in September 1972 and, if so, were they granted landed immigrant status?
2.	Did Mrs. Psarski return to Poland in June 1973 on the death of her father and, if so, to the knowledge of the Department of External Affairs, has she been refused an exit visa from Poland?
3.	(a) Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs make a personal appeal to the President of Poland on behalf of Mrs. Psarski (b) has an answer been received to indicate the attitude of the Polish Government on this matter and, if not, does the Minister have any indication as to when an answer may be expected?
4.	Will the Department continue to make all possible efforts on behalf of Mrs. Psarski to obtain permission from the Polish Government for her to rejoin her husband in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Secretary of State for External Affairs as follows: 1. Zbigniew and Joanna Psarski were granted landed immigrant status in Canada on February 15, 1973, the date they entered Canada.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) No. The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to the case in his discussions with the Polish Foreign Minister, (b) Yes. The Polish authorities have indicated that the case would be looked at in an objective manner.
4.	Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 3,696-Mr. Howie: (Revised)
From January 1, 1974 to December 1, 1975, what contracts were entered into with Goldfarb Consultants Limited by (a) the Department of Transport (b) the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (c) the Department of National Defence (d) the Department of Public Works (e) the Department of Supply and Services (f) the Department of Manpower and Immigration (g) Air Canada and, in each case, what was (i) the purpose of the contract (ii) the amount of the contract?
Mitchell William Sharp: (a) None, (b) (i) (a) To undertake a survey of awareness and attitudes towards the activities in the Atlantic Provinces of the Federal government, and particularly the Department of Regional Economic Expansion; (b) To conduct a cross-Canada survey, by region of awareness and attitudes towards the federal government and, in particular, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, (ii) (a) $22,000; (b) $24,000. (c) None, (d) None, (e) None, (f) (i) To provide data for a study of Canadian attitudes towards work; (ii) $74,500. (g) None.


Mr. Cossitt: What has been the total cost of CBC programme "As It Happens", for the past three full years for which figures are available (a) what is the present annual remuneration received by (i) Barbara Frum (ii) Allan Maitland (b) what are the total salaries paid to all others involved with the programme including producers, etc. (c) have any persons inter-
10632

February 4, 1976
Motions for Papers
viewed on the programme in the past three years been extended payment or an honourarium for their appearances and, if so (i) what are their names (ii) what was the amount in each case (d) what has been the telephone bill for the programme?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: (a) and (b) It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such information as the costs of programs or the fees and salaries paid to participants and staff members. The background of this custom is explained in detail in the reply to Question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975. (c) Yes. The program makes payments to professional journalists and performers, and occasionally to some specialists, (i) and (ii) The above reference to Question No. 2,530 also applies in this case, (d) See the reply to parts (a) and (b) above.


Mr. Allard: Have any customs offices been closed during 1975-76 and, if so (a) how many (b) in what locations?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes
(a) 18; (b) Annapolis Royal, N.S., Barrington Passage, N.S., Glace Bay, N.S., Lockeport, N.S., Pictou, N.S., Weymouth, N.S., Wolfville, N.S., Dunnville, Ont., Napanee, Ont., Bea-consfield, N.B., Fairhaven, N.B., Lord's Cove, N.B., Mars Hill Road, N.B., Sackville, N.B., Seal Cove, N.B., Mont-Joli, Que., Chemainus, B.C., Carcross, Yuk.


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, last November 17 I rose to express my concern about an answer which had been given to me in the House with respect to question No. 3,081 which I had on the order paper and which had been dropped by the government. I spoke on November 17 and on November 19 Your Honour ruled that the question would be reinstated and it was reinstated as question No. 3,577. That question has been on the order paper now for some months, and it had been on for some months before it was dropped.
At the time it was dropped, the Minister of Supply and Services indicated to me that an answer would be forthcoming within a couple of weeks. I raised the matter again on December 5 to bring it to the attention of the parliamentary secretary, but as yet there has been no answer. I rise today simply to bring once again, to the attention of the parliamentary secretary and Your Honour the fact that this question has been on the order paper for some months. I would be very grateful to have an early answer.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions be allowed to stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, February 3, 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. Speaker:: Order, please. Before continuing the discussion on motions 2 and 3 which are before the House at the present time, I thought this might be a convenient time to invite intervention on the proposed procedural argument respecting motions 7, 8 and 9, endeavour to dispose of that discussion and then return to the discussion of motions 2 and 3.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: advertising, offering the advantages to those advertisers of being able to deduct those expenditures by entering into certain arrangements advantageous to Canadian broadcasting.
My position and the position of the government is that these particular motions are out of order because they introduce a completely new concept into clause 3, which does not at all contemplate anything except a transitional provision. It is true that clause 3 speaks of agreements and that the amendments in motions 7, 8 and 9 also speak of agreements. The type and nature of the agreements is completely different, however. On the one hand, clause 3 speaks of an agreement to protect dealings that have already taken place of a very limited and transitional scope, whereas motions 7, 8 and 9 deal with agreements that tend to obviate the effects of Bill C-58 and are, therefore, completely strange and foreign to the concept of clause 3.
I suggest, therefore, that the three motions Nos. 7, 8 and 9 ought not to be dealt with as they are irrelevant to the principle of the bill and the principle of clause 3.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I note that the hon. member in whose name the motion stands seeks to intervene in the argument, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) seeks to intervene and, as well, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If necessary.


Mr. Speaker:: As is sometimes said, it might not be necessary to hear further discussion. I do not want to restrict hon. members who wish to intervene in support of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais). I want to make that clear. We could take it as a general indication that if any hon. member seeks the floor in support of the hon. parliamentary secretary's argument, I shall hear from them now. On the other hand, if their intention is to support the procedural regularity of the motions put forward, I do not think it is necessary to hear them.
My view is that the bill is a bill to amend the Income Tax Act. Pursuant to the Income Tax Act as it now stands, without passage of Bill C-58 it is possible for taxpayers to advertise in foreign broadcasting undertakings and deduct those expenses from their income. The purport of Bill C-58 would be to change that and take away from those advertisers the opportunity to make those deductions from income. Whether it be that clause 3 contains an actual provision or not, the fact of the matter is the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) would in fact propose what seems to me to be middle ground, that is, advertisers who advertise in foreign broadcasting undertakings would be permitted to deduct from income the expenses paid for those advertisements, provided certain conditions are met. The conditions are complex and will need some explanation, but that bears on substance and their acceptability to the House by way of a vote. It does not bear, in any way that I can see, on procedural regularity.
It seems to me that the hon. member ought to be able to put that kind of motion by way of amendment to this particular clause. It would be my view that motions ought
Non-Canadian Publications
to be debated and voted upon. Therefore, I cannot accept the argument put forward by the hon. parliamentary secretary. The order called was resumption of the debate on motion No. 2. The floor was held by the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott), but I understand the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) seeks the floor on a point of order.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, am I correct that we are debating motions Nos. 2 and 3?


Mr. Speaker:: We are resuming the discussion on motions Nos. 2 and 3, and the hon. member for Mississauga has the floor.


Thomas Gordon Towers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, according to your ruling that we should not seek the opportunity of asking a question during the question period relating to legislation before the House or a bill pertaining to such legislation, with your indulgence I should like to put a question to the government at this time. Presumably the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) will accept the question and give an answer prior to the passage of motion No. 3. If it is a negative answer, I will have an amendment to present to the House.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask this question now in order that the Secretary of State, or the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) could answer it. Has the minister been approached by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) with regard to the adverse effect Bill C-58 would have on Canadian breeders of purebred and exotic livestock who advertise in the United States, and can the Minister of National Revenue state unequivocally that Canadian producers of purebred and exotic livestock will be permitted to deduct costs of advertising in the United States as legitimate expenses for income tax purposes in Canada?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer to the question is yes, but it falls within the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen). I should like to confirm that and report to the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott).


Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief point with respect to the speech made last night by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) questioning, not the substance of the bill but the propriety of the minister in seeking to interpret the words in the statute. The hon. gentleman delivered a scathing denunciation of this practice. I might even describe his language as brutally frank. He found the situation "shocking"; he found it a "complete usurpation"; he found it "completely revolting"; he was "filled with distaste"; he found it a "complete subversion of the judicial process", and thought it "entirely arbitrary". These are strong words, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman whipped himself into a veritable lather of indignation about this supposed transgression on the part of the minister.
As a relative newcomer I am, frankly, surprised to find the hon. Leader of the Opposition make this statement in regard to the role of the Department of National Revenue
211 30-5 IV2

February 4, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
in giving an interpretation of the Income Tax Act. Surely he is aware that the department is called upon constantly to give such interpretations. Since 1970 the department has published over 280 interpretation bulletins performing just this function, informing the taxpayer how the department interprets the law. The public expects this service and constantly requests the department to increase this flow of information. As well, the department issues rulings to specific taxpayers on specific situations advising them how the department will assess.
I will not take much more of the time of the House. I repeat: the interpretation made by the minister is the same as the interpretation made by his officials on their reading of the law. If a taxpayer wishes to challenge that interpretation, he may take the matter to court and have the court interpret it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not in this case.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: That, clearly, is not a subversion of the law and is not a subversion of our courts. If in the normal course of appeal the courts disagree with the interpretation of the department, the government will, as it has in the past, bring vew legislation before the House by way of a motion of ways and means to correct the error. I suggest that is how the system has always worked and that is how it will work now. There is nothing new about it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, there is. This is a great deal different.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I suggest that there is nothing different. For example, consider the interpretation handed down in 1972. It involved some government grants. That ruling, or interpretation, was challenged successfully in the courts and in November, 1974, the budget was debated and passed in parliament and legislation was enacted to support the original interpretation.
Clearly, this is no subversion of the system, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested. I suggest that the tongue-lashing he gave the government was inappropriate and unworthy of his usual wisdom in such matters.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the moderation shown by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). When I consider the words he could have used, I am amazed by the words he did use. Only because he is such a mild and reasonable man did he restrain himself to such an extent yesterday and use that kind of language. He was speaking about the shocking manifestations made evident by this government which is trying to give the mafia of the mandarins the right to make the kind of decisions which the government itself ought to make. This is ministerial discretion run wild.


