CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 1, 1998

• 1110

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): Order. I'd like to open the meeting of

[Translation]

the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Pursuant to our order of reference from the House dated Tuesday November 3, 1998, we continue with

[English]

a study of Bill C-55,

[Translation]

An Act respecting advertising services supplied by foreign periodical publishers. First, however, we have agreed to devote several minutes to the report of the subcommittee on sport before we turn our attention to consideration of this bill.

[English]

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe all members have received a copy. We've talked with one another, and I would defer to Madame Tremblay, who I believe is prepared to make a motion that we accept the report.

The Chairman: She left for a call with Monsieur Bouchard.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Dennis Mills: I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Bouchard is telling her to reverse her position.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): How come Jacques Parizeau had more votes?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, I would defer to Madame Tremblay.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay?

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Is there something I need to sign? Is it all in English? No, it's in French as well.

Mr. Chairman, unless someone wishes to comment, and provided everyone has had an opportunity to read the report, I would like to move a motion calling on the government to respond to the report, pursuant to Standing Order 109.

First, however, I move that the committee approve the report. I would also like a recorded vote to be taken.

The Chairman: If I understand correctly, your motion calls on the committee to request that the government respond to the report, pursuant to Standing Order 109, and that the report...

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: ...be approved by the committee and presented to the House. I propose that we adopt these three motions. We can proceed in this particular order, or we can go about it some other way, if you prefer. It really doesn't matter.

The Chairman: In that case, Mrs. Tremblay wishes to move the following three motions:

a) That the committee do request a government response to the report, pursuant to Standing Order 109;

b) that the report, as amended, be approved by the committee and presented to the House;

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: "As amended" should be removed because the report was not amended.

The Chairman: I'm sorry.

b) That the report be approved by committee and presented to the House;

How's that?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: That's perfect.

The Chairman: And thirdly:

c) That the committee append the dissenting opinions of the opposition parties following the Chair's signature.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Can we change the order in any way, that is can we go with b), c) and then a)?

The Chairman: I don't see why not.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Does this simply mean that we are approving the report, but not necessarily all of the recommendations?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: We will put that to a vote.

The Chairman: We are now going to vote on whether or not to approve the report.

[English]

It's that the report be approved by the committee and presented to the House. It's a total report. If you disagree with one particular clause, that is another thing. The fact is we are approving the report as a whole.

• 1115

Mr. Dennis Mills: With the dissenting opinions.

The Chairman: With the dissenting opinions from whatever party is presenting dissenting opinions.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: First, though, we have to approve the report.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: The question I'm simply asking is, if we vote to approve the report, are we approving every recommendation in the report?

Mr. Dennis Mills: No, because there are dissenting opinions too.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: We have to approve the report first, quite aside from whether there are any dissenting opinions. That is the first step, since any dissenting opinions would be appended.

The Chairman: If you have no objections, to avoid any confusion, we will present these motions one at a time. The first motion reads as follows:

That the report be approved by the committee and presented to the House.

[English]

We'll start with that one.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I'd like a recorded division.

The Chairman: Agreed.

[English]

We'll proceed with a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 2) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: I will now proceed with—

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Let's proceed with the second motion.

The Chairman: The second motion.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: That the committee append the dissenting opinions.

The Chairman:

That the committee append the dissenting opinions of the opposition parties following the Chair's signature.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: It's unanimous.

The third motion is:

[Translation]

That the committee do request a government response to the report, pursuant to Standing Order 109.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The motion is carried unanimously.

I would like to entertain a motion that we print the report.

How many copies, Mr. Mills—1,300 copies?

Mr. Dennis Mills: Our clerk has that information, and I would defer to his advice.

The Chairman: Okay, 1,300 copies. Would somebody move?

It's moved by Mr. Bonwick that the report be printed in 1,300 copies

[Translation]

in French and in English.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The motion is carried unanimously.

Mr. Mills, would you like to move that there be a special coloured cover on the report?

Mr. Dennis Mills: I would like to move that the cover represents and reflects—

The Chairman: Okay, it's been moved.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: It's unanimous.

By the way, members should note that the report is confidential until it is tabled in the House.

An hon. member:

[Inaudible—Editor].

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]... could rise and move to adjourn. One never knows.

[English]

The Chairman: The report is confidential until tabled in the House.

• 1120

We'll now proceed with clause-by-clause study of Bill C-55. We will postpone clause 1, for obvious reasons, and proceed with clause 2. There is a list of amendments.

(On clause 2—Definitions)

The Chairman: The first amendment under clause 2 is G-1. Mr. Bélanger, are you prepared to so move?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I so move.

The Chairman: Are you prepared to speak to the amendment to just give an explanation to the members?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It isn't necessary.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Please don't go too fast because I'm having trouble following in the French version.

The Chairman: You'll find that on the second page.

Mr. Bélanger, are you ready to explain amendment G-1 to committee members?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If you'll bear with me, Mr. Chairman, I'll present the motion in English first, and then in French.

[English]

It has been suggested that in definition (b) under “advertising services”, the words “placement services relating to such advertising space” be removed. This is more or less a technical amendment.

Representations have been made to the government that “placement services” in and of itself may be a difficult thing to define and that it might not be exclusive in terms of how advertising space could be provided. So in order to avoid that complexity, it is recommended that those words be struck.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: What paragraph do you wish to delete?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Only paragraph (b).

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Which (b)?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Clause 2 (b). Just a moment, I have to get my bearings.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: That's under the definition of "advertising services".

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's right.

[English]

The Chairman: Do I understand, Mr. Bélanger, that what you want to do is in effect delete (b) and make (c) (b)?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's correct.

The Chairman: Do members agree?

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Under "advertising services" on page 1. Is that correct?

The Chairman: Yes, under "advertising services". The motion seeks to amend clause 2 by deleting paragraph (b), and replacing it with paragraph (c). Paragraph (b) would be deleted, while paragraphs (a) and (c) would remain under "advertising services".

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: The French version reads "d'un accès à un marché cible de". Who exactly is the target market?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The reference is to consumers.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Why isn't this clearly indicated?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Because the reference is found on another line.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Honestly... and is it clear that (b) is being deleted and that (c)... it is?

• 1125

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, the reference is on another page in the English version. In the French version, as Mrs. Tremblay pointed out, the reference is on page 3. We are proposing to delete (b) in its entirety. Paragraph (c) would remain and would replace (b).

