1976-02-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on an important issue of pressing necessity.
Considering that since April 1975, the Canadian Dairy Commission has been applying measures that have placed the producers of industrial milk in a more than precarious position, may I, Mr. Speaker, request this House to give this motion very special attention. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That this House unanimously request the Minister of Agriculture to call before the Committee on Agriculture representatives of the Canadian Federation of Milk Producers and provincial bodies concerned, for them to explain to committee members the problems they have to face, and, at the same time, to help the government find a solution equitable for all.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of certain disturbing reports in relation to this week's conference of federal and provincial welfare ministers, I ask leave under Standing Order 43, to move a motion which I believe is appropriate. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House urges the government not to present the provincial governments with a trade off between the annual escalation of family allowances and any proposed guaranteed income or income supplementation benefits, but that the escalation of family allowances, as provided by itself in an act of parliament, be reinstated forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On January 5, 1973 this House approved a motion proposed by the government asserting the strong support of this chamber for the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries and censuring a country which appeared to have violated that principle in respect of the Viet Nam conflict.
On the assumption that hon. members on all sides of this House wish to remain consistent in the application of that general principle, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and hopefully supported by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau):
That this House noted with grave concern the continuation of the civil war in Angola and deplores the large scale intervention by other states in this civil war; is aware of the fact that the war is being prolonged by outside intervention, thereby increasing the suffering of the Angolan people; welcomes the declared intention of the government of South Africa to withdraw its troops from Angola, as it is believed to be doing at this moment, and calls on the government of Cuba to do likewise; urges the MPLA, the FNLA and UNITA to call a ceasefire and to conduct negotiations with a view to reaching a political settlement acceptable to all parties, and requests the government to convey the text of this resolution to all participants in the Angolan civil war including those who are providing arms, munitions and war materiel, and to the United Nations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion cannot be put without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Liberal members said no.
Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD COMMONS DEBATES SUGGESTED PROCEDURES FOR CLARIFICATION OF REGULATIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to put a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. The motion is necessitated by the growing confusion amongst the business community over the interpretation of the Anti-Inflation Act regulations. While everyone realizes that the regulations are necessarily complex, it became clear during the cross-Canada Anti-Inflation Board seminars that many professional accountants found the regulations confusing and misleading. Companies unable to afford professional accountants find themselves awash in a murky sea of legal and financial jargon. Considering that business must understand the regulations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 each hon. member who seeks unanimous consent ought to be given the opportunity to explain as briefly as possible the urgent nature of the motion. However, I think we ought to be careful that we do not drift into a situation in which the explanation becomes debate. I would urge the hon. member to put his motion.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Considering that business must understand the regulations before making a sincere effort to apply them to their operations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That this House direct the Anti-Inflation Board to move expeditiously in clarifying the government's anti-inflation regulations by conducting additional seminars, by disseminating interpretation bulletins and by distributing a clean and concise manual of procedures that business may follow.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


Mr. Speaker:: Oral Questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of what he said in this House on October 2, 1974 when participating in the throne speech debate. With respect to the amending procedure of our constitution he said:

... it is time to decide that this will be done and that we will settle on an amending procedure within four years.
Could the Prime Minister indicate very briefly where the process stands, what is going on and what progress has been made in general terms?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in the course of that debate I did utter those words. The Leader of the Opposition will remember that it was in response to his own urging that the government should get on with the problem of repatriating the constitution.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was too modest to refer to that this afternoon.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Modesty is not the usual approach of the hon. member, although he sometimes feigns it.


An hon. Member:: You don't even feign it.


Mr. Epp:: You would not recognize it if you saw it.


Mr. Hees:: Don't be shy, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can assure the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings that after having skiied somewhat with him I am not shy. I think he should be the modest one.


George Harris Hees: I have always been shy and retiring.


Mr. MacKay:: You are going downhill faster than Hees!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think they missed it up there. You had better repeat it.


Mr. Crouse:: You are going downhill faster than he is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I discussed this first at a meeting of premiers which took place about one year ago and got general agreement from all of them that we should, indeed, proceed with the repatriation of the constitution in the course of the next few years. I was talking about the life of this parliament, and I would say there was general agreement that we should concentrate on repatriation and on the formula of amendment rather than re-open the whole series of discussions on jurisdiction under the British North America Act, sections 91 and 92. There was general agreement along the lines that we should attempt to work out a solution which would permit repatriation, without any premier binding himself to such an absolute. That was the thrust of the discussions with which the federal government was encouraged to proceed.
Following that there have been a great number of meetings between federal officials and officials of all provinces, I believe, except one. There have been few discussions at the ministerial level, and certainly no collective ones. At this stage I can only say that it is our hope to find a formula upon which all provinces will agree, and I hope that that will be done, certainly, before the end of this parliament. I am quite determined to see that it does happen.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I will not ask the Prime Minister for disclosure of any details which might be inappropriate at this time. Indeed, I
February 5, 1976

will even resist asking him if he is wrestling Mr. Bourassa to the ground. Can he indicate generally if he envisages a first ministers' meeting to pursue the discussions taking place at the ministerial level at present? If so, can the Prime Minister indicate, in general terms, when he expects discussions to resume at the first ministers's level, so that, as he said, this problem can be dealt with and this challenge met during the life of this parliament; or, to use another phrase he used during that debate, before we, in this parliament, disappear from the scene?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the best answer is to say that I do not envisage a meeting of first ministers on this subject unless I see the solution in sight. I do not want to put the government of this country, the governments of the provinces and the people of Canada through the long process of expectation, namely, that we can find a formula on which all would agree if such formula is not possible. The House will realize that since 1926, some 50 years, federal and provincial governments have been struggling to bring the constitution back to Canada, and every time this has failed for some reason or other. I would not want to waste the time of parliament or of the premiers by getting them together to embark upon another long series of discussions in order to repatriate the constitution. I am hopeful that the behind-the-scenes discussion going on at the official level will permit us to find a formula which is acceptable. It would mean, of course, confirmation by the premiers and, most important, submission to parliament, for the approbation of such formula.
I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition's discretion in not asking about the details. I think this approach is very helpful. I think I owe it to him to indicate that we are looking at the type of amendment formula which was discussed at Victoria, but not at the whole bag which was discussed at Victoria, in which many other subjects were included. We are looking strictly at the amendment formula or some variation of that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question? I think the Prime Minister has already created the expectation, in the sense that he expressed his determination almost one year and a half ago to see an amending formula adopted. Now, one year and a half later, I should like to know in view of these discussions going on if the Prime Minister can see light at the end of the tunnel? Is he encouraged to believe that he will be able to present a formula to the first ministers and to parliament during a reasonable time? I ask this because I would like to see this question settled before I leave parliament which, of course, will be within the end of this parliament. Can the Prime Minister say whether he is encouraged after the discussions that have taken place or, rather, is it a question of a stalemate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Leader of the Opposition indicates that I am creating expectations. Surely, the answer he is asking me to give can only increase those expectations or shatter them, which is a position in which I do not want to put myself. If any expectations were created back in October 1974, they were shared jointly by us when we both expressed the idea that after 50 years of effort, surely the Canadian people should
Oral Questions
be grown up enough to be able to agree on a method of bringing our own constitution back to this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I regret that a statement made in Quebec by members of the Quebec government has put this into the public domain in order to put discussion of it at that level. I repeat, I do not think it is worth wasting our time on. If I cannot find from the officials at bilateral discussions that Quebec, since it put this into the forefront, is prepared to agree with a reasonable form of amendment, I do not think I would waste the time of the House on protracted debate which would end up like another Victoria or Fulton-Favreau formula or another series of agreements which would fall to the ground at the last minute. That is our position.
We are still discussing in an informal and private way and I hope that we will get positive results. If we do not, I imagine the Leader of the Opposition or his successor and the leaders of other parties and myself will then have to ask ourselves do we want it to happen before the end of this parliament or should Canadians be invited to wait another 100 years. However, let us not ask ourselves that question until we know whether present discussions are fruitful.


Mr. Baldwin:: Are you getting any ideas from Mrs. Gandhi?


POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCES ON METHOD TO ACCEDE TO UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a related question about one aspect of the constitution. It has to do with the United Nations convenant on civil and political rights. Here perhaps our expectations might not need to be 100 years or even the life of this parliament. Can the Prime Minister tell us if Quebec and other provinces have now agreed on a method by which Canada could accede to this agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there was a federal-provincial conference on this very subject, in December I believe it was. The Department of External Affairs convened a conference. The report I had was that any outstanding hesitations by provinces to permit the federal government to ratify had been overcome and that we were proceeding with the working out of the precise wording of the agreement then reached. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State are, I believe, the three ministers involved. If they can report progress at some point, I will ask them to do so. However, we have great hopes that at long last, and I would sigh with relief along with the hon. member opposite, we will be able to proceed with ratification in spite of the difficulties which we faced thus far.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it now the position that the provinces will have

February 5, 1976
Oral Questions
a place on the monitoring or report committee of the United Nations when human rights infractions are within the provincial domain? Has there been a modus arrived at so that provinces, through the federal umbrella, can be represented? Is that the point that is the holdup?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister has said is an accurate description of the situation. With respect to the precise methodology of the provisions for provincial participation I might say I am meeting with Dr. Cloutier the minister for intergovernmental affairs of the Province of Quebec tomorrow, and this is one of the items I hope to raise.


ALLEGED ARSENIC AND URANIUM CONTAMINATION OF LAKE ONTARIO AT PORT HOPE BY ELDORADO-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It pertains to the continued pumping by Eldorado Nuclear each day of hundreds of gallons of water containing uranium and arsenic into Lake Ontario in the Port Hope area. I am addressing my question to the Prime Minister since it was obvious yesterday that the minister responsible is unfamiliar with the situation. Considering that Eldorado Nuclear has confirmed that this is not a casual run-off, as the minister suggested yesterday, but rather that the water is flowing, as I said, at a constant rate of hundreds of gallons per day, and bearing in mind that the federal government itself tabled a report last July indicating that this flow was unacceptable, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, having in mind his expressed concern that measures be taken against pollution, whether he will take steps to bring this to a halt immediately?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seemed to me that the exchange yesterday indicated that it was the hon. member rather than the minister who was misinformed. I am glad the delay has now provided him with an opportunity to ask a more precise question and I am sure the minister will be able to answer it.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: If I understand the question, let me deal with it in this way. I referred to run-off because that is precisely what the water is. There is a catch-basin there which collects rain water and melted snow water. That water is caught and then pumped out into a pipe which goes out into the lake some 50 feet from shore. Ever since 1962 the effluent there has been monitored and if the hon. member would care to refer to a report which was issued on July 29, 1975 at page five, he would find that the Ontario ministry of the environment has concluded that there is not a significant impairment of water quality.


Gerald William Baldwin: Table it!


DATE OF REPORT ON SITES OF RADIOACTIVE WATER DUMPS
John Edward Broadbent: Since the federal government's own agency decided last July that there was a problem there, and since it took some 20 years to realize that it arose from another source in the same area, I should like to ask the minister when we can expect a report, either to the House or in some other form, resulting from an investigation of the two sources of pollution, one of which is the building site and the other being the by-product of the process which is going on, which I understand that the minister is investigating. When can we expect a report on the investigation now being carried out by his department?


Alastair William Gillespie: As to the first point, this report to which I alluded was made public and all members of parliament have received copies. As to the second point, we hope to receive a status report which will be made public, probably in about two weeks time.


PROPOSED COMMISSION TO STUDY HEALTH AND SAFETY ASPECTS OF USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
John Edward Broadbent: The minister said yesterday that in his view it was not necessary to set up a commission of inquiry into the possibility of serious problems arising in the future as the result of the continued expansion likely to take place in the nuclear energy field. I would like to ask whether the minister has had time to reconsider his position, given the fact that we are now embarking on a national program involving many cities and communities. Does he not think it appropriate to set up a public commission of inquiry into the health and safety aspects given the probability of such a major development?


Alastair William Gillespie: That question was asked yesterday and I see no reason to change the answer I gave then.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the financial cut program now set out by the federal government and also in view of the progressive increase in unemployment as a result of the anti-inflation measures taken by the same government, can the minister assure the House that the victims of unemployment will not be penalized by shorter periods of entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits?
February 5, 1976


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated to the hon. member for Provencher the other day, and also during my comments on second reading of Bill C-69, that there was a comprehensive review of the program underway and that there would very likely be further amendments in the not too distant future. The exact nature of the amendments will not, of course, be disclosed until we place them before the House.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Solicitor General. May I ask the minister why Judge Rene Marin has apparently still not submitted his report with respect to the RCMP and its internal procedures? As the Solicitor General well knows, it is five months overdue.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, this is an independent commission. I understand the report is ready, but is being translated and prepared for printing, and that it will be ready for publication any day.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Solicitor General state whether he would favour the establishment of a permanent appeal commission in relation to RCMP methods and procedures, and would he indicate whether he has already begun the long overdue process of revising the RCMP Act to better meet the expanded role of the force?


William Warren Allmand: With respect to the appeal procedures, I presume the question of discipline is the one to which the hon. member is referring. We will, of course, want to await the recommendations of the report of the Marin commission, but as a result of the sittings of the Marin commission some changes have already been made with respect to discipline in the RCMP and its operations.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in regard to the conference with his provincial colleagues which has just terminated and involved the income supplement programs. Does the minister anticipate that, as a result of his perusal of all indicators, these programs can be implemented next year, and is this the feeling of his provincial counterparts?
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it was agreed that such a program could not be applied next year.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the conference also indicated that the country could not afford this particular program at this time but would have to wait till we could afford it. Can the minister indicate what criteria will be used in order to determine whether or not the country can afford these two programs envisaged by the minister?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the issue is not whether the country has the necessary resources to finance such a program, but whether an appropriate reallocation of resources can be made. I must point out to the hon. member that even if the financial resources were immediately available, we are not yet in position to introduce a bill in the House. There must be further discussions on the matter in June. In view of the fact that such a bill must be introduced and passed in the House, it is quite clear that it could not be applied before next year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the precedent of the suspension of aid to India following their nuclear explosion, and in light of the brutal discussions that the Prime Minister held with Cuba regarding Canada's strong opposition to Cuban troops in Angola, does the minister plan to strengthen the credibility of Canada's stand by similar suspensions or other sanctions against Cuba as are currently being applied in the case of India?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The situations are quite different, Mr. Speaker.


INDUSTRY
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On October 30 I asked the Prime Minister whether he would consider introducing productivity incentives, to be paid in direct proportion to increases in productivity, with the aim of increasing industrial productivity and thereby lowering costs and prices. The Prime Minister showed considerable interest in the suggestion and said that he would refer it to Privy Council and finance for examination. I wonder

February 5, 1976
Oral Questions
whether he would take the first opportunity on motions to indicate to the House what progress has been made in this regard during the last three months.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member understands it would take a rather longer statement to deal with the subject than I have time for now. I will seek such an occasion to do so, I would not think on motions but perhaps at some time when we are discussing economic matters and either I or the minister would be drawn into a debate on productivity. I agree with the hon. member that it is a very important subject.
I can tell him that the following the question in the House I did have a committee set up in the Privy Council office which has reviewed the federal government's activities with respect to the measurement, analysis and promotion of productivity. This committee is now in front of an interdepartmental group for discussion. I think there is a fair amount of things not only to be said but to be done in this area. I can assure the hon. member that the government is very concerned with it and that we will find the first opportunity to discuss further this important question of productivity with the House.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Privy Council.
Considering that in mid-January, the Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance of Canada agreed to ask the Anti-Inflation Board whether an additional payment to civil servants filling bilingual positions would be allowable under the anti-inflation guidelines, could the president tell the House when the matter was submitted to the AntiInflation Board and when we can expect its opinion on the matter?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say specifically when the Anti-Inflation Board will give its decision on the problem which the union and Treasury Board have agreed to refer to that Board.


PUBLISHING
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the revised interpretation by the minister which allows Reader's Digest to have a continuing arrangement with its parent company while still retaining its status as a Canadian periodical, can the minister inform the House whether

the existing licensing provision whereby Reader's Digest, United States, must approve all material used-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that the hon. member is well aware that on three very recent occasions I have disallowed questions that anticipate not only an order of the day but the order of the day.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which relates to the landing of two Cuban aircraft at Gander on January 13 and 14. Was the Prime Minister informed, prior to his trip to Cuba, of the landing of these two Cuban planes at Gander, one of which was going to Guinea Bissau and one of which was returning from Brazzaville, and did he order an investigation into whether the planes were connected with the Cuban war effort in Angola?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The general answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes. I would not say I heard about these two specific planes. At the time the information was not that precise, but I did discuss with my officials the possibility of Cuba using Gander, as it has for quite a few years since it could not have landing rights in the United States, for one thing, in circumstances which were related to the Angolan war. We made clear to Cuban officials, the ambassador to be precise, that if we had any cause to suspect such flights were taking place or would take place we would exercise our rights under ICAO to search those planes to make sure that they were used for civilian purposes. So the answer is yes, but I cannot say that I knew with precision at the time what plane at what time had actually flown.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A supplementary question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he had good reason to believe, prior to going to Cuba, that in fact Cuban planes, which were being used to fuel the war effort in Angola, had landed at Gander? He indicated that he did not know specifically about these two aircraft. Did he have good reason to believe, prior for leaving for Cuba, that Cuban planes had been using Gander airport in connection with the war effort in Angola?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for the question to become relevant the planes had to land and take off. One or two planes have landed and taken off and our officials were alert enough to draw the matter to my attention, at which time I indicated, in agreement with the Department of External Affairs, that the Cubans should be notified that already two planes had come and gone and we did not know what was on them or exactly what they were doing, but from now on they should be alerted to the fact that we would be watching future landings for the purpose of searching, if we felt it was warranted, or if the destination was such as to make us believe it was for assistance to
February 5, 1976

Angola, directly or indirectly. I would have to check the facts, but I believe as a result of that, what has happened has been that in fact there have been no further unscheduled flights of Cuban planes for destination to or from Africa.


WHEAT-REASON FOR ADDITIONAL CHARGE FOR TOUGH GRAIN
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Boart explain why farmers receiving their final wheat payments for the 1974-75 crop year have found there was a deduction of ten-cents per bushel for tough grain when in other years this deduction was only two-cents per bushel? I ask this because farmers have already had eight-cents per bushel deducted when they delivered this tough grain to the elevators?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to obtain a more detailed explanation from the Canadian Wheat Board, but I have no doubt that their explanation will be that the actual cost of bringing the grain with moisture to an adequate dry state is reflected in these figures. I will confirm that and report back to the hon. member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture if I can have his attention for a moment. In view of the very significant differential between the retail sale price of butter and the retail sale price of margarine, and the very real possibility of that price differential increasing, will the Minister of Agriculture take action to revise the support price of butter to assist in preventing further declines in butter sales and the buildup of an unnecessary surplus of that dairy product?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this is not something new. The prices of margarine and other spreads are closer to the price of butter than they have ever been, and there used to be a great discrepancy the other way. The Dairy Commission and the dairy industry are looking at all aspects of the industry to make sure their products sell well.
Oral Questions TRADE


IMPORT QUOTAS ON CHEESE-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION ON REQUEST FOR DECREASE
John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on a similar subject matter for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In answer to a previous question regarding import quotas on cheese the minister indicated to me on December 17, as recorded at page 10096 of Hansard, "an announcement will be made as quickly as possible with regard to the quota for 1976". May I ask the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, if he has reached a decision on this matter and when we might expect an announcement to decrease these quotas from their present high level of some 50 million pounds?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the phrasing of the question as to whether there will be an announcement of an increase is something on which I am not prepared to speculate. I might point out that one of his colleagues asked the other day for ironclad assurances that there would not be increased quotas, so even on the other side we have differences of opinion. In any event, substantial progress has been made. As the hon. member knows, there have been a lot of representations made as recently as today and my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and I hope to resolve this within a matter of a week or so.


NORTHERN CANADA POWER CORPORATION
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I will direct my question to the parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that the act which sets up the Northern Canada Power Corporation requires that projects undertaken by the commission be self-sustaining, and the rates which are set be sufficient to cover the interest and repayment of principal, and in view of the escalating costs of the two projects at Aishihik and Strutt Lake, which are being carried out by the NCPC, will the parliamentary assistant advise whether the minister intends bringing in regulations or changes to the act which will allow the setting of rates at less than necessary to make these projects self-sustaining?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has requested a report from Commissioner Smith on the reasons for the cost over-runs at Aishihik in the Yukon and Strutt Lake in the Northwest Territories. This report will be made public, after which the minister will determine whether there will be a public inquiry in response to that. Naturally, these over-runs have a complete bearing on the amounts of the rates that will be charged by the Northern Canada Power Commission. Further, the minister has requested that the Northern Canada Power Commission submit their proposed rate increases to both the territorial public utility board of the

February 5, 1976
Oral Questions
Northwest Territories and the Yukon to the Anti-Inflation Board.


REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF ANNUAL REPORT TO COMMITTEE
Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would ask the minister whether he would be prepared to refer the annual report of the NCPC to the standing committee of the House so witnesses can be heard and action taken?


Iona Campagnolo: I will convey the message, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL SECOND PLAYERS REFUSING TO REPRESENT ONE PROVINCE IN INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Can he tell us whether he supports the position of the members of the Montreal Canadiens hockey club who systematically refuse to play in a team which would represent only the province of Quebec in an international tournament? Can the Minister tell us whether he supports those players?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, an international hockey tournament has been organized between six countries, to be held next September. Among these six countries are the USSR, Finland, Czechoslovakia, Sweden and Canada. I do not intend to take part in any dealing whatsoever which would imply that some provinces could participate in one way or another.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and concerns the most recent meetings of ministers in terms of provinces coming into the anti-inflation program. The minister announced there were two provinces that had now agreed and five that had not, and indicated there were special problems of a minor nature to be worked out. This gives some hope to British Columbians that there may be something done about ICBC rates. Will the minister advise whether it was the federal government's position at that conference, and, more importantly, is it the federal government's position now, that the Crown corporation ICBC be

an addendum to the agreement as Ontario Hydro is here in Ontario?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that question was not specifically discussed, but we have made it clear to the province of British Columbia, as we have to other provinces, that we would, of course, be quite prepared to discuss the inclusion of provincial agencies. For many months there have been positions taken by provincial governments, and by both the previous provincial government of British Columbia and the present one, insisting that a fairly large range of provincial agencies be excluded from direct control in so far as price charging was concerned because of their intimate connection with the fiscal policy of the province.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-POSSIBLE REMOVAL OF EXPORT TAX-EFFECT ON WORKERS IN EXPORT INDUSTRIES
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, at the same meeting the minister indicated that there would be a review of export tax by Ottawa at the request of about five provinces, particularly British Columbia and Alberta. In the course of that review will the minister advise us if he is reviewing the wage control program with regard to those workers who are working in the export industry? In the event that you lift the export tax will it be the policy of the government also to lift the wage control program over those workers who are controlled, because at the other end the prices will be completely uncontrolled?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, at the meeting I made the basic point to the provincial ministers of the inequity which led us to propose the export levy in the first place. It seems to me that the proposal of the hon. gentleman would only compound the inequity as between different groups of workers in particular provinces.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and I preface it by saying that I think members in all parts of the House are most anxious to co-operate in the restraint program and will do everything they can to make it a success. Having regard to the difficulty of having finances for tanks and other military requirements, and the reduction in hospital beds across this country in order to keep down expenditures, does the minister not feel it would be in the interest of the country as a whole that he show restraint and put an end now to that $88 million language school in St. Jean, Quebec?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the right hon. gentleman may not have been in the House yesterday.
February 5, 1976


John George Diefenbaker: I was in the House and I listened to that fatuous explanation.