James Hugh Faulkner: Do you support that description? Do you subscribe to it?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes. It is the intellectual mafia of the mandarins.


James Hugh Faulkner: Do you subscribe to that description of the public service?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes. Sometimes some of them leave the public service and arrive on the front benches of this unfortunate, misguided government and we see what kind of mess they can make in this country. Altogether too many of them ornament the front benches opposite.


An hon. Member:: But they are very hard working.


Gerald William Baldwin: Frankly, I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott). I think he is a good member, and now that he has managed to prevent being seduced to other spheres of activity he may well have a career in this House-but only if he does not do what his superiors on the front benches are engaged in doing.
How can one consider this measure? A snake would find it hard to follow the contortions this government has gone through-to follow its twistings and turnings backward and forward. I think the Leader of the Opposition was right to take offence and to speak as he spoke yesterday. We are now set back to the position dealt with by section 19(5) of the Income Tax Act. Subparagraph (F) of subsection (a) (ii) reads in part:
-the contents of which, excluding advertisements, are substantially the same as the contents of an issue of a periodical-
The hon. member for Mississauga knows that the language is far different from the sort of language to which he referred. It is narrow language. There may be narrower interpretations which from time to time officers of the Department of National Revenue are quite properly compelled to make with regard to cases involving individual taxpayers. But in this instance the government, for its own reasons, has singled out two corporations, two publications, and has aimed its attack at them. This could well be described as an act to exclude Time magazine and Reader's Digest from Canada. That is the sole purpose of the legislation.
Shortly after his appointment, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) took it upon himself to say, "I, from on high, interpret that particular section to mean such and such. If the courts dare to disagree with me, I will sit as a court of appeal higher than the Supreme Court of Canada." That, precisely, is the position the minister took, and it is a shocking position for a man for whom I had a great deal of admiration-although, at times, I begin to wonder about him. My admiration is somewhat shaken.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: It is shaken now and again.


Gerald William Baldwin: As my hon. friend for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) says, it is shaken now and again. I will have to reflect upon and review my opinion of him. He may be influenced by his civil servants. That is the trouble with new ministers: they fall into the maw of the civil service and then do what they are told. We operate in this House under the adversary system, but in the House the adversaries are not the opposition and the government-not always, at any rate. The adversary structure involves hon. members and the civil service and that is the problem.
I will not be long, as there will be other opportunities when I may speak on this issue. We are seeing in this country today the ascendency of the top people in the civil service who in many cases are setting themselves up as the
February 4, 1976

sole interpreters of the law. We have seen this happen in the committee of which I have the honour to be a member, the statutory instruments committee. It has happened with regard to the interpretation of various statutory instruments. We are seeing it here. The mandarins opposite are saying, "It is up to us to judge what is 'substantially the same' as to the contents of a periodical."


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And they can change their minds every day.


Gerald William Baldwin: As the Leader of the Opposition says, they can change their minds from day to day, and probably from hour to hour. Without doubt, certain arrangements have been made. I wish I could see the memorandum which was written following the meeting between officials of the department and the people representing Reader's Digest as a result of which there was this complete change of mind.
We cannot govern successfuly in this country by adopting these methods. For instance, at the meeting of the Liberal caucus on Wednesday there were, no doubt, some compromises made and the government may have said to members of its caucus, "All right, we will change our minds and we will sacrifice the Minister of National Revenue. He will have to suffer as a result of his statement."


James Hugh Faulkner: Fantasy, pure fantasy.


Gerald William Baldwin: The protestations of the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) indicate that I touched a vital chord. What I speak is the truth, and he knows it.


James Hugh Faulkner: No way. It is pure nonsense.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Liberal caucus has been running frightened. At the same time civil servants who love to exercise their right of dominion over the people of this country are acting on delegated authority.


James Hugh Faulkner: Nonsense.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With the assistance of the whip.


Gerald William Baldwin: My party, Mr. Speaker, has a strong, traditional respect for parliamentary government. But what we are seeing today is not parliamentary government. This particular issue is not being dealt with as a parliamentary government ought to deal with it. If the government wants to deal with the matter properly, let it have the courage to bring forward, as my colleagues have, amendments which will carefully narrow the definitions of circumstances under which particular benefits can be granted. Let it have the courage to do that. That is how we should operate in these circumstances.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They should not be able to change their minds when they want to.


Gerald William Baldwin: I reject out of hand the government's attempt to arrogate unto itself the right to change its mind whenever it wishes. It might change its mind next year, with a new minister of national revenue, or it might change its mind with a new deputy minister as to this particular clause in respect of section 19(5).
Non-Canadian Publications
Parliament has lost enough of its privileges, and we do not intend to lose any more without fighting for them. In these circumstances, we reject the government's proposal and we hope all hon. members of this House, including those sitting opposite-some of whom I know have indicated that they are prepared to support us-will have the courage and the respect for parliamentary traditions so that when the question is put they will stand and vote in favour of the amendments in respect of which I am speaking.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) I, too, was going to refer to the words used in the speech last night by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), but I intended to put a different connotation on them. When the Leader of the Opposition described the government's latest move on Bill C-58 as completely shocking, revolting, a subversion of our whole judicial system and acting in an arbitrary way, I intended to suggest that his language was not strong enough. The government is really undermining its whole position on this bill.
Certain facts have to be brought out in order to inform the Canadian people of precisely what is going on. I think the first response one must make, in commenting on the remarkable speech and tortured explanation of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) regarding the move to allow Reader's Digest to come under Bill C-58, is to say that this is a prime example of why the government should not be involved at all in the interpretation of what publishing is in Canada. The minister has done a disservice to that element of fairness which the government said was in its mind in bringing forward Bill C-58.
Yesterday, the government announced that Reader's Digest would suddenly qualify under Bill C-58, without ever hinting during all the committee hearings that they felt Reader's Digest would in any way qualify. What the government has done is completely reverse its decision. I submit that the Canadian people will not accept that kind of arbitrary change as being fair, particularly when it has no basis in law.
We on this side of the House are in a difficult position. Many members of the Conservative party argued that the application of Bill C-58 would be unfair to both Time and Reader's Digest and considerable effort was made to get the government to change its mind, particularly in the case of Reader's Digest. We now have a situation in which Reader's Digest is going to qualify for continued publication, with its advertisements being exempt for tax purposes. That is what we wanted. What we did not want was this decision brought in through a back door deal in a way unfair to the members of this House and to the whole publishing industry in Canada.
The committee held a number of hearings on this bill and a great amount of debate took place on second reading. During all that time the government gave no indication of a change of heart, and has now suddenly reversed itself without any basis for such a reversal. The opposition to this kind of decision by fiat should be continued in order that the government will know this kind of conduct is not

February 4, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
acceptable to members of this House and is not an answer to the publishing problems in Canada which the bill set out to correct.
The editors and publishers of Time magazine are entirely within their right to speak as the president of Time Canada did last night when commenting on the new arrangement between Reader's Digest and the government, an arrangement that was sprung on everybody. I think Mr. Stephen LaRue was within his rights when he said there is no doubt that there was a bit of secrecy involved in these negotiations. Mr. LaRue went on to state:
It certainly raises some questions about last-minute deals. The public needs a clarification now of what the agreement means.
We are now in a remarkable situation. Reader's Digest will not have to change anything it is doing now regarding the manner of its publication. It will be able to go ahead and continue to publish and meet the demands of Bill C-58. Representatives of Time magazine came before the committee and told us about a proposed plan whereby it would make changes in such a way that half the publication would be of fresh material originating in Canada, and half would be imported from the United States parent, but that the entire package would be edited in Canada. That was a substantial move by Time, in the interests of complying with the intention of Bill C-58. Time came before the committee to say it would change to accommodate Bill C-58, but Time has now been rebuffed.
It was well known that the intent of Bill C-58 was to stop the special status that both Time and Reader's Digest have been enjoying since 1965. What we have now is a reversal of that intention. We will still have a special status for Reader's Digest. However much those of us who wanted Reader's Digest to continue publishing in Canada, as it now does, are in favour of this move, we certainly oppose this kind of decision-making process which in our opinion is completely unfair and without foundation in law.
Time magazine is entirely correct in posing a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) in an article which appeared in the February 9 edition in answer to a letter it received from the minister. In this article, Time sets out its opposition and objection to the content rule by stating:
It has no mooring in the law as parliament approved it in 1965. To say that "not substantially the same" means "more than 80 per cent different" not only distorts the law but violates the English language.
The amendment we are debating now, to which the Minister of National Revenue addressed his comments last night, has to do with content-and content is the heart of the bill. We ought to bring back into focus what we are trying to do in this bill in respect of publishing. We want to help Canadian publications. Representatives of Canadian publications and their advertisers appeared before the committee and were entirely divided on whether the bill would be of help to them. What everybody agreed to was that the provisions of Bill C-58 would be all right if they confined the requirement to 75 per cent ownership in Canada without a content rule. It is the insistence of the government on this extreme 80 per cent content rule which is at the centre of this controversy.
We now have this apparent violation of parliament's right to make sure that the legislation we pass in this House is fair to all concerned. The thrust of the objection

this afternoon is related to the arbitrary decision by the government that a group of officials in the Department of Revenue should be empowered to decide what is "substantially different" under the 80 per cent formula and therefore able to qualify. We object to this arbitrary decisionmaking which exempts Reader's Digest under a new clause that is unfair and without foundation in law.
I think it is interesting, as we continue to focus on the heart of this issue, to look at the comment which was made by Geoffrey Stevens in the Globe and Mail. Greater attention should have been given to this aspect than has so far been accorded to it, because it raises once again the issue of anti-dumping legislation as a way of meeting the intention of helping Canadian publications rather than imposing an 80 per cent content rule. Mr. Stevens wrote this:
Content rules are odious in principle and would be a nightmare to administer. A better, simpler way would be to move to an anti-dumping approach. Time and Reader's Digest would not enjoy an unfair competitive advantage if they were forced to pay a realistic price for the news stories and articles they import. National Revenue would come up with a fair price by taking the editorial costs and prorating the cost over circulation in CAnada. Or, it could calculate a price on the basis of what Canadian newspapers pay for foreign wire services, what Canadian television pays for foreign news film, and so on.
I tried to follow the discussion which went on in committee as carefully as I could, but I have never heard any answer from the minister or from a government spokesman explaining why anti-dumping legislation could not be used to secure the end which Bill C-58 envisages. I believe that if our attention were focused on that aspect, as it will be when we come back to the motion for third reading, the issue ought to be raised again.
In addition, thought should be given to a further consideration, that because of the remarkable intervention yesterday by the Minister of National Revenue, the bill should be referred back to committee for reconsideration. The action of the minister yesterday completely distorted the effort of the committee to reach an accommodation which would be founded in law and which would make it possible for Time and Reader's Digest to operate within a formula enabling them to continue to publish in a fair manner and in a manner which, at the same time, was fair to Canadian publications. There was a disposition on the part of members of the committee on both sides to find such a formula but, as is well known, the government refused to consider amendments which the committee was in the process of formulating. This led, of course, to the stage we have now reached, in the course of which amendments have been introduced on a unilateral basis.
I believe the government acted in a wholly improper manner in seeking to protect Reader's Digest following the enormous pressure to which it was subjected in favour of that publication. The government acted in a way which leaves open the question of its sincerity-whether it did seriously intend to find legislation which would improve circumstances in the publishing industry in Canada.
I am saying, finally, that the government has taken a back door approach in bowing to this pressure without coming to the floor of the House of Commons and producing amendments, producing the kind of legislation which would write into law what it seeks to do for Reader's
February 4, 1976