The Chairman: Lines 13 through 17 on page 1 are being deleted, that is paragraph (b) which reads as follows:

"rial accompany such a periodical; and

(b) access to a target market of consumers.

Paragraph (c) which begins with the words "access" becomes paragraph (b). Isn't that right, Mr. Bélanger?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's right. As I was saying, this would eliminate a potential ambiguity.

[English]

The Chairman: If the officials want to amplify or comment, please do.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Just for clarification, if we approve a change in the English version, are we to understand that it would automatically approve and change the French version?

The Chairman: Correct.

Mr. Mark Muise: Okay.

The Chairman: But when we are discussing it, obviously we're going to clarify both so that all members are quite clear as to what the meaning is.

You wanted to intervene?

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: What difference does it make?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It eliminates a potential ambiguity. Agencies are not necessarily alone in providing advertising services. They can be provided by other sources. By deleting this provision, we eliminate a possible ambiguity and loophole. The remainder of the provision refers to advertising space, the focus of the bill. This eliminates the possibility of any confusion arising as to whether or not advertising services must be provided by an agency or placement service. This is a technical amendment aimed at eliminating a possible ambiguity.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: How is this dealt with in the French version?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The following is deleted in the French version:

[English]

“placement services relating to such advertising space or material”.

[Translation]

The Chairman: It's on page 3.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Lines 7 through nine.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I understand, but the motion calls for lines 13 to 17 in the English version to be replaced.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, to be replaced by what you see here. In other words, paragraph (c) becomes paragraph (b), with the old (b) being deleted. That is what we're proposing

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Could you read the new text of paragraph (b) to me?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It would read as follows:

[English]

“access to a target market of consumers”,

[Translation]

And in English,

"access to a target market of consumers". Paragraph (c) becomes paragraph (b).

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: What happens to the line "rial accompany such a periodical"?

The Chairman: That's one way of describing the amendment.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: It's one way of ensuring that people won't understand.

The Chairman: It's one way of describing the amendment. The last line stays exactly the same. The word "and", which was at the very end of paragraph (b), now moves to the end of paragraph (a) to link it directly with the new paragraph (b), which reads "access to a target market of consumers".

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I understand. Everything is fine.

The Chairman: Fine. Is everyone clear on this? Yes?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, even though this is traditionally how we proceed, isn't there some way of making this process clearer to everyone? When we see "advertising services" in the English version...

The Chairman: Is there someone from the Justice Department here who could explain this to us?

[English]

Could you comment on this? Mrs. Tremblay is suggesting that there might be a simpler way of saying (b) is deleted and the word “and” is substituted. This is very confusing the way it is.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeff Richstone (Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Canadian Heritage): Certainly. I realize that this isn't always easy to understand, but legislative drafters with the Justice Department have explained to me that it is customary to delete certain lines and replace them with others. The changes are made on a line-by-line basis. When all you have is a portion of a sentence or word, then it is customary to present it this way. As lawmakers, you can always decide to change this, but for now, this is what was agreed to. I believe this is how legislation is traditionally drafted.

• 1130

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I would like to appeal to common sense. We are being asked to consider replacing lines 13 through 17...

The Chairman: I understand your position.

[English]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: —with the following: “rial accompany such a periodical”.

[Translation]

I think this has gone far enough. We are wasting too much time trying to understand this process. It may be traditional to proceed in this manner, but nowhere does it say that tradition can't be improved upon with time. Would there be some way of inserting "advertising services" in parentheses beside "services publicitaires" as a point of reference, and vice versa?

Since definitions are presented in alphabetical order in each language, the definition of "advertising services" appears first, whereas that of "services publicitaires" appears two pages further on.

The Chairman: I understand.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: A point of reference would greatly simplify matters. There is so much for us to read. The old approach may have worked when parliamentarians didn't have so much work, but it is no longer practical today.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You won't get any argument from us.

[English]

Next.

The Chairman: I would like to ask the officials who are here to introduce themselves and say their titles, for the purposes of the translation services, please.

Mr. Don Stephenson (Director General, Cultural Industries, Department of Canadian Heritage): Don Stephenson, director general of cultural industries.

Mr. Allan Clarke (Director, Publishing Policy and Programs, Department of Canadian Heritage): Allan Clarke, director of publishing policy and programs, Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Jeff Richstone, senior counsel, legal services, Canadian Heritage.

The Chairman: You have heard explanations regarding the first amendment, G-1. Are you ready for the question?

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I believe Mr. Inky Mark had something he wanted to say.

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Chair, could I ask for a polled vote when we vote on amendments?

The Chairman: A recorded vote?

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes.

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): For each individual clause?

The Chairman: Are you talking about a hand vote?

Mr. Inky Mark: I want a recorded vote.

The Chairman: You want a recorded vote?

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes.

The Chairman: He's allowed to ask for a recorded vote if he wants it.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: On every one?

The Chairman: Mr. Bonwick, the member has the right to ask for a recorded vote. Let's get to it and be finished with it.

A recorded vote has been asked for, so we'll proceed to a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of going through this piece of legislation is to give members the opportunity to speak on each clause. I would ask your indulgence to please call for a debate as we go through clause-by-clause, so that members do get an opportunity to speak.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark, please. My job isn't to call for debate on every clause. My job is very clear. I present the bill, members are allowed to.... Are you listening to me?

Mr. Inky Mark: The—

The Chairman: Excuse me a minute. You asked me a question. My job is to receive a bill as presented by the House. Amendments are produced by various members as they want to. They can debate them. They can pass them as they want. They can debate any clause. If a member wants to or doesn't want to debate, that is his or her prerogative. I can't impose debates on members. If you want to debate something, you speak. If you don't want to debate it, you don't speak. If a member here wants to speak, he or she speaks, or not. I can't just say there must be a debate on every clause and every amendment. That's for the members to decide, not me.

Mr. Bélanger, there's amendment G-2.

• 1135

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You will recall that when representatives from Reader's Digest appeared before us, they described a technical problem they have encountered regarding the ownership issue. In the draft legislation, we find the expression "more than 75 per cent". They recommended that this be replaced by "at least 75 per cent". As the bill is now worded, they would find themselves in a very difficult situation, since their beneficial ownership would have to be exactly 75 per cent.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: More than 75% means 76% and over.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Exactly. This is a strictly technical amendment to address situations like this. This expression is used four times in the bill.