James Armstrong Richardson: He might not have heard the answer that was given by me and also by the President of the Treasury Board. The facility at St. Jean, Quebec, is to be used for recruit training as well as for language training. It has been planned now for several years and it will take at least four or five years to complete. The expenditure this year and next year is relatively small.


John George Diefenbaker: If it is not necessary and it will take four or five years before it can be opened, why not end it now and give an example to the Canadian people that the government follows its policy of restraint which it is asking others to carry out?


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since International Olympic Committee President Lord Killanin clearly indicated that his committee has nothing to do with the invitation sent to the Queen to inaugurate the Olympic Games in Montreal next July, and since Lord Killanin added he would have preferred that the inauguration be presided over by His Excellency Mr. Jules Leger, would the Prime Minister say why and how his government decided to invite Her Majesty the Queen instead of His Excellency Mr. Jules Leger?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the decision was made in consultation with the Quebec premier after he had talked it over with the Mayor of Montreal.
* *
*


COMBINES
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can he tell the House whether there is any target date for the report of the so called Bryce commission on corporate concentration, and when does he anticipate that the House might get that report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to inquire. When I set up the commission I indicated my hope that within a year it could prepare its report, but there was no exact deadline. I will inquire as to when the commission thinks its report will be ready.
Oral Questions FINANCE


POSSIBILITY OF DELAY IN AMENDMENT OF BANK ACT AWAITING REPORT OF BRYCE COMMISSION
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In light of the Prime Minister's report I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. His predecessor had indicated that the government was choosing the draft bill route for the modification of the Bank Act. A new bank act should be in position for January 1, 1977. Can the minister say now whether it is the intention to await the report of the Bryce commission on the concentration of power, which is looking into the banks and the organization of financial institutions in Canada, before it presents its draft bill?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No,
Mr. Speaker. We had concluded that there being issues to be dealt with by the revision of the Bank Act other than the subjects being discussed by the Bryce commission report it would be desirable, either by way of a white paper to be tabled or by first reading of the bill, which would not then be immediately proceeded with, to put on the public record the proposed changes to the law. Very obviously, by the time the Bryce commission report is received there would be an opportunity to incorporate such of his recommendations as might be accepted by the government in any bill which was put forward for definitive enactment before the termination date.
* *
*


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. As the September 22, 1972 press release by the federal minister of DREE of the day and the premier of Nova Scotia states:
The ministers estimated that it would take a few months before organizational work would be completed and a board of directors appointed.
to Metropolitan Area Growth Investments Ltd., may I ask the minister: When did the corporation become fully organized and operational, and has it as yet taken any concrete action on behalf of the citizens in the Halifax-Dartmouth area, which would indirectly benefit many of the citizens of Nova Scotia?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, this corporation was organized a few months ago. Indeed only recently was it able to complete its executive staff and have its permanent director. It began operating in the last few weeks and filed its first report with my department. I have started going through it. I cannot tell at this time what its concrete operations have been, but I think that some difficulties have been solved. Thus we can hope that in the year that begins this corporation will be able to contribute very positively to the development of this area of the capital of Nova Scotia, Halifax.

February 5, 1976
Oral Questions


FISHERIES
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the massive damage which has been done by recent storms along the south coast of New Brunswick and in other coastal areas of Canada, would he consider the assessment of this damage and a recommendation to the government that this area be declared a disaster area and receive adequate funds from the government for its reestablishment in business?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is familiar with the natural disaster formula whereby the province triggers a joint federal-provincial program for this type of disaster. I have asked the officials of the department to co-operate and to help the province of New Brunswick assess the damage so far as fisheries are concerned.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the decision of the Nova Scotia supreme court that the Nova Scotia government does not have the right to censor motion pictures, thus putting into question the constitutionality of all provincial censor boards, and that that responsibility only rests with the parliament of Canada, has the minister had discussions on this matter with the attorneys general and is he planning to intervene in any further appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, since the decision I have not had any discussions with the provincial attorneys general. The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, as is indicated by the press, is considering whether to appeal the decision of the appeal division of the supreme court of Nova Scotia to the Supreme Court of Canada. I and my officials are studying the decision, but obviously we have no right to intervene until the matter is appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada at which time, of course, we would have to consider the judgment to see whether the Attorney General of Canada should or should not intervene.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In 1972 while in Edmonton the Prime Minister promised contributions for upgrading and building of highways within Edmonton and the northern Alberta area, and in 1974 while in Edmonton

the Prime Minister along with the Minister of Transport promised financial contributions for rapid transit to the worthy people of Edmonton. I should like to ask through you, Mr. Speaker, when he will fulfil his promises.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member will send me the exact references, I will find out what particular highways were then under discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the twenty-third report of the clerk of petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni), and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Order as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader about the business for the rest of this week, next week and as far ahead as he can see in this session, which looks as though it will go on for all eternity.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I hope the final comment of the hon. gentleman is not borne out by events. We are very anxious to get ahead and to complete the business which is on the order paper. As I indicated at an earlier time, if we could deal with this business with reasonable dispatch, we would be in a position to give a clearer indication as to whether we intended to have a new session of parliament before June. However, I shall first deal with the business.
The government attaches first priority to the completion of consideration of Bill C-58, and that bill will certainly remain on the order paper as the order of business for each day at report stage, and when that is completed I hope we will move almost immediately to third reading. I should also like, however, to try to fit in one minor bill on the Thousand Islands bridge and also to complete consideration of the amendments to Bill S-10 from the Senate. I wish to follow that with completion of second reading of Bill C-68, and if we make progress, we would then call Bill C-72.
I have had some discussions with the leaders of the other parties, and it is agreed that Thursday should be an opposition day, one of the allotted days. It has been suggested,
February 5, 1976

and we have accepted the suggestion, that the subject should be the seventh report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments which was presented to the House on Tuesday, December 16, 1975, and the terms of reference which would follow therefrom, to implement the report of the committee. That would be considered as one of the allotted days. The vote, however, would be on the report and on the terms of reference.


Gerald William Baldwin: If such a vote is not to be a vote of non-confidence, it would leave hon. members opposite free to vote, for once, as their conscience dictates. I should also like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice, a question which he asked me to ask. As counsel of some experience, I am usually reluctant to ask questions which witnesses want me to ask them. However, the question I should like to ask is, can the minister advise the House whether he will be introducing the amendment to the Criminal Code dealing with capital punishment, so that the House will know the official details?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General indicated in the House the other day that two bills would be introduced very shortly, one in his name dealing with the issue of capital punishment, and one in my name containing amendments to the Criminal Code and other statutes relating to crime prevention and detection. There is still some work to be done on those bills and some administrative measures to be taken, but unless we get hung-up-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: -it is the intention of the Solicitor General and myself to introduce those two bills and to announce the administrative measures on February 24.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like briefly to repeat my Thursday question. Due to the fact that it has now been eight days since the Minister of Veterans Affairs said he would make a statement within two weeks, regarding prisoners of war legislation, may we anticipate that that commitment will be kept before next Thursday?
My other question relates to the comment just made by the President of the Privy Council to the effect that the question of when a new session is to start is still being considered. Due to the fact that sessions of parliament are, surely, the concern of parliament as well as of the government, should there not be consultations with representatives of all parties in parliament before the government decides to continue a session indefinitely?


Mitchell William Sharp: With regard to the first question, I think I can speak for my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs when I say that it is his hope to make a statement next Thursday on the subject of the report and the legislation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, a statement!


Mitchell William Sharp: On the question of a new session, I think it is the decision of the government when to open a new session. I have had the opportunity of talking occasionally to my colleagues, the House leaders of the other parties, on
Business of the House
the general question. I only wish I were in a position to be a little clearer, but we are not really proceeding as expeditiously as I think we all would with the remaining items on the order paper. If we were doing that, I would be very happy to discuss with my colleagues whether, and when, we should have a new session of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice of a point of order. If the government persists in its plan to continue this session indefinitely, I will have a point of order or a question of privilege to raise about it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in the consideration of the government with regard to whether there shall be a new session or this one shall continue, I trust that it will not abuse the privileges of members of this House in that the Senate and House of Commons Act provides for only a limited number of unexcused absences with heavy penalties. If hon. members are not completely, shall we say, to subvert the affidavits which they make every month, there has to be some reason. No session was deemed to last two years; therefore, the period of absence for most hon. members, including hon. members on the government side, has long expired since October, 1974, and it is a matter of statutory amendment.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the question period I attempted to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue and I was ruled out or order based on the argument that the matter would be before the House later this afternoon. My point of order is that my question was outside the parameters of the report stage amendments which we will be debating this afternoon. The minister made an intervention in the debate the other day outlining changes in content regulations. My question had to do with a licensing arrangements, which is entirely separate from that matter and has great bearing, because the licensing agreement argues that Reader's Digest, United States, must approve all material published in Canada. My question, therefore, has significant bearing on the definition of a Canadian magazine.
With respect, since these matters are not included in the report stage amendments before the House this afternoon, my question on a licensing arrangement is entirely separate from those amendments. Therefore I respectfully submit that I should be able to put the question at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member raises, by way of a point of order, a disagreement with the decision made by the Chair in the question period, I might say that I further disagree with him because his question would be irrelevant with respect to the amendments I have seen on the order paper which remain undiscussed at this stage.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I indicated yesterday that I would invite the hon. member for Central Nova, and other hon. members who are interested, to participate in a discussion about the rather complex question of sub judice and those restrictions which might be placed upon hon. members in asking questions and ministers in answering

February 5, 1976
Order Paper Questions
questions. In light of the fact that there is now an amendment moved by the hon. member for Red Deer to motion No. 3, we will likely endeavour this afternoon to call a vote on that amendment in order to proceed in an orderly way with the discussion of other clauses. In addition, there is an indication that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will make a statement on motions.
I have already, in a preliminary way at least, considered the rather difficult question which has been raised. I wonder if I might invite the indulgence of the hon. member for Central Nova, and others interested in that particular subject, to defer this discussion until perhaps Monday or Tuesday of next week. Might that be agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In light of the practice which the House has adopted in recent days, I wonder if I might ask that the tabling of documents and the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs be postponed until we have completed the remainder of routine proceedings?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,351, 3,744, 3,767, 3,872, 3,891, 3,907 and 3,915.


Mr. Coates: 1.	In each of the past five years, how much money has the government contributed in support of the activities of Canada World Youth?
2.	By what programme and from what Parliamentary vote have such funds been provided?
3.	Of the total amount of money advanced, how much has been for (a) administration (b) salary and other personnel costs (c) travel by officers of CWY (d) actual support for CWY programme?
4.	In respect of salary and other personnel costs, who are the individuals to whom payments have been made and in what amounts?
5.	In respect of travel costs (a) for what officers have costs been reimbursed (b) in what amounts (c) what was the destination and purpose of each trip?
6.	Who are the officers and directors of CWY and by whom are they appointed?
7.	Are the financial statements of CWY subject to audit or audit verification by the Auditor General and, if not, what are the provisions of any agreement between the government and CWY in respect of independent audit?


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the
Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. 1971-72, Nil; 1972-73, Nil; 197374, Nil; 1974-75, $2,800,000; 1975-76 to date, $2,850,000.
(Mr. Speaker.]
2.	Canadian Non-Governmental Organizations Program. Parliamentary Vote 30.
3.	The funds advanced to CWY in 1974-75 were for the following purposes: (a) Administration, $173,721; (b) Salaries and expenses, $188,423; (c) Travel, $42,428; (d) Program support, $2,395,428. The final report for payments made in 1975-76 will not be received until July or August 1976 as the fiscal year ends June 30th.
4 and 5. CIDA does not make payments to individuals or reimburse individual salary or travel costs. Total personnel costs, including the necessary travel to implement the program, are part of CWY's budget which is carefully assessed by CIDA before it is approved.
6.	The Directors of CWY are as follows: Dr. Michael Oliver, Mr. Rheal Berube, Mr. Jean Fortier, Ms. Raynell Andreychuck, Mr. Harold Baker, Mr. David Bartlett, Mr. Paul Becker, Mr. Louis Desmarais, Miss Michele Brouillet, Mr. Bill Dodge, Mr. C. G. Gifford, Mr. Donald McDougall, Mrs. Marie Resanovic, Miss Silvia Van Brabant. The officers are as follows: Dr. Michael Oliver, Chairman; Mr. Rheal Berube, Vice-Chairman; Mr. Jean Fortier, Treasurer. The Directors are appointed at the Annual Meeting of CWY upon recommendation of a nominating committee.
7.	The CWY financial statements are subject to independent audit annually. If requested, they are open to audit verification by the Auditor-General.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Okanagan Boundary, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Manpower and Immigration during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Robert Knight Andras: In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned the answer is as follows: 1. R. W. Gilchrist, Barrister & Solicitor, 208 Main Street, Penticton, B.C.; R. W. Rutherford, Barrister, Box 40, Penticton, B.C..
2. R. W. Gilchrist, 1973: 400.57; 1974: 224.40; R. W. Rutherford, 1973: Nil; 1974: 67.00.


Mr. Allard: By year, from 1972 to date, how many (a) English speaking (b) French speaking employees have been working for the Department of Public Works?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1972: English, 5,610; French, 1,726. 1975: English, 5,181; French, 2,011. We do not have the information available for 1973 and 1974.
February 5, 1976


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Does Canada's negative vote on the United Nations General Assembly resolution December 5, 1975 condemning Israel's continuous occupation of Arab territories imply that Canada recognizes Israeli sovereignty over the territories?
2.	For what reason did the Canadian delegation vote against this resolution?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The intent of U.N. General Assembly Resolution 3414 (XXX) of December 5, 1975, as expressed by the cosponsors was to seek a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Canada voted against the resolution, without a formal explanation of vote, because we did not think it would in fact make a positive contribution to the achievement of peace in the area. Our principal objection to the resolution was that it presented an essentially unbalanced statement of the situation. It made no specific reference to Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which remain basic to the establishment of a durable peace and which contain the essential elements necessary for the achievement of this objective. Furthermore, the resolution appealed to all states "to desist from supplying Israel with any military or economic aid" but ignored the military support provided to other states in the area. The resolution also hinted that sanctions should be imposed against Israel, a measure which Canada considers to be totally unwarranted. Even if this were warranted, it would be an infringement on the prerogatives of the Security Council. Canada did not think that the UNGA would serve the aim of achieving a lasting peace in the Middle East by condemning Israel's continued occupation of the territories while remaining silent on other elements in Resolution 242 such as the right of all states in the area to live in peace and security. Our negative vote can in no way be construed as recognition by Canada of any kind of Israeli sovereignty over occupied Arab territories. Indeed, there could not be any such recognition.
Order Paper Questions BUDGETARY REDUCTION OF LIP


Mr. Marshall: Does the budgetary reduction of $35 million in the Expenditure Reduction Programme to reshape the Local Initiatives Programme apply to the amount of $135 million announced for the 1976 programme and will the amount allocated for LIP in 1976-77 be $100 million?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes. The original allocation of $135 million announced for the 1976-77 Program has been reduced to $100 million.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Under the Canada-Mexico Exchange Programme for young specialists and technicians, what contact has been made in the Province of Newfoundland, either through Manpower Centres or with the Memorial University of Newfoundland to advise them of such a programme?
2.	Have meetings been held and, if so, what are the details?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. The Canada-Mexico Exchange Program for Young Specialists and Technicians, which is administered by my Department on behalf of the Department of External Affairs, was publicized in all Canada Manpower Centres in Newfoundland, including the Canada Manpower Centre on campus at the Memorial University of Newfoundland. In addition, an advertisement was inserted in one edition of the St. John's Telegram during the week of January 7-10, 1976.
2. Candidates from Newfoundland, who meet all the requirements for consideration under the program, will be requested to appear for an oral interview, on a date to be determined in March, 1976.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	As of March 31, 1975, what were the amounts of income tax arrears in the case of each national and multinational corporation?
2.	Do such arrears bear interest and, if so, at what rate?
3.	Since what date have such amounts been owing?
Hon. clack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue): 1. As
of March 31, 1975 there were 25,620 corporation accounts outstanding for a total of $223,042,948. Information is not available to categorize these accounts by national or multinational.
2. Arrears bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
3. Number of accounts
Calendar year in which assessed
Amount
outstanding
2,470	1973 and prior
9,269	1974
12,881	1975
Total 24,620


[Stage Direction]
* *
*
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 3,821?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Has the Law Reform Commission made 14 reports since its inception and, if so, do they include a variety of topics including restitution, family law, mental patients, divorce, imprisonment and release, expropriation, and family property?
2.	How many of such reports have become the subject-matter of legislation now before Parliament?
21 130-5 3

February 5, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Francis Fox (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, The Law Reform Commission has made one report since its inception, that is, the Report on Evidence which was received by the Minister of Justice on December 18, 1975 and tabled on December 19, 1975. The Commission has also issued fourteen working papers on a variety of subjects for the purpose of obtaining public reaction. Reports containing actual recommendations in a number of these areas are expected in 1976. Since detailed discussion and consultation with Crown attorneys, police, judges, and members of the legal profession will be necessary in relation to the Evidence Report, legislation in this area will not be able to proceed immediately.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point of order about questions on the order paper and the particular method of answering them which the government seems to have adopted. I consider it to be totally unworkable and quite unsatisfactory for ordinary members of parliament. In July 18 I put question No. 2,985 on the order paper. It deals with the subject of growth in expenditures for public relations and advertisements in the civil service since the Prime Minister came to power in 1968. Some months later a partial answer was given to me from a number of departments which listed the information for their departments. The answer included a note at the bottom to the effect that a number of other departments would subsequently be providing this information. I have raised this matter before, both privately with the parliamentary secretary and in the House.
On December 1 the parliamentary secretary had a note prepared which indicated answers that were still forthcoming, including those from the National Capital Commission and Industry, Trade and Commerce, which should have been ready two weeks afterwards according to the note. The answer from the Department of External Affairs was supposed to be ready at the end of that week, the first week in December. As yet, there has been no answer from any of these departments or agencies. The Department of Urban Affairs, the Department of the Environment, National Health and Welfare, the Prime Minister's office, the National Capital Commission, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Secretary of State, Post Office, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, External Affairs, and Energy, Mines and Resources have yet to provide answers.
If the practice of placing questions on the order paper is to be at all meaningful, it is incumbent upon the government to try to give speedy and complete responses. I think the practice of giving partial answers, saying the rest will follow and then neglecting to submit the answers, is totally inadequate. I think this matter should be brought to Your Honour's attention and to the attention of the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Blais:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is true that I have had discussions with the hon. member relating to certain partial replies that were made. This practice has been followed and in some instances the follow-ups, in the regular course, come within two weeks. In other instances there have been some delays, and there have been a number of instances when pressure has been applied to the departments to obtain the answers. As a

matter of fact, directions have been given to all departments that we hope will facilitate obtaining the answers.
I offer this explanation to the hon. member hoping it will be helpful to him. I recognize that the questions asked by the hon. member are usually orderly and seeking to obtain information, which is not the case with all questions asked.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26, I should like to move a motion to allow the discussion of a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the problem with regard to the Olympic Games expected to take place in Montreal this coming summer. The urgency of the debate lies in the fact that the reputation of the country is at stake, that fundamental differences between the Quebec government and the federal government threaten the unity of the country, and that it is important for the opinion of the representatives of the people in this House to be made known on that extremely important question. I therefore move:
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, the hon. member for Champlain gave notice of his motion under Standing Order 26, but I am sorry I have to point out that those continuous problems, which started as far back as at least three years ago, which have not ceased to attract the attention of the House, do not quite respect the stipulations of Standing Order 26. The matter is very important, and may also be quite urgent because of the continuing importance of the matter; but because of the opportunities the House has had in the past and may have in the future, from now till next summer, of discussing it under other Standing Orders, and the other opportunities it may have of doing so, I cannot accept the motion under Standing Order 26.

In accordance with the agreement made earlier this day, the House will revert to tabling of documents and statements by ministers in order to receive a statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.




Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to report, as
February 5, 1976

requested by at least one hon. member, and probably others, on the progress which has been made in initiating a dialogue among industrialized countries on the Conference on International Economic Co-operation. I have attended two meetings in Paris as co-chairman of the conference, a function which I share with the Venezuelan minister of state for international economic affairs, Dr. Manuel Perez Guerrero. We have worked together very closely from the start and I want to pay tribute to his wisdom, knowledge and good judgment.
The Conference on International Economic Co-operation is a new venture in international diplomacy bringing together 27 participants-19 developing countries and 8 developed members including the European Community. Seven of the developing countries are members of OPEC, whereas 12 are oil importing countries. The membership of the conference has been selected to be broadly representative of the interests of the world community as a whole with the exception of eastern Europe and China which are not participating.
The use of co-chairmen from the two groups to head the conference and the commissions is a new technique in conferences of this kind. Limited, but representative, membership may ensure that any consensus reached at the conference is broadly acceptable to the international community. It may also make it possible to replace the highly politicized and often sterile debate on international economic problems by a pragmatic and systematic approach to complex questions which cannot be resolved by rhetoric. Limited membership may also be conducive to better understanding, and hence to a more earnest and direct attack on specific issues.
The origins of this conference are diverse and are reflected in its character. What began as a reaction to the quadrupling of petroleum prices in late 1973 has evolved over the past two years into a conference designed to examine many of the world's major economic problems in addition to those associated with energy. The conference will undoubtedly address the various demands for changes in the world's economic system which have been put forward by developing countries in the United Nations. Since the first impact of the oil price rise, Canada has been a consistent advocate of such a consumer-producer dialogue and has in particular advocated including the "innocent victims"-the most seriously affected developing countries- in the dialogue. I am, therefore, particularly gratified that the conference can truthfully be described as a dialogue between developed and developing countries, between producers and consumers of petroleum, and between producers and consumers of other raw materials.
During the coming year the conference will attempt to reach agreement by consensus on a variety of important issues in the fields of energy, raw materials, development and finance. It is my hope that in the process it will make a positive contribution to a new era of international economic co-operation by fostering better understanding and by stimulating ongoing work in other bodies such as UNCTAD, UNIDO, the GATT, the FAO, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.
International Economic Co-operation
The ministerial meeting in December which President Giscard d'Estaing opened and which Dr. Perez Guerrero and I chaired brought together ministers from the 27 members of the conference. We agreed on the creation of four commissions: for energy, raw materials, development, and financial affairs. Each consists of 15 members, five representing developed, and ten representing developing members. We agreed on the co-chairmen for each of the four commissions and approved general guidelines regarding the work of the conference.
At a follow-up meeting last week, Dr. Perez Guerrero and I, as conference co-chairmen, together with the eight co-chairmen of the four commissions, reviewed preparations for the work of the commissions. We agreed that each of the commissions should meet five times between now and July, and we made a number of recommendations with respect to the duration of meetings, participation by observers and other procedures. While the initial meetings of the commission will probably deal with organizational and procedural matters, I believe they will quickly move on to substantive questions. A meeting of senior officials from the 27 members may review the progress of the commissions in about five months' time, probably in June. I should qualify that statement by saying that the recommendation has been made by the conference co-chairmen but has not yet been acted upon or agreed to by the participating governments. Of course, it is expected that a ministerial meeting will be held next December to conclude the work of the commissions.
The two co-chairmen of the conference have a particularly sensitive role to play. Although all participants in the Conference on International Economic Co-operation are prepared to approach issues in a positive and co-operative manner, there is a broad range of differing national interests and philosophies among the developed, developing, and OPEC members of the conference. To a degree, it was this very diversity of interests and the consequent difficulty of providing leadership equally responsive to both the group of 8, the developed members, and the group of 19, the developing members, which led to the choice of the two co-chairmen as a technique for organizing the conference. This co-direction of the conference is symbolic of the determination of the member countries to work together and to accept shared responsibility for the results.
Just as Dr. Perez Guerrero and I have a certain responsibility for ensuring that the work of the conference proceeds in an orderly and constructive manner, so the co-chairmen of the commissions have a responsibility for guiding the work of their commissions so that they achieve results which are broadly acceptable to the international community, including those countries which are not members of the conference. As I said, I have been working closely with my co-chairman and I am sure that the co-chairmen of the commissions will also work together constructively.
Canada is a member of two of the four commissions: energy and development. The dialogue in the energy commission may eventually encompass such sensitive issues as oil prices, indexation, and security of supply. We hope that it will lead to increased stability in the international oil market which would facilitate the orderly planning and development of Canada's own energy needs. I also trust
21 1 30-5 3'/2

February 5, 1976
International Economic Co-operation
the dialogue will make a real contribution to solving the problems of the developing countries most seriously affected by the rise in oil and other prices.
I am particularly pleased that Canada will participate in the work of the development commission. As you know, Canada has won considerable respect in the third world for its stand on development questions. I can assure the House that Canada will continue this positive approach in the development commission which will probably consider a broad range of issues in such key areas as food and agricultural development, industrial and technological co-operation, trade liberalization, and official development assistance.
Canada is not a member of the raw materials and finance commissions. As they may deal with a number of vital issues such as the stabilization of commodity prices, the stabilization of earnings derived from commodity exports, and international financial questions, we do have a substantial interest in their proceedings. We shall, therefore, be following the work of these commissions closely through our observers in them. We expect to consult frequently and closely with our colleagues in the conference who are participating in these commissions.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have got off to a good start. Canada has been given an important part in shaping this new instrument of international co-operation. That may be a matter of satisfaction, but it is also a challenge which we shall faithfully seek to meet.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I begin by acknowledging the role the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) played in the Conference on International Economic Co-operation. I congratulate him on his role as co-chairman, tell him we support him in his efforts to bring developed and developing nations together, and suggest that his role is constructive. If I am critical about some of his comments, let me add that I am critical in the context of supporting his intention as revealed once again in his speech. His speech was of the same tenor as the one he made to the United Nations on September 3, 1975, when he unveiled Canada's new five-year strategy. There is a difference between presiding and participating. The minister has been pretty good at presiding. That is a role which you, Mr. Speaker, can well appreciate. My party wants to know more about the specifics of Canada's participation in the north-south conference. What are the specifics of our participation?
The origins of the conference began with the quintupling of oil prices charged by OPEC nations. That price rise was a factor in creating worldwide economic disarray and produced a spirit of confrontation at the sixth special session of the United Nations General Assembly. That session gave birth, so to speak, in May, 1974, to a document known as the "New International Economic Order." A process of severe confrontation, about which developed nations entered several reservations, led to the creation of that document. The sixth session was followed by the seventh session in September, 1975, and the spirit of confrontation gave way to a new spirit of consensus.

Canadian participation in the seventh special session was a marked improvement over the sixth session even though we still had some reservations about the specifics called for by the developing nations with reference to the new economic border. The five-year strategy plugged into the new economic order that was reaffirmed at the seventh special session. However, it has been criticized, and I think fairly, as still being too rhetorical, the position on the part of Canada, when in fact the multidimensional approach- which is the code word for describing Canada's new role in international development-is a shift from reliance on aid as an expression of our humanitarian concern, over to the structural changes of trade and monetary reform, the two together, aid and trade, making a multidimensional policy which is at the heart of the five-year strategy of the Canadian government.
This was touched on by the minister in his speech in New York where he said that Canada was prepared to move ahead in commodities, trade liberalization and industrial co-operation. The minister opened up those areas. They are the very areas that the north-south conference has been called to deal with. We are past the stage of rhetoric, past the stage of expressing good intentions.
I reply to the minister today by emphasizing that we are waiting-I would like to say patiently, but I have to say impatiently-for more detail on how Canada is going to participate. There is the interdepartmental committee of officials of various departments of the Canadian government: we know that. There are the subcommittee on international development and the external affairs committee studying this issue at great length. Speaking as a member of that subcommittee, we cannot move too far into the field until we know where Canada will open up the areas of trade liberalization, commodities and industrial co-operation. There are some very hard questions that Canada has to face with respect to meaningful participation as distinct from presiding over a north-south conference.
Many of the nations which form the industrialized and developing group within the North-South Conference are fully cognizant of the urgency of this question. That urgency has been reflected in Canada's own five-year strategy in which we make reference to the fact that 800 million people around the world can expect almost no improvement in their conditions of life for the rest of the decade because of the cyclical poverty which is brought about by economic control systems in trade and commerce which severely disadvantage the developing nations. Therefore, we are pleased that Canada is beginning to move ahead.
I say, parenthetically, that it will be difficult for us to make real progress on the international scene-and I make the plea to the minister with some feeling on the part of Canadians-until we are solidly plugged into this international system for change, the North-South Conference. Canadians must first of all be aware that there is a new, five-year strategy. I can assure the minister that generally speaking Canadians do not even know this strategy exists. It can be criticized. However, Canadians must first recognize that we are now in the process of moving away from just aid to the multidimensional, the structural changes. I think the five-year strategy needs not only implementa-
February 5, 1976

tion but constructive criticism that will help us to participate more meaningfully in the North-South Conference.
A leading Canadian expert on development, Professor Gerald Helleiner, warns that the "rhetoric on co-operation" glosses over serious inadequacies. Canada is actually dragging its feet on such subjects as the SDR-aid link, reducing tariffs and fair sugar prices, and Canadian representation at international conferences has played too much of a protective role for Canada.
Therefore, I ask the minister how we are going to examine positively the idea of negotiating arrangements for a wide range of products under the commodities section of his speech in New York. How are we going to consider deeper tariff cuts and advance implementation on an m.f.n. basis, or other tariff cuts of interest to developing countries unless we move away from rhetoric and begin to bring into parliament and the subcommittee some of the detail of the thinking going on in the interdepartmental committee that is in the normal process of feeding material for the cabinet to consider?
The Canadian government, and the minister in particular, need the continued support they now have. This can only be retained by having us participate in the ongoing development of our own knowledge of the technical complexities of the structural changes in the multinational policy so that we, as members of parliament, can both understand and contribute to it. It will be a great mistake to go on in the way we have been doing, that is to say, to dump onto the scene a policy that came out of-where? Members of parliament did not participate in the creation of this policy. There are many members, particularly in the subcommittee, who want to have this ongoing role of participation.
The minister talked today about the positive approach he wants to bring into the development commission. A positive approach for what, and for whom? Is it for us, for the continuation of our own benefit with the systems of international commerce benefitting the developed nations, which is at the heart of the problem, or a positive approach to changing those systems? If we are going to demand stable oil prices, what will we offer the group of 77 in return? The minister's statement today was, unfortunately, very vague on what he is going to do.
The mood of co-operation that the minister exemplified in his statement and conduct-and for that I again congratulate him-must dominate new international relationships if there is to be any hope of achieving the new order. The five-year strategy warns that "a hostile reaction by the rich will only intensify the mood of the frustration of the majority of the world's population and foster an atmosphere of confrontation of international affairs."
We are in a dilemma. The massive changes of the new economic order cannot be implemented overnight. The developing world cannot, and will not, wait for our beneficence to catch up with reality. There is a note of urgency that must be maintained in the minister's conduct and in his participation, as well as presiding. I will back him on that urgency, provided he continues to make statements that enlarge the Canadian position in a participatory way as to how we can help the developing nations by better commodity pricing and trade liberalization with meaningful industrial co-operation.
International Economic Co-operation


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) has been appointed co-chairman of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation. As the minister said, this conference is an initiation of a dialogue among industrial and developing countries. The conference, as the minister also mentioned, arose out of OPEC and its quadrupling of petroleum prices. However, it has now gone far beyond a cartel of producer countries: the emphasis has shifted to a consumer-producer dialogue. In the opinion of the government, and I share this opinion, that is a far better approach than existed before. We have already had our attention called by the right hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) to the seventh-


An hon. Member:: "Right honourable"?


Douglas Roche: I am not running for the leadership.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I thought I might in that way give you a boost. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has referred to the seventh special session of the United Nations, held in September of last year. That session announced a new era of worldwide co-operation under the title of the New International Economic Order. This set up a framework, but it will be a long and arduous task to fit in the details and make the aspirations turn into fact. It is essential for the so-called developed, underdeveloped and developing countries to work together to remove what was described at the special session by the minister himself as gross disparities between conditions in the rich and in the poor nations.
I am pleased that Canada has taken its place on the commission on energy and the commission on development. Obviously, Canada is greatly concerned with the question of energy. We are a major supplier of energy as well as a major consumer of energy; we are deeply concerned about this matter and it is one which should be discussed and dealt with on an international basis. I am particularly pleased that we should be a member of the commission on development, for in my mind development has become the key word, item number one among the international issues affecting Canada and, indeed, the world. I hope, as has already been said, that the subcommittee of the external affairs committee of this House will be used to the full by the minister as a forum of discussion by what is really, now, a non-partisan group in connection with developments arising from the work and the discussions of this commission.
The conference to which I have referred is, of course, only one among many; it is only one instrument of international co-operation. Other steps are needed if the basic requirements of humanity are to be met and a stable world developed. Nevertheless, the conference is an event which is potentially important, and we are glad to promise to the minister our support to help him meet the challenge which is before him as chairman of this commission.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) referred to the needs of third world countries and to stabilization agreements related to commodity prices. Could he indicate succinct-

February 5, 1976
International Economic Co-operation
ly-I know he is able to do so-Canada's position with regard to stabilization agreements? Is Canada prepared to put forward a precise position with regard to such agreements and, if so, what is that position? Has Canada already done so?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will reply in general terms, Mr. Speaker. Canada did state at the seventh session of the United Nations that we were in support, or could certainly support, certain elements in the integrated commodity approach and that we were ready, also, in certain circumstances to consider the question of buffer stocks, which is also part of the integrated approach which has been put forward. Beyond this generally positive statement we have not developed a position in detail with regard to commodity agreements, because I believe this would require, particularly within the commission, a good deal of negotiation and discussion.
It is my view that in the course of the dialogue itself a response will be required not only from Canada but from the seven other industrialized countries which are operating as a representative group on behalf of the industrialized world, so to speak. While I am sure each country on the commission must take into account its own national interest, it will be necessary to work out with the other countries in the group, where possible, a common approach. That is how the dialogue has been developing so far.
I would think the area of commodity agreements is one in which the group of eight industrialized countries would be working out a detailed position. However, in general Canada has taken what I consider to be a positive approach toward the question of commodity stabilization. We have not endorsed without question-or, indeed, at all-the concept of indexation, although we do support the general objective of the developing countries, which is to protect their major export earnings, upon which they are so dependent, from the effects of price fluctuations. As a general principle, we would certainly work to bring that about. The precise application of indexation as put forward is extremely difficult, however, and might in some cases even work against the interests of the developing countries.
I believe the value of the dialogue which will take place in these commissions is likely to be the opportunity it provides for countries to discuss questions such as indexation in a practical context apart from the rhetoric which could be associated with them in a more political forum.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the purpose of the conference is to reduce the great disparity between the so-called northern developed countries on one hand, and the so-called southern underdeveloped countries on the other, and reduce or eliminate the sense of injustice felt in the underdeveloped countries, thereby, presumably, reducing the threat to peace, and bearing in mind the feeling of the underdeveloped countries that we have all been fooling around with this question-perhaps sincerely, but without much effect, for a number of years-and the feeling of dissatisfaction and expectation which exists, I am disappointed that the hon. gentleman did not tell us whether or not Canada would be taking any initiatives by way of proposals, and what those proposals would be.

Is it the intention of Canada to take some initiatives and to make some proposals, or is it simply to react to what is put forward by other nations on these various commissions? If Canada is taking certain initiatives and will be putting forward certain tangible, if not concrete, proposals in this connection, in what area will they be?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I begin by expressing agreement with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that it would be unfortunate if the conclusion of the conference were to be a feeling of frustration on the part, not only of the developing countries but frustration, I think, would be generally felt if the north-south dialogue produced very little in the way of concrete solutions.
One of my objectives will be to attempt to facilitate the reaching of, if not glamorous or spectacular results, at least limited or visible results which will have justified the dialogue. In saying that, I would mention to the Leader of the Opposition that in the two meetings that have already been held very formidable difficulties have been cleared away, obstacles that up to now have prevented the dialogue from beginning. So the dialogue is now to begin, the framework has been laid out, the work program has been laid out, key players have been identified, agendas or suggested lists of subjects have been proposed, particularly by the group of 19, by the United States, and the commissions will develop their own work program and, presumably, the listing of the subjects.
It is my expectation that Canada will be participating in the dialogue. It will also be making proposals or taking initiatives. I hope Canada will not be a passive participant or partner, but in certain commissions will make proposals that will not only protect our own national interests which are involved in a number of these commissions but which also will help bridge the gap.
I have made it clear that I was not able today to indicate the substance of our proposals; these are under development. Instructions for the opening commissions are now under preparation, but I do not for a moment underestimate the difficulties that a country like Canada will face in taking forthcoming positions on many of these questions. I believe we will face real difficulties. When hon. members rightly underline the necessity for making concessions in the trade field, it must borne in mind that there is no substantial concession that can be made for access to our markets which will not have an appropriate effect on unemployment or production in Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Or an inappropriate effect.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: "Inappropriate" would generally be the word used. It would have an effect on our employment and production. If meaningful adjustments are to take place that will bring benefits to the developing world, they will, in my view, require sacrifices in the developed countries. I do not think we are kidding ourselves or that we should kid ourselves that this exercise can succeed unless the industrialized countries are prepared to give something to the developing countries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This subject has been rather lengthily discussed. I wonder whether all hon. members
February 5, 1976

would agree that the interests of all parties in the House would be served if I concluded the questioning by recognizing the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a brief question, if I may.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I share the minister's desire to move on from rhetoric to action and from generalities to details. I understand why at this stage it is not possible to give the details, and indeed there are reservations perhaps at any stage about giving the full details of the Canadian proposals. Nevertheless, I ask the minister to undertake to give the House, or a committee of the House, before these conferences meet, as they will meet from time to time, at least an outline of the policies that Canada will positively propound and, when the conferences are over, to report to the House on the result.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to report either to a committee or to the House when I believe I have something that will be of interest to the House, something of substance by way of proposals under discussion at the commissions. Certainly, as the dialogue develops I would want to report to the House or to a committee on the progress that has been made. In June we will have a meeting at the conference level. We will have to have a midterm assessment. I would want, within that period-probably in connection with the mid-term conference-to give some indication of how things are going and what position we are taking.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question and one supplementary question to the minister, if I may. I appreciate his answer to the Leader of the Opposition, that it was necessary to work out a common approach on commodity pricing with the other members of the north-south conference, particularly the developed members, but I would ask him whether that answer is in harmony with the urgency of Canada working out a position on commodity pricing to bring in at the UNCTAD-four conference in May of this year. We will not be able to wait the north-south conference has fully finished its deliberations since the UNCTAD-four conference has already been hailed the most significant of all international conferences at a special session of the United Nations. Developing nations are waiting to see what the developed nations are going to do about bargaining on commodity prices with regard to cocoa, copper, lead, zinc, tin, coffee, bauxite and the bulk of the other 18 primary commodities.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe Canada has already signed or has become a member of certain commodity agreements affecting certain commodities, but I would be happy to get further information on that question. UNCTAD-four is meeting in Nairobi, I believe, next month. It is part of the process involved in the north-south dialogue. My approach, really, is a simple one. The same problems are being tackled in a number of fora-a commonly-used term today-at UNCTAD-four, at the seventh special session and at GATT. The same reality is being examined and the same problems are being discussed. Probably UNCTAD-four will make some further progress,
International Economic Co-operation but I do not see these various meetings as being separate events. They are all part of the same ongoing effort to solve problems affecting the same reality, and the same reality is being examined at all these institutions.
I believe the most important one, the one the world will be watching most, is the north-south dialogue, because it is a unique exercise, one that is working in co-operation with the United Nations. Apart from the United Nations, it has a separate origin and a new format, and is expected to deliver results at the end of 1976. So they are all important and they are all working on the same problem. I do not see how any one of us could try to develop a separate, new or different policy for each of these conferences, when actually they are dealing with the same question in one aspect or another.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask more than one supplementary, but I will refrain from doing that as I expect it would lead to another debate. I want to move quickly to a question for the minister in respect of priorities respecting aid. As we know, continued aid is very much a part of the new economic order of events in the north-south structure. I would ask the minister about Canada's priorities for aid. If aid is to go to the least developed countries, how is it that a $25 million agreement has just been signed with Indonesia which is an oil producing and exporting country? How is it that we announced that agreement without any detail as to how that money is to be used in Indonesia?
I ask these questions because of the contrasting situation we have seen develop within the past 24 hours as a result of an earthquake in Guatemala, with 2,000 people dead and 5,000 injured, but I have yet to hear any announcement that Canada intends to provide emergency aid to Guatemala. I put this question in the context of the importance of Canadian people knowing who is to get the aid, and why it is going there.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in the case of Guatemala, I have authorized CIDA today to make a special donation to the International Red Cross as a first step in what I hope will be a series of measures to assist the tragically-stricken population of Guatemala. We have made this grant through the International Red Cross and we are considering substantial contributions in the form of food aid. We are also considering a restructuring of our aid program in respect of Guatemala in order to meet their short-term emergency situation.
In the case of Indonesia, it is a very poor country, well within the ambit of the strategy. Even though its economy has been helped by oil revenues, it is still a country that is very poor and deserves our help.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I must admit, through you, that I am rather shattered to hear nothing but rhetoric from the government on this particular occasion. This matter of trade and aid, and the relationship between the two and the need for aid has been in the forefront for-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that there is provision for one spokesman for each party to

February 5, 1976
International Economic Co-operation
make a comment and for others to put questions to the minister. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of questioning the minister.


Donald W. Munro: I do have a question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister advise us in what areas, and when, Canada is to put some substance to its verbiage? The areas of commodity agreements have already been mentioned in respect of sugar, rubber, sisal, coffee, tea, cocoa, cotton and wool. When is Canada going to take a step so as to lead people into following in the right direction, instead of patting itself on the back as being a leader in the development of these procedures?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian position is very well laid out; that is, we have developed, very clearly, a five-year strategy for our development assistance. We are now engaged interdepartmentally and in a parliamentary forum in the development of multidimensional project toward the resolution of the international economic situation. The honourable member will have realized that Canada, in the commodity field-as I have already indicated to the honourable member for Edmonton-Strathcona- has established commodity agreements in respect of certain raw materials and will continue to support those agreements and processes provided they do not become producer cartels. We have taken the view that trade commodity agreements must involve consumers and producers. We are not interested in those that become, as I stated, cartels for producers alone.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister has told us that the conference on international economic co-operation has set up four commissions, and that one of those commissions will be dealing with the matter of energy. I should like to ask the minister, very briefly, who will be representing Canada on that commission, and will it deal only with oil, since that is the only subject mentioned in the minister's comments; or will it deal with other forms of energy?
In addition, what position does Canada propose to take on that commission? I recognize that the minister cannot say that we are going to get certain things, because naturally there has to be compromise and some consensus reached. Also, I do not believe that Canada is going to go into a commission on a subject of this importance unless it has a position it proposes to advance. Is the government going to be asking for some type of agreement between the exporting and importing countries regarding an international price? Is the government going to be making some proposal for an agreement by which the exporting countries might reduce the price, in return for which the developing countries would give greater access to the markets of the developed countries or some reduction in the price of goods which they are shipping into those countries? It seems to me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Having restricted one member earlier in respect of making a comment on the minister's statement as opposed to putting questions, I wonder if I might ask the honourable member to ask his question now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I was simply trying to make clear to the minister

what I had in mind. I am asking, what is the position which Canadian representatives will take on the energy commission in respect of the kind of policy that will be beneficial to Canada and at the same time beneficial to the other countries, particularly the exporting countries?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might state, in general terms, what I conceive to be the major objective that Canada will seek to achieve at the energy commission. The major objective, in our view, would be to develop arrangements that would make for long-term stability in the international energy market-or oil market, in so far as we are talking about oil-making it possible for a country like Canada and others in the world to make orderly plans within that framework over the long term.
Obviously, the question of price is an important one. The question of security of supply is an important one, as well. The question of indexation will be extremely important to the oil producers. One asks himself, as a participant in the commission, whether it would be desirable at this stage to get involved in these extremely difficult questions, thereby endangering at a very early stage the possibility of a fruitful dialogue. I believe it will be up to the co-chairmen of the commission on energy, the United States and Saudi Arabia, as well as the members of the commission, to work out the work program.
It would seem to me there will be an effort to establish a factual basis and to determine all the factors which are presently influencing the demand for energy in the world, as well as the supplies of energy, so that people can agree at least on the facts before they get into the very difficult policy questions of price, supply and indexation. I think these questions are among the main ones that will be dealt with. That, in general, is the best I can do in reply to the honourable member's question. We have been giving consideration to the membership on the energy commission, and we will be represented by senior officials on that commission and another official on the development commission, and we will have observers on the commission on raw materials and the commission on financial affairs.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 4, 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. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to take too long, because I understand that due consideration must be given to the fact that fairly soon there will be a division on this amendment. I am pleased to see here in the chamber the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who will be able to support this amendment
February 5, 1976

because it relates to agriculture. He has become a friend of the agricultural producer and I am sure he would want to do everything to help production.
This is a very specific amendment for the producer of a specific product. In this case, it could well be purebred or exotic livestock. My colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) will take a few moments of the time of the House to make some remarks with regard to machinery.
The amendment is with regard to specialized production by a specialized corporation or individual, and to a specialized advertising agency and to specialized consumers. It is not a large area that we are covering. The necessity for this amendment is due to the fact that purebred livestock producers in one part of Canada, either western or eastern Canada, may be directing their advertising through a medium in the United States back to particular people in Canada. At present, it is left open to the interpretation of a government official as to whether that person can deduct the expense of advertising for income tax purposes. It would seem to me that, while this may be the manner in which the government would like to proceed, the provisions should be specific, and this is what the amendment would achieve.
I suggest the addition of the word "agricultural" to the amendment of the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy). I think this is a good amendment because it also deals with specifics. It is not a large business, but a specific one, and this is of fundamental importance. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) took exception to it the other day because he felt that it might cause an influx into Canada of foreign-owned magazines. But I would bring to his attention and to that of all those who want to oppose this legislation the fact that we have the Foreign Investment Review Act which protects the Canadian industry.
However, in certain areas we do not have adequate facilities within our borders with which to publicize our products, and that is why it is of fundamental importance for us to try to give sufficient assistance to producers to advertise their products adequately across this country to enable them to receive the highest price for their products, which is to the advantage of both the producers and the consumers, because that is what competition is all about.
Government statutes allow exemptions for catalogues and publications for the encouragement and promotional development of fine arts and religion. I see no reason why the motion of the hon. member for Timmins to include scientific or medical subjects should not be adopted, following which we would add agricultural products.
Mr. Speaker, I will resume my seat now and give the hon. member for Moose Jaw an opportunity to make his comments.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in commenting on this amendment, which I certainly support. As hon. members are aware, in the agricultural field at least there is quite a movement of goods across the border. The maritimes trade with the eastern United States and Ontario purchases and sells specialized equipment to the U.S. We in Saskatchewan have quite a number of small manufacturing businesses which specialize in the production of certain types of farm machinery. Of course, the same situation exists on the west coast in British
Non-Canadian Publications
Columbia. I feel that these manufacturers of farm equipment and other commodities should be free to make use of the advertising media from across the border, because in almost every instance the trade magazines and periodicals are published in the United States.
Up to now in Canada we have not been able to publish a trade magazine or periodical on various industrial subjects which would contain advertisements for the products that we manufacture. Therefore, I think it is of vital importance that the exception which is set forth in this subamendment be approved, and I urge every member of the House to support this amendment, as I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will want to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the subamendment of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Subamendment (Mr. Towers) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to motion No. 3, as amended.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments in connection with motion No. 3. I believe motions Nos. 2 and 3 are being dealt with together. Unfortunately, I was not in the House yesterday afternoon when the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) spoke; I was in the resources committee. But I did have the opportunity of reading his remarks as recorded in Hansard. At the outset he said that this bill has taken a long time, about a year. This is true, but this is a very important piece of legislation as far as the people of Canada are concerned. It is a piece of legislation which possibly has brought in more correspondence than any other legislation which has been before the House since I came here in 1972. Consequently, it is important that we do take time with this bill.
The tenor of the correspondence which has come in, not only to myself but to other hon. members on both sides of this House, has been opposition to the bill. It is interesting to note that the Secretary of State throughout the year has remained adamant in his stand until the last day or two. Suddenly we were faced with a piece of correspondence or a news release from Reader's Digest to the effect that it is now in a position to comply with the bill or the regulations as to content.
In so far as this motion is concerned, the Secretary of State indicated in his speech yesterday that both motions Nos. 2 and 3 are very important, yet on the other hand he indicated he is not prepared to accept them. It seems to me that he is prepared to allow the interpretation of the regulations to be the guide, and the interpretation of the regulations in the past has been a movement back and forth depending on the whims and fancies of the Minister of National Revenue. It seems to me that it is important to companies doing business in Canada, and to individual
10672