Digest. If I were the managers of Reader's Digest, I would be worried about what might happen if there were a change of minister, a change in some of the departmental officials who might advise the minister on decisions concerning Reader's Digest a few years down the line. I would be worried, not only about the arbitrary way in which officials of the Department of National Revenue are empowered to make rulings, but also that rulings might be changed, given a change in personnel or a change in government policy.
The government owes us some answers. I say this to the minister: I know he is really trying to help Canadian publishing, and I am on his side. I do not quarrel with the intent of Bill C-58, but I ask him this: What happened between the time he came before the committee shortly before Christmas, when he shot down the process of accommodation to which members on both sides were contributing, when he never even raised the possibility that Reader's Digest could conform to his requirements, and the announcement yesterday by the Minister of National Revenue? Obviously, something happened, because the government changed its mind. I ask the minister to tell us. Let us have the documentation. Let us see the memoranda which have been floating around with figures of 50 per cent, 60 per cent and 80 per cent on them. Let him come clean as to the publishing policy reflected in Bill C-58 so that members of this House and the public at large may have an understanding of what publishing rights are to be protected.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the more I listen to this debate, the more I get the impression that this must be the legislative equivalent of the long march, not only in terms of how long we have spent on this bill-we started it a year ago-but in terms of the history behind the subject itself. The two amendments which are before us are important amendments. One deals with the meaning of "not substantially the same" and the motion put forward on behalf of the Conservative party recommends that the interpretation be 50 per cent. As the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) pointed out, in committee I resisted that. What I will do now is what I have done before. I will try and go over the arguments for resisting it.
This clearly offers us a choice. I have no grievance with the right of the opposition to say that 80 per cent is too high and to offer 50 per cent as an alternative, but I think in fairness to the government they should recognize that there are strong arguments for 80 per cent. I am now looking at the matter as Secretary of State responsible for publishing policy. I am not going to go into the area of jurisdiction which specifically concerns my colleagues.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why not?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) balks at that suggestion. I should like to point out to the House that not only is it a position supported by the government, but it has been eloquently supported by members of the New Democratic Party and supported rather strenuously and very openly by the Canadian Periodical Publishers' Association. I
Non-Canadian Publications
really do not know whether members of the opposition have so little respect for people in this country who are professionally involved in the periodical business, who are citizens of this country or in the marketplace day in and day out and who are the only professionals in the business. There is not a single member on th other side, that I am aware of, who is a professional in this field.


Mr. Epp:: Are you?


James Hugh Faulkner: No, I am not.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: But you know all about it.


James Hugh Faulkner: I do not know all about it and I do not pretend to know all about it. I am simply quoting one group which came before the committee that does know all about it and which tends to support the position of the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Did they support that ruling? It is even more shameful than the reversal of the wage and income controls.


James Hugh Faulkner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been listening rather patiently to hon. members opposite and I think they should extend me the same courtesy. The issue is: What do we mean by "not substantially the same"? How does it relate to publishing policy? What are its origins? How did we get into this debate?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Good question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Or out if it.


James Hugh Faulkner: I know how we will get out of it, but I do want hon. members to try to understand the historical genesis of this whole issue. They seem to have come into the issue rather late in the game. Let me take them back a little. It may be rather laborious for them, but perhaps they will learn something. Let me go back again to the one document that we seem to be reasonably agreed upon and which started the process forward. I refer, of course, to the royal commission that studied this matter.
I am not going to read the whole report, but I should like to take a few excerpts from it which seem to me to be germane to the argument in which the House is presently engaged. As all hon. members know, the royal commission studied the state of the Canadian periodical industry and made certain observations and recommendations. One of its interesting observations, under the rubric of the responsibility of the publisher, the royal commission, is as follows:
The right of Canadians to their own media of communication implies that they should not be served with merely a rehash of editorial matter cheaply obtained from abroad for reuse in this country. There can be no excuse for the republication in Canada of periodicals which are not much more than facsimiles of those abroad. Here is something which, whatever may be said of its ethics, does not benefit the public.
That was a general observation from which it drew certain conclusions. The first is as follows:
1.	That a nation's domestic advertising expenditures should be devoted to the support of its own media of communications.
2.	That a nation's communications media must be aware of their responsibilities and that such media should not be used merely for the republication of editorial matter to support an advertising structure.

February 4, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
Thirdly, the commission concluded:
That a Canadian periodical is one published in Canada, owned either by Canadian citizens or, if a corporation, by a company incorporated under the laws of Canada or of one of its provinces, and which is controlled and directed by Canadian citizens and is not a licensee of or otherwise substantially the same as a periodical owned or controlled outside Canada.
Obviously, what has happened historically since then has been an effort, frequently abortive, to try to translate those recommendations into some form of legislative practice. At the time the royal commission was concerned, of course, for the arguments that had been developed by members opposite, and indeed by members of my own caucus, about how the translation of these principles affects the question of freedom of expression. I think hon. members opposite will be generous to enough to concede that it is not simply a concern of their own but of all members of the House. The commission had this to say:
Subject always to paramount national interest, the commission has avoided suggesting measures which limit either the freedom of expression or its corollaries: free flow of information and readership preference.
Some may claim that the statement of an ownership requirement constitutes licensing of the printing press. Such is not the case. The right to own a press and to print and distribute from it whatever is legally permissible, remains unhampered.
The commission's sole purpose is to define those periodicals which by reason of their responsibility to, and function in, the Canadian nation, should be assisted in their access to Canadian advertising expenditures, this in keeping with the principle that the advertisement of domestic goods and services to a domestic consumer should be through a Canadian medium.
The diversion of Canadian advertising from foreign periodicals does not mean regulation of the preparation, content or free flow of their editorial material any more than it means that the reader is denied the periodical of his choice.
Finally, in its emphasis on Canadian advertising support for Canadian media, the Commission's conclusions make neither rules as to what an advertisement may contain nor regulations regarding how much may be spent in periodicals. They simply provide for the spending of money raised from the domestic consumer in support of domestic media.
The commission was concerned lest there might exist in some minds a concept of advertising which would consider this policy a violation of some sort of right or freedom.
That is really where this issue started in a thoughtful and comprehensive way. I think it is fair to say-I am sure there is no dispute in the House about this-that the credentials of the commission were impeccable. Their intent was serious and their efforts were thorough. What we, as members of parliament, have been trying to do-and we are not the first to look at this; our predecessors looked at it, too-is translate those thoughts and those conclusions into some legislative form. The debate we are involved in today, and have been involved in over this past year, really centres around this question.
As I have said several times, Bill C-58 is an attempt to eliminate an anomaly, an exception to the 1965 law which was the first major attempt to translate the recommendations of that royal commission into legislative practice. It attempts to reinstate the full thrust of that 1965 law, and that is all it attempts to do.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is not what government policy attempts to do.


James Hugh Faulkner: Let me reiterate that the government is not seeking in any way to control the freedom of magazine publishers and editors. Nor do we want to impose our will upon the people of Canada and regulate their reading habits. Bill C-58 in no way impinges upon freedom of expression. The bill does not deal with prevention of entry into Canada of information, the curbing of the operation in Canada of any publication, or the imposition of any Canadian content regulations. But it does prevent the dumping of editorial copy. We are not talking about the availability of magazine business in Canada or the choice of reading material by anyone resident in Canada.
I find it difficult to really take seriously some of the arguments I heard in the House last night from members opposite to the effect that this is at play, because the disturbing fact is that 95 per cent of the magazines sold by Canadian newsstands are in fact foreign magazines. Given this fact, it seems to me it is difficult to argue that somehow the free flow of material is being impaired either by the 1965 law or by this amendment.
Bill C-58 is not discriminatory; it seeks to remove an existing discriminatory situation. The present situation whereby both Time and Reader's Digest are exempted from certain stipulations of the Income Tax Act, which apply to the majority of all other consumer and special interest foreign magazines regularly circulating in Canada, is clearly discriminatory. The legislation's intent is to reserve any benefits or concessions associated with the periodical publishing industry for the domestically-owned and controlled segment of that industry. This, historically, has been the practice of all governments vis-a-vis domestic industries.
More particularly, this very approach is consistent with the view held by a considerable number of governments, including one composed of some hon. members now sitting opposite. I should like to touch now, Mr. Speaker, on the ruling made by my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen), that a magazine must be 80 per cent different from a foreign magazine to qualify as Canadian for tax purposes, because obviously this is what is at the root of the hon. member's motion. I should like to interject for a moment to say that I welcome him back from Peterborough, I hope his visit there was successful and that he enjoyed it.


Mr. Fairweather:: I heard a very great deal about this legislation, I must say.


James Hugh Faulkner: You were in rather select company.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Very select company.