[English]

This was a problem highlighted to us by Reader's Digest. The wording puts them in a rather difficult situation where we say “more than 75%”. They have an exact 75% ownership arrangement. So I thought there was at the time, around the table at least, a willingness to accommodate them by changing the words to “at least 75%”. That covers it.

There are four places where that is mentioned, as put in the G-2 amendment. It is purely a technical thing to accommodate, “at least 75%”.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at line 2 in the English version which contains the expression "more than 75 per cent".

The Chairman: We want to replace this expression by "at least 75 per cent".

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: This change is justified. However, there is no justification for amending, in lines 6 and 7, the reference to "a non-profit organization in which 75% of its members". There is no benefit to adding the words "at least". Whether the provision reads "in which 75%" or "at least 75%", it makes no difference, unless I'm missing something.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: If we say "in which 75%"...

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: "In which 75%" means the same thing as "at least 75 per cent".

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I disagree. In this case, it means exactly 75 per cent. Therefore, we can't have "more than 75 per cent".

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I agree, it should be "at least". I'll go to sleep tonight feeling somewhat more knowledgeable. The text on line 37 should therefore read "at least".

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would be curious to know how that is going to be translated.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: We'll see later. Part (d) of the amendment targets lines 44 and 45 in the English version. What is the corresponding line in the French version? I see, it's on page 3. That doesn't present a problem.

The Chairman: Is that fine with you, Mrs. Tremblay?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make some comments on clause 3 overall. I believe clause 3 sets out into uncharted territory.

The Chairman: We are dealing with clause 2 now.

Mr. Inky Mark: We're still on clause 2?

The Chairman: We're on amendment G-2 of clause 2.

Mr. Inky Mark: We're going so quickly that I thought we'd already passed clause 2. Okay.

If I could comment on clause 2, Mr. Chair, one of the problems is defining “advertising services”. These are definitions contrived by the department. The definition of “advertising services” actually succeeds in pointing out that periodical advertising is a good and not a service. The definition talks about “advertising space in a periodical” and “advertising material”. The only thing this definition succeeds in doing is proving Shakespeare's age-old comment that a rose is—

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I believe that right now we're looking at the amendments not to “advertising services” but to pages 2 and 3. I think that's what we're talking about right now. I don't believe that what Mr. Mark said has any reference whatsoever to the amendments we are now considering.

• 1140

The Chairman: Mr. Mark, with due respect, Mrs. Bulte is right. We are now considering amendment G-2. We should stick to the amendment. After that, if you want to comment on the clause before the clause is adopted....

We cannot adopt the clause now. We are just dealing with the amendment. Afterwards you can speak to the general clause itself, and I certainly will allow you any time you want to speak to the clause.

Mr. Inky Mark: I agree with you, Mr. Chair, and I'm glad to hear that you'll let me make some comments prior to voting on the whole clause.

The Chairman: Of course. You're allowed to make comments anytime you wish.

Mr. Inky Mark: Okay.

The Chairman: But right now we are considering....

I just allowed you to go because I thought we'd just deal with it in one fell swoop. But Ms. Bulte is correct: we're now dealing with purely an amendment to remove the words “more than” and substitute “at least”. That is really what the amendment is.

Mr. Inky Mark: Oh, I concur, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Okay.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, there appears to be a problem with lines 22 through 24 of the French version which read "son président ou une autre personne agissant comme tel et au moins les trois quarts des administrateurs". This implies 75% plus 1. This percentage does not include the chairperson; it refers to 75% of the directors, plus the chairperson, which isn't the same thing as 75% of all members. That's what it says under the definition of "société canadienne" on page 3.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Where exactly?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: In paragraph (c) under the definition of "société canadienne". The reference is to "et au moins les trois quarts".

Mr. Denis Coderre: "Son président ou une autre personne"...

The Chairman: "Ou une autre personne agissant comme tel"...

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: And "au moins les trois quarts", which means 75% plus one, not 75% overall. As you know, we are fond of the expression "plus un", but in this case, it could pose a problem.

Is that clear to you, Mauril? I'm referring to line 22 in the French version on page 3 under the definition of "société canadienne".

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, you're not at the right place. To which amendment are you referring? Amendment (c)?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: You're referring to lines 31 through the 33 of the French version?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: No, I'm referring to line 22.

The Chairman: One moment please, Mrs. Tremblay.

[English]

Translation and the people who are recording this are going to be terribly confused if everybody starts debating amongst themselves. One person at a time.

[Translation]

Is that all, Mrs. Tremblay?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: That doesn't solve the problem.

The Chairman: Perhaps Mr. Richstone could suggest a solution.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: That doesn't solve the problem I pointed out on the other page.

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Mrs. Tremblay, we haven't proposed any changes to paragraph (c) under the definition of "société canadienne", either in the English or in the French version. The text is correct as it is now worded. We are proposing changes elsewhere and trying to make all of the definitions consistent. Each time the bill refers to 75%, we want it clearly indicated that the reference should be to at least 75%, thereby establishing a kind of threshold.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I understand, but I stumbled on this paragraph and I guess I'm mistaken. It's probably a good thing, but the fact remains that as it is now worded, the text implies 75% plus one, not at least 75 per cent. However, I can live with it.

Mr. Jeff Richstone: In any event, the two versions correspond. The level is set at 75% of directors, and that's precisely what we intended.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I have to say that it is all extremely confusing. I'm not quite finished yet. There are other points that I would like to discuss.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Muise, while Mrs. Tremblay is reading this, could you...?

• 1145

Mr. Mark Muise: Just to make the process flow a bit better, I'm going back to my question of a few minutes ago. If we make a change in French, does it automatically change it the proper way in English?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Mark Muise: So are we doing translation or are we dealing with clause-by-clause?

The Chairman: No, no, we are not doing translation, but if by any chance Madame Tremblay or any other member finds a discrepancy between the English and the French and they point it out to us, it's very important for us to address it so that the officials will be aware that there is some mistake between the two. Because obviously, in trying to correlate the two, they may have made a mistake in the other language.

Mr. Mark Muise: Of course.

The Chairman: She's quite right in pointing it out, and the officials can clarify it. It's much better to do it that way.

Mrs. Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I believe I understand Madame Tremblay's concern. We're trying throughout this clause to put “at least 75%” as the minimum, and not “more than 75%”, to address the problem of Reader's Digest. Yet if you read under “Canadian corporation”, definition (c) does talk about a corporation “whose chairperson...and at least 75% of whose directors...”. So Madame Tremblay is absolutely right in that: we're looking at 75% plus one. Does that really address Reader's Digest's problem?