February 5, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
citizens, to understand the law. The law should not be left to the interpretation, the whims and fancies of the minister or to the mandarins who administer the regulations or the legislation.
These two amendments set out specifically what the law is. They are amendments which anyone can understand. Often in recent years legislation was drafted in such a manner that it was almost impossible to understand, and it required interpretation. However, I am pleased to see that these two amendments leave no doubt as to what the publishing companies have to comply with. This is the way we should legislate in this country. Parliament is the sounding board; it is the legislative body which makes the law-and if we have a situation where things are done by regulation rather than by legislation, there is nothing but chaos. This is what has happened in the past year with this piece of legislation. If the minister had been specific and had left no doubt in the minds of the companies involved, we would have had a much shorter debate and arrived at a solution much earlier.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), when speaking yesterday, posed certain questions to the Secretary of State or to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen). The hon. member was concerned about what time-frame was allowed Reader's Digest in order for it to be within the law. Up until now that question has not been answered by the ministers involved or by any hon. member on the government side. However, certainly Reader's Digest at the moment is not in a position to comply with the ownership requirements or the shareholding requirements, and it seems to me that there must have been some arrangement made between Reader's Digest and the Department of National Revenue to allow it to continue publishing in Canada until such time as it complied with the specific regulations. If this is the case, I think it is only fair, and indeed it is incumbent upon the government, to advise this House what the time-frame is, because we certainly cannot make fish of one and fowl of the other. In other words, if Reader's Digest is to be allowed a certain time-frame during which it can comply with the regulations, then it is only fair that Time or any other magazine involved should be given similar consideration.
In closing, I must say I hope that at some time before we close the debate on these two amendments, or before we have a final vote on this bill, one or other of the ministers, or some hon. member on the government side, will stand and tell the House the true facts and what the time-frame is, in order that not only may Reader's Digest be in a position to carry on and comply, but perhaps in fairness Time magazine may be allowed to have a similar opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate and to make a few comments with regard to motions Nos. 2 and 3. In substance, the amendments deal with the aspect of "not substantially the same". Let me emphasize once more that along with a great many other members of parliament on all sides of the House, I was most surprised to learn that Reader's Digest had issued a press release the other day agreeing to the terms set out by the government. I am also

just as sure that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) was not in the least surprised. Some of us have endeavoured to get some information but have not been successful. It is my considered opinion that Reader's Digest was bludgeoned into this, or I could say it might have had a rubber hose used on it and in order to survive it issued the directive or press release. A good many of us are now wondering how Time magazine will react.
I will concede that the 75 per cent ownership and the other requirements as originally set out are in order, but let me repeat that, along with many of my colleagues and hon. members from the government side of the House, 80 per cent is an arbitrary and high amount of Canadian content and will, in my opinion, dilute the content of a magazine. It now looks as if we will have a czar of the magazine industry, which will result in a controlled press as far as magazines are concerned.
The minister, in his omnipotence, could step in and close down some magazines and let others operate. The president of Reader's Digest made the following statement some while back when appearing before the committee:
We cannot meet an 80 per cent substantially different content regulation. It would simply destroy the Digest basic publishing format. It would largely prevent us from republishing material from other publications to the extent that we would no longer be a digest of international articles. It is therefore our opinion that we would no longer have a publication that would be recognized by, or have the same or as much appeal, to our readers.
There has been an about-face in that I am aware that the minister has relented somewhat and will now allow digests of worldwide articles which may be used in the parent magazine but which cannot be the same and must be edited by the Canadian writer. I am assuming that this is a face-saving device because of the tremendous criticism that the government has received on the content issue which, let me repeat, is a form of censorship.
Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that Reader's Digest will not exist in fear and trembling at the whim of the Minister of National Revenue or his grand mandarins or the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), depending on who assumes control of this. A great many of us will be watching each issue. I know that a great many government officials will have their measuring sticks out, checking it like hawks.
I would also like to commend the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) for his amendment which requests special consideration for medical journals and scientific magazines, and also the subamendment of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) who is suggesting agricultural magazines be exempt and has presented a very good case for this type of magazine. I was delighted to see this was passed on division, but I am somewhat skeptical that when the votes come on motions Nos. 2 and 3, in all probability government members will change their view and vote against them.
As I mentioned earlier, the government has retreated on the Reader's Digest issue but only as a sop to the opposition. I am delighted to know that Reader's Digest is going to continue, even if in some restricted form. Let me also say, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), that I received more letters on the Reader's Digest subject and the possibility of its being discontinued as a
February 5, 1976

Canadian publication than on those two contentious issues of capital punishment and abortion. If anyone doubts that, they can come to my office and see the file of letters. This is an indication of how seriously a great many of the citizens of Canada, particularly those in my riding, view this matter. I received letters from other parts of the country than my own riding.
As the member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) pointed out the other day, the Secretary of State entertained representatives of Maclean-Hunter as witnesses before the committee examining this legislation and refused to allow a delegation from Reader's Digest to present their views on the subject. In addition, the hon. member pointed out that even some of the Liberal members of the committee were bumped because of their opposition to this bill. Surely that is not democracy.
Once this bill becomes law, the Secretary of State will be able to exercise his powers of censorship over other publications in Canada. This is a very potent weapon for the government to put in the hands of one of the henchmen of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I can see him now, lowering the boom on certain publications that expose the blunders and derogatory statements made by government officials and departments. This is the sort of club presently being used with such devastating effect by India's Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi.
There has been much criticism in the press. I assume most hon. members saw the article in this morning's Globe and Mail by Geoffrey Stevens which is a parody on Gilbert and Sullivan. He says that the Cullen rule is obnoxious on several grounds and, of course, the Minister of National Revenue has admitted that this Cullen rule is now the gospel of the government. I heard the minister on the CTV program "A.M." yesterday morning. Mr. Stevens wrote:
The "Cullen rule" was obnoxious on several grounds. It has no basis in law-and Mr. Cullen admitted as much when he said that, if the courts did not uphold his interpretation, the government would change the law.
That is a pretty strong statement, Mr. Speaker. He went on:
Unlike Bill C-58, the objective of the "Cullen rule" was simple discrimination-to force Time and Reader's Digest to abandon their Canadian editions, regardless of whether they met the Canadian citizenship requirements of C-58. And, given the realties of Canadian publishing, the "Cullen rule" meant that Canada would probably never have a magazine which reported fully to Canadians on events beyond our borders. An asinine rule.
The article concluded by saying:
What we have is not a "magazine policy". What we have is a thoroughly muddled government scrambling to save the political skins, if not the credibility, of two of its ministers.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is a position of weakness to apologize at the beginning of participation in debate, but I do so to the hon. member of Ontario (Mr. Cafik) because I am most anxious to hear him speak on this particular motion as well, but I feel compelled to enter the debate on motions Nos. 2 and 3. With regard to motion No. 3, I will satisfy myself by complimenting the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy)
Non-Canadian Publications
and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) for their amendments. I would commend their attention to motion No. 5 in the name of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen). Certainly, the subject matter raised in this motion and the amendment to motion No. 3 pose no threat whatsoever to the Canadian publishing industry. Why they are even resisted by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) bewilders me.
With respect to motion No. 2, I am compelled to participate in this debate in order that I may continue where the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) left off yesterday. The hon. member posed an important, and indeed vital, question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen). As reported at page 10645 of Hansard he asked:
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?
Mr. Speaker, that question is very important. It is absolutely unacceptable to me that neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister of National Revenue has replied, and that they are not in the House today to witness this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


William Herbert Jarvis: It was the Secretary of State who got the country and himself into this mess in the first place. It was dumped in the lap of the Minister of National Revenue, and it is an affront to the House that they are absent from this very important debate. With regard to the question put by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, Reader's Digest finds itself in the position of having to dispose of equity shares of, I believe, some 45 per cent. If I recall my figures correctly, approximately 30 per cent are in the hands of Canadian shareholders. It must make its content arrangements and its licensing arrangements.
Unconfirmed reports-because the Minister of National Revenue refuses to answer questions-are the department is going to give Reader's Digest until the end of this taxation year to conform. First, I should like confirmation of that. Second, if that is the case, why did the government not adopt motion No. 1? I cannot conceive of any reason for refusing. If it wanted to correct the shambles it created, why did it not adopt motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. As the hon. members know he is charitable, and if the Minister of National Revenue or the Secretary of State wanted to wipe some of the egg from their face, I am sure the hon. member would have been only too glad to let them adopt his motion and take the credit. But no, they did not do that.
As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal suggested, motion No. 2 deals with the issue of fairness or, more properly, the lack of it. We were concerned about the fairness of Bill C-58 at second reading stage and in committee. Now we are most concerned about its fairness. Reader's Digest raised the issue of fairness during the committee hearings. The
21 130-54%

February 5, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
magazine said that it had acted as a good Canadian citizen without guidelines but that, suddenly, it was confronted with Bill C-58. It implied, in so many words, that it was unfair to change the rules halfway through the game without warning. The arguments of Reader's Digest made the committee aware of the issue of fairness.
Time magazine raised the issue of fairness with regard to content when this bill was considered in committee. I, for one, said that the so-called Cullen rule was unfair. I still think it is unfair. Without question, Time magazine was led to believe that the government's content rule required between 40 per cent and 60 per cent of Canadian content. The magazine believed this sincerely, and anyone who says otherwise is simply not stating the fact. Their evidence was clear and was not, so far as I am aware, refuted. The Minister of National Revenue's staff denied the alleged effect of the interdepartmental memorandum to which others have alluded, When Time magazine took a mock-up of its proposed Canadian edition to the Department of National Revenue, it was left with the impression that between 40 per cent and 60 per cent of Canadian content would be acceptable. When the Cullen rule was made known, the magazine alleged, with cause, that it had been treated unfairly.
The issue of fairness concerns all motions on the order paper. The sort of treatment meted out to Reader's Digest ought to be meted out to any other publication affected by Bill C-58, otherwise we shall subvert every fundamental principle of equity. If the minister made a special deal with Reader's Digest, why does he not have the courage to stand up and say, "Yes, this is the special deal." What are the details of the deal? I argue against any special deal and will vote against any proposal which runs counter to principles of equity and justice. I want to see fair play. I suggest that the Minister of National Revenue is under the duty of participating in the debate on this motion as soon as possible and telling the House of the deal he made.
I am delighted the Digest can continue publishing in Canada. My mail has been similar to that received by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), and I am delighted to be able to say that the government has capitulated for political reasons. But we are not debating that principle; we are debating the principle of fairness.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: And honesty.


William Herbert Jarvis: Surely the Department of National Revenue, of all departments, ought never to be accused of arbitrariness and unfairness. Surely that department's reputation deserves protection. The implications of fair dealing extend beyond this bill. The Minister of National Revenue asks the House to give him carte blanche to determine the meaning of "substantially different" or "substantially the same" in connection with the publishing industry. At the moment he says that the pertinent figure is 80 per cent. Next week it may be another figure; it can change with the passage of time and from minister to minister as one minister succeeds another in that portfolio. The figure depends on the whim, the arbitrary decision of the government of the day. Let me quote what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said in this debate as reported on page 10586 of Hansard. He was speaking about the 80 per cent provision not being embodied in any statute. He said: 
It is also completely arbitrary in the sense that it can be changed whenever the minister changes his mind or whenever his cabinet colleagues change their minds. In that event there is to be no public discussion: there is to be a nice, cosy discussion within the confines of the minister's office or possibly in the cabinet room.
Surely we cannot accept any arbitrary interpretation of any part of a statute affecting the magazine and publishing industry of Canada. No fair-minded Canadian would accept this. Frankly, I regret the involvement of the Minister of National Revenue, for whom I have profound respect and indeed, affection. I would not expect the minister to act arbitrarily. Possibly he will be less arbitrary than others; but the principle remains. Who will be the minister tomorrow? I don't know. What confidence can we place in any minister of the day not to act arbitrarily? To what pressures will the minister be subjected? What pressure was brought to bear to permit this political face-saving involving only one magazine? Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is all this is. The government's attempt to extricate itself from the mess it created by providing for the arbitrary exercise of ministerial discretion is unacceptable. We do not accept it; neither do those we represent accept it. I say this more in sadness than in anger.
Earlier I referred to Geoffrey Stevens' column in today's Globe and Mail. I shall quote part of the column in a minute, but before I do so let me emphasize that we did not disagree with the original concept and purpose of the bill. We were in favour of giving encouragement to the Canadian publishing industry. No one disagrees with that. Actually, I think most hon. members would unanimously support the idea. Unfortunately, the government's action has clouded the industry's horizon. I suggest, with all sincerity, that we shall all rue the day the government introduced the present measure unless we amend it as proposed. May I now read part of Mr. Geoffrey Stevens' column in this morning's Globe and Mail. He said:
Quite simply, we have in Ottawa a government that is so confused that it doesn't know what it is doing. We have a government which started out with a good idea-to protect the domestic Canadian magazine industry from unfair foreign competition. To this end, it introduced Bill C-58 which would require that, to be deemed Canadian for tax purposes, all magazines would have to be edited, controlled and at least 75 per cent owned in Canada. A sensible, long overdue step.
Mr. Stevens was writing about the peak of the affair. It has been all downhill ever since. We have stumbled from crisis to crisis, mistake to mistake, and come to the point at which deals are made-probably in the minister's office. Surely that is no way to encourage other Canadian magazines or Canadian writers. I am certain that magazines and writers of integrity do not normally indulge in back-room deals. I therefore urge the government to take time to think about this matter. Let us find an honourable way out of this completely unacceptable situation in which the Canadian magazine industry today finds itself.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) referred to the absence this afternoon of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen). I am sure he would want to be fair. I tried to contact the minister privately. I understand his wife is ill, and that is the reason for his absence this afternoon. He will return this evening.
February 5, 1976


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure this afternoon of listening to a number of speeches on this amendment. They have raised a number of concerns in my mind. The most important thing that has been said has been the relative lack of answer by the government to the very important questions raised by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). There has not only been a lack of answer with respect to the questions themselves, which certainly bear answer, but with respect to the nature of the questions. Aside from the specific answers, what the hon. member for Fundy-Royal was asking was the philosophy of this government in dealing with the rights of what, for want of a better term, might be called citizens in terms of the dangers that can occur as a result of discriminatory acts. The intervention that was brought to the attention of this House a day or so ago as the result of the statement by Reader's Digest was the most blatant evidence of lack of understanding of the importance of there being no discrimination in the operation of a government in the way in which rules and statutes are to be determined and administered.
This is a black day. When Bill C-58 came forward, I joined with others in not quarrelling with the general idea of the government to provide some equity and balance in terms of privilege. In a speech at that time, I suggested that we ought to consider the fairness of doing it in an arbitrary way. Sometimes the names create different attitudes toward the idea. For a publication or a group of publications, in this case two, to have a certain status in Canadian law, and they having committed themselves to the rules in existence at that time, it would be unfair suddenly to pull the rug out from under them. That is not the way things ought to be done and it is not the way that things are normally done in terms of taxation matters. If we were dealing with anything but an American edition, Canadians would rise up and cry "Foul". I cry "Foul" regardless of what publication. I would also cry "Foul" if we were talking about something else, because this is not the way things ought to be done.
The first blunder of the government, therefore, was not the intent but the method it adopted. Having unfairly dealt with two publications, we heard the other day that there is a second discrimination. Some call it a deal, a back-room arrangement, or put some other label on it. I am not privy to the reasons for the discrimination; I can only guess. However, one publication is being dealt with differently from the other. I take no comfort in the fact that Reader's Digest, a magazine I enjoy and about which I have received a lot of correspondence from my constituents, is being favoured by this discriminatory back-door arrangement. In my respectful submission, it is a dreadful arrangement that this government has made.
Although this action may appear to benefit one particular magazine, in the long run the government may have opened the door to justice and equity. It will depend on who is the minister, his attitude, his relationship with his colleagues, his clout and, to quote an adage from ancient times in British justice, how long is the chancellor's foot? It is as simple as that. If that is the way the law is to be administered in Canada, with arrangements made, issues settled and rights determined in the cabinet room or in the
Adjournment Motion
office of the Minister of National Revenue, whether this or some future minister, or some other minister, I say that is wrong. I hope there are sufficient people on all sides of this House who feel strongly about this. Regardless of the transitory embarrassment this may be to the minister, I hope they will stand up and say it is wrong. I hope that happens because this is a very important principle.
What has happened in Canada is that we rely more and more on the administrative tribunal. We have moved away from the courts, whether we are talking about public service legislation, as we talked about in the Finkelman committee this morning, or transportation. We are moving to where the decisions of government are being made by commissions. That is not a happy trend in a free society. Commissions and boards can act as lightning-rods to take the heat off governments. The responsibility is basically a political one in terms of decisions that ought to be made. However, even if that is a bad trend, and even if the administrative tribunal is bad, before the administrative tribunal-


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: It is
my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent)-The Canadian Economy-Antiinflation program-Suggestion that provision for equality of sexes with regard to income be made mandatory; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-National Parks-Prince Edward Island-Suggested moratorium on imposition of fee; the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain)-Fisheries-Request for federal aid to repair storm damage in New Brunswick.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been consultation in the usual way. There is agreement that we proceed with public bills, order No. 67 on page 30 of Monday's order paper, Bill C-267, standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 5, 1976
Contract of Employment



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North) moved: that Bill C-267, respecting employment with the Government of Canada not covered by the Public Service Employment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is a simple one. It is to provide information to the public as to all contracts of employment entered into by the office of the Prime Minister or by government departments. What I am proposing is an amendment which would add to the Public Service Employment Act a clause which would require the publishing, in full, each month in the Canada Gazette of every contract of employment not covered by the Public Service Employment Act to which the government of Canada is a party, where a person is contractually engaged by a department of the government or by the office of the Prime Minister.
We ought, all of us, to be concerned about the sharp increases which have taken place in recent years in government expenditure and the very large increases which have taken place in the number of civil servants. I am a member of a party which believes that, as life becomes more complex, government must assume greater responsibility than in the past for meeting the needs of the people. I do not, therefore, object to increases in the number of public servants. However, I join with many people who are concerned about the very large increases which have taken place in the number of public servants, particularly the tremendous increase which has taken place in recent years in expenditure for the hiring of consultants who work for the government and are paid by the people of Canada, through their taxes, but who are hired with none of the safeguards which are enumerated in the Public Service Employment Act.
Let me illustrate what I mean by quoting from the Globe and Mail of March 17, 1975, a couple of paragraphs from a news report which appeared in that issue:
Government spending for "Professional and Special Services" will reach at least $982.5 million this year (1975-76) according to initial government estimates and will almost certainly be higher after supplementary estimates are introduced throughout the year.
The figure represents an increase of 18.3 per cent over spending on consultants in the current fiscal year and a 35.9 per cent increase since 1973-74.
During the same two-year period the overall government work force ... has risen by about 10 per cent to about 255,000 from 231,000.
That is the picture of what is happening. There has been a steady increase, one with which I do not entirely disagree, in the number of public servants in recent years. But look at what has happened in the senior positions, in the executive positions which are classified as SX positions. On October 1, 1974, I put a question on the order paper as follows:
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)).]
What was the increase in the number of senior officers, SX-1, SX-2, SX-3, SX-4, for each year from 1968 to 1973, or, in the case of new departments, etc., from their inception to 1973?
The answer was as follows, and I am sure the figures are out of date by now:
The increase in the number of senior SX officers for each year from 1968 to 1973 for all departments and agencies of the public service was as follows: in 1968 there were 381 senior SX officers. This total rose to 412 in 1969, 535 in 1970, 602 in 1971, 720 in 1972 and 895 in 1973.
So there were almost 2'/2 times as many in 1973 as there were five years earlier. The people of Canada have a right to ask whether such an increase was necessary. In 1975 I asked a question which was answered on March 17 of that year. The answer can be found in Hansard of that day. I asked:
What categories and ranks specifically of public servants other than SX are considered part of the senior management complement of government departments?
The answer came down-I shall not read the list department by department-showing there were over 450 of these positions. Then on January 28, 1975, I asked the question:
How many people in the public service, excluding those in the SX salary range, are earning salaries equivalent to or more than $25,500, which is the minimum SX-1 salary?
The answer was as follows:
As of September 30, 1974, 3,307 public servants, including those in levels deemed to be equivalent to senior executive officer levels, earned salaries equivalent to or more than $25,500 per annum.
Mr. Speaker, despite this tremendous increase in employees in the senior levels of the public service, details of which I have placed on record, we spent, in 1975, close to $1 billion on consultants hired by contract. And, as I pointed out, none of the restraints or detailed information which are expected by the public and required by the Public Service Employment Act are applicable in these circumstances.
Back in 1974 I asked how many employees in each department were employed on a term basis, a casual basis or a contract basis. The answer was voluminous. I am not the only hon. member who has asked questions on this subject. I tried to count the number of those who make more than $20,000 a year on contract. My arithmetic may not be exact, but I do not think it is far wrong. In the Department of Communications there are 15; in the Department of Consumer Affairs, two; in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, four; in Indian Affairs and Northern Development, five; Justice, 10; Manpower, three; Regional Economic Expansion, six; Science and Technology, five. I could go on and on.
On October 1, 1974, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) asked how many consultants were engaged by each of the departments as of that date. Again, there was a long answer and I do not have time to read it all into the record. But let me give the House a few illustrations. In the Department of External Affairs an editorial consultant was employed for two years, for which he received $52,800. There was paid the sum of $40,000 in connection with specialized projects in the field of international law.
Take the Treasury Board, the people who are supposed to monitor the whole system, the people who are supposed to protect us from overspending. Here we find a contract to advise on questions pertaining to federal public service
February 5, 1976