James Hugh Faulkner: I should like to say that this, perhaps has been the most misunderstood part of the government's attempt to support periodical publishing in this country. First of all, the ruling is not part of Bill C-58. It is an interpretation of a clause in the Income Tax Act which says that a magazine cannot be considered Canadian for tax purposes if it is substantially the same as a magazine published outside the country. It does not apply to newspapers, we are not suggesting it be applied to newspapers, and it has been law since 1965.
February 4, 1976

No one has argued the necessity for having some sort of definition of Canadian magazines, and no one has questioned the necessity of Canadian ownership as one of the criteria. But we are not dealing with the economics of some manufacturing company; we are dealing with the very nature and quality of our cultural expression. I would like to quote the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who in 1962 supported in this House the O'Leary royal commission report. At that time he said:
The issues at stake are not essentially of a commercial character, but go into the fabric of our culture.
That is as true now as it was then; in fact, I believe the stakes are even higher now. I think in his very interesting and thoughtful speech the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) last night, in a more serious way than most of his colleagues, tried to come to grips with this very difficult problem. For those members opposite who did not have the privilege of hearing his speech, I recommend it to them because in it he reached some of the questions which lie at the root of this legislation and the attempts by the government and the opposition parties to deal with the problem of the penetration of the Canadian culture.
If what we are trying to encourage is expression and interplay between Canadians, then we must at the very least permit it to happen. But if what we support is to be Canadian, then we must have a definition. In the case of a magazine-a vehicle for ideas-it is not enough to say that it is owned by a Canadian company. That is where I part company with my very distinguished colleague who I am sure will be speaking later, the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). That hon. member has a motion before the House which would restrict it simply to ownership. I say to her, as I will after she speaks, that I do not think that is good enough. She is within her rights to argue for it, and I have the right to argue against it. Who controls what ideas are in it? Surely that is equally important. And if the true control, both financial and editorial, is not in Canadian hands, then I do not think the magazine should be supported by the government. That does not mean it cannot circulate here. It does mean, though, that it should not qualify for special tax privileges which have been instituted to encourage, specifically, Canadian magazines.
When provision in the law was made to exclude magazines which were substantially the same as foreign ones from the benefits, it was done to preclude the possibility of a foreign company setting up a front in Canada, and because the front would be Canadian-owned, benefitting from something for which it did not qualify. In a sense, that is what Time and Reader's Digest have done. Their Canadian companies have full and exclusive rights to use in Canada a vast amount of editorial material which the Canadian companies buy for a fraction of the cost of its production. Yet the true Canadian magazine trying to compete has no access to any similar material. In fact, if a Canadian magazine tried to establish this sort of relationship with a foreign one so that it could compete with Time and Reader's Digest, it would lose the tax privileges it has because it would be substantially the same as a foreign periodical. Time and Digest are not required to meet this part of the law. Bill C-58 will change that.
The questions arise: How different is different? How substantial is substantial? Why 80 per cent? There are
Non-Canadian Publications
those who said that "substantial" should be defined as half; that to be "different" it should be 51 per cent different. Let me deal with that first.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Of course.


James Hugh Faulkner: That is the position of the hon. member and it is the position of his party. I am looking at it from the point of view of publishing policy and I will develop an argument as to why it should not be 51 per cent or 50 per cent from a publishing point of view. That is my concern. It is not a workable proposition. That decision, of course, obviously is appealable to the courts.
A magazine which was allowed to receive 49 per cent of its material from a foreign source or sources would have a clear competitive advantage over one which tried to produce everything itself. This would be mainly because its costs would be so much lower, for it could buy material which is in a sense used for a fraction of what it costs to produce new or fresh material. The result would be this: in a short time almost all magazines, and certainly all those who had competitors, would be forced to accept this arrangement out of necessity. Magazines producing their own material could not afford to compete with those producing only half of their own material. Gradually, the market would change drastically so that the only magazines left would be those which had an arrangement with a foreign publisher. Because the magazines would be relying so heavily on their foreign suppliers, virtually the entire industry would be dependent on foreign sources.
So when considering the definition of "substantial", the government discarded the concept of "more than half". I think hon. members will have to come to grips with that argument. This is not an argument I alone present; this was the considered position of the Canadian Periodical Publishers' Association. It has been the considered position of other members of this House. It is not good enough simply to say that that conceivably might be an interpretation by the court. What we are determining here, of course, is publishing policy. That may stand or fall in the courts. That is another issue. But it seems to me that when members opposite argue for 50 per cent, they argue that in terms of publishing policy. I think the onus is on them to demonstrate that at 50 per cent, in fact, my scenario would not happen. In fairness to them-and I have the greatest respect for them-I do not think they have done that; I do not think they did it in committee or in this debate. But the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) has yet to speak on his motion and I take it he will address himself specifically to this point which was raised by the Canadian Periodical Publishers' Association, which has been raised by me in committee and, as well, by the hon. member for Sauit Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes).
I would like the hon. member to point out clearly to me and to the House why, if he feels that in fact we should go for 50 per cent, it would not lead to the scenario of a series of split runs in the country. The presumption behind that question is that he himself would not like to see this policy which would lead inevitably to a series of split runs, because he is sufficiently concerned about the state of the industry to object to that. Just to reassure hon. members
10640

February 4, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
that 1 am not simply speaking for myself, a confessed innocent in the field of publishing, I should like to quote a letter which recently appeared in the Globe and Mail, written by someone who is in the field and who had something to say about Bill C-58. The author of the letter is the editor of Chatelaine. It reads:
The content ruling in Bill C-58, however, is being misinterpreted. The suggestion that the content ruling be lowered from 80 per cent to 50 or 60 per cent would completely negate the purpose of the bill. No Canadian magazine could compete with foreign publications that could import almost half of their editorial free-or at nominal cost. It is exactly the same as if we were to tell a Canadian car manufacturer that he must compete with another car manufacturer who gets his engine free.
In fact, if the content ruling were lowered to 50 or 60 per cent "substantially different" it is more than likely that a flood of foreign publications both in consumer magazines and the business press would come into Canada to take advantage of the new ruling. Canadian magazines would be worse off than ever.
I think that fundamentally the question that is at play and that is disputed between the two sides of the House is about 50 per cent versus 80 per cent. What, in fact, would it lead to in terms of the publishing industry? Would it, as I have suggested, lead to a series of split runs? Would it, in fact, lead to a situation where Canadian magazines would cut their losses and go for the cheaper material for half of their content?
Contrary to the claims of some hon. members opposite, the figure of 80 per cent was considered some time ago; in fact, before second reading debate ever started. In February of 1975 the then minister of national revenue said publicly that 80 per cent was a figure which would definitely be acceptable. That was in an interview with the minister which was reported rather widely and to which there was a fairly widespread response, a response somewhat similar to the response we have been getting from the opposition since then. He also said that 60 per cent would be a minimum threshold above which it might be possible to consider magazines, but if they wanted to be sure, then they would strive for 80 per cent. He repeated this in March, but people said it was not clear and I think they have a point.
What was the grey area between 60 per cent and 80 per cent? Because it would be so difficult to administer a grey area fairly, the government made a final decision, announced in October, 1975, by the Minister of National Revenue, that 80 per cent was the amount of difference required to achieve Canadian tax status. This was to ensure that Canadian magazines could have a real chance, and also to ensure that there would be no possibility of the industry being controlled by foreign suppliers of editorial material.
So what happens to Reader's Digest or any magazine which wants to be a digest? Well, if the editors sit down and read the articles available around the world, make their choices, condense their articles and publish them, it is fine. We made that point at some length in the committee. But they cannot buy more than 20 per cent of the already digested and condensed material from someone else who has done it for another magazine while saying they are Canadian.
In the case of Reader's Digest, it means that predigested articles or those orginated by foreign editions of Reader's Digest can only make up 20 per cent of the material in any

given issue. The rest of the work has to be done here with no obligation to a parent company or to foreign editors. Thus, editors and publishers will still remain free to do what they please. For example, they can sell their editorial and financial control to foreign interests and still be able to circulate freely in Canada. I am referring to such magazines as the Economist, Newsweek, Le Nouvel Observateur, and a host of successful foreign magazines. They cannot sell to foreign interests and qualify their advertisers for Canadian tax privileges at the same time. Once again I would say to hon. members that I do not consider this to be censorship. I try to make the case as rationally and dispa-sionately as possible. I think it is common sense.
The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona has been talking about a back door deal designed to protect Reader's Digest. There has been no deal and there has been no reprieve. I think the Minister of National Revenue made that position abundantly clear last night. What has happened? It should not come as a great surprise to hon. members. Reader's Digest decided to conform with the law, and that was their option.
There are people in this country who support the bill and who view it as a device to get rid of the two magazines, but I have been perfectly candid with the House and with the public that that has never been my intention. My sole intention has been to equalize the impact of the law. If they can conform, surely that is their right. If they decide not to conform, that is equally their right.
What Reader's Digest has decided to do is to conform. That was the announcement that was made, I take it, yesterday or the day before, or whenever it was. I do not think we should underestimate the difficulties ahead of them. I think we are being rather casual about the announcement, and rather machiavellian in searching for motives. The fact is that the task ahead of Reader's Digest, and particularly the publishers of that magazine, is very difficult. To conform, they have to go to 75 per cent ownership, they cannot operate under a licence with their parent company, and they cannot be substantially the same as the U.S. edition. They cannot be, to use the language of the O'Leary report, a pale facsimile.
That is obviously what the announcement was designed to convey to their advertisers, in the first instance, and to the House and the public at large. Having looked at the bill and having, I take it, judged the prospects of getting it through-their judgment on that may be more accurate than mine-they decided to conform with the law. That is something that should not come as a surprise and should not be the subject of prolonged debate. I thought that was always something that both sides of the House viewed as a possibility. The fact that some of us on this side of the House-not all of us-the NDP and two very noble souls in the PC party have argued for the principles of this bill for the past year is something from which we can take some satisfaction in the results so far.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wonder if the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) would permit one question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: That is not a question of privilege. Is the hon. member rising to ask a question? Will the minister allow a question?
February 4, 1976


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Benno Friesen: I wonder if the Secretary of State would not agree that if a writer is restricted by regulation as to how he can write, and the publisher is restricted by regulation as to what he can publish, it is not reasonable to suppose that there is a comparable restriction on the free flow of information?