This is not a matter of translation; this is a matter—

The Chairman: Of substance.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: But the president is included in that 75%.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: No. Perhaps we could hear from our officials, but what it does say is, “chairperson...and at least 75% of whose directors...”.

Perhaps you could address that for us.

The Chairman: Mr. Richstone, if I may, I think what Mrs. Tremblay is referring to and what Mrs. Bulte is referring to is this: should “and” become “or” if we want to carry the meaning of “at least 75%”? Maybe you could address that.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Can we dispose of amendment G-2 first?

The Chairman: Yes, that's a good point.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will start by voting on G-2, following which we will consider the matter of the chairperson and the directors, which is entirely different subject. I agree with Mr. Bélanger.

[English]

So we'll deal with amendment G-2 for now. I think members are quite aware of what we are trying to do there.

(Amendment agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mrs. Tremblay, you wanted an explanation as to the difference between "le président et au moins les trois quarts des administrateurs", and "le président ou au moins les trois quarts des administrateurs".

Mr. Richstone.

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, the wording of the bill is an accurate reflection of the legislator's intent. The reference in paragraph (c) is not to 75% plus one. Two conditions are set: on the one hand, 75% of the directors must be Canadian citizens or permanent residents within the meaning of the Immigration Act; on the other hand, the chairperson or presiding officer of the corporation must also be a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. However, in some instances, the chairperson could be a director and an ex officio director. In some corporations, the chairperson or presiding officer is not a director. Two different sets of rules apply, but in cases where the chairperson is also a director, the rules state that the proportion must be 75% plus one. The chairperson must be Canadian citizen, and 75% of the directors must also be Canadian citizens. However, if the chairperson is also a director, the rule applies to both functions and the required proportion would remain at 75 per cent. Therefore, there is no need to add the word "ou", since this could weaken this provision.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any other items of discussion on clause 2 before we call clause 2?

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, if this rule applies, in some cases, 75% plus one of the members of the corporation will be Canadian citizens, whereas in other cases, the proportion will be at least 75 per cent. Do you see the difference?

The Chairman: Mr. Richstone.

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Mrs. Tremblay, two things are stated in this paragraph. If the rule is that only 75% of the corporation's directors must be Canadian citizens, then there is no requirement that the chairperson be a Canadian citizen. Therefore, only one of the two conditions in paragraph (c) applies. This provision states on the one hand that either the chairperson or presiding officer of a corporation must be a Canadian citizen while on the other hand, 75% of the corporation's directors must also be Canadian citizens. However, if the chairperson or presiding officer is also a director, according to paragraph (c), 75% plus one of the directors must be Canadian citizens. These are the two rules that apply. If the presiding officer or chairperson is a Canadian citizen, and if the presiding officer or chairperson is also a director, they are automatically included in the 75 per cent.

• 1150

[English]

The Chairman: We'll now call clause 2 as amended.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to make a comment—

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I don't believe what I've just been told. I can read French and that explanation doesn't correspond to what is written in the French version. I'm sorry. Either his explanation doesn't wash, or the text is incorrect. The two versions are not consistent.

The Chairman: Listen, Mrs. Tremblay...

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I'm not at all satisfied.

The Chairman: It's all a matter of interpretation.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: That's why we have a problem. We need to consult some lawyers. It should be a simple matter to draft legislation properly.

The Chairman: It all comes down to interpreting the intent of the legislator. This is the provision the legislator came up with and the Justice Department representative confirmed this intent. Either you accept or reject this provision.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: While it is always somewhat risky to pass legislation without proper reflection, I wonder—and I'd like to put this question to Mrs. Tremblay—if it might not be good idea to split this paragraph (c) into two parts to clarify the two conditions that the Justice Department counsel outlined for us, namely that the chairperson of the corporation must be a Canadian citizen and that 75% of the directors must also be Canadian citizens. Would that resolve this dilemma?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Why not stipulate clearly that in all instances, the chairperson must be a Canadian citizen?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: He must.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Then why not spell that out clearly? The same goes for paragraphs (d) and (e). In all cases, a Canadian corporation must be headed up by a Canadian chairperson.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Perhaps I could ask our witnesses for their opinion on splitting paragraph (c) into two parts to make these two conditions very clear. Do our legal experts think that this would be feasible?

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Yes, but whether or not we split this provision into two parts, the meaning would remain the same. We didn't split paragraph (c) in two because we felt that the resulting text would be rather awkward. He had we done so, we would have had to state in subparagraph (c)(i) that the chairperson or other presiding officer must be Canadian citizens or permanent residents within the meaning of the Immigration Act and, in subparagraph (c)(ii), that 75% of the directors or other similar officers must also be Canadian citizens or permanent residents within the meaning of the Immigration Act. To avoid repetition, we combined the two elements. However, as Mr. Bélanger suggested, you could always split this paragraph in two.

For the sake of argument, Mrs. Tremblay, I would point out that paragraph (c) is a faithful reproduction of a provision found in the Income Tax Act. The meaning and interpretation are exactly the same. However, if you prefer, we could...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: While I realize that it isn't exactly fair to ask you this question, I will anyway. Have there been any rulings on any similar provision contained in other laws which would indicate to us that there is no ambiguity, as Mrs. Tremblay maintains?

Mr. Jeff Richstone: I don't believe there have been. It's more a question of an administrative practice as set out in certain legislative provisions and this is how it has been interpreted. But I don't believe there have been any legal precedents set.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have nothing further to add, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Fine.

• 1155

[English]

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chair, this clause 2 is precisely what sets the tone for the rest of the legislation. This is what's created the problem: the definition of exactly what an advertising service is. As I said previously, in our opinion, it's not the correct definition. Advertising in a periodical by any other means still includes elements of a good. A physical magazine is sold or distributed to a consumer, and that physical magazine contains advertising imprinted on paper. If that isn't a good, I guess that's the question.

We're saying that, by definition, this piece of legislation is flawed right from the first stage.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark, of course this has been your opinion and that of your party. At the same time, we are now dealing with clause-by-clause and amendments before us, so that is really what we are about.

Mr. Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: I'm not a language expert, but I do understand French. However, I am baffled by the French version. I agree with what Mauril is proposing, namely that this paragraph be split into two parts. When we read "son président ou une autre personne agissant", this implies the chairperson plus 75% of the corporation's directors.