compensation programs. The consultant worked, as far as I can tell, for six months and was granted $33,000. Another consultant was called in to advise on matters pertaining to federal decentralization. He, it seems, worked for three months and received $18,000. Another was engaged to advise on operations research. He worked for a year and received $23,000. Another man worked to advise the secretary of the Treasury Board on the form of the accounts of Canada and other areas of financial management; he seemed to work for about six months and received $25,000. A company was engaged to analyse the role and long-range purpose of the personnel policy branch; they worked for about five months and were paid $36,000. Another man worked to advise and assist the Treasury Board secretariat on administrative procedures regarding personnel management; he seemed to work for about six months and received $46,000. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker.
Not so long ago I discussed this whole question of the number of senior public servants and consultants being engaged, the fees they were charging and getting. One man told me-I am not going to reveal his name because I did not say I would, but he has been in the senior levels of government, both federal and provincial, for many years and I consider him to be one of the best public servants this country has ever had-that the system is out of control. Those were his exact words. He said no one is looking at these things any more.
A large sum of money is involved here; the last year for which figures are available showed an expenditure of almost $1 billion. Whether the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) will succeed in holding the line this year-a year of supposed restraint-to the figure last year, I do not know. In answer to a question I asked him when he first announced his program, he said that the budget was frozen and would not increase.
Let me cast my mind back to the last time the Government of Canada, this present Liberal government, during the period 1971-72, said it would freeze for one year the number of civil servants. They did it, Mr. Speaker, but during that period of time the number of consultants hired and the consequent amount spent increased dramatically by the standards of that year, though much less than today or even last year. But based on my experience here, I have the feeling that this year will be no different, that there will be further increases in the number of consultants hired and the amount of money paid to them.
I want the Government of Canada to be efficient. I want it to hire the best people it can to do the jobs that need to be done. But I find it very difficult to be enthusiastic-I am putting it mildly-about participating in any program that says to people down at the bottom, both in the public service and in private industry, "We are determined that inflation must be checked, that we must stop inflation, and therefore we have passed legislation under which your increase in wages or salaries cannot be more than 10 per cent this year, 8 per cent next year and 6 per cent the following year".
Not that that plan will not work, Mr. Speaker, but I find it difficult to support such a program when I see how generous-I could use stronger language and say profli-
Contract of Employment
gate-this government has been in its treatment of senior civil servants. I see their expenses and salaries increasing, as are their trips both inside and outside the country. There has been a tremendous increase in recent years in the number of consultants hired by virtually every department of government.
My proposal is a very simple one. I am not saying that contracts to consultants must cease. Neither am I saying that at this point in time the amount of money spent or the number of consultants hired should be reduced. I am simply saying to this government, and to any government that may be in office in future years, that it makes sense to me that we let the people of Canada know as much as possible about what the government is doing, and that therefore each month there should be an announcement in the Canada Gazette of the contracts that have been let, the number of people hired as consultants, what they are to do and how much they are to be paid.
One member on the government side will shortly get up and tell us that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are hired for a week or a month, many of them to undertake very ordinary jobs at somewhere between the minimum wage of $3.50 an hour, or whatever it is at the moment, and $5 an hour. I realize it would not be very productive to list every single one. I also realize that if my proposal were enacted in the precise terms written into the bill there would be problems. If any member on the government side wants to amend the bill to provide that only contracts that pay more than $20,000 a year and up should be reported in the Gazette, then I would be very happy to accept that amendment.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, the bill I am introducing is a simple one. It is not aimed at the government. It is asking for the publication of information that the people of Canada are entitled to have, and I urge hon. members to support passage of this bill.


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss Bill C-267 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) in its present form from the point of view of the increased cost to the taxpayer that would be involved should the bill become law. The proposal apparently includes contracts with both companies and individuals. As the House is no doubt aware, a company is a legal person; therefore, we may interpret the hon. member's suggestion as meaning both personal service contracts and third party contracts.
It is difficult to place a numerical value on the numbers of contracts in the public service, excluding Crown corporations. However, considering major users we would estimate it to be in the area of 6,000. It is likely that that figure is a minimum one as all departments, the Treasury Board secretariat and Supply and Services have authority to issue contracts, either personal service or otherwise. These would include everything from cleaning services to engineer to personnel consulting to foreign aid to small post offices in rural areas as well as urban areas. The publishing of all such contracts on a monthly, or indeed on any basis, is ludicrous. Publishing costs would be astronomical, to say nothing of the number of additional pages needed in the Canada Gazette. Based on a minimum of 6,000 contracts, it has been estimated that the Canada Gazette would probably be extended to somewhere in the neighbourhood of

February 5, 1976
Contract of Employment
3,000	pages every month Just to cover contracts, to say nothing of other material which must be published. At present the subscription cost of the Gazette is $25.00 a year. I would think that production costs if, indeed, it were even practical, would increase the cost of subscription to the point where few could afford it, not even libraries.
Translation costs alone, which average approximately five cents per word, makes the whole idea prohibitive. Perhaps an example here would be appropriate. The Canadian International Development Agency lets approximately 1,000 contracts for foreign aid services as well as internal services. These contracts contain all specifications for work to be accomplished as well as compensation both in the form of salary and allowances. At a minimum of two pages per contract, it is estimated that with translation one contract could be published per page of the Gazette. This means that, using both sides of one page in the Gazette, two contracts could be published. From this point, simple arithmetic tells us that for CIDA alone the Gazette, in terms of contract publication, would use 500 pages.
The situation regarding personal service contracts, that is, contracts with individuals, is almost as bad. Consider the Post Office with its hundreds of contracts to individuals as postmasters in rural areas. Even taking a minimum of 1,000, we find ourselves with a 500-page Gazette. We would estimate that there are some 2,500 personal service contracts let in the public service; therefore, again simple arithmetic gives us a Gazette of 1,250 pages for contracts alone.
As I mentioned, we have no way of knowing specifically how many contracts are let in the public service during the course of one year, but just from conservative figures one can see the utter folly of demanding publication of each every month as is suggested by the hon. member.
In terms of cost of publication, let us consider that the Gazette averages approximately 20 pages at an annual subscription rate of $25. At 250 pages, these subscription costs could rise to 12.5 the present rate, bringing the yearly rate to approximately $312. Somehow, I do not think we would get any subscribers. Also, let us consider translation costs which could be necessarily the responsibility of individual departments. At present, if we contract with an individual or company who deals in the French language, the contract is drawn up in French. The same applies to the English language, so there is little problem in individual departments. However, to publish these contracts we must have all of them available in both official languages. In order to accommodate this work load, we must hire more translators or, of course, we could contract at five-cents per word.
A conservative estimate gives us an average of approximately $50 per contract. Multiplying this by our estimate of 6,000 contracts gives us an approximate cost of $300,000 initially. We cannot say what the total cost may amount to as contracts expire at any interval during the year and new ones are let, and for every new one a translation must be made. It is evident, then, that the publishing of each contract in full every month would be prohibited by the costs involved. It is for this reason alone that I will vote against this proposal.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has brought forward a very interesting proposal. What was the most interesting part of the debate so far was the unusual suggestion by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) when he said he intended to vote against the bill. This left a little hope in my heart, as I thought perhaps history was to be made tonight and we would actually have the opportunity to vote on a private member's bill. I do not know whether those words were in the hon. member's notes, whether that was a slip, or whether he was indicating he agrees with me that we ought to have greater opportunity to vote on private members' bills rather than merely set them aside.
I read this short bill with great interest. It appeared that the intention of the hon. member is to answer what has been a cry of many people, in terms of big government and complex governmental matters. His intention appears to be an answer to the public's right to know. What has taken place in respect of our order paper and a number of other things in this place would indicate that the right of the public and of members of parliament to know what is going on is diminishing at about the same rate as the complexity of government and government intervention is increasing. The introduction of the computer and sophisticated methods of communication have not really helped the situation.
In looking at the bill presented by the hon. member, it says two things: it says that the public has a right to know, and governments have a duty to disclose. The hon. member, hopefully, would have the bill go to the committee where the objections of hon. members, such as the one by the hon. member for Wellington, which could be entitled "It cannot be done", could be considered.
Let me say to the hon. member for Wellington that I am as conscious as he is of cost, but I would hope that the principle and the main thrust of this proposal could be sent to the committee for examination. It could be considered there, and it may be that the committee would not accede to the request of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. What he suggests, I admit, would result in monumental costs of preparation. It could be that these contracts could be filed at a central registry where they would be available to those interested.
The principle which has been set forth in this bill having regard to the matter of disclosure ought not to be rejected. I regret that the hon. member for Wellington would vote against the matter if he has the chance, having particular regard to the principle being put forward. There are very few people in Canada, even in the cabinet, who are fully cognizant of what is happening in all departments, or even the department of one's seatmate. The organization of the business of government is becoming more difficult and more complex. I do not believe that on every occasion a government does not disclose something it does it wilfully. I do not believe there is any feeling in the public service that they are going to make mistakes which will not be disclosed. Alll I am saying is that our procedures have come to the point where it is easy for them not to disclose. Rather than having a little trouble with it at the outset, they will just not give out the information. I think it is important that we, as representatives of the people, have
February 5, 1976

access to that information and that people who are interested in particular areas have access to it.
I do not often support an NDP bill or a proposition advanced by a member of the NDP, but I think this is a sound one and I hope the government, and the members here today, who actually have the decision as to whether or not they will let it go, not the government, will give careful consideration to the principle of the bill.
Let us deal with the question of consultant contracts. There is a suspicion in the land-from time to time there are enough pieces of evidence which tend to confirm that suspicion-that the consultant contracts in the public relations field are one of the largest patronage operations available to government. I hope that is not so, but that is the suspicion.
I raised the matter with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) in the House with respect to the Price Rubin contract. That matter has never been satisfactorily answered in terms of the time when Treasury Board approval was given in relation to the payment out of moneys under that contract. It is an established fact that one of the members of that organization at one time was a partner of the Minister of Labour. I am not suggesting that that by itself indicates that the Minister of Labour had his finger in the giving of the contract, but what I am suggesting is that that relationship gave the appearance of that, and that is very bad for our system. It was a bad thing for the Minister of Labour. He wrote me about it, he felt sensitive about it. He would not have felt sensitive about it if there was not a bad appearance, an unusual appearance.
I recognize that we cannot tender for every contract; it is impossible; the cost would be impossible. But if we cannot tender for them all I do not think it is unreasonable that we should at least disclose them all. I hope there is no member who would disagree with me. When we talk about consultant contracts we are talking about a substantial amount of government moneys. If my recollection of the current estimates is correct, we are talking about $900 million in consultant contracts, a tremendous increase over the previous fiscal year. Some of that could be attributed to the fact that government activities have expanded, but I believe that some of it-and this is important to me as a member in the national capital area who represents a large part of the public service-is due to the fact that the public service of our country, far from being too large and far from growing too rapidly, is in fact under-challenged in terms of its ability to do a job.
I have raised this matter before in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates when the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) was before the committee. I spoke about the practice of turning to consultants whenever there is a little problem within a department or a small study to be made.
In fact the public service of this country is under-challenged. When that happens the public service becomes the butt of everyone who would say that bigness is bad, government is growing and is too large, and civil servants sit around and do not do any work. I have been in a lot of government offices and have found that in some cases that is true, but I have also been in the offices of Dupont of
Contract of Employment
Canada, the offices of General Motors and many big private enterprise organizations, and I see the water cooler crowd there too. That happens to be one of the difficulties with respect to business. So, whether the criticism comes from any particular area of this House or not, 1 do not accept the contention that the public service is necessarily too large and that that is the major criticism with respect to the public service.
I believe that the public service is under-challenged in terms of the ability of the men and women in the public service to handle the problems they have. This is something at which we will have to look. I think we have been somewhat unfair with the public service in many ways because every time a government gets into trouble it pounces on the public service as being necessarily too large, instead of looking at the priorization of the programs of government to see whether, not the public service but the governors of the country have their priorities set in such a way that large parts of these programs go on and on without being considered in terms of their relevance. They take on lives of their own.
What happens is that either a government freezes or, on the other hand, it appoints a commission, a one shot operation, to examine the operations of the government. It will come moving in, and instead of this examination being something that would be welcomed generally by the public servants who want to advance in their careers, like everyone else who wants to have a reasonable security of tenure in a challenging job, they feel themselves to be the target of these periodic examinations that go on whenever a government is in trouble.
I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North is in order. I think the growth factor is out of control in many ways and we do a disservice to the public servant and to the public service generally in allowing that to happen. Perhaps we ought to consider a mechanism such as a continuing commission on government operations and management, recognizing that it is large but recognizing at the same time that, as a result of the attitudes of government and the necessities of society opportunities in the public service were opened up but that they should not be expanded like a balloon and then knocked down. It is most unfair for the people in the public service. It should be a kind of continuing operation.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North mentioned the level of compensation in the public service. In the higher levels of the public service of this country, the deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers, we have in fact the highest paid public servants, dollar for dollar, and comparing dollars to pounds sterling or francs, compared with any public servants in the world.


David Orlikow: Higher than in the United States.


Walter David Baker: What has happened with respect is that somehow the rates of compensation between those high levels and those on a somewhat lower level have got out of alignment. The differentiation is too great. We go from this extreme height down to levels of compensation that are just above the established poverty level. I think we must examine that, not only from the heights but from the lower areas as well, and in that examination we must be prepared to look at the duties of

February 5, 1976
Contract of Employment
the public servants and to expand them to take the place of the army of consultants who march in and out of this city.
When consultants do that, they are actually adding a little piece of wood to the pile of wood, which sometimes leads politicians to say that the size of the public service should be frozen, although I for one do not know how we can freeze the size of the public service. We may'be able to check the rate of its growth or challenge it more, but that can be left for another day. That is perhaps outside the principle of the bill.
We are now talking about decentralization. At one stage I raised a question on the floor of the House with the minister about the intention to decentralize in a period of restraint. That is a great thing for the areas which will receive the agencies of government. In Matane there is a cheque processing unit, in Winnipeg there is the Mint, and so on, but I suspect that there is no criterion established with respect to the movement out and the decentralization of the public service other than the creation of employment.
I suspect that the minister has a mandate to decentralize. What will he do? I would bet that this will be borne out by the facts: he will ask all his officials what departments could be moved. That is not establishing a criterion. That is taking the administrative point of view, because there is no examination of what might happen if an area of undertaking within a department, a branch of a department, or indeed of a whole department is moved out, in terms of its function and as to whether that movement may do nothing more than create another element of bureaucracy.
I suspect that what is happening with respect to the government's program is that it is considering decentralization from two points of view, the first being the creation of the presence of the government, and therefore employment and benefits, in certain areas of Canada, and secondly, reading the secret cabinet documents I released on September 3, 1975, it is tied into the whole program concerned with units working in French, none of which has to do with the efficient operation of the public service of Canada.
These are the things which worry me as a representative of a constituency in the national capital area in terms of the public service. I do not want to occupy too much time of the House with respect to this matter, but obviously I feel very strongly about it. I hope hon. members will not talk the bill out but will let it go so that we can examine in a committee the problems I have raised in, I hope, a constructive sort of way, and the problem raised by the hon. member for Wellington because I think it is relevant to the form of the bill, and it could lead to an amendment.
If I understand what the hon. member for Winnipeg North is saying, the 125,000 or so people which each of us represent have the right to information and to more than lip service. They have the right to access. He used the vehicle of the Canada Gazette. Frankly I would not favour that myself; I would favour a central registry. I do not like reading the Canada Gazette any more than anybody else, and I will wager that no one here takes that publication home and tucks it under his pillow at night. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) says he does. I sug-

gest that he should have two pillows, and he would if he took the Canada Gazette as it is envisaged by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
The principle of this bill is very sound, and I hope some consideration will be given to it because it is very important that things are done properly as far as is humanly possible. It is perhaps even more important that they appear to be done properly. We always talk about ours as a free society. It is very important in a free society that all people, whether inside or outside this House, have access to all information, and that the emphasis we give to the guidelines with respect to order paper questions which could be answered by ministers in the House should be extended to include disclosure, and not something less than complete disclosure, recognizing of course that there is the matter of the security of the state and the right to proprietary information in some very narrow categories.
I want to commend the hon. member for Winnipeg North for bringing this bill forward because it has given this House an opportunity to consider a very important matter. I hope that when the hon. member for Wellington said that he was going to have to vote against the bill-as much as I regret that decision-it was at least an indication that we are going to have an opportunity to vote.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I think that perhaps I agree this afternoon with the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) but as my colleague from Wellington (Mr. Maine) as shown, it would be very costly to publish all those contracts in the Canada Gazette. I think that they could be published somewhere else where they could be examined to obtain further information.

However, having said that, I find that there are some nagging questions which come up with regard to this problem. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North that possibly this is information to which the public should have access. However, I wonder whether by definition a consultant who is hired by the government and becomes an employee of the government should not be afforded the same protection of-I do not like to use the term secrecy as did the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)- the same protection of confidentially when he raises some of the points which the government is currently discussing and which, by their very nature, could be very delicate as far as the public is concerned.
The question is: what can be considered of a delicate nature? Incidentally, I disagree with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton in that I think this is a potpourri, so to speak, for patronage. I hope this government and all governments would be above this type of thing.
I note that this has never occured, for example, in other governments such as that of British Columbia because they are discovering things now as to the honesty and as to how well that government stayed within the bounds of legality. I will not stretch this point any further.
To get back to the matter of confidentiality, I think that people who are hired by the government should be able to do their jobs without interference. When they are acting in the public interest there should not be any coercion. It
February 5, 1976

might be asked how coercion can exist. I will cite a case of which the hon. member for Winnipeg North will have knowledge with regard to the dispensing of LIP grants. Those people are in a sense consultants, and notwithstanding the fact that they are not paid and do not have contracts, we still try to give them the type of confidentiality we would extend to any other person in the government administration.
When I select a citizenship advisory group to advise me in my riding as to which projects they think would be most worthy of government assistance, I hesitate to release their names prior to their having made their decisions. [Translation]
Now if you ask me why those names should remain confidential, the reason is the following. The first time that LIP grants were given in my constituency and the names of those persons were published, they received many phone calls to ask them to do such and such a thing or help a special group. Those people are not in politics as we are. This is why they have been asked to advise us what to do. They are constantly disturbed by telephone calls, even at work.

If those people in some way have to be protected so that they are at least anonymous and not subjected to the pressures of public life that we are, there is all the more reason for these consultant firms, I would say.
There is another problem which perhaps the hon. member for Winnipeg North might not have considered, and that is consistency. He pointed out that these were just contracts that were not already noted in the government service. I think that would be fair ball, but I wonder if in the name of consistency the hon. member should have included not only the people who are getting contracts as consultants but everyone in the public service-if there is indeed a contract signed by two individuals should not those contracts also be listed?


David Orlikow: It is done in Manitoba.


Gilbert Parent: I was told by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) that Manitoba has a very advanced government. I question that because it is not a Liberal government. I do not wish to bring politics into this very above board discussion this afternoon, however. But I would say we might have a lot to learn from the government of Manitoba, just as we had a lot to learn from the government of British Columbia.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on a point of order.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. member to know that the practice of listing the salary of every senior civil servant in Manitoba was inaugurated by a Liberal government, continued by a Conservative government, and is maintained at the present time by New Democratic Party government.
Contract of Employment


Gilbert Parent: 
An hon. Member:: What about the Tory leadership?


Gilbert Parent: I would prefer to stick to the point. This is what we are dealing with, and I know my colleagues will appreciate what we are trying to get at. Mr. Hughes went on:
Yet consistency has its drawbacks, as anybody who has the experience of being told "I cannot do this for you because if I did I would have to do it for everybody else" can testify. To each member of the public, his own problem is paramount, and it is of little comfort to him to be told that the requirements of consistency, in this respect, are all that stand between him and the beneficence of a warm-hearted civil servant who would otherwise be glad to help him. And yet here I think the public must be told emphatically that without consistency in administration there can be no real justice.
Without real justice you cannot have equality and without this type of equality I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that no matter how much divulging is done, as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton says, you are still going to be faced with the question: "Is this all there is? Is there more?" Are we going to print more books and who is going to read them, Mr. Speaker?
The article continues:
A capricious, changing, unpredictable policy can only be a reflection of the minds of men who make it. It is only necessary to consider a situation where consistency is not observed, and which results in different treatment being given in individual cases where the facts and the law are the same, to realize that a position typified by the observation "I will do it for you but not for him" is indefensible.
As indefensible in this House as in any court of law, or any other circumstance where the public is concerned, I

February 5, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
submit. I notice it is six o'clock and my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. this day.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, before private members' hour I was discussing the dreadfully difficult situation which has arisen from the government's action in connection with this bill. The difficulty has little to do with the bill itself, as the bill seeks to establish a principle on which there is no significant division of opinion either in the country or in the House, namely, that there ought not to be any special privilege for magazines which operate, in the main, offshore, so to speak, but which also print editions for this country.
The difficulty which has been alluded to on second reading, and now, during report stage, has been compounded by the government's imposing on the magazine policy of Canada a discriminatory aspect which ought not to exist in any Canadian law expressed in the form of statute or regulations. In the present instance the sin is greater and more reprehensible because the government proposes to enact regulations by ministerial edict.
Before the dinner adjournment I suggested what we, of this House, feel about the place of government, about parliamentary responsibilities, and about the duties of people in politics. I suggested that we look on administrative tribunals as a sort of second level of governmental structure which operates independently of the political structure of government and is not responsive to the political process in a free society. The particular statute we are discussing would create a tribunal, under the aegis of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen), which cannot even be graced with the appellation "administrative." Here we have discrimination at its worst.
First the government changed the rules which, to begin with, have been shown to be patently unfair. What was done ought not to have been done, particularly if one

considers the commitment to an important industry with regard to the existence of certain rules. But it has gone one step further. Having changed the rules, the government has decided that magazines coming from offshore, or other countries, fall into two categories, two classes. They say, that Reader's Digest should be given special treatment; as for the treatment of Time magazine, it is nothing but unfairness compounded by unfairness, inequity by inequity and, I suggest, stupidity. Is it any wonder the people of Canada have their doubts about the government? Is it any wonder, as Mr. Geoffrey Stevens said in this morning's Globe and Mail, people think that in Ottawa we have a government so confused it does not know what it is doing?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Come off it.