James Hugh Faulkner: If I understood the question, and I am not altogether sure I did, I think I would probably have to agree. But I do not see that that is relevant to Bill C-58 or to the debate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister permit a question? I should like to ask the minister whether, by any ordinary understanding of the English language, he could say that a magazine which is, say, 30 per cent the same as a foreign magazine, but 70 per cent different, is substantially the same? I am not asking him what the policy should be. We are dealing with a statute on the books. I am asking him, by any ordinary use of the English language, whether he can take those words which are in the statute, "substantially the same," and in using those words come to the conclusion that a magazine which is 70 per cent different and 30 per cent the same-or to put it the other way, 30 per cent the same and 70 per cent different-is substantially the same?


James Hugh Faulkner: Madam Speaker, I am responding seriously to the Leader of the Opposition. I think that is arguable, and I think it is arguable all the way down the line.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: "Substantially the same"?


James Hugh Faulkner: That is right. I think in a court of law there could be a range of arguments about an interpretation of the meaning of that, but I think-and I am offering an answer which is my own in this respect-it would be quite possible to argue for the 80 per cent and 20 per cent ratio as a construction of "not substantially the same." In fact, there is some evidence to support that and some of that evidence was given in the parliamentary committee.


Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a question, if he will accept it. In view of the fact that Reader's Digest has suddenly found it possible to comply with Bill C-58 and having told the committee during the hearings that there was no way it could possibly do that, would the minister support my proposal that the bill be referred back to the committee in order that Reader's Digest officials be given the opportunity of explaining to members of the committee how it is they will be able to continue publishing under Bill C-58, and at the same time give the officials of Time magazine an opportunity to examine the method by which Reader's Digest will be able to continue publishing, so that Time may be given the same opportunity to comply with Bill C-58?


James Hugh Faulkner: No, Madam Speaker, and I am surprised the hon. member has put that forward as a serious proposition. The decision clearly rests with Reader's Digest, Time and a variety of other magazines. Reader's Digest made a decision. Now Time also can make a decision. I think the
Non-Canadian Publications
suggestion that it be referred back to the committee so that the committee can find out why Reader's Digest made that decision is not a serious one.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. This is developing into a second question period.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mine is not a question. I seek the floor to respond to the minister. My points are very brief. It was the minister's reply which confirmed for me the suspicion I had in my mind as a result of the discussion yesterday and the point which was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) last night. It is one which, if hon. members opposite had been present during the debate on the so-called tax reform measure of 1971, they would have seen hon. members on this side of the House shared at that time in objecting to so many insertions of precisely the same point that was raised last night. I refer to ministerial discretion.
Since there is no legal yardstick which defines "substantially the same"-and the minister just now, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, said that there would be a whole series of arguments in court to determine whether a magazine 70 per cent and 30 per cent, or 75 per cent and 25 per cent, or 80 per cent and 20 per cent, or whatever combination comes to a hundred, is or is not substantially the same-that offends, I think, one of the cardinal principles which we have insisted upon in the Income Tax Act, that is, the removal of or the insistence on narrowing ministerial discretion. We have seen in certain sections with respect to corporations that "the minister may deem ..There are entire areas and, frankly, it introduces in effect what was pointed out last night, bureaucratic tyranny in the act; the minister acts on the advice of his officials.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) said that this was a matter, not within Bill C-58 but strictly within the confines of the Income tax Act and that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) was entitled to come to that conclusion and to make that assertion. I think this bill has been damned by that particular position. We can readily understand ownership proportions. Yes, that is simple to comply with. Everybody understands that. But not this infernal ministerial discretion.
I am surprised that the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) brought to our attention all the instances of rulings, some under ministerial discretion, in the Income Tax Act, and then made a statement-his eminent father, who is a former Supreme Court justice, must be shaking his head at the assertion of the hon. member-saying that in cases of this kind the disappointed taxpayer may come to the court for relief, when it is a fundamental principle of law that no court will substitute its discretion for the discretion of the person charged with exercising the discretion, provided that official or minister has proceeded legally. No court of appeal will substitute its discretion, so a person feeling aggrieved that his or her publication was wrongfully judged by the minister and his official advisers has no appeal in fact.
That person can go through the charade of going before either the Tax Review Board or the Federal Court, but no
2 1 1 30-52)4

February 4, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
judge considering the matter and knowing the law would dare substitute his or her discretion for that of the minister and his advisers. So I simply say we are back down to precisely the difficulty pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition, and it is one which I and many others insist will have to be modified. This business of "substantially the"-I almost said "substantially the shame"; I think it is a shame-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is "substantially, the shame."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My leader has the best words yet: substantially, the shame of this bill is that a minister and his advisers will say that a publication offends or qualifies when there is no right of appeal in fact.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And change their minds from day to day.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The purpose of my short intervention at this time is to reinforce the argument which was initiated last night about the so-called Cullen ruling. What was worse, the minister-whom I thought a reasonable man when he was a private member-assumed ministerial arrogance when he declared, at the time it was set at 80 per cent, "If we find anyone getting around this we will block the loophole. We are going to close down whomever we want-"


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And let publish whoever we want.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: "We will close down anyone we want-"


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And let publish anyone we want.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: "-and let publish anyone we want". This "substantially the same" admits of no appeal, and ministerial discretion, coupled with the statement of the minister charged with the administration of the Income Tax Act, leaves him the absolute power to determine who shall publish and who shall not publish. To that extent I say the bill is wrong.
I see that the hon. member for Mississauga has returned to the House, Madam Speaker. I hope the hon. member will seek the counsel of a very close relative of his on what I am saying about ministerial discretion, and that discretion legally exercised is not reviewable in a court of law. No judge will substitute his or her discretion for ministerial discretion. I find the bill to this extent "substantially, the shame" on this point, and I am against it.


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam
Speaker, I shall intervene briefly, I hope, in this matter. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) suggested that this matter should be referred back to the committee. I would say there is more than one reason why it should be referred back to the committee. Many important groups were ignored, including Reader's Digest. Reader's Digest did not even get a complete hearing there. The minister claims there was a professional on that committee, but he would not allow me to sit on the committee even though he was there and I am a professional of 30 years.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Simma Holt: I have 30 years' experience as an author, journalist, magazine writer and media person, but I was not allowed on that committee; so I am not very impressed with the work of a committee that was totally inflexible and did not move one inch. There are a couple of points the minister raised that I feel I should reply to. He referred to me, and said there would be differences between us. There is a great difference between us, Madam Speaker. I am just a backbencher here. The best I can do is trip these men from the front row and yell and scream and holler. He has the whips behind him. He sits there and gives orders, and we, like good little fellows-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member has to speak to the two amendments.


Simma Holt: Madam Speaker, he raised this matter by referring to me. I hope, through freedom of choice, that our people on this side of the House realize that this has terrible, terrible ramifications. I hope they do consider that we have freedom of choice here as members, and do not compare me, as a backbencher, to him as a cabinet minister. I want to talk on the references. He got pretty far off the amendments, too, Madam Speaker. I am just referring to one or two things he referred to-censorship-


An hon. Member:: Here comes the whip.


Simma Holt: You are not mad at me, are you?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Me? No, but I should like to get up on a point of order.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Here goes freedom.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I just want to say to you, Madam Speaker, that if the hon. lady was taken off the committee, it was because she was not present.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: I was there every night, at the moment the meeting met. I do not think I missed one meeting. They were short of members and I was not allowed on. I think my credentials were better than the school teacher who is saying there were no professionals on there. I think I missed one meeting. You had a perfect attendance because I was there.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: That's right.


Simma Holt: I would hate to hear him say what black is, if he says this is not censorship. Black would probably be yellow, white, or maybe red. He says he is disappointed-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Who says?


Simma Holt: Not you; you are off the hook. The minister. He said he was disappointed. In saying there was no censorship, how can he say there is no censorship when
February 4, 1976

certain publications have been here for 32 years and suddenly the rules change. Within the past year those rules have been changing constantly. There is a limiting of freedom of choice and freedom to the advertiser, freedom to the writers. There were writers who came, a group of 1,000 Canadian writers, who were not even taken seriously. Instead, the periodicals association was taken seriously, and it was formed specifically to get this bill through.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Simma Holt: He referred to Doris Anderson of Chatelaine, her letter and Maclean's, the tragedy of it. He did not say that MacLean-Hunter in its list of holdings publishes Canadian Redbook which happens to be an American women's magazine-unless there are two Redbooks. It is all very well to discuss the special interests of the people who are for this bill, who have to gain in the name of nationalism, but I call it nationalism and greed.


An hon. Member:: You have a lot of courage, Simma.