[English]

Clarify that, if it's not the intention, but I'm sorry; when you read it, it's clear.

[Translation]

It's crystal clear.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Richstone.

Mr. Jeff Richstone: I won't debate that point. The point is true, because there are two different rules. But if the president, if the chair, is also an administrator, it doesn't make the rule 75% plus one. It means the president of the board of....

You have a board of directors. If the president sits on the board as a member of the board, there has to be 75% of the administrators, and of that 75%, the president also has to be Canadian, as well as the 75%. But it doesn't make 75% plus one on the board. What it means is there are two different rules together: the president or the chief officer has to be Canadian and 75%. But when you have—

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: However, as it is worded here...

[English]

Mr. Jeff Richstone: But it doesn't create 75% plus one on the board.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Well, if you're Machiavellian like me, you can use that one. That's what I'm saying.

The Chairman: Mr. Pickard, you had asked to.... No? Okay.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: When Mr. Bélanger explained the proposed amendment, he noted that representations had been made by Reader's Digest. The proposal is to amend the text to read "at least" 75% to dispel any misconceptions that 76% is required, as one might be led to believe. As it is now worded, the provision implied "more than 75%" and this had to be changed to "at least". However, because of the wording in paragraph (c), Reader's Digest could have an unfair advantage because it would not have to comply with paragraph (c). It would not need to have a chairperson who is a Canadian citizen and so forth. Other requirements may have been amended, but not this one, the reason being that they wanted to please this corporation.

It's either an oversight, or something isn't quite logical. That's the beauty of language. What can you do?

[English]

The Chairman: Before I recognize Mr. Bélanger, I would like to ask this to you, Mr. Richstone, because there's a real confusion right now, and we have to move on. It seems to me that the other items where “at least” was introduced.... Because the other items had to be modified by the words “at least”, does that mean this one has to be as well, or is it a different matter that we're dealing with? That's the first question.

Number two, you said this wording comes out of the Income Tax Act. Could you tell us, for instance, why “at least” is valid in the other questions and here it's slightly different, because it might be “at least 75% plus one”? Do they have to be exactly similar? That is my question.

Mr. Jeff Richstone: The rule in the Income Tax Act that we brought in here, Mr. Chair, was to have a minimum threshold of 75%, and the way of conveying that in legislative terms was to say “at least 75%”.

• 1200

If you notice, the government amendments don't change definition (c), either in the English version or in the French version, precisely because it reflects the minimum threshold of 75%.

As Mr. Bélanger said, if we were to have amended (c)—and there wasn't any proposal to do that—we would have simply repeated the words. We would have said:

(c) whose chairperson or other presiding officer is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident within the meaning of the Immigration Act;

and there would have been (c)(i):

75% of whose directors or other similar officers are Canadian citizens or permanent residents within the meaning of the Immigration Act;

We would have done it that way. It's just, as we say in French, boiteuse to say it that way.

The reason definition (c) was left untouched on both the English and French sides is that it was clear you were putting two rules together, but each rule was separate. Where you have a chair being an administrator, then the chair would fall within the 75% rule. That was the sense.

The words “at least” were untouched because we wanted to keep the words “at least” throughout, meaning the minimum threshold.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Getting back to what Mrs. Tremblay was saying, I didn't say that we needed to amend this provision, even though that is what Reader's Digest was suggesting. It's for the sake of convenience, first of all.

Secondly, I listened to the entire debate and it's very clear to me that the issue here is not numbers, but rather a set of conditions. That's the difference. Two conditions must be met. Percentages have nothing to do with it, although they could. The chairperson, who must be a Canadian citizen, is included in the 75 per cent. That is the government's position. That's how it is worded in other pieces of legislation. If the member wishes to move an amendment, then by all means she can do so, but for now, the text will stand.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: In order for the chairperson to be included in the reference to "at least 75%", the text would have to read "including the chairperson".

[English]

“at least 75%, including the president”.

[Translation]

Without the mention of the word "including", the implication is "75% plus one". I don't see how anyone could interpret this any differently. Just because this has always been poorly written doesn't mean that we must perpetuate these mistakes.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Are there any other comments before I call the question on clause 2 as amended?

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Just on a point of procedure, I would call on the chair to record each vote but ask that members show their voting by hand, as I will be dissenting pretty well on all the amendments.

The Chairman: Just to clarify, you're talking about a recorded vote or a hand vote?

Mr. Inky Mark: A show by hands.

The Chairman: Okay, so it will be a show by hands, but the clerk will record the votes in the minutes. The member has the right to ask for it, and I'm going to recognize his right.

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 3—Supplying advertising services)

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger would like to speak to amendment G-3 to clause 3.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, this is one that was questioned at committee, you may recall. It refers to subclause 3(2).

Lines 6 to 9 on page 4 currently read:

who, directly or indirectly, produces or publishes a periodical or a substantial part of a periodical under licence or other authority granted by a foreign publisher is deemed to be

We're suggesting they read instead:

who produces or publishes a periodical or a substantial part of a periodical under licence or other authority granted, directly or indirectly, by a foreign publisher is deemed to be

Okay?

The Chairman: So you are shifting “directly or indirectly” to—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: We are adding “or other authority granted”.

The Chairman: No, you are shifting “directly or indirectly”.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Sorry, we're shifting, yes.

The Chairman: You're shifting “directly or indirectly” from line 6 to line 9.

• 1205

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Right, yes.

This is where we had some discussions in terms of what this particular clause does or doesn't do. As we found out at committee, this clause is the one that allows licence arrangements, such as for Reader's Digest and Elle Québec. We're hoping to clarify it a little bit to eliminate

[Translation]

a kind of loophole

[English]

an escape hatch, escape clause, or loophole. I shouldn't be the one doing the translating; I'm taking somebody's work here.

For the rest of the clause, we maintain it as is. There was more debate, as you may recall.

The Chairman: You've heard the amendment moved by Mr. Bélanger.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: If I may, Mr. Chair, I'd just make a few comments.

Clause 3 really does set out into uncharted territory. It wants to make a Canadian statute apply on territory not within this country. Members of the government, including Mr. Godfrey, a member of the committee, went to great pains to criticize the Helms-Burton act on the same grounds. So the question I raise is, what is really the difference between this one and Helms-Burton? Because it does apply to foreign publications.