Walter David Baker: I hear the government whip muttering under his breath. That was not my judgment; it was the judgment of an independent person who looked at the government's record. If there was ever an example of a misapplied policy, this is it. I wager that the change of heart took place not because the government was following a principle, but because it had departed from it. I suggest that a number of Liberal backbenchers were as dismayed as hon. members on my side of the House. They shared the dismay of many other Canadians.
Hon. members talk about the Cullen rule. I might say that I have great admiration for those who defy the whip, particularly on the government side of the House, and stand up to speak. I appreciate that. I admire them. I encourage them as well. They are joining a growing mass of Canadians who are looking at this legislation that is applied without benefit of legitimacy in terms of anything written. Rather, it is applied in terms of justice that could vary with the length of a chancellor's foot, and even vary with the chancellor or the disposition of the minister or the government, or the influence of that minister or the government. That kind of variation makes it a mockery in terms of those principles that ought to govern the life of this country. As I said at the beginning, I have no hesitation in saying that I admire anyone who is prepared to stand against that kind of application.
Mr. Geoffrey Stevens, in a column in this morning's Globe and Mail on the "Cullen rule" wrote, and I quote:
The "Cullen rule" was obnoxious on several grounds. It had no basis in law (and Mr. Cullen admitted as much when he said that, if the courts did not uphold his interpretation, the government would change the law).
That is brave stuff.
Unlike Bill C-58, the objective of the "Cullen rule" was simple discrimination-to force Time and Reader's Digest to abandon their Canadian editions, regardless of whether they met the Canadian citizenship requirements of C-58. And, given the realities of Canadian publishing, the "Cullen rule" meant that Canada would probably never have a magazine which reported fully to Canadians on events beyond our borders.
He went on to say that the rule is asinine. I respectfully suggest that if that term were parliamentary, it could be applied to the government.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We get the message.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 5, 1976


Walter David Baker: Mr. Stevens went on to
say:
This week, the government demonstrated that when it tripped on the second step, it had hit its head and scrambled its brains. Mr. Cullen announced that the 80 per cent rule would be waived for Reader's Digest, but not for Time.
That is the end of the quote. There are many in this House, and I am one, who are delighted to see Reader's Digest saved. We are receiving the correspondence and input from our constituencies. However, it is wrong for it to be saved in a way that is without principle, without rhyme or reason except for the worst kind of expediency. It sets a precedent that will make it easier for the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and the Minister of National Revenue to do the same the next time they are in trouble. Those are not the actions of a government that knows what it is doing. They are not the actions of a government that has any principle or-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but there seem to be quite a few debates on this side of the House. Perhaps some of these could be continued behind the curtain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for intervening. I really do not mind the debates on the other side. I live with the fond hope in my heart that they will be productive. I hope that they will screw up the courage of some of their members to stand against this bill.
I hope that some members opposite, if they support the position of the government, will think of the principle for which they stand. It is wrong? Indeed it is a non-principle. It is administrative law of the worst kind. As I said earlier, none of us particularly like the growth of administrative tribunals, but at least they permit hearings. The hearings are in public. There is a rule of practice and procedure to govern the conduct of the administrative tribunal and its consideration of the facts before it. But if this matter is allowed to proceed as the government intends it to proceed, there will be none of those precautions. It is unsound and unwise for this House to give any encouragement to these ministers in the circumstances.
In the government feels strongly about the question of principle, the whole matter of natural justice, and the proper body of administrative law, it will withdraw this bill, rethink the rules and its attitude and come back to the House with something new and better, something that shows there is a foundation for thinking it has a feeling for justice and equity. That is the issue. I hope that the number of members of the government side who are opposed to this grows. More than that, I hope that those who are opposed to it have the courage to stand in this House and say so.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is on motion No. 2 (Mr. Fairweather). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Non-Canadian Publications


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question is on motion No. 3 (Mr. Roy (Timmins)). All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The House will now proceed to motion No. 4.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario) moved: motion No. 4:
That Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be amended in Clause 1 by adding immediately after line 14, at page 1, the following:
"(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or Regulations, a periodical shall be deemed to be a Canadian issue of a Canadian periodical if 75% of its Directors and ownership are Canadian and its editing and publication functions are controlled and conducted in Canada and not more than 40% of its contents, excluding advertisements, were first published in a single periodical outside of Canada.
(3) Periodicals which were deemed not to be an issue of a nonCanadian periodical prior to the coming into force of this Act shall continue to be deemed to be a Canadian issue of a Canadian periodical for a period of two years following the coming into force of this Act provided notice of intention to publish in compliance with this Act has been filed with the Minister within one month of the coming into force of this Act."
He said: Madam Speaker, I must admit right at the beginning in moving my motion, and indeed in speeches I have already made on Bill C-58, that I find it extremely distasteful as a human being and a person to oppose the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen). I think these gentlemen are people of honour and conviction who are genuinely trying to do something for the publishing industry. I have very great and high regard for both of them. Nonetheless I find it incumbent on me to move motion No. 4 in opposition to the bill which has been presented to the House.

February 5, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I suppose I can in some way justify myself to my colleagues by saying that I, as a person, refuse to disown my own principles for my own personal benefit and certainly cannot be expected to do so for someone else's. I have great respect for these men and I have a great respect for the opinions which have been presented on behalf of the government and by those who support the bill. I can only hope that those on the other side of the issue will have an equal amount of respect for those who differ with them. There is in this instance a genuine disagreement as to what is the best thing to do in the Canadian publishing field.
I am sure my feelings are shared by all members of the House of Commons when I say I strongly support the stated intention of this bill, that is, to assist the Canadian publishing industry. The question is: does the bill before us achieve that objective, or are there better ways in which this could be done? I think there are.
Because of the importance of the bill and the fact that it is a government measure, in the early days of Bill C-58 I took extraordinary steps to try to become acquainted with all sides of the question. I telephoned and wrote to all those directly affected, including Macleans, Time, Reader's Digest, MD of Canada and Modern Medicine asking them to present their views to me so that I might be able to make an informed judgment. I also discussed the matter with members of the government and with my colleagues in my own caucus. I did so to feel satisfied in my own mind that the decision I was about to arrive at was, indeed, the right one. I am satisfied I have now been exposed to all aspects of the subject.
I might also say that I am not an advocate of Time, Reader's Digest, or of the other magazines affected. I am certainly not a computer printout in favour of any of those publications. I am taking the position I am taking today because I believe it is the right one. I cannot accept the premise that this bill will in fact assist Canadian publishers in the way it should.
The crux of the difficulties in which the Canadian periodical industry finds itself is, in fact, a shortage of advertising revenue sufficient to generate a truly healthy publications industry. In addition, I believe there is a real concern about the effects of unfair competition resulting from the dumping of editorial matter into Canada. These concerns are real and genuine and they should be dealt with by the House in a substantive way.
I notice that the Senate Committee on the Mass Media indicated that there were really two basic problems encountered by the publishing industry. The first was the volume of overflow magazines coming into Canada primarily from the United States. The second was the intense competition in Canada among the various sectors of the media for the advertising dollar. Does the bill before us address itself to either of these central questions? I say it does not.
First, in connection with overflow magazines coming into Canada from the United States, the bill we are discussing does not even deal with the question at all though 
it is a substantial problem. For example, in 1964, a year for which I have the statistics, the number of overflow magazines coming in from the U.S. came close to 182,000,000. Saids of domestic magazines, excluding Time and Reader's Digest, totalled 418,000,000. This means that roughly half the magazines which are sold in Canada are in fact produced in the U.S.A. and sold in this country. This may well be a major problem but I have not seen anything in bill C-58 which deals with it or even pretends to do so.
The other substantial question with respect to this issue relates to an entirely different aspect, that is, the amount of advertising money spent in Canada by advertisers which in fact finds its way into the pockets of producers of Canadian magazines. Yesterday, or the day before, speaking on one of the amendments before us I indicated-and I was speaking off the top of my head-that the statistic was 2.8 per cent-that 2.8 per cent of the advertising dollar went into the pockets of the periodical industry in Canada. I have subsequently learned that this figure was not quite accurate. The fact is, it is 2.3 per cent. That is the last figure I have, for the year 1974. In the United States 6.5 per cent of the advertising dollar is spent in the periodical industry. In the United Kingdom it is 8.5 per cent, in France 16.8 per cent, in West Germany 27.9 per cent, and in Italy 33.2 per cent.
The real competitors of the magazine industry in this country are radio, television and newspapers. For instance, newspapers in this country corner 28.6 per cent of the advertising dollar spent in Canada. Television accounts for 14.1 per cent, radio for 11 per cent, business publications 2.9 per cent, and supplements 1.6 per cent. And, as I have said in Canada the periodical industry, to which we are addressing ourselves, gets 2.3 per cent.
It would be interesting to quote from the Senate committee report on the media in this connection. "Most magazine publishers in Canada do not regard the overflow circulation as a primary problem for them. It is simply part of their environment. What they are aware of, though, is the intense competition for advertising revenues between themselves and other sectors of the media. It is a scramble between radio, television, newspapers and magazines for available advertising dollars and the attention of audiences."
Between 1954 and 1968 the magazines' share of total advertising revenues dropped from 4.2 per cent to 2.3 per cent. The bill we are considering does not deal with that question at all. We can see a trend on the graph militating against the publishing industry in this country because of its inability to get a sufficient percentage of the advertising revenue available in Canada. That is a matter the bill fails to deal with at all.
The solution is to increase the amount of advertising from the 2.3 per cent level to a much more significant level, one which would create in Canada a healthy magazine industry.
Diversion of revenue could easily be achieved in the Income Tax Act by declining to allow tax exemptions for advertising unless a minimum of 5 per cent of such advertising were directed to the periodical industry. I would think that a ceiling should be placed on this; to be reasonable, one would not look at those figures in relation to advertisers spending less than $100,000 a year. But if they
February 5, 1976

spent more than that, surely it would be proper for us to say they must allocate a certain proportion to periodicals. Surely it would be appropriate for us to say that they must divert a certain proportion of that advertising into the magazine industry if we want to pay more than lip service to the industry and, indeed, make it a healthy and prosperous segment of our economy. This would be beneficial to those in the field, the writers and all the multiplicity of people who are involved, and I think it would be a giant step toward creating some kind of cultural identity in Canada through the printed word in magazines.
Let me review for a moment what advertising revenue would be diverted from the four magazines that are primarily affected by this piece of legislation. As for Reader's Digest, in light of the recent announcement of its ability to comply with the legislation, obviously there will be no diversion of revenue from Reader's Digest to some other periodical in Canada. So from that standpoint there will be nil benefit to other publishers in Canada so far as Reader's Digest is concerned.
With respect to Modern Medicine and MD of Canada I do not want to go through the arguments all over again. I simply indicate that, in my humble view, there will be no diversion of advertising revenue either. The first point to be made in this respect is that these two magazines are free distribution magazines. They do contain Canadian advertisements now, but where would those advertisements go if in fact the two magazines cease publishing in Canada? Would they go to Maclean's magazine or to Weekend supplements? Anyone who knows anything about advertising knows that that advertising can only go into another trade magazine directed to that exclusive market.
Those who advertise medical products are not going to advertise their products to a group of farmers or to a group of people in the industrial field. They will try to direct their advertising to where it will pay the biggest dividends, which would be in the medical field. To my knowledge there is not one substantive magazine that will pick up that advertising revenue.
There may be some who might argue, as the Secretary of State argued, that in fact these magazines and others will still be available on the newsstands anyway, so there is no problem in regard, for instance, to access to or availability of information for Canadian doctors or others. I simply point out a self-evident feature: those two magazines have never been sold on a Canadian newsstand to date, and I can see no reason for believing they ever will in the future, because they do not have a dollar tag attached to them. So I suggest that argument does not mean much in terms of availability of information to Canadian doctors. I cannot see any likelihood of anyone continuing to publish either of these medical journals in Canada in the future when in fact they do not sell them. They are free circulation magazines.
In respect to Time magazine, what diversion of advertising dollars will there be to the Canadian periodical industry? This is a much more difficult case about which to make a substantive point. In my view, as a result of my studies of the question, I have concluded that there will be very little. I base my conclusion in part on this observa-
Non-Canadian Publications
tion, that in Time Canada a large percentage of advertising consists of multinational ads, such as Haig & Haig, General Motors or whatever. These corporations also advertise in the United States. According to admissions made by the government, Time magazine will still be available in Canada; therefore Canadians will be exposed to the same advertising to a very substantial extent, the difference being that it was bought and paid for in the United States. It comes into Canada and we achieve no benefits from it whatsoever. So I do not really see that there is that much diversion of advertising.
There is another point in this regard. Advertisements which appear in Time magazine also have duplicates in many instances within the Canadian magazine. Exactly the same advertisement is placed in two different magazines, not an unusual practice for advertisers. Is it really reasonable to presume that if Time is not longer published in Canada they will place two identical ads in Maclean's magazine or some other Canadian publication? It is highly unlikely, in my view. In fact I think it is absurd to imagine this would happen.
I have therefore concluded that in terms of diversion of advertising dollars to the magazine industry this bill is just not what its advocates have said it is. In addition, there is the argument whether any diversion that might take place would go into the periodical industry or into some other media, such as radio or television. Clearly in this respect one has no more reason to believe it will all be diverted into the publications field as opposed to arguing that it will be diverted into other forms of media.
I have therefore concluded that the best answer to the problem of genuinely assisting the magazine industry is a reallocation of Canadian advertising, bringing a minimum portion of it to the Canadian periodical industry. I would suggest 5 per cent might be a base from which to start.
Let me next consider the competition aspects of the proposed legislation now before us. There was one very legitimate argument that causes us all some concern, I think, and that is the editorial dumping of material into Canada at rates not compensatory with the cost of generating that editorial material. Indeed that could bring about unfair competition for the Canadian magazine industry. However, does this bill really solve the problem? I do not think it does at all. Although it deals with it in part, we already have legislation on our books directed toward dumping and it would seem to me appropriate that the dumping question ought to be dealt with in dumping legislation.
The next point I am concerned about is the elimination or minimization of competition to Maclean's and other Canadian magazines by the removal of other magazines from Canada. Competition is something we all pay lip service to, some of us more genuinely than others. I think we would all agree that competition run rampant is not necessarily a good think and that we must protect our Canadian industries. None the less should we protect them in such a way as to preserve for some in the Canadian magazine industry a virtual monopoly? I do not think this would be in the interests of the Canadian public.
In response to the statement of the Secretary of State in regard to Canadian magazines, let me say that even the magazines that might have to go back to the United States

February 5, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
will still be available in Canada. There is no question that that is largely true. In the case of the two medical journals I would disagree, so this argument really does not cut that much ice with me.
The fact is that Time magazine will indeed be available in Canada. The difference will be that there will be no Canadian ownership of Time, no Canadian control of Time, no Canadian content in Time, and no Canadian jobs generated as a result of its sale in Canada. In terms of the global national interest, I think those negative factors ought to be taken into account.
Let me look for a moment at the nationalism question. Have the Canadian people been stampeded into supporting a proposition that effectively makes nationalism a vehicle for wiping out legitimate competition and for lining the pockets of the publishing elite in Canada? I think there is reason for believing that may well be the case. I am nervous about that possibility and think it is inappropriate for a government to contribute in any way to that sort of thing happening. I am not saying it is a certainty, I am saying that I am nervous that this in fact will be the case, and I am not proposing to support the bill for this and a lot of other reasons.
There has been a lot of talk about this nationalism question. I am inclined to think that some would believe this under the guise of nationalism, and I think we are all economic, cultural nationalists in one way or another, and I certainly am. I am not prepared under that banner to come to the conclusion that we must have one set of standards for that which is Canadian and another set altogether which denies fair and equal treatment simply by virtue of the fact that it happens to be a foreign operation with which we are dealing. Indeed we have to protect our industries. I do not care if we nationalize them in many instances, but I do not want to see us simply rejecting or ejecting them from Canada by unfair and inappropriate treatment.
Let us look at the larger question that has been spoken about a great deal in this House, and that is the question of government control over editorial content. I must admit that in principle I have no objection to the government being involved in content regulations. In practice it is an extremely difficult area to be involved in, and I think there are considerable difficulties and dangers. However, I am not one who believes that the CRTC regulations, for instance, respecting Canadian content are bad. Clearly we have to take steps from time to time to encourage our own Canadian artists, writers and so on. I have no objection to these content regulations in principle, but I want to look at them very carefully to ensure that they achieve the objective we have in mind.
If we were to judge the newspaper industry in Canada in the same way we propose to judge the periodical industry in Canada with an "80 per cent not substantially the same as" rule. I am of the opinion on the basis of my research that there would hardly be a newspaper in Canada which would be allowed to publish. I do not know of any, including the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail and others, which really could conform to an "80 per cent substantially dif-

ferent" from that which has ever appeared anywhere else rule.
That might be over-stating the case, but the principle is substantially right. We have established one set of rules for a particular publication industry, and have completely ignored those rules in respect of another larger segment. Perhaps there might be some good reason, and we might find if we ever debate it that in respect of the newspaper business there is no government with sufficient political influence to resist the onslaught to which it would be subjected. Politically we could not afford to do this in that industry, and I am not too sure we ought to have a different set of rules in respect of this industry.
This amendment I have put forward defines a Canadian periodical, and I want to deal with my definition of it. Before going into that I want to make a point in respect of the bill the government has put forward, C-58. This bill also defines a Canadian periodical, but not so much through the legislation we have before us but in fact through an interpretation of that legislation which is not before us. This is a difficult thing to accept, and I will deal with that more specifically later.
Effectively my approach to this is to bring within the law before parliament the definition of what a Canadian periodical is so that all of us can debate it and decide whether we agree. My definition parallels to some extent the definition already contained within the law: 75 per cent of the directors of the said firm must be Canadians; 75 per cent of its ownership must be in the hands of Canadians; its editing and publishing function must be controlled in Canada; all of its publication function must be conducted in Canada by Canadians; and not more than 40 per cent of its content can be first published in a single periodical outside Canada.
Effectively the difference is this: the 80 per cent rule put forward by the Crown is really, by my definition, the 60 per cent rule. You may agree or disagree about a few percentage points, and you may even agree or disagree on the subject of whether there should be any content regulations, but I think that all of us should have the right to make that determination within the law itself and not in some regulation or interpretation of the law that is not dealt with by parliament in this bill.
If my definition of a Canadian corporation does not constitute something that is Canadian, then what in the name of God would? That is really the question. In addition my amendment would allow a period of two years in which to comply. This would provide an opportunity for publications which wish to comply to divest themselves of their stock to Canadians, thus avoiding a fire sale or premature disposition of assets in a disorderly manner.
Surely that is not expecting too much when we have had magazines and periodicals in Canada operating under the law for many, many years. We should not turn around and kick them out of the country, or make them comply without giving them an adequate time frame in which to do so.
I have indicated also in my amendment that to qualify for the two-year period they must give a statement in writing to the minister showing their intent to comply within that two-year period. I think that is a very reasonable proposition. Some may argue that it should only be a
February 5, 1976

year or 18 months. I am game, but one thing I am not game for is that there is no time at all. I believe the approach I have outlined would in fact help guarantee a healthier Canadian magazine industry than the approach presently being proposed in Bill C-58.
Yesterday the Secretary of State in an interesting, quite informative, and very good speech, indicated the difficulty in respect of the possibility of split-runs that might occur in Canada if the not substantially the same as provision were interpreted as being less than 80 per cent. That is a good argument, and I must admit it gives me some concern. However, reducing the 80 per cent interpretation to 60 per cent in my view would not really cause that kind of problem.
I should indicate that the problem of split-runs does not exist in Canada today under the existing law, except in possible cases of U.S. publications which are already resident in Canada. It is the introduction of the new law, Bill C-58, that gives rise to the problem about which the minister seems concerned. It is not those who oppose this legislation who are creating this difficulty, but in fact those who propose Bill C-58.
I should also make a point in response to the observation by some in respect of the fear that Americans or others would come into Canada and take over the ownership of existing periodicals and, therefore, be able to have a hybrid magazine, half American and half Canadian. Surely I do not need to draw to the attention of the House the existence of the Foreign Investment Review Act. Surely we all know it is not possible to do that if it is concluded that it is not in the public interest to do so. So that is really a red herring as far as I am concerned.
I have grave reservations about the law in respect of the ministerial interpretation aspects. Many have expressed that reservation; none, however, have touched the central point of the real, legitimate objection to this question. I think it has been overlooked. Clearly it is advisable to have the essence of a bill within the bill itself wherever that is possible. We all agree with that.
Some have suggested that the Crown should not interpret the law. That to me is an absurdity, for how can the law be applied unless it is interpreted? The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) implied that and others have suggested it, but I will not debate that point. That is my understanding and I do not want to make an issue of it.
The essential role of the Department of Justice, in my view, is to assist the Crown in the interpretation and application of the law. The essential new factor being brought out in this legislation and in the interpretation of "not substantially the same as" is that the Crown is interpreting those words in such a manner as to achieve a policy objective, and is the Crown really entitled to do so?
Is, in fact, the Crown entitled to interpret the letter of the law against itself, interpret it in such a way as to render its literal meaning meaningless? I say, definitely not. Is it not the obligation of the Crown to interpret the law as it believes it would be interpreted by a court, as it believes that interpretation would be upheld by a court? The Crown, in my view, has chosen an interpretation to suit its own purposes, not an interpretation which it
Non-Canadian Publications
believes can be upheld. If it believed it could be upheld in court, why the suggestion that if it did not, we will change the law? This appears to me to be a departure totally contrary to the normal methods of application of the law.
On the contrary, in the case of expropriation, on which I have considerable experience, the law is interpreted in a very narrow and harsh way against the people under the umbrella that the Crown has no choice because it must follow the law like everyone else. Can the government of Canada have it both ways? If it is right to interpret "substantially the same as" to obtain a policy objective, then why can we not interpret the Expropriation Act to achieve justice rather than victimize the expropriated? Essentially, in a democratic society we should live under the law, not under the arbitrary rule of men. In the British system the law must stand or fall on its own words.
The Secretary of State implied an element of obstructionism in respect of this bill by some members of parliament. I must say that I do not feel guilty of that in any way. Indeed I have spoken out and I intend to continue to speak out on this bill. I have no intention of being silenced, but I have no intention either of delaying this bill to prohibit parliament from coming to a quick and speedy decision in respect of it.
I am delighted that Reader's Digest has indicated its ability to comply with the law. Like many others I wonder what really happened to make it possible. On June 4, 1975, I suggested my real and genuine concern for the uniqueness of Reader's Digest and its reprint operations in Canada. I am delighted, whether anybody admits it or not, that there appears to be a different application of this law in relationship to such types of magazines, and I am pleased that they can comply. I think most of us in this House would agree with that.
Now I want to make another point about an observation made in respect of the committee system. Some have indicated a genuine concern that the committee system fell down in terms of its application of Bill C-58. I do not basically feel that way. I think that the essential criticism in connection with the handling of Bill C-58 in the committee is that the government did something particularly and notably stupid. I believe that it is simply counter-productive, even in political terms, to deny at least some people who oppose a bill, if they happen to be on the government side, membership on a committee. A lot of the heat would have been taken off had this not occurred.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I cannot say that I was denied access to the committee, even though I was.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: What I really mean is that I was not overtly denied access to the committee, but effectively I was denied it. I put my name down to sit on this committee long before the bill ever got there and I was assured that I would be able to sit on it. I must admit that since 1968 when I was elected I never wanted to get on a committee and failed to do so, but in this particular case-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please, I am afraid the hon. member is straying from his own motion.