An hon. Member:: Good work, Simma.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: No trips for Simma.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, what the hon. member has just stated is entirely correct as far as the operation of the committee is concerned. Opposition members on that committee were willing to give up their place so that she would have the right to speak, as well as some of her other colleagues who were bumped from that committee because they were an embarrassment to the government while we were discussing the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton-Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) on a point of order.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned bumping committee members, and that is part of my responsibility. I should like to say that the only removal of members that I have been involved in is when members have been absent and not performing.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, obviously I touched a very sensitive nerve with the whip and the deputy whip. They are backing up all over the place, trying to recover some lost territory. I might say they do not look any better in retreat.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I changed a few Tories who were away, too.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In respect of motion No. 2, Madam Speaker, the mentality that seems to have dominated the minister, government spokesmen on this bill-I have to differentiate between government spokesmen and those in the government who have had the courage of their convictions, despite some dire consequences that might fall on their heads, and have spoken against this bill-and government supporters of this bill has been one of simply ramming it through the House and the committee. As the 80 per cent clause was not available to us, it was difficult to discuss the aspect of the bill yesterday.
Non-Canadian Publications
After yesterday's announcement concerning Reader's Digest, one was able to detect a new mentality on the part of government supporters. They say, in so many words, that as the opposition has saved Reader's Digest, its objections to this bill should vanish. We oppose the way in which the government was going to force Reader's Digest to cease publication. But we also considered the effect of the legislation on other magazines. Should we not object to the objectionable features of this bill, merely because one magazine was saved by a back door deal? The government is saying, "Well, you have saved Reader's Digest; you have won half the battle. Why not take half a loaf and go home?" The point is that this is not merely a question of saving a magazine, Reader's Digest or any other magazine. The legislation is wrong, immoral and unacceptable. That is why we oppose it.
I sympathize with the aims of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) in whose name stands motion No. 2. On general principle I oppose content regulations. Probably I can support Canadian ownership provisions. There is nothing wrong with saying that 75 per cent of a magazine should be edited or published in Canada, or that the majority, say three-quarters, of the board of directors should be Canadian. But I object to the principle of any content provision. I object to giving the government, the Department of National Revenue in this instance, the right to determine if content regulations are being obeyed and the standards to be used. I mention standards because the matter is not clear even now.
The minister complains that this debate has been going on for about one year. We have discussed it off and on, that is true, but the issue is more clouded now than it was during the committee discussion. Then, at least, we knew what we were debating. Now it is hard to interpret certain provisions, despite the intervention of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen). On principle, I oppose content regulations. Reader's Digest and Time Canada discussed Canadian content with previous administrations. If my memory serves me correctly, about 30 per cent of Reader's Digest could be considered to be of Canadian content before Bill C-58 was introduced. Time magazine devoted five or six pages per issue to Canadian news. You must concede this, no matter what your views are on the establishment of another Canadian news magazine. Even without the statutory obligation to include material of Canadian content, those two magazines took steps to becoming more Canadian, without any legislative requirement. Evidently, past discussions with those two magazines were fruitful. Perhaps more discussions should have taken place, and perhaps the magazines would have increased their percentage of Canadian content.
To make clear the subject we are debating, the mover of motion No. 2 suggests in his amendment that a magazine should be considered as Canadian, for tax purposes, if more than half the content of any one issue, excluding advertisements, are Canadian, as defined by the Minister of National Revenue. As I said, I do not like content regulations. If this amendment passes, we shall know clearly the content requirement. At least we shall know what we are dealing with, what are the rules of the game. As things now stand, the minister can decide arbitrarily.

February 4, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
Using his discretion, he can introduce any regulations in this field that he wishes.
Passage of the hon. member's motion would mean that the content requirements are spelled out in the statute and we could debate them. Therefore, I hope hon. members will accept the motion, as the content requirements would be clearly defined. Frankly, I feel that the government has done a complete about-face with regard to Reader's Digest. The rules concerning the 80 per cent and 20 per cent relationship have been changed. The figure of 20 per cent now applies, apparently, to matters previously governed by the figure of 80 per cent.
I hope the government whips will allow government supporters freedom to exercise their rights. I hope hon. members opposite will be allowed to vote as they see fit on motion No. 2 or on the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik). Acceptance of either motion would at least narrow the scope of debate and subsequent administrations would know the will of this House. Even I, with all my hang-ups about content rules, am willing to accept the hon. member's amendment so we may know exactly what we are debating. The hon. member for Ontario spoke well last night. His was a constructive, not a critical approach. He did not try to destroy what the minister had achieved. I think an accommodation could be reached with which members of this House could live. I commend the hon. member for his courage and for the clarity with which he spoke yesterday.
Finally, may I say a word about motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy). I should like to see the scope of his motion expanded to include scientific, medical, trade and agricultural magazines. I live in the naive hope that the government will re-examine its position and allow the motions alluded to, or some of them, to carry in order to make clear what we are debating.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I see the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) rising to speak. The hon. member did not move his own amendment. Since the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) moved it in his name, the hon. member has lost the right to speak on the motion.


James Hugh Faulkner: Madam Speaker, I do not know if the House is disposed to grant unanimous consent for the hon. member to speak. Certainly I am. He has been a principal spokesman on this issue, it is his motion, and I am prepared to recommend unanimous consent if the House is disposed to accept my recommendation.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Madam Speaker, I thank the House for its courtesy. I was in Peterborough, where an unruly student of Trent University classified me as the father of the red Tories. I was able to tell him that although I would be proud to accept that accolade, the title rightly belonged to Benjamin Disraeli, but that I would be glad to account myself as being of that noble line. So much for Peterborough. It is a long drive. My

presence there accounts for my not being here last evening to present this motion.
I want to disabuse the mind of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and members of the House about any motives I have in respect of this amendment. It really falls under the conservative part of the Progressive Conservative label. All I was doing was attempting to put in statutory form the judicial interpretation that I have come across of the phrase "not substantially the same". I was being authentically conservative in this regard. Having said that, I hope anybody who feels that way will not now have any difficulty. The hon. member was kind enough to say that although he did not like the content provision in any measure, he saw the point of this amendment.
The minister took the trouble to give us a little of the history of this legislation. If he does not mind, I should like to remind him that at second reading stage I said I thought, in the case of citizenship qualifications, using the phrase rather loosely, it is time that both publications which are really the subject matter of this bill took out their papers at the Canadian court of citizenship. The hon. member who just spoke echoed this feeling. That was not the major preoccupation of our debate either at second reading or at the committee stage.
We were told by representatives of Reader's Digest, and this added to our dilemma, that there was no way they could comply. I must say that I hope I am not now breaking any confidence. On many occasions, when representatives of Reader's Digest came to see me on this issue, I asked as the spokesman for my party why they did not get into the marketplace and get rid of some of their shares. This is a footnote, but I happen to believe that just because one holds shares, control does not necessarily follow. However, that is a semantic or a numbers argument that I do not want to get into.
I am not going to argue with the minister that the 75 per cent figure does not represent citizenship, and I said so on second reading. If that is the government's determination, so be it. If that is an element of citizenship, it is time these publications took up their Canadian citizenship. There was an indication that they were unable to take this step.
We then had the events of the committee hearings and the protestations on behalf of Reader's Digest to the effect that they could not comply with Bill C-58. The pressure was on all of us. I think the minister was generous in alluding to this in respect of his party and the opposition party, all of whom had a genuine interest in trying to see that once the element of citizenship had been fulfilled, these magazines would be able to continue publishing.
I have not been convinced or understood, no matter what people have said in this debate, that a much more simple and better way could not be found to deal with this matter of inexpensive material being used by Time and Reader's Digest. It is curious how this keeps coming up throughout the debate. I am not convinced that a more simple way of dealing with this material could be by handling it under the anti-dumping legislation. I think a review of the history of this legislation and prior legislation will show this to be the fact.
February 4, 1976

Time Canada could well have paid a higher price for the material it uses in its magazine, but this would of course have deprived the coffers of Canada of substantial amounts of money. The minister may not think this is a valid point, or one in respect of which he should comment. It was my understanding that the arrangement was made some years ago that these magazines were getting material at well below cost, but that the coffers of Canada, of the Crown, were benefitting. Certainly the government is justified in changing its opinion as priorities change. Those of us who feel deeply about the continuation of Canadian publications felt that mere tax dollars were not sufficient justification for having material dumped.
Perhaps the minister and others may think I am taking a bit too long to say that the anti-dumping legislation is in place, and that techniques could easily be put in place so that the material Time Canada is using could be dealt with under that legislation. We were told in argument that this would be an interference with the flow of information, We were told that we would have to believe that the 80 per cent rule was not interference, but that the anti-dumping legislation would somehow be translated into interference. Perhaps I was not in Peterborough long enough to understand the subtlety of that argument.
The minister quoted Doris Anderson. She is one of the people in Canada who over the years has been terribly sensitive on the issue of healthy Canadian publications. I want to believe that those who are so anxious about the survival of Canadian periodicals are equally concerned about the monopoly which will ensue if all the publications in Canada are housed under one publisher. That is perhaps not as fundamentally serious to the future of publications in Canada but it is a very major problem for the Secretary of State and his department. Let there be no mistake that I, for one-and many others-will be deeply disappointed if, as a result of all the agony we are going through, all the hearings and debate-and, if I may say so, a fair amount of cries of anguish-all we have done is enhanced or furthered one or two Canadian publications.
At second reading, and I think the minister will not mind hearing this again, I suggested there were a couple of things he could do now to help Canadian periodicals; and that was not six months ago. The first thing I suggested was in respect of the matter of postage. The second thing was that the Crown, as landlord of all these station and airport facilities for the distribution of magazines, could easily make it part of the leases that Canadian magazines have a fair opportunity to purchase. That does not say they will purchase, but an arrangement could be made in the leases to see that Canadian publications have a fair proportion of the exposure, something more than the 5 per cent which is now the case. I have no reason to doubt the minister's figures, but it is a terrible indictment on all of us that 95 per cent of the publications on the newsstands are American.
The minister said, and again I am not going to dispute this because I have no evidence, that the press release which was put in our hands yesterday was not the result of any deal. I am not using the word "deal" in any pejorative sense, nor am I being critical. But, obviously, representatives of Reader's Digest and of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) must have had some discussion and
Non-Canadian Publications
tested a formula-that is perfectly right; there is no reason why they should not-otherwise Reader's Digest would not have been able to make the statement it did.
But let us say the hon. member for Fundy-Royal believed all the evidence given by periodicals and ebelieved the minister's own evidence before the standing committee. The minister surely did not say that the Digest could not survive, but the Canadian periodical industry certainly said that unless legislation based on the 80 per cent formula was part and parcel of government policy, Reader's Digest and Time would continue. Now we find that despite all this, Reader's Digest finds it can continue. The minister would surely agree that this places us in a peculiar position. One wonders whether all the discussion which has taken place, all the evidence and all the hearings were not really a waste of time. I do not think the minister should be surprised if we are taking a day or two to discuss this new situation. Presumably, this is what was in the mind of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) when he suggested the committee should have another crack at hearing about the arrangement.
With reference to my complimentary remarks about Doris Anderson, I would be very interested to see-I do not suppose the mails have brought this yet, but perhaps the telegrams have started to come-what Mrs. Anderson thinks of the arrangement Reader's Digest has made with the Department of National Revenue. Will she write another letter to the Globe and Mail saying, "fine, the Canadian Periodicals' Association is happy to welcome a new citizen," a new member, presumably, of the association. Let us be fair about this. Has the mail begun to pile up? Has the minister received any telegrams?
I have another point to make. It is quite a serious one and I hope that before the debate on motion No. 2 is concluded the minister or one of the members opposite speaking for him can answer a rather important question. What arrangements concerning a time-frame have been made between the Department of National Revenue and the Canadian edition of Reader's Digest so that the Digest can get itself into the new form which will meet the test of the content rule? Will there be an interim period during which the Digest does not qualify and is, therefore, beyond the law if this law passes in the foreseeable future? Or will Reader's Digest Canada be allowed a transitional period during which it can come aboard, so to speak, and make the arrangements which are necessary?
As I understand the press release, the attributes of citizenship, for example, the selling of 45 per cent of the shares to make up 75 per cent, as is necessary under this bill, could not be accomplished immediately Reader's Digest could not be expected to do this in the month of February, and presumably it would take several months for Reader's Digest Canada to put itself into the position of being acceptable within the content rule and other parts of section 19 of the Income Tax Act. The minister apologized; he has left the chamber. The Minister of National Revenue is not in the House. But I would hope that before the debate on my amendment, No. 2, is concluded somebody on behalf of the government will satisfy the House in this regard because a matter of fairness is involved.