Minister Copps' counterpart, Jesse Helms, wanted the U.S. statute to apply to Canadian corporations, their officers, their directors, and their immediate families. This legislation does similarly. Obviously our minister wants to extend her jurisdiction over culture to foreign publishers, not only in the United States, but also offshore in the European countries and throughout the world. She was elected by Canadians to our House, as were you and I, to legislate for this country, and not for other countries beyond our borders.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mark.

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 4—Power to investigate)

The Chairman: There is no amendment to clause 4.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The government has no other amendments until clause 21.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: I have a comment, Mr. Chair.

Again in clause 4 we have magazine police, culture cops. What next? Investigators for fashion disasters, perhaps, or for arts and culture events? Why is it necessary? That's the question we raise. Why is it necessary for the minister to create her own private police force?

We already have enough federal forces in place, Mr. Chair. Why doesn't she use customs officers? Or doesn't the revenue minister support the bill? Why doesn't she ask the RCMP to conduct these investigations? Again, not only is it creating more agencies, but it's also costing the taxpayers more money. Those are my comments.

(Clause 4 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 5—Search warrant and powers of investigators)

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1210

Clause 5 is not just the magazine police, but the minister also wants to give her culture cops the power to act under a Criminal Code warrant. Is she suggesting that foreign periodicals such as the New England Journal of Medicine and National Geographic are no better than common criminals? Maybe the minister has been watching too many cops and robbers shows.

We certainly dissent on this clause.

(Clause 5 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 6—Obstruction of investigator)

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In clause 6 the minister suggests that foreign publishers are going to lie to her culture cops. Let me understand. Is the minister suggesting that magazines that pride themselves on journalistic integrity and telling the truth are going to deliberately lie to her officials? They're more likely to laugh in the investigators' faces.

The question I conclude with is, does the minister want to make laughing at her culture cops a crime too?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Mr. Chairman, to maybe help Mr. Mark move along here, could I propose that for the balance of the clauses up to clause 20, we carry them as they are, with an assumption that Mr. Mark would be taking the same position as he has in the previous three clauses? It would probably make it a lot easier for him and move the process forward.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chair, precisely the point with this process is to give members an opportunity to comment on clause-by-clause.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Oh, you want to keep repeating the same thing?

Mr. Inky Mark: No, I'm not repeating the same thing. I'm making comments on each clause.

Mr. Dennis Mills: Okay, fair enough.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark, could I make a suggestion, which you are perfectly free to accept or refuse?

Well, first of all, we should carry clause 6, which relates to the same subject we've been discussing, and then we'll discuss any other suggestions.

(Clause 6 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

The Chairman: What I was going to suggest is not exactly the same as what Mr. Mills suggested. You will see that this bill is in various parts, which are homogeneous within themselves. For instance, the next one is “Ministerial Demands and Judicial Proceedings”. Do you want to comment on each clause of that part, or can we consider clauses 7, 8, and 9 together and you can comment on clauses 7, 8, and 9?

You're free to comment on each clause, if you prefer to.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chairman, I have comments to make for each clause.

The Chairman: All right. Thank you, Mr. Mark. That's okay. It's your perfect right.

Mr. Inky Mark: Either that or the chair perhaps can accept my speaking notes, and then I won't need to read them to you.

The Chairman: No, no. I will recognize you, Mr. Mark. If you want to put it on the record, you have a perfect right.

(On clause 7—Ministerial demand)

The Chairman: Mr. Mark, I understand you have remarks to make on clause 7.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Clause 7 provides that the minister may send a demand to a foreign publisher fighting civil litigation. We should all be so lucky. Whatever we do, we don't dare say to the minister, “Sue me”, because the minister can sue, will sue, and will win the suit without initiating it.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

(Clause 7 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 8—Application for court order)

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chair, in clause 8 the minister sets out to again extend the jurisdiction of Canadian courts outside Canada. Ms. Copps wants an order of a Canadian court to apply in all cases outside Canada. Is the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada aware of this? If so, has the Attorney General informed Ms. Copps that such provisions are ultra vires, or beyond the authority of the Constitution Act of Canada? Nothing in the Constitution Act, 1867 gives the federal government authority to have statutory effect outside this country.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 1215

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Mark.

(Clause 8 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 9—Action to enjoin not prejudiced by prosecution)

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Clause 9 proposes authorizing the minister to violate the sub judice convention. That convention requires ministers of the Crown to refrain from intervening in the proceedings of any court. Clause 9 wants to authorize the minister to issue a demand under clause 8, even if an offence under this act were being prosecuted in court. Why does the minister propose to interfere with the work of the courts?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Mark.

(Clause 9 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 10—Offence)

The Chairman: We will now deal with clause 10.

Mr. Inky Mark: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, in clause 10, is the fine $250,000 in U.S. dollars? If the minister is so concerned about foreign publishers, why limit the fine to Canadian dollars? Why not Swiss francs or pounds sterling or Dutch guilders? Maybe that will happen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thanks very much, Mr. Mark.

(Clause 10 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 11—Offences by corporate officers, etc.)

The Chairman: We're now on clause 11.

Mr. Inky Mark: Clause 11 again is about prosecution of violators of the Copps law. Here the minister wants to prosecute the directors and officers of a foreign publishing corporation. Why stop there? Why not go after journalists working for a foreign publisher or the family of corporate officials? Where are the limitations to this bill?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thanks very much, Mr. Mark.

(Clause 11 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 12—Offences by employees or agents)

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 12 is certainly a dangerous one. In this clause, the minister wants a foreign publisher to be guilty until proven innocent. If the minister could show—and that's a big “if”—that an employee or an agent of a foreign publication had violated the act, the burden of proof would be on the foreign publisher to show:

that the offence was committed without the knowledge or consent of the accused and that the accused exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.

Mr. Chairman, in our system of law, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Under this minister's bill, the accused is assumed guilty until proven innocent.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Mark.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Which clause is that?

The Chairman: Clause 12.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Is what he's saying correct, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Perhaps you could ask counsel.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Is that right, what he said about clause 12, that it would violate our legal principles?

The Chairman: Mr. Richstone.

Mr. Jeff Richstone: In our opinion, the opposite is true, Mrs. Tremblay. First of all, clause 12 is consistent with the Charter. A person cannot be convicted unless he is found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Clause 12 gives a corporation another weapon with which to defend itself.