Non-Canadian Publications


Norman Augustine Cafik: O.K., Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


An hon. Member:: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: In conclusion, to close off this perhaps too lengthy speech, I should like to say that I oppose Bill C-58 as it presently stands unamended for the following reasons:
First, it does not achieve its objective of enhancing the Canadian periodical industry in any real or substantive way.
Second, it creates a false impression that it does so.
Third, it embodies a departure from the traditional means of legislating by having its fundamental application outside of the bill presently before parliament. On principle I cannot accept this approach.
Fourth, the consequence of its passage would create a near monopolistic situation in the publishing industry, which is against the public interest.
Fifth, it is a distortion of true cultural and economic nationalism. Essentially it extends the definition of Canadian to something other than that which is Canadian. Canadianism in this context is irrelevant, content becomes the relevant factor.
Sixth, its effective application will mean a net loss of jobs, job opportunities, and economic benefits to this country.
Seventh, it seeks not to give Canadian control over publishing activity in Canada, which is not now Canadian, but in fact makes it a virtue to force such Canadian subsidiaries of foreign publishers outside of Canada altogether rather than to Canadianize them.
Eighth, it would make more sense to Canadianize that which is in Canada than it does to bring forward a bill which has the potential of defining that which is Canadian as foreign. The real danger of this bill is that Macleans magazine could be considered a foreign periodical if it does not watch out.
Ninth, it would make more sense to assist positively the Canadian publication industry through positive action and the direction of more advertizing to it than it does to insulate it from competition and to guarantee for posterity a hothouse publication industry incapable of standing on its own feet in the world or in the marketplace.
Finally, its primary thrust is a holding out of false hopes to publishers and paying little or no attention to the interests of the consumers.
I urge that all members of the House support my proposed amendment. By doing so I believe that we shall improve the present legislation, bring the substantive provisions of the law under statute, resist passing a law in the interest of the elite against the interest of the many, substantially provide economic benefit to Canada, enhance
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
our employment opportunities for Canadian writers, and give more than lip service to the legitimate and genuine concerns expressed by the Canadian people.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member's time expired at one minute past nine. There would have to be unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Will the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) allow a question?


Norman Augustine Cafik: By all means.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I do not want to detract from the magnificent speech made by the hon. member, but at the beginning of his speech he spoke about a tax allowance which he would propose, or a new form of permission in order to have an exemption for advertising placed in periodicals. I should just like to confirm that no allowance would be permitted unless 5 per cent of advertising revenue were diverted into the periodical field. I think the hon. member said that, and then he spoke of a limit of $100,000. It was that aspect of his comments which I did not hear. I wonder if he could help me with that.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question and the opportunity to clarify this particular point. What I am really saying is that to divert advertising into the periodical industry it is better to have the kind of limitation I spoke of earlier, and to which the hon. member referred, but I did indicate that for practical purposes it would be extremely difficult to expect everyone who advertises at a cost of $100, $1,000 or $10,000 to divert a certain portion of it to the magazine industry. However, those who are large advertisers-and that is why I set an arbitrary figure; perhaps $100,000 is not appropriate-and advertise at a cost of $100,000 per year ought to be forced to divert at least 5 per cent of that advertising into the periodical industry. That would double the amount of advertising available to magazines in Canada, and in my view it would make it a much healthier industry and create many new and desirable Canadian publications.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, in speaking to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) I should first like to commend him for making known his views on the Canadian publishing industry and for expressing in a very positive manner what he thinks could help it. He obviously came to the same conclusion many of us did, and that is that Bill C-58 will not help the Canadian publishing industry. The arguments which have been made that it will help merely raise false hopes, and they are raised for people who very often are unable to compete in the market place but think they should have the right to do so.
The hon. member for Ontario did not sit on the committee, for his own reasons or for others. There were other hon. members who wanted to sit on the committee, and I
February 5, 1976

say to the minister and to the government that if the whips would come off, there would be a number of other hon. members opposite who would agree almost totally with the points the hon. member for Ontario just finished making because Bill C-58 through second reading, through the committee, and now in the report stage has been a shell game, in that the government has been trying to push something through this House which is supposed to do something it will not do.


Mr. Fleming:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The hon. member objects to my saying that the government has been trying to push it through, but the hon. member knows that very well. He sat on the committee with us, and there was de facto closure. The minute the committee sat we were told that it would not sit beyond the Friday, and no matter what we said, whom we wanted to bring in as witnesses, or how many times we wanted to sit, the hon. member was one who kept insisting that the committee could not sit beyond the Friday. He spoke against-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am afraid the hon. member is straying from the motion. Perhaps he could limit his comments to the motion.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, I have a question of privilege. I simply want to correct the hon. member. I do not remember repeatedly insisting. I simply remember supporting the motion that we get on with this bill because the bill had been under consideration for a year, or almost a year at that time.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Obviously the hon. member is just as touchy in the House as he was in the Committee.


An hon. Member:: Look who's talking.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am rather enjoying the manner in which hon. members opposite are trying to take the load of guilt off their minds after one of their members has shown them so clearly to be as empty as they are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If any of them wish to make a speech, I will gladly relinquish my place. However, they were not able to speak in committee, and they do not want to speak here either.
I am trying to get back to the amendment, and I will as soon as the warblers on the other side quit singing.
I have the same difficulty with the motion before us as I had with the one we discussed yesterday which was moved by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). At that time I stated that in principle I was opposed to a content rule as such, that is, I did not like a content rule established in statute, through regulation, as the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) would like to have it, or anywhere else. I would much prefer an operation whereby the government in general principle establishes what it would like to see in the publishing industry. Reader's Digest tried to be a good corporate citizen and to become part of the Canadian family of Canadian publications, so to speak.
Non-Canadian Publications
I have difficulty with the first part of this motion in that it calls for 60 per cent being not substantially the same, but it does have my support for one reason-notwithstanding the caveat I just placed before the House-and that is that at least the hon. member for Ontario is trying to define for the House, for Canadians, for publishers and for everyone concerned what the regulations are. He wants them placed in the statute, and that has my support.
Just to show the manner in which this whole issue has been clouded again, a so-called deal has been made with Reader's Digest. By not placing the ground rules into the statute the minister is able to interpret in such a way that one magazine is in and the other is out. If the minister's moods change, these magazines will depend on his good wishes. Therefore the hon. member for Ontario has my complete support for at least trying to define for the House and for Canadians what qualities a magazine must have in order to qualify as a Canadian magazine for tax purposes.
Why are we considering only Reader's Digest and Time Canada? Why not the newspaper industry? Would the newspapers that we read every day qualify under the regulations which the minister said will operate after passage of Bill C-58? These newspapers get many of their stories from UPI, Reuters, and Canadian Press. UPI and Reuters are foreign wire services, but the minister and the government have chosen that they be not regarded as foreign material. The government's approach to the whole question has been so arbitrary that it is almost inconceivable that it thinks that members of parliament and the Canadian public would accept the minister's interpretation, just rubber stamp it, and allow it to become the law.
It is clear that this legislation will not enhance the Canadian periodical industry especially since the decision has been made to allow Reader's Digest in through the back door. The constant argument put before us in committee was that Reader's Digest and Time were taking too many advertising dollars and that if they did not qualify for the available advertising money it would go to Canadian magazines. Now that Reader's Digest can continue to exist surely that argument does not hold. But that is the impression proponents of this bill are trying to foist upon members of the House and Canadians generally.
Some of the members opposite have come to me in private asking why we worry about the details at this point. They say, "We have saved Reader's Digest, so why be concerned?" Madam Speaker, it was not a matter of worrying how to save Reader's Digest. That was not the point. The point was that we wanted the government to define what a Canadian periodical was, and to have that enshrined in the statute. That way we would know what the ground rules were, but that has not happened.
The hon. member's motion at least attempts to show his government colleagues that we need to know what the ground rules are, but I get the impression they are going to ignore him. I believe their minds were made up long before the debate on second reading began. Indeed the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) told us that we spent so much time on second reading that the bill should now go through. Surely that is not the issue. We still do not have in the legislation the qualifications that a periodical must

February 5, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
meet to be considered a Canadian publication for tax purposes.
I frankly believe that the government has advisers with vested interests in the Canadian magazine industry who tried to get the percentage of "not substantially the same" high enough that they knew Reader's Digest and especially Time would not be able to function as we have known them. Time and after time Maclean's magazine and the Canadian Periodicals Association argued that 80 per cent was the absolute minimum they could live with. At one point the representative of the Canadian Periodicals Association said they wanted 100 per cent but had discussed the matter with the minister-even though later on it was denied that they were in on the negotiations-and they would be satisfied with 80 per cent. I do not see how that attitude can have changed now with the so-called Reader's Digest deal, because the 80 per cent is interpreted in such a way that it is meaningless relative to the way the representations were made by those two organizations.
Throughout this debate we have seen the virtual cartel and monopolistic attitude of Maclean's. It wants to become the news magazine in Canada. In the past it has not been able to compete with Time Canada so it is saying that in order to compete we must remove the competition, and it has the government and the minister doing the dirty job for it. The facts are quite clear, Madam Speaker. That is what is happening in Canada right now.
Let us look at Maclean's magazine, Madam Speaker. As with any other product, you and I can choose to buy it or not. Its problem was not that it could not sell advertising but that Canadians did not want to buy Maclean's magazine in the volume needed-


Mr. Woolliams:: Yes, they wrote "Renegrade in Power".


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -in order to function as a news magazine. Then it published bi-monthly in the anticipation that the government would be able to ram Bill C-58 through the House. I believe it was the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) who said in committee that this was the tender blossom we were going to nurture. Surely Maclean's can stand on its own two feet. Why do we have to go through this in order to protect this magazine?
The hon. member for Ontario has made an honest attempt to lay specific ground rules by which everyone can operate but I am fearful that the government is turning a deaf ear to one of its own. The second part of his motion proposes a two year hoist during which magazines which are not presently Canadian would be able to divest their foreign stock and achieve the minimum of 75 per cent Canadian ownership. I do not know in what manner Reader's Digest would divest itself of its foreign interest in order to qualify under the 75 per cent rule, but the hon. member's motion calls for a two year moratorium.
I am convinced, that in this so-called deal Reader's Digest has been given a certain amount of time to divest itself of its foreign holdings. How much time was it given, Madam Speaker? What was the deal, how long can it function without meeting the 75 per cent criteria? The minister has not chosen to tell us, yet we as members are supposed to accept his assurances that he has everything under control-but do not ask about the details, just rubber stamp what he is doing outside the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Trust him.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, trust him. The way we have seen these people operate since 1968, I think trust is the last thing we can give them.
Through you, Madam Speaker, I ask the Minister of National Revenue how long Reader's Digest was given to divest itself of enough foreign interest that it would qualify for the 75 per cent Canadian ownership rule? We do not know that, and I think it is incumbent upon the minister to tell us. The hon. member for Ontario asks for two years. For all I know the minister gave Reader's Digest two years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Or perhaps five years.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Perhaps five years; who knows?


An hon. Member:: Are you questioning the minister's integrity?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I do not think the hon. member should speak from his seat. Perhaps he knows how long the magazine was given.


An hon. Member:: Two years.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I suppose the hon. member knows.


An hon. Member:: I trust the minister.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: How naive. I assume that hon. members do not know. Some hon. members rise in the House to support the minister's position, in the hope that perhaps they will get some tidbits dropped from the tables of the rich, as it were. The minister has made no definitive statement on how long Reader's Digest has been given to comply with the 75 per cent Canadian ownership rule. It is incumbent on him to tell the House. For all we know he has given the magazine two years to comply, in conformity with the hon. member's motion. I predict that even if the government grants Reader's Digest two years, it will defeat the hon. member's motion, as it will want to say to the Canadian people, "We will not cave in." That is what it will say.
What can be said about Canadian nationalism, or economic nationalism? We have heard much talk these days about how we are to repatriate our national identity, as it were, or our nationalistic identity. If Maclean's ever becomes the arbiter of Canadian nationalism we shall be in trouble. As it is that magazine is given almost carte blanche to define what is Canadian and what is not. That raises an interesting point. Just before the Christmas recess when the committee sat, Maclean's took the position that it is the leading Canadian news magazine; yet strangely it said nothing about the work of the committee discussing Bill C-58. I suppose it would have been hard for the magazine to be objective about Bill C-58 in view of the particular interest, the tie-in, so to speak, Maclean's had in the bill. So it ignored the committee. Perhaps that was better than saying something hard to substantiate.
Surely passage of this bill will not promote Canadian nationalism. What is it in our thinking that says we can compete only if we stack the rules? Why do we think we can compete only if we stack the deck? To illustrate my
February 5, 1976

point I wish to read part of an editorial appearing in today's Toronto Sun, a newspaper known for its economic nationalism.


Reginald Cyril Symes: It is a great, progressive journal.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Finally I agree with the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) who calls the Toronto Sun a progressive journal. I never knew he had such insight. I can see that he is learning. He is listening to Conservatives and learning. Perhaps there is hope for him.
The editorial in the Sun said in part:
We are becoming petty, piggy nationalists. Ottawa encourages the stealing of American TV programs and the inserting of our ads for something we haven't paid for; Ottawa gives public money to artists and writers which, far from developing new talent, tends to encourage old mediocrity ...
Bill C-58 is bad legislation which the minister's regulations will make worse. I hope that hon. members opposite recognize the courage of one member on the government side, vote in support of his motion and demonstrate their respect for him, which he deserves.


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, if Longfellow were alive he would write, "Sail on, thou censorship of state."


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Good girl!


Simma Holt: May I, before I say any more, introduce a subamendment to motion No. 4 moved by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik). I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy):
That motion No. 4 be amended by striking out all the words in subclause (2) after the words 'conducted in Canada'.
In other words, I wish to remove anything that controls content in this country's culture.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Where is the great NDP?


Simma Holt: I ask the support of my colleagues in the House for the subamendment which would totally remove any content control over our cultural carriers. I would even fight a 1 per cent content control. By the way, it is difficult for me to vote on these amendments because of what happened in committee. Any compromise here would be welcome; but I shall vote for all the amendments in the hope that some semblance of justice can come out of at least two of them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: I am so positive that Canada's and Canadians' freedom is in great danger with such interference with basic civil rights like the freedom to choose what we read, what we watch on television, what we think, even for that matter in the commercial area, where we advertise, and where we sell our commodities. I would have preferred the amendment to deal also with ownership, because arbitrary figures create ridiculous modes of measurement. I would have preferred language like "controlling interest by Canadians" which would be 51 per cent and up. I fear that one day control will fall into the hands of some of the
Non-Canadian Publications
existing Canadian publishing monopolies whose cynicism, negativism, in many instances contempt and a sort of perpetual sneering at every institution of law and national management, are sorely hurting our nation.
Personally, I admire the work done by Reader's Digest, Time, MD of Canada, and station KVOS in Bellingham for Canadians. I immensely admire the work of KVOS and am impressed with their activities; when I compare their works with what we get from the monopoly group, I would almost like to invest, in them if I were free to do so. That is because I trust their policy more than I trust the cultural monopoly power that seems to have Canada in its control and is distorting our institutions.
Incidentally, for the record, I wish to correct the impression the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) left about that tender flower, the Maclean-Hunter group. He talked about the wealth of that monopoly. It is not a Canadian monopoly; it just happens to have its headquarters here. It operates 101 various businesses including technical, consumer, and special interest magazines, newspapers, five radio stations, a TV station, a cable TV system and programming services. Is that freedom? Is that independence? It also has 12 business and technical magazines in England, eight business journals, three cable television systems in the United States, four magazines and six marketing services in South Africa, six publications in key cities in Europe, and so on. As the hon. member for Parry-Sound-Muskoka said, this is the tender flower for which Bill C-58 has been produced to protect.
It is absolutely fundamental to a free society that government must never be allowed to control thought. It must not be allowed to control what people read and what they watch. Anyone who votes lightly on this bill, and I refer to my colleagues whom I respect and admire, should not vote away our basic right, inviting a new era where books not acceptable to our cultural "Fiirhrer" are burned. We do not know who will be controlling our culture in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: The Department of the Secretary of State has shouted that the bill-


An hon. Member:: Do you support your leader?


Simma Holt: I do support our leader, and I have supported many cabinet members. The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) shouted "this bill is not censorship." He, or someone in his department, actually placed a telephone call across Canada to an editorial writer who seemed to understand the English language as well as he does. He, or one of his agents, denied that it was censorship. Perhaps the Secretary of State, his staff, or both, should study the new Concise Oxford Dictionary recently delivered to his office free of charge. It reads:
Censor .. . Ancient-Roman magistrate drawing up register or census of citizens and supervising public morals; person expressing opinions on other's morals and conduct; 2. Official licensing, or suppressing as immoral, seditious, or inopportune, books, plays, letters, news, or military intelligence (vb, exercise such control over, make excisions or changes in.)

February 5, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
George Bernard Shaw said:
Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books nobody can read.
I suspect there are such illusions of grandeur that the time will come when someone in the Secretary of State Department will suggest an expurgated version of Shakespeare.
I wish to read a letter which was sent to the Secretary of State on August 11, 1975, by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. It deals with this very question of content. The association says that no matter how much he protests-and methinks he doth protest too much-this is censorship.
It is funny. The Secretary of State sent us all supportive material, especially that of the Canadian Periodical Association, which was formed only a few years ago obviously to push for a protectionist bill of this sort. However, he did not send me this letter from the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. I cannot understand it. Maybe hon. members will understand when they hear it. I doubt whether any members received it, but I hope those in the NDP did. I understand they are going to vote for this bill. I will explain later why they might find themselves in a terribly uneasy position.
I also wonder how the former revenue minister, my friend, and the great Justice Minister, probably Canada's greatest Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), can vote for the bill in view of his involvement in this statement. I will read the letter. It will then be understood why many members here will have to change their minds about their vote. I quote:
Dear Mr. Minister:
Re: Income Tax Act and "Foreign" Publications
Thank you for your letter of 10 July, 1975 regarding changes in the tax legislation or enforcement policy proposed to be made in connection with "foreign" publications.
You will of course recall that we did not propose creation or continuation of special status for any magazine within the class of "foreign" or "domestic" publications. Our objection is to your stated intention of treating certain publications, even if owned and printed in Canada (and hence factually domestic) as "foreign" on the basis of content.
We note that you assure us that the government's aim is not to impose any form of censhorship. The purpose is to ensure that Canadian magazines' content is not substantially the same as that of other publications.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Were you ashamed of your Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Cuba?


Simma Holt: I am not ashamed of my Prime Minister.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He was talking to Joe.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) has the floor. I suggest that hon. members listen to her.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I continue the quote:
To these explanations there is a short (and technical) and a long (and principled) rebuttal.
[Mrs. Holt.)
The short answer is that the tax deductibility of an expense incurred for the purposed of earning income (e.g. advertising costs) is the normal rule. Deduction of expenses does not appear to us to be a "privilege" which the government of the day has allowed a business only where socially desirable aims are to be achieved by the outlay. Deductibility is the ordinary rule and not a "special advantage" as your Time and Reader's Digest press release suggests. Thus the content test which may result in non-deductibility for advertising in certain publications (which may be domestically owned and printed) creates an anomaly operating against those publications. It does not remove an anomaly which once favoured them.
More fundamentally however we must differ with you as to the aims to be promoted by content regulations. You appended to your letter to us a recent press release from your office quoting a passage from the O'Leary Report:
All members know it. They have seen it ad nauseam. I do not have to read it. They can get copies of it and read it.
Unfortunately we cannot consider the promotion of a "truly Canadian" outlook by the destruction of what have hitherto been publications supported by Canadian readers as other than censorship. Censorship in our understanding is content control or content manipulation by government.
I will repeat that, in case some members missed it.
Censorship in our understanding is content control or content manipulation by government. The O'Leary Report proposes manipulation of content to create a distinctive Canadian cultural identity. The current tax proposals (including the revival of enforcement of the 1965 content definition of foreign status) appear to adopt the O'Leary approach as government policy.
We do not know what aspect of content a future government, still disclaiming (as you do) any intention to censor, might see fit to consider in imposing taxation. A still more nationalistic administration might decide to define only writings about Canada as "domestic" for taxation purposes. A paternalistic government might decide that creation of jobs for Canadian writers was so high a priority that only Canadian citizens' work would rank as domestic. As civil libertarians we would not be concerned with what laudable motives might underlie either of these forms of content manipulation. Nor are we concerned with the policy of cultural renaissance which underlies the current government's policy. Our objection is to the intended results, not to the reason for seeking those results.
Before pressing through parliament legislation to accomplish this change in Canadian magazine content we ask you once again to consider whether the public choice of reading matter might not better be left to the market place.
Now I'll tell you why the NDP should be a little uncomfortable. Some will be voting here on it. The list of honorary directors on this letterhead includes the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas); the hon. Minister of Justice; the Hon. David Barrett, who was the former NDP premier of British Columbia; Rosemary Brown, MLA, who was once runner up for the leadership and went quite far with the NDP party; Hugh Curtis, who is now Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing in British Columbia. There are mayors, men of the cloth, the Reverend R. R. Cunningham; the Hon. Judy LaMarsh, to name a name that is well known to many on this side of the House; Dr. Hugh Keenleyside, another well known figure, and on and on.
That is the end of the letter. The ramifications and obvious intent of Bill C-58 are frightening to me as a writer, as one who wants to read Time, not Time, U.S.A. with the Canadian content deleted.
As to all this talk about how we are free to get Time, how we can get Newsweek which has no special privileges, or perhaps Oui, or Playboy, or Penthouse, we are able to get
February 5, 1976

them, yes, but they didn't come to Canada, publish, give jobs, spend money here. I say, as one who believes Western Canada is not included as part of the national scene, because nationalism in Canada only extends about the fringes of Toronto, that perhaps those who are treating this bill lightly did not read the record of the Broadcasting Committee on Bill C-58 or understand the meaning of that dialogue.
When the Secretary of State and the senior officials of Revenue Canada tried to explain how they would measure content for the purpose of this legislation and how they would act as watchdogs over publications throughout the world-they might have to do that, they said, to be sure that the act would be followed-I was even more appalled at what the prospect of this bill would become. Phrases and rationalisations, perhaps even manipulations of truth, were quite remarkable and indicated the ridiculousness of trying to use the ruler of science or mathematics to measure culture and content.
Here are some of the remarkable phrases used in connection with content measurement: "continuing arrangements for access to material"; in other words, it isn't Canadian content, they don't care about Canadian writers in this bill. Norman Mailer could write, and the revenue people explained this. He could write in this magazine and be published and be acceptable. We are always protecting the publishers, not the writers and not those in allied trades. It must be "essentially different", whatever that means.
Then they talked of a "criterion for methodology" for measuring content. Then there were numerical interpretations which might be contributed to the word "substantial". It was a remarkable night, especially December 4, and I must say I did attend all the meetings. It was rather Gilbert and Sullivanesque, even Mack Sennett in many ways, except it was so serious.
Things like this happened. The man from Revenue, a senior civil servant who must answer the committee whether he believes in it or not, said, "If, for example, in our measurement we came up with 40 per cent it is arguable that it should have been 39 per cent, or 38 per cent, or 41 or 42 per cent, but apart from a minor margin of error we have not met any undue difficulties nor do we foresee any undue difficulty in measuring the arithmetic of the thing."
They are not getting a panel of editors, of journalists, of cultural experts to measure it. They are going to do it by a computer, or by one of those little pocket machines that add. They said there might be more difficulty in the area of "continuing arrangement" but it was felt desirable to insert this into the policy because otherwise officials of the Department of National Revenue would be expected to search all periodicals throughout the world to see whether a spot article was derived from something in Afghanistan-hear that: they have to go to Afghanistan to be sure it didn't happen there-or to Baluchistan, and I don't even know where that place is.
It is by establishing whether there is or is not a continuing arrangement that the matter becomes administrable. That is so fantastic as to be almost incomprehensible. If that were so, why every newspaper in Canada has a continuing arrangement with the New York Times, the Associated Press, United Press International, or Los
Non-Canadian Publications
Angeles Times writers. Even the University Press has a continuing arrangement. Who knows, they may develop a continuing arrangement with Xavier Hollander.