February 4, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
No matter how vigorously the government is opposed, citizens in a democratic state expect there should be fairness shown to all, so the House is entitled to know what time-frame has been allowed to Reader's Digest to come on board as far as content, ownership and such matters are concerned. If that question could be answered we would soon be ready, I presume, to vote on my amendment. What I have attempted to say-and I have tried to do this without a series of elegantly drafted notes-is this: I want to know the time-frame for Reader's Digest because it is my expectation that a fair and small "1" liberal government will be granting the same transitional period to every publication requiring time to meet the test of section 19. If I could be sure that the same transitional arrangement is to be allowed others in order to join this happy group of new Canadian publications, we would be able to proceed quite rapidly.


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my first temptation is to take the compliments of the minister and run. I hope he will feel the same way after my contribution, on a point of principle, today. At any rate, I thank him for his generous remarks. I wonder what his reaction was when he heard that Reader's Digest would, indeed, comply. He indicated today that he received the news with pleasure, but I wonder whether deep down it was really so and whether we have really reached the end of this question.
The minister began by saying he was not a professional journalist or publisher, and that in those circumstances he had to take the advice of people who were. I will begin by mentioning two people who are professional journalists- Geoffrey Stevens and Charles Lynch, two of our most respected reporters. What do those professional writers tell us? I am sure the minister knows that these people do not support the bill. They decline to do so on important questions of principle. I wondered how the minister would respond to the Reader's Digest announcement and I think perhaps Geoffrey Stevens had it right when he said this:
Beyond that, there is the question of what happens if Time somehow manages to survive and continues to attract Canadian advertising. A prediction: the government, having taken one highly discriminatory step with its 80 per cent content rule, would be hard pressed to resist taking another even more discriminatory action to get rid of the magazine.
I suspect that might well be so, and it concerns me. It concerns me that the principal steps, many of them very good steps that I support, might be taken to excess and be one more step down the road to what Charles Lynch says is manipulation of content. That is the angle that concerns me. He said:
Indeed, news is being manipulated in many countries but Canada is not one of them. For us to join the list would be very bad business.
I share that concern, Mr. Speaker, and in talking to it, if I use overstatement or political licence excessively, I apologize. But I do so only to make this point of principle. When I was in India only a few months ago, the Speaker of one of the state legislatures in that country stoutly defended Mrs. Gandhi's emergency measures and her admonishments of an irresponsible press. He reassured me that I need have no concern regarding democracy and freedom of the press in India because Mrs. Ghandi was a true demo-

crat and these stern, non-legislated controls would soon be lifted. Four months later the same Speaker saw his own legislature permanently dissolved by the central government, and legislation for the complete censorship of the press passed and enacted, all within the framework of a democratic constitution by a leader espousing and extolling democracy as the justification for her actions.
I am not suggesting that we are anywhere near this kind of situation in Canada, but even the smallest move in this direction of interference should be observed, enunciated and put to rest; because a democratic principle must always take precedence over an expedient one, no matter how important an issue the expediency might resolve. I suggest that tampering with content is tampering with the democratic principle in order to accomplish an expedient end. The expedient end I might even agree with, but even if I were to agree with it I could not compromise my principles and I do not think the minister could either.
I would agree that those who protest the content regulation are using considerable political licence when they call the content move outright censorship. However, if it is not outright censorship it is a form of restriction which inhibits and suppresses, a position perilously close to censorship. The initial steps toward censorship in any democratic state are usually orchestrated slowly and subtly. In India, in November, no specific legislation existed to exercise this power, but the press was warned and knew that their editorial and story line must be "substantially the same as" that of the government and more than "80 per cent substantially different" from that of the previously so-called irresponsible press. This unlegislated, yet insidious moral suasion in India largely accomplished its aim, and after several months of "80 per cent substantially the same" government line a final legislative death-blow to the press was easily accomplished, the press having fallen victim to its own unwilling axe.
I ask the minister to examine carefully his own use of insidious moral suasion, and suggest that this legislation, through its content rule, might be the exercise of the sort of power I have referred to. I ask the minister, would Time magazine dare print today an anti-government story in recent editions, or would such moral suasion encourage them to feature the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the front of their magazine and suddenly find its Canadian section important enough to feature lavish, full colour photo coverage of the Prime Minister's travels? Or would it be possible that we might see CTV news suddenly downplaying the role of opposition members and promoting government members and programs? I would say probably not, because they know that earlier a prominent proCanadian member said that there is not, and could not be, any question of interference with the press in so far as the dissemination of news and opinion is concerned. "I know that no Liberal government would ever think of doing so"-so said the famous Walter Gordon in 1965. It was to his credit, as a nationalist, that he said we must not tamper with the press and its content in any way. Yet that is what we are doing today. I am sure he would share my concern and the concern of other members in this regard.
Certainly the minister should be watching closely that vested interest remains the dominating consideration in the passage of this legislation, rather than the control of
February 4, 1976

content for some lofty nationalistic, Canadian objective. Even by touching the issue of any form of content legislation or regulation the government is setting itself on a dangerous course. I would urge it to reconsider.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) says it is important to understand that "not substantially the same" does not refer to subject matter. Well, what does it refer to? The colour of the ink? It seems to me that "content" and "subject matter" are substantially the same type of synonym. The amendment is a very difficult compromise and I shall vote for it with great reluctance. While I would vote for the amendment with great reluctance, favouring the 60 per cent rule, I would vote against the legislation if any concept of content control is to be found in the legislation, on the basis of the infringement of a basic democratic principle. I ask the minister to consider that carefully.
In Canada we are a long way from India but only a short step away from legislating a highly dangerous precedent on the route to content control. When the minister said that we want a situation where there is no interference in the freedom of Canadians to read Time and Reader's Digest, I am sure he would add "or any material of their interest". But if interference does result in the material not being available, obviously we defeat our purpose. Does the minister have evidence from Time Canada that the magazine will be available to read subsequent to the passage of this legislation? Unfortunately, negotiations seem to be going on outside the House and committee and we must read the results in the press. Having read the results and found that Reader's Digest can live with the legislation, let me ask the minister whether similar negotiations are going on with Time. Will Time actually survive, as Reader's Digest will, in his opinion? If it will not survive, then he is indeed infringing the rights of Canadians to read material of their choice.
I am pleased that the minister sees this bill as part of an attempt to define Canadianism. I am also pleased that we are proceeding to a further type of definition of what is Canadian and what is a Canadian magazine. Were he to move toward ownership, publishing control, and so forth, I think all Canadians would be pleased. But he is going further when he tampers with content. I feel confident that the minister, because of his integrity, does not like this content provision any more than the rest of us in this House. I am sure he shares the principle of non-intervention and that he would like to find some other way.
I am not suggesting the other way that he might find, because I think his search will be long and hard. However, I ask that he not give way to expediency now, that he take out the content section of this bill and immediately assign to a committee terms of reference to the effect that it should find a way other than content.
Let us listen, perhaps, to some of the suggestions of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), but above all let us take the great principles that have been advanced in this bill and keep them, and let us not tarnish the bill with an attack on content, on whether it is censorship or whether it inhibits. Let us take this out and then go ahead and bring the bill into play in the interest of Canadi-
Non-Canadian Publications
an culture, Canadianism and the principles that were enunciated and supported earlier at second reading.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Madam Speaker, I enter the debate at this report stage with some sense of urgency as we discuss this regressive and depressive step which has been resisted by many thinking writers in Canada whose professional qualities, I think, should certainly appeal to the minister and whose words should be read very carefully by him and the officials of his department.
The bill was fought out in the committee in a way that not many bills are. The minutes will show this. They will also show that on several occasions it went beyond comedy and into farce. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Miss Holt), has already alluded to some of the difficulties presented to some hon. members in attempting to be heard during the committee study. One has great difficulty in knowing what most of the points of the committee study were, but I think a point of some kind was raised when the minister fled the meeting as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway was about to speak. She was only able to speak because of the gracious motion of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) that she be heard.
We again saw some rather strange developments in the history and transition of the committee stage during the study of Bill C-58. Any of the authorities on the Canadian parliamentary system who hail the committee system as being the one thing that would save this institution, or that would greatly assist this institution in its deliberations, should read the minutes of the committee as it discussed Bill C-58.
I think it is very important that the rules be grounded in law and that we should consider the point raised by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), that we must indeed pay most careful attention to this question. It is very easy to slip away from "substantially different" into saying 80 per cent, 50 per cent or 20 per cent Canadian content. Again, I think a reading of the minutes of the committee will show that that slip was made frequently both by members and by witnesses. One would suspect, still, that the intent of the bill and the intent of the formula submitted by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) is really obscured by the term "substantially different" and there will be a gradual transition by which it will be interpreted as Canadian content with all that that implies.
I take no pleasure in noting that Reader's Digest has made some kind of a deal with the government. I expect it was easier for the Reader's Digest to do so partly because, to its credit, it has gone a long way in Canadianizing its operation and making its publication a forum for Canadian writers, and also because of the very nature of the digest aspect of the publication. A reading, again, of the minutes of the committee when certain questions were asked about what would constitute "substantially different" qualifications would lead one to suspect that a possible way around this provision would have to do with the timing of the publication, and whether this might be the road to take or a loophole in the legislation that has been found.
Again, I think the call of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) is worth considering, because it