A corporation normally acts through its employees and this is reflected in clause 12. It provides the directors of a corporation with an argument that they can use to defend their actions. Even if a company can be held responsible for the actions of its employees, if the directors can prove that the actions of the employee were beyond their control or taken without their knowledge, they will not be held accountable. Therefore, these legal principles are upheld and I would have to disagree with that contention.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you. I wanted another opinion. Had this been true...

• 1220

[English]

(Clause 12 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 13—Additional fine)

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In clause 13 the minister proposes to remove the ceiling on fines she sets out under clause 10. Under this clause, a court could raise the fine to some unspecified level.

The whole point of the rule of law in a democratic society is to specify the rules before the fact. Otherwise it's not the rule of law we live under; it's arbitrary rule. It's capricious rule, rule by the whims of the ruler. Mr. Chairman, the world already has enough tyrants. We don't need any more, especially in this country.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mark.

(Clause 13 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 14—Other orders)

An hon. member: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, honourable member.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Inky Mark: Clause 14 continues the same theme as found in clause 13, and that's the theme of rule by whim.

If a person is convicted under this poor excuse for a law, the courts may impose some unspecified orders and conditions in addition to any fines. The minister wants the convicted to pay her court costs for her, in addition to the costs of defending against a bad, unconstitutional law.

Under this clause, the stronger and more aggressively an accused defends against the minister's legal action, the more it will cost the accused—not just for the defence, but for the prosecution. This would be more acceptable in a civil action, to prevent frivolous litigations, but this doesn't describe civil actions. This is statutory. If the minister wanted to engage in civil actions, she didn't need this bill to launch frivolous litigation.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mark.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm sorry to delay things, folks, but things are being said here that have to be corrected.

Mr. Inky Mark: Well, correct them.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I would invite comment from our witnesses on Mr. Mark's most recent comments on this, because some of the statements he's made we can't allow, or I don't think we should allow, to stand unchallenged.

The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger, just hold it a minute. Just to make it quite clear, nobody stops anybody from intervening here.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I am, on this one.

The Chairman: Okay. If you feel that whatever is said by one member has to be challenged, do challenge it. Are you asking Mr. Richstone to—?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Richstone.

Mr. Jeff Richstone: Mr. Chair, clause 14 is a kind of provision that you find in many regulatory statutes, both at the federal level and at the provincial level. It simply allows a criminal court to have the same kinds of powers a civil court would have, in order to prevent repetition. You find this in most regulatory statutes, both at the federal level and at the provincial level. It's a normal aspect or incident of law enforcement.

The wording has been borrowed from many federal statutes at the regulatory level, and I would imagine that at the provincial level too, you'd find this kind of clause. It's quite normal in fact.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Richstone.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chairman, if I may make a comment, that's precisely one of the points with this legislation. It's untested waters. The people who don't agree with the legislation say it is unconstitutional. That remains to be seen.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: They said that about gun control as well. So far it hasn't been proven that way, Mr. Mark—

Mr. Inky Mark: Because it's not legislation yet.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: —even in Alberta courts.

The Chairman: Are the members going to continue? Do you want more time to comment, or are you ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

(Clause 14 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 15—Presumption—offence outside Canada)

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

An hon. member: Question.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark wants to make a comment, and he's perfectly entitled to.

Mr. Inky Mark: In clause 15 the minister further makes clear the extraterritoriality of her bill by saying:

a foreign publisher who commits an act outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be an offence under that section is deemed to commit that act in Canada.

• 1225

Some of our Canadian artists, such as Céline Dion, Shania Twain, and Bryan Adams wish this kind of extraterritoriality applied to Canadian content. Then these Canadian artists would qualify as Canadian under CanCon rules. The question I ask and close with, Mr. Chair, is does the minister want a foreign country setting speed limits on Canadian highways? If not, then why does she propose to do something similar in other countries?

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Really, Mr. Chairman. Céline Dion has nothing to do with this and these clauses must be interpreted in relation to one another. Clause 15 must tie in with clause 3. One is not independent of the other. After all, we're not talking about someone possibly violating a provision of the US highway traffic act.

[English]

(Clause 15 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(Clause 16 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 17—Recovery of fines by civil judgment)

Mr. Inky Mark: I have just a short comment, Mr. Chair.

This should be known as the “cover all the bases” clause. Here the minister again gives herself statutory authority for a civil judgment without having to go to the trouble of fighting a civil litigation. We should all be so lucky. Whatever we do, we don't dare say to the minister, “Sue me”, because, again, the minister will sue, can sue, and will win, no doubt.

(Clause 17 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 18—Certificates and reports)

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Clause 18, Mr. Chair, authorizes the minister to pretend that a document or certificate signed by one of her magazine police is verified when it hasn't been verified. What next? Will the minister want us to believe the sky is green when it's blue? The minister says it's good enough to have a document “appearing to have been certified” or “appearing to have been signed”. It appears the minister wants to exempt herself from any burden of proof.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Mark.

(Clause 18 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 19—Presumption of advertising services for Canadian advertiser)

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chairman, clause 19 suggests that if a Canadian advertiser were engaging in a mail order business by advertising in a foreign publication, the advertiser would be guilty if the advertiser's phone number appeared in the ad, even if the mail order advertiser were targeting a foreign market.

I will give an example. A Toronto company such as Tilley Endurables, which makes travel and safari clothing, could be put out of business. Tilley has a thriving business in foreign markets, but if they dare to advertise any of their Canadian mail order numbers, the minister is threatening to put a stop to it.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Mark.

(Clause 19 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 20—Regulations)

The Chairman: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chair, clause 20 authorizes the Governor in Council to set out qualifications for investigators. Two key qualifications the minister should consider for her culture cops are a strong stomach for arbitrariness and the ability to keep from laughing at the sheer absurdity of the job.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Clause 20 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 21—Exception—extent of grandfathering)

The Chairman: We are now at clause 21.

An hon. member: Question!

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Inky Mark: We're just about there.

Clause 21 is the grandfathering clause. Mr. Chairman, even with the minister's amendment to this clause, the Canadian market still doesn't have a youth magazine, a men's magazine, or a sports magazine.

• 1230

The government's own study by Harrison Young, or HYPN, shows that Canadian markets would benefit from increased competition in niches where there are no Canadian magazines. There's no Canadian alternative, now or on the horizon, for Canadians who want a youth magazine, a men's magazine, or a sports magazine. The minister is to be congratulated for defying her own study and refusing to allow the conditions that would create a Canadian alternative, telling Canadian stories. So much for promoting the development of Canadian culture.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thanks very much.