Some hon. Members:: Explain!


Simma Holt: That is for you to explain, gentlemen!
When the witnesses at that committee meetings were trying to explain "substantially different" and "continuing relation" in order to hit this target, they obviously fluttered around. They could only miss the bull's eye, Reader's Digest, Time, etc. which they were out to get. There is no doubt in my mind that when the rules changed from May 5 to October 23, and finally in the last week to make a special privilege for Reader's Digest, which in a few years will return to haunt Reader's Digest in a new Bill 58, the objectives were clear.
They will hit the whole outer edge of the target and not just Reader's Digest and Time, all foreign news and features, even the comics, except for Ben Wicks' little item. They seem not to realize that they will be the victims. Those are the dangerous ramifications I urge you to reject. When you play with content you endanger the freedom of choice to publish, you endanger the freedom of availability of culture.
One of Vancouver's most eminent writers, an international author and journalist, Lisa Hobbs, responded to a statement made in Vancouver at the opening of the CBC building by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner). The hon. gentleman had stated:
We can't compete if Canadian interests are left to their own initiatives. Do they (people) want us simply to become a total U.S. cultural satellite? We have to recognise that we must work against that eventuality. And in the leadership of that effort must be the Canadian government.
Lisa Hobbs asked:
How would this "leadership" be expressed? According to Mr. Faulkner, in "controlling the importation of foreign culture." It is a nice phrase. It means denying us access to it, which means censorship. And it rings with the echo of the boot. There is no free society in the world today that censors publishing and the arts.
The minister announced at the committee hearings that he had a cultural plan for Canada. Once before in history a government announced a cultural plan in the name of nationalism. That government called itself "National Socialist". It is kind of frightening that the socialists here are also nationalists. I stand up today and speak against my government, with sadness but with intensity, because I know the end result of cultural planning. I am not as young as all the rest of you here, and I remember. I am just an amateur here but I've got gears! I remember that in the name of nationalism books were burnt and that, in the striving for purity of race and nationalism, millions died. I do not want even to start to set in motion any form of controls that can lose us our freedom.
Another very disturbing aspect that the CBC has uncovered is the power of Canadian publishers in Canada. Every writer of books knows very well that it is the publisher who makes the money. Anyone who tells a Canadian author that he can get rich, even with a best seller, is trying to deceive him, especially if the Canadian publisher

February 5, 1976
Non-Canadian Publications
is absorbed in making a few of the eastern idols even richer. I say that from personal knowledge. Every author is but part of the publisher's stable and few ever making a living out of books. It is the publisher who makes the money if you have a best seller for him; he only cares about the buck. Oh, they love their authors-as long as they write and allow use of their names.
I should like to mention another interesting point, something that has gone on for a great length of time, not something for which this particular government is responsible. Perhaps even the leaders of hon. gentlemen opposite started it, or some senior civil servants. I am never sure who is running my life around here.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The whip.


Simma Holt: The whip is a great man. He smiles at me even when he knows I am not doing quite the thing he would like me to do. If anyone is thinking of becoming a Canadian writer, whether he be a journalist or an editorial writer, let them forget it because no one cares about them.
The Department of External Affairs has played a strange game in all of this. The Canadian embassies' reading rooms and libraries will not accept works of Canadian authors unless they are published by Canadian publishing houses. There were many outstanding Canadian writers for Macmillan Publishing, but their books could not qualify for Canadian embassies. Maclean-Hunter bought out Macmillan and they suddenly became Canadian, their publications could go into embassies and much money was spent on them, for which they received royalties. Canadians who write for Ryerson lost their Canadian identity as far as external affairs' reading rooms were concerned as soon as the publishing house was bought out by Americans. How petty, how ridiculous, and how unnationalistic that is.
I hope that as of today the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) will end this discrimination against Canadian authors who choose to publish where they will. I personally am a Canadian author, not because I was born in Canada but because I happen to publish with a Canadian publisher. But I will not be publishing with a Canadian publisher in future oecause I think American subsidiaries care about us westerners, about Canadian culture and writers, just a little more than the Toronto mafia.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hope those socialists are listening.


Simma Holt: As I say, it is ironic that the content control is not designed to protect Canadian writers. It does nothing for Canadian publishing. Everything it does is for the publisher, the billionaire conglomerates. Southam's are linked with Maclean's in many enterprises and they are pulling out their foreign correspondents. There are only two foreign correspondents in Peking offices to cover the situation in China. In other words, if continuing content is to be the rule we will not be getting any foreign news from China because we can only get it through a continuing arrangement with Associated Press and all the other agencies.
The history of Bill C-58 makes me think of a king who is in a card game and cannot stand to lose. He changes the rules as he goes along. He becomes ridiculous and the game not worth the playing. I wonder though if even that king

would tear up the cards or ultimately assassinate his opponent when the rules are changed so much that they come full circle to start again.
The rules in this bill have been changed several times. On May 5 the requirement was that half the content was to be "new, fresh, original material which has not appeared in any periodica] outside Canada". Obviously that strange dictum had one purpose, and it was a dangerous purpose. Perhaps it was written by an accountant rather than a person of culture-perhaps a schoolteacher. No one can really define "new, fresh, original material". I defy anyone to tell me what that is. Perhaps the Secretary of State has never heard it said that there is nothing new under the sun. Perhaps there is nothing really fresh or original either.
To show the danger of this whole exercise, when it was discovered that Time was ready to meet the May 5 dictum the "king" quickly changed the rules and on October 23 content suddenly was no longer 50 per cent but 80 per cent. Now it has been changed again. One victim is now saved, Reader's Digest, and its French edition Selection. I can only suspect that this was the result of political expediency. Perhaps a few members on this side can accept that kind of deal, but I cannot because of the danger of the principle involved. It is not acceptable to me, and I doubt whether Reader's Digest will be able to face the repercussions of once more being accused of being given special privileges.
This is reminiscent of a strange event in the prohibition era. When the United States could not get A1 Capone for the substantive offences of murder and bootlegging, they got him on income tax evasion. Canada is doing the same thing here in order to rid the community of Reader's Digest, Time, MD, and KVOS Bellingham and other border stations. Other small publications will also become victims. But none of these are criminals. They are not the A1 Capones of culture. On the contrary, they are good corporate citizens, perhaps too moral for the swingers who saw Reader's Digest, during the bead and beard hippie era, as a symbol of despised morality and Time as the symbol of patriotism in the Viet Nam explosion.
If law is written to cure an imagined ailment-a sort of sociological hypochrondia, perhaps a cultural hypochondria, imagined and not real- by the Department of the Secretary of State, using the Department of Revenue as its tool, it can only end negatively and dangerously.
The dangers to freedom of choice and the spin-offs from that have been referred to already. It is difficult for me to conceive of any government, any body of people, assigned to this very serious duty we have been given by the electorate, creating law here that is not positive, is not for the good of the majority and the nation, but is built on a negative, an anti-American bias.
I should like to challenge anyone in this House to put on those scales of justice what will be gained for Canada and Canadians by this action, and what will be lost. They will find little if anything of gain, and the loss will rock the scale off its base.
February 5, 1976


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if I might inquire of the parliamentary assistant to the government House leader about the business for tomorrow?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, we will be proceeding with Bill C-58 tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will try to get as much as I can into my seven minutes on this very important issue. Approximately one third of the Canadian work force is made up of women, and almost all of that total, some 2 million, are subjected to job discrimination in terms of the income they are paid. All the rhetoric and supposed efforts of the government to one side, considering what the government has attempted or is alleged to have attempted in the past ten years, instead of the gap between women's and men's income narrowing in that past decade it has widened.
The most recent statistical information provided by the women's bureau within the federal Department of Labour, published in this year, indicates that the wage and salary position of women in the Canadian labour force during the past decade has become worse and not better. The average pay for a woman now is 60 per cent of that of a man doing the same job.
Fully two thirds of women in the work force are doing four categories of work, namely, clerical, sales, service, and professional. The one group, and I think this is understandable, that has made some progress in recent years has been the professional group. I am sure all Canadians and members in all parties will be pleased at that fact, but will not be so pleased about the other fact, and that is that with respect to the other categories of women their average income position has worsened.
Let me present to the House four illustrations of the current situation in respect of women's incomes as compared to men's. These figures again come from the Department of Labour and are the most recent, being for the year 1973. The first category is hospital workers and medical lab technologists. The average monthly pay for a woman was $659, and for a man $693. For hotels employing 200 or more people, men earned on the average of $464 a month, and women $427. In real estate, clerical and related workers, women earned on the average $3.25 an hour compared to $3.82 for men. In banks and financial institutions, for those
Adjournment Debate
who were in a supervisory position, as of 1973, women earned on the average $4.39 per hour, as compared to $5.67 for men. In clerical positions in the same financial institutions women averaged $3.15 a hour, and men once again subtantially more, $3.94.
One could go on with a whole variety of average and low income occupations and show the remarkable and sad discrepancy which exists between men's and women's salaries in 1975. The government, in terms of its program for International Women's year, last year spent a lot of money, but in the main spent money on glib advertising campaigns, in my view, and on rather sexist slogans such as "Why Not?" and "Pourquoi non?", but did almost nothing in terms of removing the discrepancy which exists by taking concrete steps in national terms. I am not talking about federal employees only, but in national terms the government took almost no measures to remove that discrepancy in income which exists between working men and women.
There was one opportunity which would have enabled the federal government to show in a demonstrable way its serious concern about the situation in recent months, and that was of course the anti-inflation legislation. As the minister knows, there is a specific exemption from the guidelines provided in the legislation which would enable employers in Canada to go beyond the guidelines for wages and salary increases if the purpose were "to eliminate sex discrimination in pay practices". That is a laudable exemption provided in the legislation. It would have been more laudable, I suggest, if the government had followed up once again with something other than the permissive phrase that is in the legislation and had actually taken steps to implement seriously that possibility which it leaves open to employers. There was nothing in the regulations that I was able to see pertaining to this fact following the passage of the legislation.
The government has done nothing in terms of publicity to private employers stressing the moral obligation- because it is not within federal jurisdiction but in a provincial area where most people are employed-that private employers should now have to eliminate this unjust and outdated discrimination.
There is nothing that I am aware of that the federal government has done in terms of its negotiations with the provinces to persuade, cajole, or coerce in some way the provinces to take direct steps to implement on a mandatory basis this permissive clause in the anti-inflation program. I repeat that it would have been a glorious opportunity for the government to try to implement within the framework of its anti-inflation legislation a policy which in 1976 could have led to the virtual elimination of wage and salary discrimination between men and women in Canada. I suggest that it is a step which is long overdue.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I was fascinated to hear the hon. gentleman say that the best way to conduct federal-provincial relations was to coerce the provinces. I suppose he would adopt as the NDP slogan "coercive federalism".
I have already replied in substance to the question on male-female earning differentials raised by the hon. member. The government's position is two-fold: first, it has
2 1 130-55

February 5, 1976
Adjournment Debate
taken steps to correct the situation insofar as workers under its jurisdiction are concerned, and secondly, it very much hopes, although it cannot impose its view, that other jurisdictions will follow its example. I would like to elaborate briefly on these two points.
With respect to workers under federal jurisdiction the necessary steps have been taken to ensure that women receive equal pay. In line with the publication in 1970 of the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, the government has placed before the House legislation which will, among other things, add sex and marital status as prohibited grounds for discrimination under the Canada Labour Code. I am referring here, of course, to Bill C-72 which is now before the House.
As for other workers, that is to say, those not under federal jurisdiction, labour standards applying to them are those under the various provincial labour codes. The hon. member is certainly aware that the anti-inflation legislation was not intended, nor would it be legally able to amend the provincial labour laws. While the government is aware of and respects the jurisdictional constraints, it has been conscious of the need to create an environment which would facilitate the resolution of such problems. That is why the white paper on the anti-inflation program states, and I quote:
... employers may also grant increases in compensation above the guidelines if such increases result from taking measures ... to eliminate sex discrimination in pay practices.
In brief, the government believes it has played an important role in creating a climate which will help in the resolution of male-female pay differentials. It has done so in a spirit of respect for jurisdictional allocation of powers in Canada and by consciously designed provisions both in the anti-inflation guidelines and Bill C-72 in carrying out its own responsibilities. We are confident that with these actions the general situation will continue to improve.


NATIONAL PARKS-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-SUGGESTED MORATORIUM ON IMPOSITION OF FEE
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, when I last raised the question of the Prince Edward Island national park with the minister I was depressed and distressed by his answer. I noted with much regret that he was applauded by members of the Liberal party when he said, and I quote:
Basically, the position is that the national park in Prince Edward Island is one of our national parks and part of our national system. It is very difficult to say we are not going to charge a fee for Prince Edward Island but will for Fundy and Kejimkujik. It is part of our national system and we feel it is equitable that the users should be contributing a minimum of 18 per cent, which is what is amounts to, of the operating costs of our national parks.
I think that unless and until he recognizes that there are differences as among parks and among provinces, the minister will not approach an equitable solution to this serious problem. The history of this dominion has shown that Confederation has been one long series of adjustments and readjustments.
It was a century ago that John A. Macdonald and Joseph Howe worked out financial changes in the BNA Act
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).J
respecting Nova Scotia, a province which on Dominion Day, 1867, had voted solidly, indeed almost unanimously, for the anti-confederate ticket. Only Charles Tupper escaped the wrath of the electors.
Ever since there have been special formulae worked out. No realistic person could expect a nation composed of provinces of such great differences in size, wealth and economic and social values to work in an inflexible framework. Compromise and common sense are the essential ingredients of a functioning federation or confederation.
While speaking of special provisions, arrangements or inhibitions, I might mention one we do not like. It is no delight to Prince Edward Island or the island portion of Newfoundland to know that they alone must pay to go to or to come from another province. I wonder how the residents of Saskatchewan and Manitoba would like to pay a toll every time they move from province to province.
I appeal once more, most earnestly and sincerely, to the minister to listen to the people, the legislature, and the government of Prince Edward Island. The sea has been our inspiration throughout our history. It has also and often been our economic strength. Consider how much of our coast line was given over to the national park. Realize that the imposition of this fee is really cutting off island people from their ancient joy and heritage, the beauty, majesty, and charm of the glittering sea.
If some day soon you, sir, or the charming parliamentary secretary, come to my province and I offer to take you fishing for that queen of the sea, the mackerel, I will have to pay to get into the fishing grounds, and that might stagger my Presbyterian thrift.
In all my years in public life, and they are now quite a few, I have never seen such depth of feeling as exists in Prince Edward Island in respect to this question. I urge that some arrangements be made, whether the establishment of a new concept of a sea shore park as there is in the United States, or whatever. Let the minister indicate his awareness of our unique situation and bring about a fair and acceptable adjustment to it.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I would gladly reciprocate with an invitation to go fishing for some west coast salmon off the Queen Charlotte Islands if we were fortunate enough to have any national parks in that part of Canada. Unfortunately that is not the case.
I really do regret that the hon. member has been depressed and distressed that Prince Edward Island must pay as other Canadians must pay for the privilege of enjoying national parks. The only difference to date has been that other provinces in the west have paid for the privilege of utilizing parks for 40 years. Suddenly the eastern part of Canada has begun to take on its share of the future improvements.
The minister has listened to the people very carefully. They want park facilities and good ones; they want improvements and developments and these things must be paid for. Unfortunately in today's economy they must be paid for by the people who utilize them. It is a most natural human reaction to seek to avoid paying fees.
February 5, 1976

The decision to increase national parks motor licence fees and apply them where they had not been collected before, was taken in 1974. It arose from the minister's efforts to embark on a major program of development, to establish new parks, to provide basic facilities in new parks, and to preserve and protect more of Canada's natural and historic heritage of which the hon. member speaks with such eloquence.
The rapid expansion in the number of national parks within recent years on a very limited budget was in many instances done at the expense of the old established parks in the system, such as Prince Edward Island national park. Unfortunately, this happened over a period when ten new parks came into being, and there has not been sufficient funding to develop them all at one time without the participation of the people who make use of them. I know the hon. member would not wish to shirk the duty of the people of Prince Edward Island in supplying their assistance to parks of Canada in their growth and development. Maybe with the help of the people of Prince Edward Island the people on the Queen Charlotte Islands will have a park one day.


FISHERIES-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL AID TO REPAIR STORM DAMAGE IN NEW BRUNSWICK
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, this country is a confederation of provinces into a single unit. It was formed with the understanding that the provinces, as they became members of this structure, recognized that there were mutual responsibilities of one province to another, of one region to another, and of the national government to all provinces and all regions.
In recent years the tendencies of the national government has been to disclaim responsibilities which are historically inherent in the principles of confederation. Examples of this national responsibility can be cited from the construction of the national railroad, the construction of a series of airports for air travel, the construction of the Trans-Canada highway, the assumption of responsibility for the maintenance, construction, and expansion of the seaports as well as those ports of national consequence on the inland water system of Canada. And one can go on over a long list of items which are examples of the assumption of responsibility by the national government where an individual province or region could not, without undue hardship assume responsibility for the particular situation in which it found itself.
That coastal area of Canada which forms the Bay of Fundy now finds itself in a disaster position; whether it be in the area of Yarmouth or Grand Manan, whether it be Saint John or Moncton, and the area deserves relief from the Government of Canada on a disaster basis.
While I was encouraged yesterday by the answer of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) given to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), I was most discouraged by the answer from the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) in his reply to me today. The Prime Minister recognized in a heartening way that this is not a situation which would make a recurring claim upon the national treasury. In contrast to this, as I remember his remarks, the Minister of State (Fisheries) today said that
Adjournment Debate
only if something were started by the provinces would any relief be forthcoming.
In view of the fact that this cabinet minister is a resident of New Brunswick and is looked upon as the voice of the province of New Brunswick in cabinet, it was indeed disheartening to hear that the damages to the industry for which he is responsible will only receive relief upon initiation of the individual provinces concerned. This is the second occasion since he has been minister responsible for fisheries that he has turned a deaf ear to the pleas from people in dire trouble.
During the fall of 1975 a multitude of fishermen on the Atlantic coast suffered serious damage as a result of unusual weather, and their plea for help went unanswered. Some of the same people have again experienced disastrous losses, particularly lobster fishermen, within a time span of less than six months. This type of loss is beyond their means; yet the returns from this industry are of major importance to the national economy.
I am sure that when the Prime Minister made his statement that this area could receive consideration under the existing circumstances, he was aware of the fact that though the policy of government has not been to recognize problems such as this, they have not chosen to declare a disaster area on their own initiative and the machinery is still in place to permit this to be done. Though the position of the Minister of State responsible for Fisheries was historically correct, during the past few years on the basis of existing government policy the machinery is still in place whereby special funds could be allocated to alleviate the difficulties of that storm ravaged area. The statutory authority for this is still in existence, although it has not been in use.
The people of the cities and towns which have been so thoroughly disrupted must be congratulated upon the dispatch with which they have dealt with their problems. The co-operation of the residents with one another in the city of Saint John would restore the faith of mankind in the principle of brotherly love. It is a stirring example of the practice of the good neighbour principle.
I wonder does the minister recognize that the livelihood of hundreds of families and their life savings have been eliminated in the span of a very few hours of almost merciless weather. I wonder how many people in this House realize that this was just not an ordinary storm. This was a storm which had winds of hurricane proportions. This was a storm in which wind measuring instruments registered velocities of more than 120 miles per hour on a continuing basis. These were not just momentary gusts. Boats do not get thrown across highways and into a wooded area by a single gust of wind. Fish processing buildings are not lifted off their foundations and scattered by a single gust of wind. This was a storm which carried continuing winds of hurricane proportions and the damage is in direct relation to their intensity.
Canada has had a record of generosity on an international basis. It has always come to the aid of those areas which suffered catastrophes. I am sure we will come to the aid of Guatemala, to some degree, after the moments of horror people there have experienced and the catastrophic
2 I 1 30-5 514

February 5, 1976
Adjournment Debate
damage to man and his property. If we do not, we should; but we should be equally aware of the needs of our own people in time of trouble. It is not proper that the Government of Canada, or any of its ministers, should say that this is a provincial or a regional problem. It is, instead, only fair and right that government should say that this is indeed an unusual circumstance and that we shall indeed come to the aid of those who need it so badly.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal proposed that a formula should be adopted by the government under which. The first dollar, per capita, of a province required to reimburse for flood or other types of unusual damage should come from the province. The second dollar spent within a province for this purpose should be shared equally by the Government of Canada and the province. The third dollar spent for this purpose should be absorbed 75 per cent by the Government of Canada and 25 per cent by the province concerned. The fourth dollar and each additional dollar per capita of a province required for this purpose should be financed by at least a 90 per cent contribution from the federal government.
The adoption of such a program would certainly relieve the present situation immensely. It would be a step in the right direction. It might very well be a very proper and responsible position for the Government of Canada to take on a national basis. It would certainly be preferable to the formula which presently exists. It would not, however, relieve the Government of Canada of the responsibility of an immediate assessment of the damage to a national industry, such as that of the salt water fishing industry.
I am, and I always have been, of the opinion that unusual expenditure by any area of Canada should be the responsibility of the Government of Canada in recognition of the differences in the various areas of our country and the unique responsibilities which some areas have but which others do not have at all.
I thank the Prime Minister for his sympathetic statement and I implore the Minister of State (Fisheries), in view of this statement, to assess immediately the damage in the Atlantic area and sell to cabinet a proposal for furnishing adequate money to re-establish those who cannot re-establish themselves, whether they live along the shore or inland. I wish to put in a special word for those who live along the shore, who are engaged in a profession which few of us choose as our source of income and who, through generations of almost unendurable conditions, have made such a major contribution to our total economy. They are not asking for charity. They are asking for the recognition of a right which is truly theirs. They ask their government in Ottawa to recognize their plight and lend the necessary assistance to alleviate it.


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the government is doing exactly what the hon. gentleman is requesting.
The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) yesterday received the assurance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that his office is looking into the possibility, if I quote him correctly, of providing an exception in this case and studying the situation in a sympathetic way.
In reply to further questioning today by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte, the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) gave his assurance that officials of his department would co-operate and help the province assess the damage as far as fisheries are concerned. Therefore, to the two requests that the hon. member made, he received assurances from the Prime Minister and the Minister of State (Fisheries).
I understand that today surveys were being conducted by the government of New Brunswick together with EMO and, we hope, the assistance of the federal fisheries officers.


Fred Alward McCain: "We hope." So do I.


George Baker: The hon. member was given assurance today by the Minister of State (Fisheries). I do not know what else he wants.
As the hon. member stated, the existing formula is that the province has to put in the first dollar of capital, the second and third dollars would be funded 50 per cent by the federal government, the fourth and fifth dollars by the federal government, and the excess 90 per cent by the federal government. That has been the exact formula since 1970 for every single case with a few exceptions of small disasters that were very localized. However, as the hon. member stated, this was a large disaster.
Through the efforts of the hon. member and those of other hon. members affected, the Prime Minister has taken this exceptional step. However, let me assure him that under the existing formula the initiative for the assessing of damages for disaster relief rests with the provincial governments. It has always rested there. As I stated, the hon. member's comments have been taken into account by the Prime Minister and the Minister of State (Fisheries). I think at the moment that is all we can expect from the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: The
motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:29 p.m.

Friday, February 6, 1976