February 4, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
would be helpful to the committee and certainly to the House in these final stages of debate on the bill if we were to know just what the arrangements are in respect of Reader's Digest. In all of this, I think we are still missing the basic reason for the situation to which the minister alluded in his remarks when he pointed out that 95 per cent of the publications read in Canada come from outside the country. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) picked that up and said it was to odr shame. On one level, that is true. Certainly, on another level it is not, because I do not think the problem all along really has been one of content. It has been one of tone, style and appeal to basic values which I believe are still basic to the Canadian way of life.
The problem for any journal or any publication in Canada is to gain and to hold readership. That is the problem, because advertising depends on readership and not on tax concessions, in the last analysis. It depends on the power of the publication to deliver an audience to the advertisers. We tend to lose track of that over and over again, but that is the basic question. We have the problem in respect of Canadian publications which blithely set about losing their readership and then cry for government intervention in order to save them from bankruptcy. When we had the debate on second reading, I referred to Saturday Night. It, coincidentally, had been restructured at the precise time of the debate.
I went through the first of the resurrected issues of Saturday Night with a good deal of pleasure. I made reference to the timing and said that they were on the right track. I was not being entirely facetious when I complimented them for having printed a poem which rhymed. This created a bit of a response from the editorial office of Saturday Night, because they said they never print poems which rhyme. They said that the hon. member for Okana-gan-Kootenay was so illiterate that he failed to notice this. However, someone spotted the fact that it rhymed once. The author of the poem immediately wrote to Saturday Night that her poem contained ten rhymes which were missed because many of them were internal to the structure of the poem and were not strictly at the end of the line. The editor said he found only one after a close, textural study of the work.
Again, the question here is one of editorial policy and editorial judgment. It is not really a question of censorship at all, but of deals that are made between authors and publishers. They are made by editors who decide on the tone of the publication, and through that the authors learn what their chances are in the market. It is with enormous disappointment that I read recently the October, 1975, issue of Saturday Night. I could read it only recently, Madam Speaker, because of the most unhappy mail strike which went on and on. Believe me, the worst aspects of the mail strike were not simply that I could not read Saturday Night until just a week or two ago; there were far worse aspects to it. In all of the debate about content, readership, and so on, we tend to overlook such basic and fundamental questions as postal rates, which play such an important part in the demise of far too many Canadian publications. When one looks through this issue, one can see what the problem is in terms of Canadian content. The content is as

Canadian as can be and it is substantially different because nobody else will print much of it.
At the beginning we find the editor, Mr. Fulford, making his comments in a long article on John Herbert's play "Fortune and Men's Eyes", a play which deals with the sordidness of prison life and deviations, homosexuality in particular. It is not everybody's cup of tea. Then he has a second article about developments in the school system in Ontario, and he takes a knock at oversimplification in a typical school text. It happens to be full of praise for the English language. He says that today English is likely to be the only language in common for educated men, that English is spoken in Great Britain, the United States and the Commonwealth, and may yet prove to be-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member knows that we are on motions 2 and 3. Perhaps he could limit his comments to those two motions.


Howard Earl Johnston: The motions refer to the whole matter of the 50 per cent "substantially different". I feel, with due deference, that what I am saying is germane to this topic because surely we would not have Bill C-58 if the kind of problems I am suggesting here did not arise. There has been a lapse of time since the second reading debate. The bill has gone through the committee and has been pushed forward willy-nilly by the government. There has been no reason for any Canadian publication which has looked to a boom in its readership once Bill C-58 has been passed, to be pessimistic, because I think they saw that the government was determined to ram Bill C-58 through second reading, through the committee, through the report stage and through third reading. So, with deference, I feel that what I am saying is germane to the topic because of the lapse of time between second reading and the changes that have occurred with regard to this publication.
I will attempt to be brief. There is an article by Singer and Rodgers on mercury, the hidden poison in the northern rivers. This is a sad story which shows little knowledge of either Canadian native Indians or of the people of Japan. There is also an article about two artists, the Bobaks. I have nothing but praise for it. I own a Bobak print myself. To quote Bobak: "Anglo-Saxons hate to get too personal, too intimate". This is putting a finger on what has been one of the problems in Canadian journalism. Doug Fetherl-ing has an article entitled "Portrait of a Canadian actress waiting for something to happen", who is quoted as saying, "Canada is the country that taught me to be paranoid". I checked the suggestion, the individual responsibility. The idea that a nation does things to individuals within it is too simple altogether.
George Woodcock writes on the perils of freedom in India. This has already been alluded to by a previous speaker, so again I am sure it is very germane to the topic we are discussing. To quote again: "Mrs. Gandhi set in motion the same mechanism of a responsible tyranny which the British used to combat". Yet surely since the trial of Warren Hastings no British rule in Canada could be described as irresponsible because he was called to the bar of justice in a famous trial. Martin Knelman writes on the ghost of "Seven Days" which still mocks the CBC. He refers to the parliamentary committee which studied that program, but he shows no evidence of having read the
February 4, 1976

minutes of the committee which investigated that particular matter.
There is an excerpt from Robertson Davies' "World of Wonders", and again there is nothing but praise for the totality of Robertson Davies' three part trilogy which may yet be the great Canadian novel, or be considered as such; but it deals with a sordid episode of sexual deviation. Anne Hardy is tough on Alberta. She writes on dining and says that one cannot expect to find good restaurants in English Canada. So much for the third force on the prairies. I am sure that when this issue is read, various readers will decide that that is the last issue of Saturday Night for them. Worst of all, there is an article by Mordecai Richler, reviewing The Swastika and the Maple Leaf, in which he renews the suggestion that a governor general of this country, Lord Tweedsmuir, better known as John Buchan, the novelist, was anti-Semitic. I would rather go to the gas chamber than read the quote that is attributed to him. The author put words in the mouth of a character in chapter one of his book "The Thirty-Nine Steps", which was written in 1915, and Richler uses those words to prove that John Buchan was anti-Semitic.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am afraid the hon. member is straying too far from the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Earl Johnston: Again, Madam Speaker, may I say, with deference, that I realize that the points I am raising are upsetting, but the point I am making now is that the reader of this publication will be upset by what he reads. I do not know at this moment on which side of the argument Mordecai Richler was, but we have had a great deal of comment from the minister himself and from others on professional writing and writers. Surely this is germane to the argument, because there are people in this country who continue to revere the memory of that governor general who died in office, and it is almost impossible to come to his defence even in this chamber. Yet he killed off that character at the end of the first chapter.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, earlier today, on the advice of Mr. Speaker, I raised a question on a point of order relating to the deduction of advertising expenses for income tax purposes. At that time the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) stated that he thought the answer to the question was yes. I asked for an unequivocal yes because I think it is of utmost importance to producers of Canadian livestock to know exactly where they stand as they advertise in these publications, because of the fact that they will not know until a year from this April whether their expenses will be legitimate or not.
It seems to me that it would be logical to put legislation in place for the benefit of the industry so that those people will know they will be protected. We can accomplish this by passing just a subamendment to the amendment we are discussing at the present time, motion No. 3. At the conclu-
Non-Canadian Publications
sion of my speech to-day I propose to move that subamendment.
My reason for moving this subamendment is that the Department of National Revenue was not in a position to give an unequivocal yes to the question I asked. The question is, can the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) state unequivocally that Canadian producers of purebred and exotic livestock will be permitted to deduct costs of advertising in the United States as legitimate expenses for income tax purposes in Canada? The question is that the producer may be called upon to prove that his is a legitimate expense, and he must prove it under clause 1 where it says:
19. (1) In computing income, no deduction shall be made in respect of an otherwise deductible outlay or expense of a taxpayer for advertising space in an issue of a non-Canadian newspaper or periodical dated after December 31, 1975, for an advertisement directed primarily to a market in Canada.
The key words there are "advertisement directed primarily." It could well be that there is not another magazine, periodical or newspaper which would sufficiently advertise the product which the producer has to offer, whether it be young animals or older animals, and it could well be that the producer might go to a United States periodical which is circulated in Canada. He might sell a small percentage, 10 per cent or 15 per cent-it does not really matter; we do not need to discuss figures-in the United States, but the major portion of his sales would be made in Canada. This bill says "advertisement directed." It could well be that while this periodical covers a greater part of the North American continent, this particular advertisement could be directed to people in Canada because of the geographical location of the product which is for sale and also of the purchaser.
This bill is open to interpretation. This is the problem I have had with this legislation right from the start. The Minister of National Revenue, when he spoke about "not substantially the same", said yesterday that it would take time to bring in a ways and means motion to set this up by statute so that we would then know what we are talking about. There could be a great deal of difference between what the Minister of National Revenue, the Secretary of State and I think "not substantially the same" means. It is because of this individual interpretation that we are having problems with this legislation. This is of fundamental importance and individual interpretation is not necessary because it could be spelled out by legislation, and that is what is wrong here. When we are dealing with something of such magnitude, the government is doing a disservice by bringing in legislation to be administered by interpretation rather than by statute.
Yesterday the minister also used the phrase "continuing arrangement." Goodness me, "continuing arrangement" can mean a great deal to a great many people. It might even mean the consummation of marriage between two people. It could mean many things. I do not think the government is performing a useful function when it asks us to accept such vague terms. It boils down to the fact that this is just one man's interpretation, and this is causing a great deal of trouble.
I could go on in this debate, and I hope I will have the opportunity to go into further detail, but at this time I should like to move my subamendment so that Mr. Speaker

February 4, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
will have the opportunity of looking at it and of seeing whether it is acceptable in his judgment. If it is not acceptable, I still should like to have the opportunity of presenting my argument to the House so that it may be fully considered because of its very great importance. I have other things to say on this matter, but because it is almost six o'clock perhaps I can have that privilege at another time.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That the amendment be amended by deleting the words "scientific or medical subjects" and by substituting therefor the words "scientific, agricultural of medical subjects."
Madam Speaker, may I have the privilege of debating this at another time, if you see fit to accept this subamendment? May I call it six o'clock?


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

Thursday, February 5, 1976