Mr. Bélanger, could you speak to amendment G-4, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues will recall some of the comments made to this committee. It was argued that perhaps this clause imposed too many restrictions on those we were endeavouring to protect. While they would be allowed to continue with the activities they were involved with prior to the coming into force of the legislation, some restrictions were imposed, notably that their sales could not be greater then they had been in the previous year.

The government was receptive to this argument and is now proposing by way of an amendment that the last two lines in the French version of clause 21, namely "faire, pour autant qu'il ne fasse pas dans une plus grande mesure" be replaced by "faire dans le cadre de l'exploitation du même périodique".

In other words, they have more room to manoeuvre, but the intent remains the same. Only those periodicals already authorized will be exempted.

[English]

In English it's a bit of a rewrite of that to reflect more accurately the French side, and it's been tabled. Again, it's to correct the lack of flexibility to grandfathered periodicals. This would allow them to continue, carry on business, but not necessarily limit them to the level of business they had in the year previous.

Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 21 as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

(On clause 1—Short title)

The Chairman: There is an amendment from Mr. Mark.

Mr. Mark, will you speak to the amendment and move it?

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe committee members have received the amendment.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Is this amendment deemed acceptable?

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Which amendment is that?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It concerns the short title. They are making fun of us.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I didn't get a copy of that amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: The member has a right to present his amendment and move it if necessary, and then we will decide whether it is acceptable or not.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I agree with your position. The committee can vote after I defend my amendment.

The reason the amendment is put forth is this. As I've indicated at other times when we've had witnesses, this bill is really about trade; it's not about culture. Witnesses have indicated that numerous times.

As I've already indicated, Mr. Chairman, this country is very dependent on the two-way trade between this country and the United States. You all know that in excess of $1 billion of trade takes place daily. Our standard of living depends on it.

Mr. John Godfrey: Point of order.

Mr. Inky Mark: The amendment is that this act may be cited—

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I will move the motion first and then we can debate it. First things first.

[English]

You have to move it before you debate it.

The Chairman: Hold it. Could you read your amendment?

• 1235

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is:

This Act may be cited as the International Trade Endangerment Act.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Before you come to a point of order....

Mr. Mark, your proposed amendment suggests a new title to the bill.

Mr. Inky Mark: Right.

The Chairman: It doesn't reflect the amendments that were adopted by this committee earlier. In fact you will find the reference in 706(1) of Beauchesne's, sixth edition. Consequently your amendment is out of order. I rule your amendment out of order. We cannot consider it.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chairman, as you indicated earlier, I was given the option to speak to it, and then the committee can decide if they consider it out of order.

The Chairman: You've proposed your title. I have enough now to say that this amendment is not receivable. It's out of order.

Mr. John Godfrey: On another point of order, might it be possible for the author of Mr. Mark's remarks to step forward so that we may, as a committee, nominate him for the Governor General's fiction prize for next year?

The Chairman: Mr. Godfrey, in fairness to Mr. Mark, he has the right to make any remarks he pleases. Whoever authored his remarks, whether it be him or anybody else, he's perfectly entitled to read whatever he has in front of him.

(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: On division.

Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: On division.

Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: I will report the bill to the House as per the majority of the members.

Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: We've finished with Bill C-55. I'll ask the indulgence of the members for five minutes. We have one item to decide.

Last week we briefly spoke about travelling. At the request of the committee and because of the decision of the committee, we'd applied for funds, which were granted to us by the budget committee. So we have funds now, and as I explained the other day, the only weeks available for travel for the cultural study, before the main researcher takes his leave, are the last week of January and the last week of February. Most of the members said those two weeks were not convenient.

I want to find out, before we send the funds back, so that we are quite clear, whether the members want to maybe divide into two groups, just a few of those who want to travel—perhaps even as low as three or five members—and select a week, maybe the third or fourth week in February, when they would travel as two small subcommittees.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Chairman, I may be wrong, but I think the general consensus was that most of us have already booked off or have constituency matters in the last week of January.

The Chairman: It was February I suggested.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Would it be possible to divide up in February and have half go one way and half go the other way?

The Chairman: That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

Mr. Mark Muise: That would be acceptable.

• 1240

The Chairman: And it doesn't have to be the full committee; it doesn't have to be 10 members. It could be as low as three or five, those who can travel. It would be during the recess week in February. Would members indicate if they are interested in travelling during the recess week of February? Mr. Mark, Madame Tremblay, Mr. Muise, Mrs. Bulte, Monsieur Bélanger, Mrs. Lill, and Mr. Bonwick.

We're talking about the last week of February, the week of the recess: from Sunday, February 21 on.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I have a point for clarification. Are you allowed to bring your staff, or is it just the members of Parliament?

The Chairman: Just the members.

The clerk will organize accordingly. I would suggest that we split into two groups for that week.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Is it possible to discuss where we would travel? Since those areas that are further away, that are remote, don't have the opportunity to come as quickly, is that something we would give priority to?

The Chairman: The clerk had suggested two groups. One would travel west to Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Whitehorse, and Vancouver. The other group would travel to St. John's, Newfoundland; Halifax; Moncton; Montreal; and Windsor.

These are just suggestions.

Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): I have a very close relationship with your clerk, and that's why Windsor is on there.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: May I suggest, Mr. Muise, that if you have suggestions to make to the clerk, the best thing is to.... The clerk has submitted this list here. If you think of any differences, let him know, and then we can organize it accordingly.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Could we possibly get a list of those cities you just mentioned? Then, we could contact some groups and ask them if they want to meet with us. We could do this now to give them enough time to prepare. If we notify them before Christmas, they would have enough time to prepare for a meeting during the last week of February.

The Chairman: I totally agree with you. The clerk will forward a list of these cities to you

[English]

with suggested travel plans. Then if you have any modifications you want to suggest, if you do it soon, then we will have time. Okay?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have a question.

The Chairman: Yes?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Are we sitting on Thursday?

The Chairman: No, unless we have Bill C-48.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's being voted on tonight.

The Chairman: Well, if it's transferred to us in time, then we'll consider Bill C-48.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: There are a number of witnesses to hear from on that bill.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, as well as the minister.

[English]

The Chairman: We can start with the officials anyway.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Will we have the minister?

The Chairman: Well, if the minister wants to appear, sure.

The meeting is adjourned.